Sitting of 16 January 1980

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress being made towards a ceasefire and new elections in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, following the appointment of Lord Soames as Governor.
    Mr. loan Evansasked the Lord Privy Seal what arrangements have been made to hold elections in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): The ceasefire in Rhodesia came into effect at midnight on 28 December. Rhodesian forces disengaged and deployed to the vicinity of their company bases. Some 20,000 members of the Patriotic Front's forces have subsequently gathered with their arms at designated assembly points. A number of breaches of the ceasefire have been reported. These have mostly been attributable to elements of Mr. Mugabe's forces. The Governor has taken appropriate steps to deal with breaches of the ceasefire in accordance with the, Lancaster House agreements. Cross-border liaison arrangements have been made between the monitoring force and the defence forces of Zambia, Mozambique and Botswana. These are working satisfactorily. Zambia and Mozambique have opened liaison offices in Salisbury. The House will wish to pay tribute to the skilful and courageous performance of the monitoring force during this difficult period.
    1612
    The Governor has announced that elections for the white roll seats will take place on 14 February and those for the common roll seats on 27 to 29 February. Registration of parties for the election was completed on 14 January, and nominations have to be in by 21 January. The election commissioner and his staff are supervising preparations for the elections.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. While appreciating and acknowledging the difficult, dangerous and unique combined military and civil operation now under way in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia—and in no way wishing to belittle or exaggerate any recent problem or tragedy in the last three weeks—may I ask my right hon. Friend to give the House some reassurance about how the Administration intend to deal with possible intimidation of voters, especially in the scattered rural areas?
    Sir I. Gilmour: My hon. Friend will be aware that intimidation is forbidden by the Lancaster House agreements and it will be for the Governor, his staff and the police to see that intimidation does not occur. It is impossible to abolish it completely, but the Governor will do everything in his power to see that it is kept to a minimum.
    Mr. Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that South African troops have been withdrawn from Zimbabwe-Rhodesia? If they have not been withdrawn, will he assure us that they will not be allowed to interfere with the election process, and that all the parties involved in the election will be allowed access to the broadcasting media? Is the right hon. Gentleman disturbed by the comments made by the front-line Presidents to the effect that there should be complete impartiality in these matters?
    Sir I. Gilmour: I cannot assure the House that all South African troops have been withdrawn because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Governor has reviewed the situation and has decided that a small contingent of South African forces is required to guard the Beit bridge. The Governor will keep this matter under review. The bridge is half South African

    1613
    property. On the question of broadcasting, an official from the BBC visited Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The Governor is observing the broadcasts carefully and, here again, it is laid down in the Lancaster House agreements that there should be impartiality. So far I have heard no complaints.
    Mr. Emery: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the tribute of the House to General Acland and the British and Commonwealth forces is not merely recorded here but is actually transmitted? Secondly, will he deal with what seems to me a small problem that has been built up to major proportions, namely, the small contingent of South African forces which is on one side of the bridge—
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Why?
    Mr. Emery:—which is considered incorrect? Is it not possible for the Commonwealth monitoring forces to be there? It seems that this matter is greatly exaggerated in the eyes of many coloured people.
    Sir I. Gilmour: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I shall certainly see that the tribute is sent out to General Acland. I also entirely agree with my hon. Friend that this matter has been greatly exaggerated. We made clear at the Lancaster House conference that there will be no external intervention or involvement in Rhodesia at this period, and we are in touch with the Governor to ensure that this is so. But I cannot accept that a small South African presence to defend Beit bridge amounts to external intervention. All that is required is the protection of the bridge, which is a joint venture. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is a monitoring force very close to the bridge which monitors what goes on.
    Mr. Shore: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the progress which has been made so far towards the difficult goal of acheiving an effective ceasefire and taking the first and very important steps towards holding elections, which we trust will be free and fair. May I turn to two questions, one of which has just been raised by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare
    1614
    (Mr. Evans)? The question of the safeguarding of Beit bridge is difficult. We know very well that it is a crucial installation and therefore it must be properly protected. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind about that. The right hon. Gentleman will know better than most that a specific pledge was given at the Lancaster House conference, and in the House on 18 December he said:
    "…there will be no foreign forces in Rhodesia."—[Official Report, 18 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 309.]
    In the light of the need to keep good will and general acceptability and to build up trust, it does not make sense to do what is being done. I am in favour of using either the direct Rhodesian security forces to secure the Rhodesian side of the bridge or of using any Commonwealth or other forces which are available. Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand—he surely must—the legitimate and reasonable sensitivity that there is about this matter, particularly in the light of his own strong words and the pledges which he has given?
    My second question—
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Too long.
    Mr. Shore: All right—I shall put it quickly.
    In terms of the ceasefire arrangements, is the Lord Privy Seal satisfied that enforcement is in the first instance by the forces of the two sides and, where an infringement takes place, does he agree that that process ought to precede any attempt to call out the security forces, which should be the last resort? Is he satisfied that that procedure is being followed?
    Sir I. Gilmour: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's second question is that that is in fact what happens, and the Patriotic Front commanders are invariably, if time allows, contacted before anything happens. As regards the right hon. Gentleman's welcome to what is going on, I think that the House will be interested to hear one figure which puts a good deal of the reports of the past few days into perspective. The total number of people killed in Rhodesia since the ceasefire is the same as the number killed daily before the ceasefire. That again calls for considerable congratulations to all concerned—to the Governor, the monitoring

    1615
    force, the Rhodesian forces and the Patriotic Front.
    I have already said what I have to say about Beit bridge. I cannot accept that the presence just across the border of a very small detachment of South Africans can be said to be a foreign involvement in Rhodesia. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As I have said, this is also monitored by the monitoring force, and the Governor will, of course, keep this situation under review. We hope that, before independence, the need for special measures to defend the bridge will have disappeared.
    Mr. David Steel: May I join right hon. and hon. Members on both sides in pressing the Government to look again at this question? Is it not normal practice, where there is a crossing point between any two States, that each side is guarded by the respective State? Why is that normal rule not being followed here? Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is a provocative irritant in an otherwise possibly successful ceasefire settlement?
    Sir I. Gilmour: With respect, I must ask the House to look at this matter with some sense of proportion. Let us look at what has happened since the Governor took over. The ceasefire has been established; the monitoring force is deployed; a large number of the Patriotic Front forces have been assembled, with very few incidents involving the forces of both sides; restrictions on political parties have been lifted and arrangements for elections are well in hand; the majority of ZANU and ZAPU political leaders have returned; relations with neighbouring countries have been normalised; plans for the return of refugees are well advanced and it is hoped that movement will start next week; internal restrictions have been greatly relaxed; many detainees have been released, while the cases of the remainder are being reviewed, and a general amnesty has been declared.
    Those are remarkable achievements in a very short time, and it seems to me extraordinary that, instead of concentrating on that, the House should concentrate entirely on a very small detachment of South African troops.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter comes up again.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Dubsasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will invite the Foreign Minister of Cyprus to London.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: The Foreign Minister of Cyprus is always welcome in London, and I look forward to seeing him here soon.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that there is a need for a new initiative on Cyprus? Does he also agree that it is primarily Britain's responsibility to try to achieve a settlement in that country, and will he tell the House what plans he has to do that?
    Sir I. Gilmour: I am not sure that now is the best moment for an initiative. I certainly agree that an initiative of some sort is welcome, but intercommunal talks under the Secretary-General of the United Nations remain, I am sure, the only practical means of progress towards a settlement. Some small progress was made last summer and then other events intervened. We continue to give the fullest support to Dr. Waldheim's efforts, and if we see any opportunity to take an initiative ourselves we shall take it. At present, I do not see that opportunity.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. Waldheim said before Christmas that there was some hope of restarting intercommunal talks this month, that is, in January this year? What has changed in the meantime to put that back? Did the right hon. Gentleman's last reply mean that he does not see any chance of the intercommunal talks taking place in the first half of 1980?
    Sir I. Gilmour: I did not say that. I said that I did not see any prospect of an immediate initiative by this country. As regards the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I think that the reason for delay was merely events elsewhere in the world.

    British Engineering (Overseas Representation)
    Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied with the current state of representation given to British engineering overseas via British embassy, facilities; and if he will consider the setting up of a Foreign Office-sponsored international engineering bureau for

    1617
    the purpose of co-ordinating British engineering developments and industrial growth with world-wide sales initiatives so as to ensure full integration between international banking and credit facilities, United Kingdom engineering manufacture and the successful sale or leasing of British engineering products overseas.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): We are satisfied that British embassies take proper account of the overseas interests of British engineering. The question of departmental support in setting up an international engineering bureau is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Industry and for Trade.
    Mr. Atkinson: Would the Minister of State give support to such a concept? Does he agree that now is the time when initiatives of this sort worldwide should be taken in order to enhance the efforts of British engineering to sell its products overseas? Although the whole House would pay tribute to the services now offered and given by British embassies throughout the world, is it not a fact that they remain unco-ordinated and there is, therefore, a need for a fresh look at the trade services and facilities offered by the Foreign Office so that they may be improved and linked with the efforts being made in this country?
    Mr. Ridley: There are about 750 United Kingdom-based and senior locally engaged officers employed on export promotion at more than 200 posts in more than 100 countries. I believe that they do excellent work, and I am grateful for the tribute which the hon. Gentleman paid to them. As to whether there should be co-ordination, that, as I have said, is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friends.

    Secretary of State Vance
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Lord Privy Seal if he has any plans to meet Secretary of State Vance.
    Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans for a meeting with the United States Secretary of State.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the effectiveness of the
    1618
    proposed United States trade boycott of Iran depends very much upon the co-operation of Europe and Japan? Will his right hon. Friend make that clear to the Secretary of State when they next meet? Does my hon. Friend agree that there have to be steps to support the position of the United States in practice rather than merely verbally, which the Government have done so far?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend will know that the Russians vetoed the United Nations sanctions motion. My right hon. Friends are considering, along with our European and other allies, what they can do to show solidarity and to express the world's disapproval of the detention of the American hostages. We shall do everything possible to secure the release of the hostages.
    Mr. Cook: Does the Minister recollect that when his hon. Friend the Minister of State was answering questions on the statement on Afghanistan on Monday he stated that no agreement had been concluded with the United States on the expansion of the base at Diego Garcia? Are we to take it from that reply that such an agreement is under discussion? If so, what arrangements are the Government making to embody the views of countries around the Indian Ocean, such as India, which have previously opposed such expansion?
    Mr. Ridley: All the factors that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are taken into consideration. I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend said on Monday.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has Mr. Vance been told that the refusal to sell arms required by the Royal Ulster Constabulary for its protection and that of Her Majesty's subjects is an unfriendly act towards an ally that is giving President Carter and his Administration considerable support?
    Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that point of view abundantly clear during her visit to Washington, and to the President shortly before Christmas. What she said to the House on her return made it clear that she shares, as I do, my hon. Friend's view.
    Mr. Shore: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the United States Secretary

    1619
    of State will he make it plain to Mr. Vance that we share American feeling about the outrage that is continuing against the personnel of the United States Embassy in Tehran? Was this dangerous and, in my view, intolerable situation discussed at yesterday's meeting of NATO at Brussels, and if so, with what effect?
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those comments, which express entirely the Government's view about the continued detention of the American hostages in Tehran. I assure him that there has been no lack of activity to try to co-ordinate action, both in Europe and with our American allies, on what should be the next stage of the response after the failure of the United Nations motion.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Lord Privy Seal what staff will be attached to the Governor of Rhodesia in Salisbury to deal with aid and development planning and co-operation during the transitional period.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): There are no staff attached to the Governor specifically for this purpose. But senior officials from the Overseas Development Administration visited Salisbury from 8 to 12 January to make a preliminary assessment of Rhodesia's aid requirements.
    Mr. Maxton: I am glad that those staff have gone to Rhodesia to take account of the situation there. Will the Minister make an announcement to the House on the level of aid that the Government propose to make available to Zimbabwe following the elections? Will he make that announcement now, or at least before the elections, and give an assurance to the House that the level of aid will not be dependent in any way upon the outcome of the elections in Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Luce: The British Government have already made it plain that they are willing to consider any requests for aid that emanate from a newly formed Government. Obviously, it is too early as yet. Once a Government have been formed in March, and once they form a view that they would like to request aid from the United Kingdom, we shall
    1620
    be very willing to consider that request. In the meantime there are some forms of temporary assistance that the British Government have already given.
    Dame Judith Hart: While it is not surprising that that represents a change from the policy of the previous Government is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is a serious matter? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it had been assumed that a certain amount of money would be available not from the aid budget but the contingency fund for the inevitable and necessary assistance with the economic development of an independent Zimbabwe? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman also knows that there was an effort to elicit the assistance of other countries in forming a Zimbabwe development fund. If he is not able to comment on these matters today, will he undertake to make, very soon, a full statement to the House on the whole issue?
    Mr. Luce: As the right hon. Lady rightly suggests, there have been considerable changes in Rhodesia since the Government assumed office. I do not quite understand what it is that she is getting at when she talks about aid. As she well knows, we provide considerable sums for the education of Rhodesian students, principally in this country. When a newly formed Government emerge in March, we shall be ready to consider any form of assistance that they want. We have already been assured by the United States and by Western European countries that they will be ready to consider forms of assistance.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Canavanasked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to meet the Governor of Hong Kong.
    Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend has, at present, no plans to do so, but the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), met the Governor on Friday 11 January.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister instruct the Governor to repeal the Draconian public order law that makes it a criminal offence for three or more persons to hold a meeting in a public place? Is he aware that it is a law that may be used by the police to intimidate workers

    1621
    and others who are threatened with eviction from their homes and work places, such as is the case of the villagers of Muk Min Ha in the New Territories? Is he not ashamed to have responsibility for a British colony where such fascist legislation still exists?
    Mr. Ridley: We do not instruct the Governor, but the hon. Gentleman probably knows that extensive discussions have been taking place on the public order ordinance. The Hong Kong Government expect to introduce amendments to that ordinance in the near future to deal with the problem that he has mentioned.
    Sir John Eden: Will my hon. Friend make clear to the Governor and the people of Hong Kong our appreciation of the way in which they are accommodating a substantial flow of immigrants into their country and giving sanctuary to a large number of refugees? In spite of the economic difficulties to which these factors give rise, the colony is still a most significant market for British goods in Asia.
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying what I think should be said about the extraordinary successes of Hong Kong economically and in terms of humanitarian assistance in dealing with refugees from all quarters. There are still 55,000 Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. I am sure that the House will appreciate that that is an enormous burden on the Administration of Hong Kong.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is not the fact that there are still 55,000 boat people in Hong Kong a comment on the resettlement programmes which have been introduced, which are obviously failing in terms of speed and time scale to deal with the serious problem that has arisen?
    Mr. Marlow: What about Merthyr?
    Mr. Rowlands: The people of Merthyr volunteered to take refugees from Vietnam, as did many other communities.
    What is the position with the large-scale illegal inflow of refugees or immigrants into Hong Kong from China? What was the result of the important discussions with the distinguished Chinese guests of a few months ago?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it presents a major problem to have so many Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong. About 10,000 of them are about to come to the United Kingdom. Others will go to other countries. The more that can be done to persuade other countries to accept more of these refugees for permanent settlement, the better. As for immigration from mainland China, the recent visit of Chairman Hua Kuo-feng has resulted in much improved border security arrangements. The flow has greatly reduced, to the great assistance of Hong Kong.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Lord Privy Seal what reports he has received from the Governor of Southern Rhodesia about the activities of foreign troops or mercenaries in that territory.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: There are persons of various nationalities serving with the Rhodesian forces, as there are with the Patrotic Front forces. The Government made clear during the constitutional conference that there would be no purge of the forces of either side during the interim period. The Governor has agreed that a small contingent of South African forces should be stationed at Beit bridge on the Rhodesian-South African border for the protection of the bridge.
    Mr. Hooley: Now that the Government have quite shamelessly admitted to the presence of South African troops on Rhodesian territory, in flagrant contradiction of the explicit assurances given to the House that such troops would not be permitted there, does that not cast a shadow over the good faith of the Government in the implementation of the Lancaster House agreement?
    Sir I. Gilmour: No, of course it does not. It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should get up and ask the same question that has been asked already by three hon. Members.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: We still want an answer.
    Sir I. Gilmour: Many other matters are of greater importance to the House, such as the breaches of the ceasefire and the detention of ZANU detainees by Mr. Mugabe in Mozambique. To concentrate on the matter referred to by the

    1623
    hon. Gentleman and others seems to show a complete absence of any sense of proportion. As I have said already—I may as well say it again—I cannot accept that one small detachment of troops to guard the Beit bridge adds up to involvement by foreigners in Rhodesian affairs.
    Mr. Speaker: Questions relating to EEC matters, No. 22.
    Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to register a protest about the short amount of time that has been given to questions dealing with foreign and Commonwealth affairs at a time of world crisis.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    Community Institutions
    Mr. Dykesasked the Lord Privy Seal when he intends to raise the question of the relationship between the different Community institutions at the Council of Ministers.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: The Government do not intend to propose changes in the present balance of powers between the institutions of the Community. However, the European Parliament's rejection of the 1980 draft budget is likely to lead to further discussion in the Council of its relations with the Parliament.
    Mr. Dykes: After his recent tour, is my right hon. Friend more optimistic that both the longer-term reform of the budget and the elimination of our excess contribution—the short-term problem—can be achieved in a spirit of genuine compromise? That is the only way in which the Community can move forward. Does my right hon. Friend see a positive role for the European Parliament in the formulation of sensible ideas for reforming the budget structure?
    Sir I. Gilmour: Plainly, the European Parliament has an important role to play. The direction in which it is seeking to alter the budget is a direction which will appeal to many hon. Members, if not to all. It also strikes a chord with public opinion. Exactly how the negotiations between the Council, the Commission and the Parliament will proceed, I cannot yet say. Presumably, the Commission will produce a paper some time next month.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that the present position is that the EEC can pay up only one-twelfth of last year's budget? Will he also confirm that, if the Council so wishes, it can authorise payments in excess of that amount under the Treaty of Rome? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether that matter was discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council that was held on Monday and yesterday? If so, what was the conclusion of such discussion?
    Sir I. Gilmour: I confirm the position about the payment of one twelfth—it is as the hon. Gentleman says. There was no discussion on this matter on Monday and yesterday and, therefore, the position about the one-twelfth payment remains the same.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is not the position that, if the European Parliament asks for a larger budget sum, differently divided, the Government will go along with that as part of their compromise?
    Sir I. Gilmour: I cannot possibly speculate as to what will happen. I cannot say what will be our reaction to the European Parliament's proposals on the budget until we know what those proposals are. I stress to the hon. Lady that the first step is for the Commission to resubmit the budget. It is not, in the first instance, for the Parliament to produce its proposals.
    Mr. Renton: Will my right hon. Friend go further than he did in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and say what changes he believes may be necessary in the relationships between Community institutions in view of the European Parliament's rejection of the Community budget? Should not such changes ensure that, in future years, the European Parliament does not have to take such a drastic step in order to have its views heeded?
    Sir I. Gilmour: That is an extremely important and difficult matter. I am not convinced that any changes in the institutions are necessary. Plainly, some change in the working of the institutions may be necessary, but I trust that, in the future, there will be better relations between the Council and the Parliament. No doubt, more attention will be paid to the Parliament in future. As a result of

    1625
    that, similar constitutional crises will not arise in the future.

    Council of Foreign Ministers
    Mr. Knoxasked the Lord Privy Seal when his noble Friend expects to meet his European Economic Community counterparts.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: At the next Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 4 and 5 February.
    I attended the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday at which we considered the measures which the Community should take as a result of events in Afghanistan, trade with Rhodesia, the appointment of an extra Advocate General to the Court of Justice, staff pay, and the Community's relations with ASEAN, Yugoslavia and Latin America. There was a brief procedural discussion of the United Kingdom budget problem. I am circulating a more detailed account in the Official Report.
    Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Community can respond quickly enough to the serious and changing international situation? If not, will he put proposals before his colleagues at the next meeting of the Council to improve the machinery for developing Community foreign policy?
    Sir I. Gilmour: It is in the nature of a community, a collection of States or an alliance, that it is able to work less quickly than an individual country. Obviously, there are difficulties in concerting measures in the Community. As my hon. Friend will be aware, important decisions were made yesterday concerning the cancellation of food aid to Afghanistan, the urgent consideration of the refugee problem in Iran, an agreement by the Community not to fill the gap left by the halting of United States' food exports to the Soviet Union and the temporary suspension of butter sales pending detailed examination of further measures. Further action will be contemplated next week. As I have said, I do not believe that we should be paying attention to constitutional changes at the moment.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Did the right hon. Gentleman discuss with his colleagues the question of other measures to be taken as a result of the Afghanistan
    1626
    invasion, in particular the possible cancellation or removal of the Olympic Games from Moscow?
    Sir I. Gilmour: The Olympic Games were mentioned at the NATO discussion, which I did not attend. However, they were not referred to at the discussion yesterday, although they will be in the future. That was because of lack of time, as much as anything else. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Government have not yet formed a final view. The International Olympic Committee and the British Olympic Association are independent bodies.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not entirely satisfactory that the decisions that were reached yesterday by the Community Ministers should be communicated to the House only by way of an accidental question on the Order Paper? There should be a proper statement on the matter which could then be the subject of questions. In the circumstances of Afghanistan, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the members of the European Community are doing what is required and not merely talking about taking measures? Is he aware that, as an ardent European, I am disappointed by the reaction of our French and German friends-to date?
    Sir I. Gilmour: The question of making a statement is always difficult. Sometimes the House complains of too many statements, while at other times it complains that there are not enough. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, but, as I said earlier, it is difficult for a community or an alliance to reach quick decisions. Only the first step has been taken, and I hope that more will be done in the future.
    Mr. Shore: I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I agree that there should have been a proper statement on the matter. As I understand it, the meetings that took place yesterday in Brussels, both at NATO and at the EEC, were of some importance. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman attended the wrong Council meeting. He might have had more serious discussions at the NATO meeting than at the EEC discussions. We hear a great deal about political co-operation—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member really must ask a question.
    Mr. Shore: Was there, at the EEC meeting, or during consultations with the Lord Privy Seal's right hon. and hon. Friends who attended the NATO meeting, any serious discussion of trade policy? If so, what was the response of our partners? Perhaps at the meeting which the right hon. Gentleman did not attend, but of which he will have heard, there was discussion of the Olympic Games.
    Sir I. Gilmour: I believe that the Minisster of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), said at the end of the meeting that no decision had been reached about the Olympic Games. I have already told the House what was decided about trade in agricultural products at the meeting that I attended.
    Following is the information:
    I represented the United Kingdom on 15 January at this first meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council under the Italian Presidency.
    The Community has agreed that EEC supplies of food should not be allowed to take the place of those from the United States on the Soviet market, directly or indirectly. The Council has invited the Commission to take all appropriate measures to implement this decision, as regards cereals and products derived from them, and to propose further measures if necessary, for other agricultural products.
    In addition, the Council decided to cancel the 1979 Community food aid programme to Afghanistan, and to consider as soon as possible a proposal which will shortly be produced by the Commission for emergency aid to Afghan refugees.
    This represents a concrete and substantial economic response by the European Community to the situation which has been created, which complements the political positions also adopted yesterday by the Nine Foreign Ministers. It was agreed that work in the Community on this question should continue and that a further report would be made to the next Foreign Affairs Council on 5 February.
    The statement on Afghanistan approved by Foreign Ministers recorded their grave concern at the Soviet Union's military intervention in Afghanistan which they viewed as a flagrant interference in the internal affairs of a third country and a threat to the peace of the region. They called on the Soviet Union to act in accordance with the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly and withdraw their troops from Afghanistan.
    1628
    Agreement was reached in principle to an EEC trade regime for Rhodesia and, eventually, an independent Zimbabwe which will last up to the end of 1980. This regime provides for free access for industrial products and generous treatment for agricultural products—including duty-free access for tobacco. The Council's agreement is subject to the opinion of the European Parliament but that will, we hope, be forthcoming by the end of this week. I should like to record here the Government's appreciation of the contribution made by other member States and, in particular, the Commission towards securing so quickly full agreement on this important subject.
    The Council agreed that details of the Community's improved offer for a new EEC-Yugoslavia co-operation agreement should be settled at tomorrow's meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives so that the Commission can continue negotiations with Yugoslavia next week in time for a final decision on the new agreement to be taken at the next Foreign Affairs Council on 4–5 February. We welcome this sense of urgency.
    No agreement was reached on the appointment of an additional Advocate General to the European Court of Justice or on the annual staff pay review.
    The Presidency made a statement drawing attention to the importance of developing relations with Latin America. There was no discussion.
    Ministers agreed that the next ministerial meeting with ASEAN should take place when the co-operation agreement is signed. The first week of March will be proposed to ASEAN.
    The Council took note of the resolutions passed by the Parliament at its session of 10–14 December 1979. There was no discussion.
    The Foreign Affairs Council reviewed progress in other specialist councils. There was no substantive discussion.
    Mr. Jesselasked the Lord Privy Seal when he intends to meet his European Economic Community counterparts.
    Mr. Leightonasked the Lord Privy Seal when next he will meet his EEC colleagues.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I met them at the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday. I shall meet them again at the next Council on 4 and 5 of February in Brussels.
    Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend please make a special effort to have further discussions about whether the Olympic Games should be held at a venue other than Moscow and will he see whether his European counterparts have the same views, even if that means postponing the Olympic Games? If those Games are postponed, surely any disappointment felt by a few thousand

    1629
    athletes sould be seen as a minor matter compared with the possible effect upon Russian public opinion that withdrawal might have. It may help to prevent a third World War. Surely the Government are not entirely without influence, as they contribute to the cost through the Sports Council.
    Sir I. Gilmour: At the Council meeting yesterday it was agreed that all possible measures relating to Afghanistan should be considered in Rome next week and therefore discussion of the Olympic Games will take place then. I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about the advantages of finding another place at which to hold the Games, but he will understand that many difficulties are involved because there is such short notice. Other countries, like Britain, do not control their Olympic committees.
    Mr. Leighton: Will the Lord Privy Seal tell the House of any benefits that Britain derives from membership of the EEC?
    Sir I. Gilmour: One benefit I hope will appeal to the hon. Gentleman is that the EEC strengthens the Western orientation of Britain. Given Soviet behaviour in Eastern Europe, that should appeal to all hon. Members.
    Mr. Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread disappointment at the published reports of the meetings of the EEC yesterday? Will he give the House an absolute assurance that Her Majesty's Government will urgently examine, with all their allies, measures for decisive action against Russian influence in all parts of the world as an unmistakable demonstration of our refusal to march, again, along the path of the 1930s?
    Sir I. Gilmour: I understand from newspaper reports, and from the House today, that there is some disappointment about our achievements. However, as I have said, alliances and communities can move only slowly. No doubt my hon. Friend is aware that my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary is now touring the area adjacent to Afghanistan. He will return at the end of the week and we shall consult as to what further measures should be taken.
    Mr. Jay: Is it true that yesterday the French even opposed the complete cancellation of sales of cheap butter by the EEC to the Soviet Union?
    Sir I. Gilmour: It is not the custom to reveal the attitudes of individual Governments in Council meetings. There have been reports on that matter.

    European Parliament
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Lord Privy Seal what is the cost of holding plenary sessions of the European Parliament in Strasbourg and Luxembourg, and committee meetings in Brussels; and what would be the saving if the Parliament were based in a single place.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: According to a recent report of the European Parliament's Committee on Budgets, the cost of the three centres including rent and accessory items amounted to approximately 17·1 million European units of account—£11·39 million—or 20·3 per cent. of total expenditure in 1978. If the member States were to agree that the Parliament should be established in one place, savings would no doubt be possible. But no official estimates have been made.
    Mr. Dalyell: While it was bad enough in the previously indirectly elected Parliament, is it not absurd that a European Parliament of 400 Members should be peripatetic and unnecessarily caravanning around Europe?
    Sir I. Gilmour: With his European experience, the hon. Gentleman will know that this is a matter for the Parliament and the European Council. It can be changed only by unanimous vote in the Council.
    Mr. Proctor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there would be an even greater saving if there was no European Assembly?
    Sir I. Gilmour: Of course, all parliaments cost money. However, no one would regard that as a reason for abolishing the European Parliament. I would have thought it was common ground that the European Parliament has already shown its great usefulness and that it is a great asset to the Community.

    Legislation
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps he is taking to reduce the amount of EEC legislation.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: The Government have made clear on a number of occasions that they are against unnecessary legislation and standardisation for its own sake.
    Mr. Mills: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we need a drastic reduction in legislation? Is he aware that the legislation is a particularly heavy burden on small businesses, it is costly and it is unnecessary? Does he appreciate that such a practice spoils the good legislation that can come out of Brussels? Will he make a special effort to ensure that a drastic reduction in legislation occurs? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the stupidity of the directive concerning harmonisation of bathing water.
    Sir I. Gilmour: I do not remember that particular incident, but it seems a most cogent example.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that some public scrutiny would help to curtail the mass of legislation from the EEC—most of which is trivial and absurd? Rather than keep the decisions of the Council of Ministers behind closed doors would it not be of help to open those doors to the public, so that they may know what is going on within an absurd Common Market?
    Sir I. Gilmour: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is against excessive legislation, but if that is so within the context of Europe, that is a matter for him. It would not be helpful for Council meetings to be open to the public. As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, a good deal leaks out, despite the so-called privacy. Apart from anything else, there is no space in the room. There is, therefore, a good technical reason for leaks.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be reductions in all forms of legislation, both nationally and within the Community? Will he remind the House that it is always constitutionally open to the Council of
    1632
    Ministers to say "No" to the Commission if it wishes to on any proposal?
    Sir I. Gilmour: I agree with both parts of that question.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that these EEC regulations have the force of law and that there is great disquiet in the House about the number of decisions that are taken without giving the House an opportunity to discuss them? Will he look at this question again and will he bring many more issues before the House as quickly as possible before decisions are taken, rather than afterwards?
    Sir I. Gilmour: I was not aware of great discontent. I thought that we had been most scrupulous. I shall certainly look at the point.

    Emergency Calls
    Mr. Pavittasked the Lord Privy Seal what arrangements have been proposed or agreed to within the European Economic Community to harmonise statutory regulations for the recording of urgent calls for fire services, police, and ambulance services in accordance with the arrangements now in existence in France and Germany; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): No arrangements have been agreed to within the Community and I am not aware of any proposals for the harmonisation of recording procedures for such telephone calls.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that Britain is sadly lagging behind in modern technology for very important emergency services? Is he aware that both France and Germany have improved on our efforts? Although that might not come within the province of Common Market harmonisation, will he make representations to the Home Office to bring us up to date?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has baffled us with his question. He seems to be making a case for harmonisation within the EEC, and perhaps there is such a case. I shall draw the attention

    1633
    of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

    Official Visits
    Mr. Spearingasked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to make a statement concerning his recent official visits to Governments of various member States of the EEC.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: My round of visits is not complete. I have so far visited Rome, The Hague, Luxembourg and Brussels. I shall be visiting West Germany tomorrow and the remaining Community countries next week.
    I have at present no plans to make a statement to the House. I can, however, say now that I am not discouraged by my discussions so far.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that yesterday when he was at the EEC Council his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from me, changed her objective of £1,000 million to "vastly increased receipts"? Can he tell the House what that figure is?
    Sir I. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman's premise is wrong and I therefore cannot answer the question. After Dublin, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that it was the Government's policy to seek a genuine compromise with our partners and she added that we had little room for manoeuvre. At a time when the Government are pursuing negotiations, it is quite impossible to give figures or disclose our exact negotiating position.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Rural Developments
    Mr. Stoddartasked the Lord Privy Seal what projects for rural development
    1634
    have been approved during the last five months.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Neil Marten): Two major rural development projects have been approved since July 1979. This brings to 10 the total of such projects initiated in the first nine months of the current financial year. I am arranging for these projects to be listed in the Official Report.
    Mr. Stoddart: I thank the Minister for that information. Has he seen the report of the American Commission on World Hunger which predicts that within 20 years there will be acute starvation and malnutrition in the Third world unless measures are taken to step up food production in those countries? Will he redouble his efforts and the aid that he gives to rural agriculture in underdeveloped countries?
    Mr. Marten: It would be difficult to double the amount of aid that we give on these rural projects. The share of bilateral aid committed to the poorest countries, where this is very much one of the main projects, has exceeded 60 per cent. in recent years. However, I agree that the emphasis should be placed in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since India is the principal recipient of British overseas aid, will my hon. Friend look for an early opportunity to have discussions with the new Government? Is he aware that there are a number of rural projects there where British aid could materially assist in improving food production?
    Mr. Marten: Yes. I hope to do so in March, but already this year there are four projects going ahead for rural development in India.
    Following is the information:

    APPROVALS OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN 1979–80 FINANCAL YEAR

    Date of approval

    Country

    Project title

    £m.

    5 April 1979

    …

    Nepal

    …

    Khosi Hill area development programme (Khardep)

    5·76

    3 May 1979

    …

    India

    …

    Foot and mouth disease vaccine plant

    7·3

    17May 1979

    …

    Peru

    …

    Cajamaraca agricultural development project

    1·22

    14June 1979

    …

    Sudan

    …

    South Darfur savannah project

    4·63

    14June 1979

    …

    Sudan

    …

    Southern region agricultural project

    9·24

    21 June 1979

    …

    India

    …

    Kanpur fertiliser plant

    7·7

    12July 1979

    …

    India

    …

    Earthmoving equipment

    17·0

    26 July 1979

    …

    Jordan

    …

    IRBID rural electrification

    3·5

    6 September 1979

    …

    India

    …

    Orissa family welfare

    10·84

    7 November 1979

    …

    Tanzania

    …

    Rural water supplies

    1·4

    68·59

    "Aid to the Poorest"
    Dame Judith Hartasked the Lord Privy Seal if he proposes to maintain the aid policies of Cmnd. 6270, "Aid to the Poorest" or if he proposes to produce a new White Paper.
    Mr. Neil Marten: A review of the aid policy is well advanced and I hope to make a statement shortly.
    Dame Judith Hart: Can the Minister be a shade more informative? Is he proposing to change the priorities of the White Paper, which were accepted by the Conservatives when in opposition? He must come clean a little more.
    Mr. Marten: That is precisely what I propose to do. I intend to make a statement to the House.
    Mr. John Townend: When reviewing the aid programme, will my hon. Friend recognise that anger has been caused to a large proportion of the population by the continuous attacks on Britain by Presidents Nyerere and Kaunda?
    Mr. Marten: I recognise that but it is not a factor that one can take into account when considering a development programme.
    Mr. Deakins: Why are we giving so much aid to Turkey, which is one of the richest of the developing countries?
    Mr. Marten: Turkey is still very much a developing country, particularly in rural areas. It has had balance of payments problems and we have offered Turkey £15 million programme aid, which I think is quite right.

    Population Programmes
    Miss Boothroydasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied with the progress being made within the overseas development programme to ensure that population programmes are integrated into all overseas aid development projects; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Neil Marten: I am sure that more might be done, but not all aid-financed development projects can logically contain population programmes, and in any event such projects must obviously be designed in relation to the wishes and policies of the recipient Governments. I accept the argument that there may be a link between economic development and the constraint of the world population.
    Miss Boothroyd: Is the Minister satisfied to see the largest British aid programme of £100 million which is devoted to the Mahewelli plan project in Sri Lanka remain an economic project without any social input? Does he recognise that land being allocated to families cannot sustain an increasing birth rate and that population growth is an obstacle to progress in many Third world countries? Will he give a firm commitment to integrate into this and other development projects administered by the British Government an element dealing with welfare and population activities?
    Mr. Marten: I believe that in that case the aid is to go to the dam. The Mahewelli project is further down, outside the dam. This is a World Bank project and obviously the Bank integrates those matters.
    Mr. McElhone: Does the Minister accept that one of the best ways of dealing with the problem is to improve the general economic well-being of the area as a first priority? If so, how does he justify the £115 million cutback in the aid programme for 1980–81? That is a 14 per cent. cutback and the most savage public expenditure cut by this Government.
    Mr. Marten: I do not agree with those figures. They are wrong, but they were published in The Guardian. If the hon. Gentleman will table a specific question, I shall answer it.

    Children
    Mr. Welshasked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals he has with regard to aid directed towards children in developing countries.
    Mr. Neil Marten: Children should benefit directly and indirectly from much of our aid expenditure. So far as concerns programmes specifically directed towards children, I intend to continue aid to education and child health, to support international organisations such as UNICEF and the organisations concerned with population questions and to contribute to suitable projects designed for children put forward by British voluntary organisations.
    Mr. Welsh: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware of the great disappointment both inside and outside the House about the way in which the Government's expenditure cuts affect aid to underdeveloped countries? Will he assure us that any further cuts will not interfere with the programmes for children in the Third world?
    Mr. Marten: I can give no assurances because the aid framework is not finally agreed. The right hon. Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart), my predecessor, will, perhaps, explain to the hon. Gentleman exactly what that means. The programme will continue, but at a possibly slightly reduced level. We simply must understand that our duty is to get our economy right first. The latest report of the World Bank said that, unless countries such as Britain do that, it is the developing countries that will suffer.
    Dame Judith Hart: Can the Minister give some assurance that at least another
    1638
    side of the question is being put by himself and his colleagues in the Foreign Office? As he well knows, there is another side of the case, as I think the Brandt report will show when it is published. Is he aware that one of the solutions to our economic problems is the promotion of development in the Third world? Are the Minister and his colleagues in the Foreign Office pressing for minimum reductions in the aid programme and the earliest possible increases?
    Mr. Marten: It is natural that we should do so.

    London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
    Mr. John Grantasked the Lord Privy Seal what funding is provided towards work at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine by the Overseas Development Administration.
    Mr. Neil Marten: In the current financial year our commitment is of the order of £556,000.
    Mr. Grant: Will the Minister accept that this is an internationally renowned centre which appears to be facing a serious financial crisis, primarily as a result of spending cuts by the Department of Education and Science? If overseas students from the poorer countries cannot go to this centre, that will represent a serious indirect reduction in our overseas aid effort. Because of that, will the Minister have urgent talks with the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see whether he can assist in satisfactorily resolving this problem?
    Mr. Marten: I accept the importance of this institution. It is fair to say that the students who are placed there by the Overseas Development Administration will be fully funded at economic fee levels, and I cannot forecast the demand from other students. However, I am visiting the institution at the end of this month.

STANDING ORDER NO. 63
Mr. Speaker: I have a brief ruling to make. The House will recall that yesterday I replied to a point of order about the attendance of Law Officers at Standing Committees. The question was raised by the hon. Member for West

1639
Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). I had no notice of the the substance of the point of order, of which I make no complaint. Therefore I ruled extemporarily and off-the-cuff.
In view of a misunderstanding that I believe has arisen. I make it clear that Standing Order No. 63, which I read to the House, confers a right upon Law Officers to attend meetings of Standing Committees but does not impose any duty upon them to do so, nor does it confer any right upon a Committee formally to summon them. Should any Member, during the course of proceedings in a Standing Committee, express the wish that a Law Officer should attend, it is for the Chairman to decide whether that is in order. He is subject to no guidance from me in this respect.
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that it is in order for the Chairman of a Standing Committee to accept a motion that an invitation be extended to one or other of the Law Officers to attend the Committee? I am sure that you appreciate the difficulty that faced the Standing Committee on the Education (No. 2) Bill yesterday when, due to certain legal complexities, we wanted the attendance of the Solicitor-General for Scotland and possibly other Law Officers. The Solicitor-General for Scotland is a difficult man to get hold of. His attendance in this Chamber is rather irregular, to say the least—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. Member to proceed, but I must emphasise that the Chairman of a Standing Committee is in charge of that Committee and there is no appeal from the Chairman to the occupant of this Chair, and certainly not to me. The Chairman of the Committee decides what is in order and what is not.
Later—
Mr. Harry Ewing: I wish to raise a point of order on your original statement, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the clarification. Does not the ruling that you gave yesterday and the explanation that you have just given highlight the difficulties facing Standing Committees of the House when the Secretary of State from one Department makes a ruling that affects a Committee that is being sponsored by a different Department?
1640
In this case the Department of Education and Science was affected by a ruling given by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Secretary of State for the Environment gave a legal ruling in terms of section 97(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, and it was that legal difficulty that caused all the problems for the Committee yesterday. May I ask the Leader of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether the appropriate Committee of the House might look at the whole matter?
Mr. Speaker: The remarks of the hon. Member will have been heard by those who have more influence than I have on such matters.
Mr. David Watkins: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I speak as the hon. Member who has the privilege of chairing Standing Committee D. As a result of the ruling that you gave yesterday there was some confusion in the Committee. I appreciate that the ruling was given by you at very short notice. It resulted in an effort to table a motion by hon. Members in good faith which I, as Chairman, ruled out of order at equally short notice. I am most grateful for the clarification this afternoon, which shows that Standing Order No. 63 is quite specific. I based my ruling on that Standing Order. I am sure that all members of the Chairmen's Panel will be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having clarified the position in relation to that Standing Order for the conduct of future Committees.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS QUESTIONS
Mr. Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise again the point made previously by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford shire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) about the allocation of time for general Foreign Office questions. It seems to be the impression of all hon. Members that it is preposterous to have only half an hour every four weeks for these questions. Will you, Mr. Speaker, advise the House about the status of the present time arrangements and how they might be changed?
Mr. Speaker: First of all, it is not half an hour; it is 25 minutes. For five minutes we seek heavenly wisdom from above, and our prayers are not always

1641
answered. Those who manage the affairs of the House—the usual channels—must be approached if hon. Members feel strongly about this matter, and it appears that they do.
Later—
Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order about Question Time, Mr. Speaker. One appreciates that there are difficulties in dealing with specific issues at Question Time. However, will you take into account the fact that on the question of Rhodesia, as the Lord Privy Seal said himself, there are many areas that need to be discussed? Is it possible for you, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that this House is responsible for events taking place in Rhodesia, to prevail on the Government to make a regular weekly statement on progress in that country? There are serious issues at stake and to rely on chance private notice questions does this House no credit.
Mr. Speaker: This again is a matter for the usual channels, and hon. Members should pursue it in the normal way through their party machinery. This afternoon I allowed nearly 10 minutes on Question 1, which was a considerable share of the 25 minutes, because I knew that the matter was of considerable interest.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is true that there are private ways in which hon. Members can raise matters about the time allocated. However, surely there are other occasions when a more open approach should be made, as on this occasion. My Question 4was put on the Order Paper as a result of all-party discussions with various engineering organisations, and some hon. Members who wanted to supplement the questioning on this matter did not do so because they wanted to question the Lord Privy Seal about Helsinki. That raises the question of those hon. Members who do not voluntarily pursue points that we have commonly discussed.
Secondly, is it not the case that the embarrassment suffered today by the Lord Privy Seal arose because he is the Lord Privy Seal and not the Foreign Secretary? The Foreign Secretary, being in another place—
Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, that is not a matter for me. On the earlier point, the House has expressed its opinion and no doubt it has been noted by those responsible.
Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to pursue this matter, but the issue of Question Time has been raised on a number of occasions. Today during Foreign Office questions we had to deal with international affairs, European matters and overseas development. Will the Leader of the House undertake to look again at this problem and make some recommendations?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am well aware of the difficulties. As hon. Members know, I have done my best to try to accommodate the wishes of all hon. Members. The great difficulty is that if there are to be more questions for one subject it means less time for other subjects, and no one is willing to give up any time to a subject other than his or her own. Certainly, in response to what has happened today I shall look at the matter again and discuss it with the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore). Certainly I shall seek help from above and, if necessary, help from below as well.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Amend, I hope that we can now leave that matter with the assurance of the Leader of the House that he intends to look at it further. There is nothing to be gained by pressing it further this afternoon. I believe that the House is anxious to move on to the statement that is to follow. A large number of hon. Members also wish to speak on the rate support grant later.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members feel that they have something to say that is of the utmost significance and will help the House, I shall call them.
Mr. English: I should like simply to suggest that since—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If we were open to suggestions, we would be here all day. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced

1643
Member of the House. If he has a substantial point of order, on which I am required to give a ruling, perhaps he will now make it or for ever hold his peace.
Mr. English: I was hoping, through you, Mr. Speaker, to suggest to the Leader of the House that, like questions about the regions of England, Scottish and Welsh questions could be referred to a Committee.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman.

GAS AND ELECTRICITY INDUSTRIES
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Howell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about financial targets for the British Gas Corporation and the electricity supply industry in England and Wales.
It is a fundamental objective of this Government's policy towards the nationalised industries that they should be set a clear financial discipline. We therefore opened discussions with the gas and electricity industries on medium-term financial targets for the period 1980–81 and 1982–83. The external financial limits for 1980–81 announced last November were set in the light of these discussions, which have now been satisfactorily concluded.
In a period of international uncertainty over fuel supplies and rapidly rising fuel costs, it is important that consumers should be aware of the true value of the fuel they are using. The prices which consumers pay for different fuels must reflect that value, taking into account, in particular, the fact that oil and gas supplies are limited. We must conserve our scarce energy supplies for future generations. After a year in which crude oil prices have risen by 100 per cent. or more, this is bound to mean heavy increases in other fuel prices. The need to move to economic pricing has been our main consideration in setting the financial targets for the two industries.
I recognise that adjusting to an era of higher energy prices brings serious problems for many consumers, especially the old and the poor. The new scheme of assistance with heating costs announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on 22 October was designed to provide worthwhile help for those in most need. We shall take proper account of the cost of energy in our social policies and in determining benefit levels, particularly the levels of extra heating additions. We are reviewing, in this context, the whole range of help available to assist consumers with fuel bills.
I should first like to deal specifically with gas. There are five reasons why domestic gas prices will have to rise.

1645
First, our reserves of natural gas represent a finite and increasingly valuable national resource. If the price is too low, we shall burn it up too fast and bring forward the day when we have to turn to more expensive sources of supply.
Secondly, in the short term, too, low prices cause peak demand to surge above what it would otherwise be, bringing the risk of shortages and supply cuts on cold winter days.
Thirdly, gas from new North Sea fields will cost several times more than earlier gas supplies and prices must reflect these much higher costs.
Fourthly, a sensible approach to pricing is vital if we are to achieve a proper balance of supply and demand, as between all consumers of gas. For industrial and commercial customers, it has been the longstanding policy of the British Gas Corporation to sell gas at a price broadly related to that of the competing oil product. The Government endorse this policy. The only alternative would be some form of arbitrary rationing and the risk of ever-increasing supply shortages.
Fifthly, artificially low prices concentrate the benefits on those who have access to gas supplies at the expense of the rest of the population. Correct pricing is essential if some of the financial proceeds from our natural gas resources are to be secured for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Hon. Members will recall that even the Price Commission, in its report last July, before recent oil price increases, concluded that domestic tariffs should be 30 per cent. to 35 per cent. higher in real terms.
Against this background, and the background of soaring world oil prices, we have set the British Gas Corporation a target, expressed as an average annual rate of return to be achieved over the period April 1980 to March 1983, of 9 per cent. on net assets valued at current cost. The target is related to current cost operating profit after taking account of depreciation but before interest and tax. It will be adjusted, if necessary, after introduction of the proposed new current cost accounting standard. The target rate of return is expressed as an average over three years. The actual rate of return is likely to be
1646
lower than 9 per cent. at first, but will increase progressively over the period.
Details of the tariff changes necessary to achieve the target are a matter for British Gas. However, in broad terms, the Government expect domestic gas prices to increase this year by 10 per cent. over and above the rate of inflation, followed by comparable real increases in the following two years.
Against the same criteria of economic pricing, electricity prices will also rise, though the expectation is that this will be less than in the case of domestic gas.
The target for the electricity supply industry in England and Wales has been set at an average annual rate of return of 1·8 per cent., on net assets valued at current cost, again over the three years 1980 to 1983. As in the case of gas, details of tariff changes are a matter for the industry. Prices are likely to increase over the three-year period of the target by about 5 per cent. over and above increases in the industry's own costs of which fuel costs are the biggest element.
The Government have asked both the British Gas Corporation and the Electricity Council to phase this year's increases in two stages, one in April and another in October.
Dr. Owen: Against a background of spiralling domestic inflation, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these are astronomical increases? There is not a family in the country that will not be severely affected. Is he aware that fuel, light and power represent 6 per cent. of an average family income and over 10 per cent. of the income of those people whose earnings are 20 per cent. or more below the average? This is a severe blow. Do not these increases demonstrate the appalling economic meanness of the abolition of the electricity discount scheme?
Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to accept a rebate scheme for fuel applicable to everyone, whether using gas, electricity, coal or paraffin? Until the right hon. Gentleman and the Government come forward with a generous scheme for helping with fuel bills, we cannot possibly accept the logic of increasing prices to this extent.
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly what he means when he refers to the rate of inflation in this coming year?

1647
What rate of inflation is he estimating for the year 1980? Will he also come clean and explain what his statement means in terms of gas bills between April of this year and April next year? What will be the percentage increase on gas bills? What will be the percentage increase on electricity bills from April to April that every family will have to find?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not introduce some modification of the scheme announced by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of state for Social Services, which helped only 350,000 people as opposed to the 3·5 million helped by the electricity discount scheme, which meant a saving from £45 million to £14 million? Will he give an assurance that he will use these revenues for a generous scheme for helping the poor and those with high fuel bills?
Mr. Howell: I am certainly aware of the impact on all our price levels of higher energy costs. We all regret that, but we must face the fact that there has been a 100 per cent. increase in world crude oil prices in the past year. This necessarily means a major adjustment for all of us.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the needs of the poor and the old. Those needs are fully recognised in Government social policy.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about the electricity discount scheme, but that scheme was only for electricity consumers. I think that it is generally recognised that it was an idiotic scheme, because it spread benefit very widely, often over those who did not need it. I very much prefer the scheme developed by my right hon. Friend and announced in October, which provides a basis for support, in a time of high energy costs, over a far wider area of all consumers. It will meet the needs far more effectively than the electricity discount scheme, which was generally recognised as a bad scheme and a silly one. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] Because it concentrated only on electricity.
That is our approach. We are determined to develop our social policies effectively in an era of high energy costs. That is the obvious way forward.
As to inflation rates in 1980, we shall have to see what the outturn of inflation is. I cannot predict it. The prices will
1648
have to be based on the inflation outturn when it comes along.
As to the increases on average bills over the year, bills vary widely for different families, but the broad effect over the year will be an increase in family gas and electricity bills of rather less than the total inflation, plus the 10 per cent., because the second 10 per cent. will not come until October. The precise figures will vary from family to family.
Mr. Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the real price of gas between 1970 and October 1979 fell by one-third? Is he aware that consumers in the United Kingdom are somewhat better off, in that VAT is not charged on gas but in Europe it is, at between5 per cent. and 20 per cent.? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that he has no power under the Gas Act 1972 to claw back to the Crown the excess profits made by the industry?
Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is right, in that even after the increases Britain is likely to have the lowest domestic gas and electricity tariffs in Europe.
As to the powers concerning the large surplus which will obviously be generated as we move to economic pricing, my hon. Friend is right. The existing powers allow only for the surplus to be returned to the Exchequer and the Treasury to help reduce, amongst other things, the public sector borrowing requirement. That is the limit of the powers.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Why should we conserve resources for future generations when we cannot know what the circumstances of those future generations will be?
Mr. Howell: I think that the right hon. Gentleman and I agree that the motive force for conservation must be the price decisions and the price signals as they operate in the face of the consumer. Nevertheless, there is another consideration which is not economic. It is a strategic consideration. It is a patriotic one, if the right hon. Gentleman likes to put it in that way. It is that in a dangerous world, when our sources of supply of oil and gas, liquid gas or gas in frozen form, are politically unstable areas, it makes strategic sense for this nation to postpone as long as possible the day when we shall again be dependent

1649
on politically dangerous and politically influenced sources of supply. That is not economics; it is strategy. I believe it to be good strategy for this nation.
Mr. Emery: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether in his moving away from the policy of long run marginal costs, which has been adopted by Governments of both parties in the past, the AA/RR of 9 per cent. which he is now setting is considerably higher than that which has been obtained by the long run marginal costs? If that is so, in the state of inflation that exists would it not make greater sense to spread the increase in prices of 27 per cent. in the next 12 months over a much longer period?
Mr. Howell: It is not the policy to move away from the principle of long run marginal costs. One of the realities that must be faced is that the British Gas Corporation is now having to look further a field for new gas supplies. It can no longer rely on the very cheap Southern Basin contracts, which were running at about 2p per therm. That was for the old gas. But the old gas will not go on for ever. The corporation is already having to pay 14p per therm—seven times as much—for gas from the Frigg field, and it will certainly be asked still higher figures for further gas from the North Sea. Therefore, to replace the very cheap gas that the nation has enjoyed will require a vast increase in resources and revenues. That alone is one reason why prices which have been depressed—the issue was ducked for too long under the previous Government—must now be raised.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that even now, without the increases, I have had quite a correspondence with him about the fact that the aged, the sick, the infirm and those on social welfare benefits who are already having difficulty in paying fuel bills find that the gas and electricity boards are with speed and, it seems, enthusiasm cutting off their supplies. Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will have a word with the Department of Health and Social Security and the boards to see that before such people are cut off the boards consult that Department, to ensure that those con-
1650
cerned are not blind and bedridden people who cannot get out of bed to collect the letters of notification or to answer the door, and who find that they are being cut off, so that they have no heat, no light, no gas, no nothing? The Minister has done nothing about it.
Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the matter is a cause of serious worry. He is wrong to say that we have done nothing about it. First, there is the code of conduct which the nationalised industries are obliged to follow. There have been complaints about that code and the way in which it is used. For that reason, we are reviewing the whole way in which that code is being applied. I say "we", but in fact an independent review is being carried out. I believe that that will help in this matter.
The hon. Gentleman also highlights the difficulties, which I do not shirk, over paying higher fuel bills that the energy costs impose on us for outside reasons and that come into our national economy. Perhaps I may give the hon. Gentleman an example. An average quarterly domestic bill is now about £29. Next year it will be £7 more. About £4 of that rise is due to the effects of inflation, and the remaining £3 is due to a real increase in the price of gas. Therefore, average bills will be about 50p a week higher next year, of which less than half will be due to a real increase in gas prices. I tell the hon. Gentleman that, and I should also have said it to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who rightly asked me that question.
Mr. Penhaligon: In the light of the 9 per cent. return on capital, just how is the value of gas in the North Sea arrived at? Who sets the value? Is it ourselves, OPEC or market forces?
Mr. Howell: It is market forces. We import from Norway about 20 per cent. of our gas. There is competition for gas supplies from the North Sea, and there will be increasingly strong competition in future years. Therefore, the market price of gas is influenced by market forces. The price of gas from the Frigg field, a median field between Norway and Britain, from which a third of our gas comes, is related by a fixed formula to the price of oil. Therefore, every time the price of oil goes up worldwide the

1651
price of gas going into our pipes, our stoves and our heaters goes up as well.
Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whilst everyone would agree that some increase in energy prices is necessary, in the light of the circumstances that he has described, many people in this country are mystified? They see the gas industry making substantial profits. My own constituents know that it is difficult enough to meet electricity and gas bills now. Can my right hon. Friend explain the justification for the size of the increase in gas prices? That is what people want to know.
Mr. Howell: I shall do my best to meet the points made by my right hon. Friend. He speaks of the British Gas Corporation's substantial profits or surplus. It is certainly true that as we move towards economic pricing—which the Government believe to be vital—that surplus will increase. While the BGC may have a large surplus and is efficient, it does not mean that it is competing for customers. On the contrary, customers are competing for gas, as industry well knows. That will continue until the price rises to economic levels. Failure to go that way will be grossly inefficient and will lead to arbitrary rationing and shortages. I believe that though people may dislike price increases as I do, the danger, without price increases, is that there will be no gas at all. Then people really will freeze.
Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his arguments will not carry a great deal of weight because everyone knows that there are many ways of conserving gas supplies without imposing a savage tax upon the poorest consumers, who will be driven to disconnection and poverty? Is he aware that this will increase industrial costs for those firms that depend on fuel and that it will lead to further difficulties in exporting and maintaining employment at home? Is he further aware that in the long run what Britain needs is a powerful manufacturing industry upon which it can rely when the oil runs out? What are the Government doing about that?
Mr. Howell: I try to listen to, and sometimes learn from, the right hon. Gentleman, my predecessor in this post,
1652
but the idea that holding down gas prices is the best way to help the poorest people is surely a silly proposition. Such a policy helps the rich and poor alike. There are much more efficient ways—upon which the Government are bent—of helping those who are in need, particularly as they face hardship caused by high energy prices.
Whatever the present price of energy, which is related to oil, industry is clamouring for more gas. That indicates that, whatever the price of gas, industry prefers to move from oil to gas. The policy of the British Gas Corporation—endorsed by the Government—is to relate industrial gas prices to the competing oil products' price. That is our policy and is, I think, the current policy of every Western industrial country, with the possible exception of the United States which is moving in that direction.
Mr. Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the move towards economic pricing of gas will be strongly welcomed on energy conservation grounds by many of his right hon. and hon. Friends? Is he further aware that there may be a case for examining again the possibility of an additional gas tax in order to recoup some of the extra revenue for the Treasury which might then be made available for the poorer gas consumers?
Mr. Howell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's point about conservation. It is a vital consideration. A gas tax is certainly an interesting idea. The present surplus generated by the British Gas Corporation—which in some ways could be described as a rent because of the cheap gas coming from the Southern Basin—goes to help the Exchequer and thus is to the general benefit of the community. It also helps, among other things, to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where in legislation is the authority for the sort of considerations that he has just mentioned as a justification for increasing the price of gas to the extent that he has said will be necessary? Has he taken the best legal advice as to the vires of what is being done?
Mr. Howell: I do not believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman heard what I said. I said that a gas tax was an

1653
interesting idea. There is no gas tax and no authority for such a tax. The present practice is for the British Gas Corporation to contribute its surpluses to the national loans fund. They then count against the PSBR. That is present practice, for which there is recognised authority. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that we would need new legislation for the introduction of a gas tax.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister realise that the measures that he has announced will have a great effect on those areas of Scotland and the North where the climate is more severe? Does he realise that elderly people may die of hypothermia because of his moves? Since there will be an increased surplus available from the British Gas Corpoartion, will he make that money available to expand the fuel discount system so that those in greatest need will benefit? As part of his energy policy, will the right hon. Gentleman try to get some work done on insulation so that all consumers may heat their homes adequately without consuming so much energy?
Mr. Howell: I have said that we shall develop our social policies in the light of the impact of the high cost energy era which is now with us and which will not go away. That era is a reality and we must have the courage to face it. The hon. Gentleman has a good point about insulation. The Government are now encouraging an extensive programme of domestic insulation. It is more extensive than the programme that we inherited, because we have expanded it to cover public authority housing. Recently we announced new guidelines for local authorities which will enable more pensioners and other elderly people to benefit from schemes for home insulation. We recognise the importance of insulation and we shall continue to do so.
Mr. McCrindle: As a result of my right hon. Friend's announcement, may we expect a further policy statement on the social considerations of increased gas and electricity prices? Will the Secretary of State confirm that any such further announcement will be made in the very near future to enable any additional assistance that is felt to be necessary to be fed into the budget arithmetic?
Mr. Howell: We are talking about prices that will have their impact next winter. That is some time ahead. However, I shall draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the remarks of my hon. Friend. I have said that we intend to develop our social policy—the Chancellor has effectively said the same—in order to take account of national conditions in an era of high cost energy. We recognise those factors.
Mr. Hardy: Is there not an element of brutality in the right hon. Gentleman's excessive reliance on pricing in pursuit of energy conservation? Is it not clear as a result of his recognition—belated though it may be—that our oil and gas reserves are finite, that his comments can be dismissed as humbug since he has supervised the flaring of gas to the tune, over the past six months, of 551 million cu ft a day? That is far more than has been consumed on any day in the past six months by the whole of the Yorkshire and Humberside region.
Mr. Howell: We have imposed severe flaring restrictions, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I cannot see his justification for making that point.
It seems to me that the worst humbug would be to proclaim, in the cause of helping those genuinely in need, a general reluctance to allow the price of gas to rise to economic levels, thus causing major waste and shortage. Such a policy would possibly bring a small benefit to a vast number of people, but in the long run it would neglect the poorest and the most vulnerable. That is the real humbug.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is there not a faint aroma of hypocrisy rising from the Opposition in view of the way in which they supported the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in his aspirations to achieve a gas price which would insulate the National Union of Mineworkers from the consequences of its own wage bargaining? Will my right hon. Friend consider whether it is time to look again at the exclusive access of the British Gas Corporation to supplies of gas from the North Sea? Is there not a case for opening the door to private enterprise to compete with the British Gas Corporation for those supplies at perhaps a more remunerative price?
Mr. Howell: I note my hon. Friend's second point. It is an interesting suggestion, and the Government are reviewing the whole structure of the nationalised industries to make them more competitive. I have no doubt that such suggestions will be taken into account.
As to coal prices, I should make it clear to my hon. Friend that the price of electricity is primarily dragged up by coal and oil prices, whereas the need for the price of gas to rise is primarily to do with economic pricing and the need for conservation. It so happens that in my statement there is mention of an improvement in the balance between gas and electricity. It would be wrong, however, to assume that there is a cause and effect between electricity and gas prices at the centre of our policy. There is not, nor is there meant to be.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I propose to call four hon. Members from each side, which will give a fair run.
Mr. McWilliam: Is the Minister aware that coal gas can be used when supplies run out? Is he suggesting that the nation's coalfields are politically sensitive? Will the Minister prevail upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to recognise that, because of the increase of 27½ per cent. in the price of gas, old people will die next winter unless they receive a higher pension or a subsidy for gas? Does the Minister agree that if he does not understand the difference between a primary source of energy, such as coal, oil or gas, and a secondary source of energy, such as electricity, he needs to do a little more homework?
Mr. Howell: I am not sure that I understood the depth of the tail end of the hon. Member's question. The hardship caused by rising prices will be met by the automatic uprating of benefits. I have said that our social policies will be developed effectively in an era of high cost energy. The hon. Member mentioned coal gas. In due course it will be necessary, if we maintain a national gas transmission system when our North Sea natural gas has been burnt up, to turn to coal gas. Major research and experiments are being conducted. Undoubtedly that will be expensive and it will mean that once again the price of
1656
gas is related to the price of coal, which is within the nation's influence. One of the encouraging factors is the high productivity at many of the coalfaces. We have the basis in the nation—and this is common ground—for building out of the old coal industry a new and profitable enterprise for the future.
Mr. John H. Osborn: To what extent will the new increases in gas prices make flaring uneconomic and therefore make it worth while to use the wasted gas reserves? What estimate has been made of the increased prices increasing the viability of developing otherwise uneconomic or marginal gas fields?
Mr. Howell: The prices involved are to the customer. My hon. Friend is talking about prices to the producer, which are not changed by what I have said today. Flared gas is an associated gas—largely wet gas, a curious term. Until there is a gas-gathering pipeline in the North Sea, which I hope that we can achieve, there are limits to the amount of gas that can be recovered. When it is recovered, it is used mainly for butane, propane and other bases for the petrochemical industry. What I have said today does not change that. My statement will not directly affect the development of the marginal fields. The British Gas Corporation is now having to pay higher prices for new supplies of gas, and that is bound to have an impact on calculations about whether it is worth spending money on exploring and developing new gas fields.
Mr. Soley: Does the Secretary of State accept that the increase in gas prices is disastrous for low-income groups? Will he consider announcing an expanded fuel discount scheme at the same time as price increases for gas and electricity are announced? Does he accept that price rises and discount schemes should go hand in hand and that people should not have to wait in fear and suspicion until a scheme is announced to help people at risk?
Mr. Howell: The development of a social policy of the most effective kind should go hand in hand with the impact of price rises. However, it is necessary to announce the financial targets, as I have today, so that the industries involved can plan their finances for next year. Our social policy must be developed in

1657
that way. I emphatically reject the philosophy behind the electricity discount scheme, which seems to spread the margarine too thinly and involves only small sums of money. I admit that large numbers of people benefit, but my right hon. Friend's scheme produces benefits up to 10 times greater—£50 per person—for those who are in genuine need. I am sure that that is right.
Mr. Burden: Did the British Gas Corporation ask for the increased gas prices which the Minister has announced today?
Mr. Howell: No. The Government set targets higher than those which the British Gas Corporation wanted. I am happy to make that clear. We did that because we have to ensure that our natural gas assets are not burnt up dangerously fast as oil prices soar and everybody rushes to buy gas.
The Government have a responsibility which goes wider than that of the British Gas Corporation. It is true that the British Gas Corporation will have to pay much more for its new gas and will, therefore, need higher revenues. The Government set higher targets than the corporation wanted because of the needs of the national energy policy and because we do not want our resource to be burnt up so dangerously fast that we are confronted again much too early with the need to import from dangerously unstable political areas.
Dr. Owen Dr. Owen rose—
Mr. Speaker: I intend to call the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) when I have exhausted the number of hon. Members that I said I would call.
Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that his statement will be interpreted by the industries which produce electricity and gas to mean that he is encouraging a commercial price for gas? The poorest people especially will be rationed by price.
Mr. Howell: The nation as a whole will have to be rationed by price. Within that we shall devise social policies to help those who are hardest hit. The aim of the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) is to help those who are most vulnerable. The worst way to do that is to hold down prices. That helps poor
1658
and rich alike and that cannot be compassionate or sensible.
Mr. Proctor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British Gas Corporation indicated to the National Gas Consumers Council that the increases cannot be justified on commercial grounds? I am a fan of market pricing, but I should like a comment on that. May we have an assurance that the profits created by the price increases will not be used to subsidise other more inefficient nationalised industries?
Mr. Howell: As my hon. Friend is a fan of market pricing, he will be glad to know that we are moving towards market pricing. Of course, that will lead to a large surplus because old gas was cheap; new gas will be much more expensive. It is rubbish to say that the surpluses will be used to subsidise loss-making industries, which is what my hon. Friend suggested in a broadcast yesterday. The surpluses help to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement—an aim to which I thought my hon. Friend was dedicated.
Mr. James Lamond: What did the gas and electricity consumer councils say when they were informed about the increases?
Mr. Howell: The views of the consumer councils have not yet been conveyed to me in detail. The natural reaction of all consumers when confronted with higher prices is not to like them. None of us likes higher prices. However, we shall all have to pay more for petrol, gas and other fuels. That is the reality.
Mr. Eggar: I welcome the broad aims of my right hon. Friend's statement, but why has he chosen to raise gas prices by relating them to the increase in the real rate of return required by the BGC? Why has he not decided to price gas in relation to the price of home heating oil and to phase in such price increases? Why has he not considered introducing a gas tax to recoup the economic rent that will accrue to BGC? Does he agree that part of such a tax could be used to reduce the bills for the poorest consumers?
Mr. Howell: I answered the gas tax point earlier. Our policy, however, means that the price of gas is being related to the price of the marginal fuel—heating oil—and the real rate of return

1659
is the return required to achieve that. That figure is 9 per cent. which, regrettably, is high by today's standards, although 10 years ago a great deal of British industry would have regarded a net rate of return of 9 per cent. on revalued assets as being perfectly attainable. It is a reasonable rate for a highly efficient industry.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement is like the flared-off gas to which he referred—wet? It was certainly short of any significant energy conservation measures, and it certainly lacked equity. It is scandalous that the right hon. Gentleman should be compelling a highly efficient nationalised industry to increase its prices to a level that it is not seeking. Is he aware that, in spite of all that he said about the sick, the unemployed and the pensioners—on which I agree with him entirely—the 30 per cent. increase is nothing short of a punitive tax which will hit particularly the lower paid?
Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman's points about social policy and hardship are well taken. I recognise them fully. On the question of the present surplus and profitability of the BGC, the plain fact is that the corporation is not competing for customers. On the contrary, customers are clamouring for more gas. It would be a very serious matter if British industry were to be deprived of the supply of gas that it needs and our entire energy policy were to be distorted. That is a most important consideration because that is the source of the wealth needed to pay for the social policies upon which the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends are always so ready to spend money.
Dr. Owen: What price increase did the chairman of the British Gas Corporation consider to be commercially justified? What is the expected increase in profitability of the BGC over the next financial year resulting from the extra amount that the Government have imposed on the price list?
Mr. Howell: The estimate on the latter point would be £200 million to £300 million extra. On the first point, the British Gas Corporation did not express a view in precise terms but took the
1660
view that, while it agreed with the aim and objective of moving to economic pricing, for the present year, it would have wanted a somewhat lower figure, but it did not give me a precise figure,
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the course of the Secretary of State's statement, members of the Press Gallery were busily turning over copies of the statement. It is a perennial cause of concern that, with certain limited exceptions, hon. Members are not provided with copies of statements. This practice has continued for years, but there is no reason why it could not be changed. I inquired at the Vote Office, but the statement was not available when the Secretary of State had sat down. If hon. Members had copies, it would give them the opportunity to put more informed questions. It would be a useful innovation for hon. Members to have copies.
Will you, Mr. Speaker, therefore, use your powers, which I understand may be limited, in this matter? I understand that motions to alter the procedures of this place are a matter for the Leader of the House, who is a member of the Cabinet and has not the slightest wish to alter a situation that benefits the Government by preventing the sort of detailed probing and questioning which hon. Members have the right to engage in. I ask you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, whether we can make a slight alteration to our procedures to improve them.
Mr. Speaker: I do not comment on the merits of the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but he will know that it is not within my discretion to require copies of statements to be made available to hon. Members. I do not wish to enter into any argument on this. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I am sure that it has been heard by those responsible.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that you cannot and will not intervene between Government and Opposition, but I believe that you have a duty to assist hon. Members to carry out their work, a task that you exercise very well with regard to the Library, assistants and so on. If you were to indicate your support for what my hon. Friend the Member for

1661
Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has suggested—I do not suggest that you should say anything on the Floor of the House—that would be most helpful. If the Leader of the House knew that that was your view and that you wanted to improve facilities for hon. Members, he would be more likely to respond favourably.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened with respect to the hon. Gentleman, who has served in the House for 35 years. He will not expect me to comment further, but I am much obliged for what he has said.
Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Secretary of State's statement covered the electricity supply industry for England and Wales, can you give an assurance that there will be a similar statement in respect of the electricity supply industry in Scotland? Will it be done by a press statement, or will Scotland be exempt from the increase?
Mr. Speaker: I share the hon. Gentleman's ignorance on that matter.

YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Cormack: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the urgent need for an international guarantee of the future independence and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia."
I know that it has been indicated that we are shortly to have a foreign affairs debate centring on Afghanistan, but in the wake of the invasion of that country by Soviet forces hon. Members throughout the House are concerned about another and a European country. That concern has been demonstrated in an early-day motion that I tabled last night and that has already attracted about 150 signatures.
It is quite obvious that the President of Yugoslavia is a sick man. If the latest reports are to be believed, he is gravely ill. Naturally, we all wish him well and hope that he will recover and be able to lead his people for some years to come.
1662
But above sympathy and good wishes, President Tito and his people need a guarantee of their future independence as a nation and of their territorial integrity, and they need that guarantee from the international community.
In a case such as this, someone must take the lead. Yesterday in this House my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister showed that she was willing to take an initiative, through NATO. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will allow the House an opportunity to show its united resolve. Too often in matters of grave international consequence we react, we do not anticipate. Here is a chance for us to anticipate and perhaps prevent what could be a global disaster.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stafford shire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) gave me notice before 12 o'clock 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 believed should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the urgent need for an international guarantee of the future independence and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia."
I listened with deep concern to the hon. Gentleman, and I in no way seek to detract from the seriousness of his statement to the House. I am aware that he has raised a most important matter, but the House knows that under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision.
After listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman—and I am in no way saying that this matter ought not to be debated—I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 1 FEBRUARY
Members successful in the ballot were:
Mr. Hugh Fraser.
Mr. John Hannam.
Mr. Terence Higgins.

DOGS (CONTROL)
4.30 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the further control of dogs; and for connected purposes.
Britain is supposed to be a nation of animal lovers—particularly, a nation of dog lovers. The facts do not really bear that out. The facts suggest that we have allowed sentiment for dogs to cover up for the lack of a sensible policy towards them.
Each year between 180,000 and 200,000 stray dogs are rounded up, mostly by the police. Over 60,000 dogs have to be destroyed every year—a task that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals finds particularly distasteful. In fact, about 150 dogs per day are being destroyed in this country. If Saatchi & Saatchi had lined them up and put them into one of the advertisements that we saw of queues earlier in the year, I am sure that most people would be demanding that something be done about it. It seems to me to be a scandal that that number of dogs have to be destroyed every day.
It is not only a problem of the dogs which are straying and which are rounded up; there are many more dogs which stray but which no one actually manages to catch, and they cause a great deal of nuisance.
Each six months, more than 2,000 dog owners are prosecuted because their dogs have bitten people. We all know of many more instances of stray dogs biting people and no prosecution following.
Many hundreds of dogs each year are shot as a result of farmers trying to stop them worrying their sheep. Nearly 6,000 farm animals are killed every year by stray dogs worrying them. Anyone who has witnessed sheep-worrying or animal-worrying knows the great anguish that the animals suffer and the great heart-break to farmers who have worked hard to build up flocks over the years and who then find half of their animals being chased round and round the fields by a pack of stray dogs. This causes great distress.
Each year, more than 2,000 road accidents result from dogs being on the high-
1664
ways. Let us consider the misery for the dog that is caught in traffic on a busy motorway. One hon. Member pointed out to me this morning that when he was coming to the House four dogs were running round in the middle of Parliament Square. How on earth could they have got there without passing through traffic? One has only to imagine the problems that face drivers when dogs run across the road in front of them. Their instant reaction is to try to miss the dog, not taking into account other road users.
I could go on to list many other problems, particularly the problem of stray dogs searching their way through dustbins and turning them upside down in order to get sufficient food. There is the problem that one finds on pavements as a result of dog dirt, and the difficulties on playing fields.
There is also the question of the farce of the present licensing system. [Interruption] If my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) is not happy about dealing with dogs on the grounds that I have set forth so far, I am sure that he will take up the question of licensing. At present, the licence fee brings in about £1 million, yet it costs £1·6 million to collect. That is farcical. Also, about 50 per cent. of dog owners who should have licences do not bother to get them.
There is also the whole question of health problems associated with dogs which carry worms and transmit them, and often cause human illnesses.
The case for introducing sensible laws to control dogs is overwhelming. It is notable that since I have had notice on the Order Paper of my proposed Bill, I have had a lot of correspondence from groups such as the RSPCA and other animal welfare organisations pressing the case for something to be done about this matter.
In 1974 the then Government set up a working party. It spent two years looking at the problem and then produced a very modest set of proposals. Unfortunately, so far no Government have got around to implementing the working party's recommendations.
I was very pleased to see that a Minister at the Northern Ireland Office had announced last week that legislation on

1665
this matter would be introduced for Northern Ireland. I accept that there is a slight security problem in Northern Ireland, in that one cannot encourage farmers to go around with guns to stop sheep-worrying. Apart from that, I cannot see any reason why what is suitable for Northern Ireland concerning the control of dogs ought not to be suitable for the rest of the United Kingdom. If the Government are to introduce legislation in respect of Northern Ireland, they ought to be doing so here, too.
I understand that the Government's excuse is that this matter can be dealt with by regulation in Northern Ireland but that it needs parliamentary time for a Bill here. If they were to support the Bill that I hope to introduce, they could deal with the matter very simply for the whole of the United Kingdom at one time.
Such a Bill ought to provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the joint working party, which was particularly concerned to establish a dog warden service—not merely to round up stray dogs but to give guidance to those who look after dogs and to try to prevent some of the nuisances that occur, and particularly to reduce the number of dogs that suffer as a result of neglect and lack of concern on the part of their owners.
This service ought to be paid for out of a much more realistic licence fee. It also ought to be a requirement that dogs ought to be licensed as soon as they change home and ownership, and not after a period of six months, and that a dog ought to carry an indication that it is licensed. It has been shown to be very simple to clip a coloured tag under the collar, the colour changing from year to year as the licence is renewed.
It should also be a requirement—it is included in many byelaws in various parts of the country—that any dog going on a highway ought to be on a lead. I notice that in the proposals in respect of Northern Ireland any dog that is going on to fields in which there are livestock ought to be on a lead.
There are also a few other minor recommendations of the working party which I hope will be implemented.
1666
It is high time that we forgot about our sentiments and made sure that we had a concerned and sensible policy before the risk of rabies crossing the Channel, which might well panic us into taking measures that would be very harmful to dogs.
4.37 pm
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I had not intended to oppose this application until I heard the presentation. Every word spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) may well be true, but, like every other do-gooder, he should remember that there is another side of the picture.
First, already the law says that dogs should be licensed. However, as my hon. Friend says, there are thousands of owners who refuse to pay the licence fee. What, therefore, does my hon. Friend suggest? Does he suggest that we introduce another licence fee, which they would refuse to pay?
My hon. Friend then suggests that we should control dogs and see that they do not go on the streets. How should we do that? Should we tell the owners who do not pay their licence fee? We could probably send letters to the dogs, asking each dog to read, please, "You must not go out on to the street without your licence".
My hon. Friend went on to say that we should appoint wardens. I wonder whether he has read the newspapers recently. People cannot be obtained to act as traffic wardens on the roads because there is not enough money to pay them. My hon. Friend says "Put a licence fee on the dog, and that will pay for the wardens'. Would it? There is a £50 duty on motor vehicles, but we cannot get enough money out of that to persuade people to act as traffic wardens.
Then my hon. Friend suggests putting different coloured tags on the dogs. These are the dogs that are running around spare, which the owners do not want. We are supposed to put coloured tags on them.
We do the same with cars. Of course, many drivers do not display the coloured road tax discs, and we cannot get enough traffic wardens to police the system. It is quite farcical.
My hon. Friend suggests that we should now do the same for dogs. I suggest that we should endeavour to make the present

1667
system work. The suggestion is that because it does not work we should introduce even more silly laws.
What about cats? Almost every problem mentioned by my hon. Friend regarding dogs applies also to cats—except that they do not bite so much. But cats run across roads, cats go out all night, cats turn up dustbins, and so on. This is a ludicrous proposal. The whole system would break down. It cannot and would not work.
I ask my hon. Friend to think what would happen if this proposal were to be enacted. Old-age pensioners who own and really care for their little dogs and
who pay the licence fee would have to pay more. Those who do not pay the fee and allow their dogs to stray would still get away with it. Those who are abiding by the law and paying the licence fee will be caught and those who are getting away with not paying the licence fee will do so again if this measure is brought in. I strongly oppose it.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motion for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes, 20.

Division No. 137]

AYES

[4.41 pm

Alexander, Richard

Fry, Peter

Newens, Stanley

Alton, David

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Ashton, Joe

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

O'Neill, Martin

Aspinwall, Jack

Glyn, Dr Alan

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

Gower, Sir Raymond

Park, George

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Graham, Ted

Pavitt, Laurie

Beith, A. J.

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Penhaligon, David

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Pollock, Alexander

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

Hardy, Peter

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Bright, Graham

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Brinton, Tim

Haynes, Frank

Race, Reg

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

Richardson, Jo

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Budgen, Nick

Home Robertson, John

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Burden, F. A.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Robertson, George

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Janner, Hon Greville

Rooker, J.W.

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Canavan, Dennis

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Carmichael, Neil

Kerr, Russell

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Cohen, Stanley

Kinnock, Neil

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Cook, Robin F.

Knight, Mrs Jill

Scott, Nicholas

Costain, A. P.

Lambie, David

Sever, John

Cowans, Harry

Lamborn, Harry

Sheerman, Barry

Crowther, J. S.

Lamond, James

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Cryer, Bob

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Spearing, Nigel

Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

Litherland, Robert

Speller, Tony

Dalyell, Tam

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Spriggs, Leslie

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

Lyell, Nicholas

Stallard, A. W.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

McCusker, H.

Stanbrook, Ivor

Dickens, Geoffrey

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Steel, Rt Hon David

Dixon, Donald

McElhone, Frank

Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

Dobson, Frank

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

Dormand, Jack

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Thompson, Donald

Dover, Denshore

McKelvey, William

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Dubs, Alfred

McNally, Thomas

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McQuarrie, Albert

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Eadie, Alex

Marks, Kenneth

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Eastham, Ken

Marlow, Tony

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Waller, Gary

Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

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

Ward, John

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Maxton, John

Wheeler, John

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Whitehead, Phillip

Evans, John (Newton)

Mikardo, Ian

Wickenden, Keith

Flannery, Martin

Molyneaux, James

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

Forrester, John

Morton, George

Foster, Derek

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Myles, David

Mr. Clive Soley

Freud, Clement

Needham, Richard

NOES

Bevan, David Gilroy

Clocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Farr, john

Brotherton, Michael

Elllott, Sir William

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

English Michael

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Rhodes James, Robert

Young, David (Bolton East)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Sandelson, Neville

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Montgomery, Fergus

Waddington, David

Mr. Arthur Lewis and

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Wigley, Dafydd

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. John Sever, Mr. Tony Marlow, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Tom McNally.

DOGS (CONTROL)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the further control of dogs; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 February and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

RATE SUPPORT GRANT
4.52 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant Order 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.
I understand that with this we may discuss the two additional motions relating to rate support grant orders for England and Wales, namely, the Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order 1979 and the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (No. 2) Order 1979.
The rate support grant settlement is central to the Government's economic strategy. The House will know that these orders represent our main means of influencing local authorities' rating and spending decisions. They come at a critical time: local authorities now account for over one-quarter of all public expenditure, and this debate must be seen in the context of the reduction of public expenditure that is a central imperative of the present economic situation.
Since the war there has been a striking growth in local government's share of domestic expenditure. In 1956, local government direct spending in the United Kingdom was 7½ per cent. of all domestic expenditure. By 1978 it was 10½ per cent., although the previous Government had reduced that proportion from the high point of 13 per cent. which it reached in 1975.
In the absence of economic growth, I have no choice but to ask local authorities to continue the relative downward trend to which the previous Government subjected them. But if the relative trends have been downwards the absolute trends have not. However, within the absolute increases, that spending has been on consumption and not on capital projects. In 1956 about one-third was capital investment. In 1978, capital spending was less than one-fifth. Local government direct current spending in real terms more than doubled between 1956 and 1978, whereas its direct capital investment was only about one-third higher.
Nothing better illustrates the nature of our problem than the manpower figures. In 1956 local authorities in Great Britain
1672
employed 1·6 million people, including part-timers. By 1979 the figure was an astonishing 2·9 million, with almost continuous growth year by year except for 1974, when 90,000 employees were transferred with water and health functions.
So local government has mirrored the fundamental weakness of our economy—higher levels of public consumption of our resources with an increasing drift for those resources to go into current consumption at the expense of capital, and the whole programme rising at the expense of the wealth-creating sectors of the economy.
The growth of local government cannot be explained wholly by reference to new duties. Since 1945, local government has lost health, gas and water services. It has taken on consumer protection, and it has developed services such as education, housing, transport and personal social services. But this does not explain all the growth in expenditure and employment, which has followed consistent patterns of expansion over 30 years.
The problems of managing the public sector and controlling its internal capacity for generating its own growth are well known. The pressures of contemporary society only indirectly confront those who demand local services, with the bills that arrive as a consequence of their demands. The basis of local government finance actually encourages expenditure.
I believe that the first task is for each authority to establish exactly what each of its employees is engaged in doing. The second is to find out whether each of those tasks is necessary. The next is to control the recruitment to each authority under direct political control so that every time someone leaves or retires—and 125,000 people leave local government a year—there is no automatic assumption that his vacancy is filled.
Whilst, at large, local government is very close to the record number of people it has ever employed, it has been shown in authority after authority that profound effects can be achieved on numbers employed, and thus on rate levels, by administering tight control on recruitment.
The Government are playing their part by reducing the number of circulars they issue setting out detailed tasks for each authority and are also reviewing with

1673
local government the accumulated range of statutory duties they have imposed on it. But the downward trends cannot wait for any consequent legislation. In today's circumstances we cannot afford, and we have no choice but to reduce, local government expenditure and employment.
Some reductions could come through more efficiency. If any hon. Member on the Opposition Benches doubts the urgency of what I say, I need only remind him of the words of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party in February 1976, where he set out the common problem to which I have been referring. He said:
"The steady contraction in our manufacturing industry is the main reason for our disappointing performance since the war. The contraction must be reversed and halted. But we cannot reverse the trend if we plan to take more resources into the public sector."
That was the former Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking to the PLP in February 1976, as reported in The Times the following day.
Against that background, this rate support grant settlement is crucial. It must be realistic in the level of expenditure it envisages, in the total of grant and its distribution, and in the provision that is made for inflation within the cash limit.
Last year my predecessor's proposals were manifestly unrealistic. He provided for increases in expenditure that we could not afford. Based on growth assumptions that did not materialise, he distributed grant without taking account of the needs of the rural areas, and he provided a cash limit based on assumptions of 5 per cent. increases in pay and 8½ per cent. increases in prices. I believe that the settlement I have announced provides a rational basis on which authorities can plan. It is based on a logical extension of our economic policies to date.
Immediately on taking office, I asked local authorities to freeze recruitment and to review their manpower. As a first step to getting expenditure back to the 1977–78 level, I asked them to spend 1½ per cent. less in the current year 1979–80 than they had spent in the previous year. I asked them also for a further 1 per cent. reduction in 1980–81.
1674
The previous Government's expenditure plans—plans which the former Chief Secretary has already admitted were unachievable because the underlying growth in the economy was not there—were obviously an impossible basis on which to calculate.
In our present plans we have asked for a phased reduction of 2½ per cent. over two years. The possibility of achieving this 2½ per cent. reduction is best illustrated if the House remembers that the last Labour Government achieved this in half the time in 1976 without, to my knowledge, any redundancies arising as a consequence. With careful planning and the co-operation of local government, cuts of this level should not have any serious effect on services.
That is the background to the orders that we are debating today. I shall deal first with the increase orders, which relate to 1978–9 and 1979–80.
The first increase order, the Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order, tidies up the 1978–79 settlement, covering additional grant payable in respect of pay and price changes between November 1978 and March 1979. It provides for £31 million for rate support grant and £0·8 million for transport supplementary grant to be paid, reflecting the revised cash limits.
For 1979–80, as I have said, a cash limit was based on the 5per cent. pay policy. We were thus left with a totally unrealistic situation. Our reaction, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget Statement, was that we were prepared to take account of wage settlements incalculating the increase orders but would make an across-the-board reduction to reflect what the country could afford.
We have taken a view on how much it is reasonable for the taxpayer to contribute and the need for improvements in efficiency and productivity identified in the Clegg report, and we have therefore made a reduction of £310 million. This means cash limits adjusted for pay settlements and the variable items standing at £493 million for rate support grant, £30 million for transport supplementary grant and £0·4 million for national parks supplementary grant. The second increase order, the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (No. 2) Order, provides for this grant to be paid.

1675
We must contribute towards additional costs in 1979–80 which have arisen since the settlement and which may still arise. These include elements of the comparability awards for teachers, craftsmen and the administrative, professional, technical and clerical grades. In the interests of certainty for authorities, and prudent financial management, we announced in November a firm cash limit on the additional contribution which may be paid through the second 1979–80 increase order in November 1980. The figures we have set are £148 million for rate support grant and £2 million for transport supplementary grant There will be no further increase in national parks supplementary grant.
The main order is for 1980–81, the Rate Support Grant Order 1979. I am proposing a level of relevant expenditure of £15,737 million at November 1979 prices. This accords with our expenditure plans and the need for local authorities to reduce their expenditure to the 1977–78 level. The grant percentage is maintained at 61 per cent., as last year. This means that the Government are making an equitable contribution towards local authority expenditure.
The domestic element of rate support grant will be kept at 18½p in the pound for England and 36p in the pound for Wales. The division into needs and resources element will be kept at the ratio of 67½ per cent. to 32½ per cent.
The aggregate Exchequer grant will therefore be £9,600 million. After deduction of specific grants estimated at £1,250 million, transport supplementary grant at £350 million and national parks supplementary grant at £4·5 million, this leaves the sum of £7,996 million for distribution as rate support grant.
The cash limit for the 1980–81 increase orders will be an envelope figure which covers additional grant payable in respect of pay and price changes between now and March 1981. The limit on rate support grant will be £1,380 million, on transport supplementary grant £46 million and on national parks supplementary grant £0·7 million.
This cash limit is compatible with year-on-year new pay and price changes of 13 per cent. It includes in addition a carry-through of an allowance to cover the effects of outstanding com-
1676
parability awards which will be paid in 1980–81.
The House will know that, in addition to those figures, there are interest rate variable items, for which provision is made outside the cash limit.
Beyond what I have said, I have made clear to local authorities that the cash limit must hold and the Government will provide no more cash.
Local authority employers and the trade unions will need to negotiate to ensure that authorities can live within this cash limit, for excessive settlements will result in reductions in employment, in services, or in further burdens on the ratepayers. It is as simple as that. The impact on services and manpower of wage settlements will be the responsibility of those who negotiate and conclude them.
I have looked hard at the grant distribution arrangements. These have proved in recent years neither equitable nor sensible. Only a handful of people in my Department and in local government understand how they work. This is wrong, for the distribution of this massive sum—£8 billion this year—affects every local authority and ratepayer.
Grant entitlements have changed inexplicably from year to year, and rates go up in some areas but not in others. We need a better idea of what the grant system is trying to achieve and how it works. I shall outline what I think is wrong with the present machinery and how we shall improve it.
The objective of the distribution arrangements currently is simple and precise—to enable every local authority, if it so chooses, to provide a comparable standard of service for a similar rate in the pound. To achieve this, the system is designed to compensate authorities for unavoidable differences in what they need to spend on services and for differences in the rateable resources from which they have to raise the revenue.
The taxpayers' support is divided into various subdivisions, two of which seek to equalise the needs of each authority and the resources of each authority. Currently, the needs element is intended to compensate for differences in authorities' expenditure needs. The resources element is intended to compensate for differences in rateable resources.

1677
This equalisation should leave all authorities with the same amount of expenditure per head of population—if they spend at the level of their assessed needs—to be met from the same rateable base. This objective is, in my view, correct and I have no plans to change it. It is the means which I believe to be wrong.
This year, clearly, we have not had time to legislate for changes and I have had to operate within the present arrangements. I have had two aims: first, to halt the unjustified drift of needs element from the shire counties which has taken place every year in the last six; second, to inject badly needed stability into the grant distribution after the upheavals, each and every year, under the previous Government.
We have achieved that objective. For the first time since 1974, the movement of grant from the shires has stopped and their overall share of the grant total has increased. They benefit by a real-terms increase in grant equivalent to the product of a 0·8p rate.
My settlement therefore benefits the shire counties, but the metropolitan authorities also increase their share in contrast to the decline that they saw in the last two years' settlements. The metropolitan authorities benefit by a real-terms increase in grant equivalent to a 0·7p rate, and their share of the total also will increase.
We achieved this by applying a standstill to the distribution and thus avoiding the uncertainties and inconsistencies of previous years.
One cause of many of the changes in distribution in recent years has been the use of the technique of multiple regression analysis to assess authorities' expenditure needs. This involves finding out which social and economic factors appear to match the pattern of what local authorities actually spent. It is in its essence a highly sophisticated system of probabilities in which factors are fed into a computer until it appears that the right balance of factors has been struck to reflect what was actually spent in aggregate by local authorities. In combination, the selected and weighted factors make up a general needs assessment formula, which can then be applied to
1678
each authority to produce its assessment of needs.
This exercise has been carried out afresh each year, using updated expenditure data. As the starting point is the assumption that, overall, expenditure is equal to need, it is not surprising that this has led to a steady flow of grant towards high-spending urban areas.
This year we have used exactly the same needs element formulae as last year. The creeping tendency of multiple regression analysis to reward high spenders with more, and lower spenders with less, has been halted as a consequence. We have, however, taken commonsense account of new and updated statistics on some factors where these are available—for example, population changes and numbers of schoolchildren. This has meant some minor changes.
I have provided for a safety net limiting authorities' needs element losses in real terms compared with 1979–80 to the equivalent of a 1p rate—the most generous safety net ever. However, so stable is the distribution that only four authorities outside London have needed protection.
For London, however, I was faced with a particular problem. The updating of last year's figures, especially labour costs, meant a loss of about £80 million. I decided that this was too high a burden for London ratepayers. I have reduced this effectively, by using the claw back mechanism, to £18.5 million—again, a 1p rate.
Mr. Kenneth Marks: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to regression analysis. He contends that big spenders receive additional needs element grant because they have been high spenders. Will he give us an example? He knows that the AMA does not agree with him. Is it not a fact that larger authorities do better than smaller authorities?
Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that I need to give a specific example. If we base our assumptions on the fundamental principle that expenditure equals need, it must follow that the higher the expenditure, the greater the assumed need. The assumptions are guaranteed to deliver the consequences that I have been analysing, although I must refute the assumption that authorities that spend a great deal

1679
have greater needs than authorities that spend, in their judgment, less.
I shall continue with my remarks about London. I have made an adjustment to protect London from the logic of the figures that were chosen last year. However, even this loss should be seen against an increased share for London from 1974–75 to 1979–80 in the needs element of 26 per cent. London gained by 26 per cent., but over the same period the metropolitan authorities' share increased by only 6 per cent. and the shire counties' share declined by 10 per cent.
Within London, there have been only minimal changes in distribution, and my decisions have followed as closely as possible the recommendations of the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association. A separate safety net limits grant losses to individual boroughs within London to the equivalent of a 3p rate. The arrangements for distributing needs element to non-metropolitan districts are virtually the same as last year. This distribution is patently and outstandingly equitable by any standards, and particularly by the standards set in recent years, but where do we go from the present situation?
I intend to change the present grant machinery. It is, in my view, defective in two key respects. First, grant is distributed on an assessment methodology which assumes that actual expenditure equals need. I know that the analysis is more sophisticated than this, but in the end it rests upon that fundamental assumption. High spenders can receive more and more grant and low spenders receive less and less. There is no incentive to economy. The pressure is all the other way—namely, to increase expenditure.
The second defect is in the operation of the resources element. This operates by giving authorities grant on the basis of their deficiency in rateable value below a national standard multiplied by the rate in the pound that they actually set. In other words, the more an authority spends—and thus the higher its rates—the more grant it attracts. There are two results. First, the Government have an open-ended commitment to underwrite an authority's expenditure, no matter how extravagant its expenditure pattern might be. Secondly, within the
1680
grant available, a minority of high spending authorities, by levying high rates, can pre-empt for themselves an increasing share of the total, at the expense of the majority of more prudent authorities.
It is too little understood that the taxpayers' contribution to the finance of local government is finite. I have announced today the finite figures that will be contributed by the taxpayer in the foreseeable circumstances. I have announced this year's figures and I have limited the extra sums available to meet changes in pay and prices. Therefore, there can be no further call on the central Government. The only thing that is now at issue is which authority gets what proportion of a fixed finite pool. I cannot stand back—I do not believe hon. Members would want to stand back—and expect the majority of local councils, including Labour councils, to cut back in the climate of public expenditure retrenchment in which we now find ourselves if in so doing the only consequence of their economy is that other more profligate councils simply get more.
The majority of authorities are responsible and will respond to the Government's expenditure policies. They have done so, whatever their political complexion, by tradition. I have a responsibility to those authorities that comply with the Government's policy. I should protect them from the irresponsible minority to which they actually lose grant under the current arrangements. A grant system which rewards profligacy and penalises thrift is ludicrous.
Mr. David Alton: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he not accept that the nature of the rate support grant settlement that he is outlining will have precisely the same effect—namely, that authorities that have been thrifty will be penalised and those that have been profligate will have room in which to cut back because they will be fat within their expenditure within their budgets? The authorities that have been thrifty will have great difficulty in meeting their targets. They will end up sacking a great deal of staff. They will have to sack far more than the authorities that have been profligate during the past 12 months.
Mr. Heseltine: I believe that the transitional arrangements that I shall be announcing will take into account the factors to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. I cannot change the system without legislation, and in the nature of the legislative process there is no time to change the process for this year's settlement. Therefore, I have no alternative but to use the present basis as best I can and to adopt the transitional arrangements, which I shall outline, as a stop-gap arrangement while we move to the new system that I have already announced.
I propose, therefore, to replace the current grant machinery. My proposals for a new block grant will be included in the Local Government Bill shortly to be laid before the House.
The basic concept of block grant is simple. It is designed, as is the present system, to enable local authorities to provide a comparable standard of service for a similar rate in the pound. However, instead of trying to achieve this through two separate elements of grant—needs and resources—it will do so directly through a single grant paid to each authority. The block grant will be sufficient to bridge the gap between expenditure and the product of a standard rate poundage on rateable resources.
However, this is not open-ended. 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 and not plucked out of the air. As actual expenditure increases above the level of standard expenditure, the standard rate poundage will also increase. That means that the Government will provide grant support at a constant rate for expenditure up to the level of assessed standard expenditure, as under the present system. But the more an authority spends above that level, the greater the proportion of that expenditure it must raise from its ratepayers and the smaller the contribution from grant diverted from other authorities with lower expenditure.
1682
At the same time, I want to see developed—in full consultation with the local authority associations—a new system of assessing authorities' standard expenditure. The new method must be comprehensible, stable and equitable and it must be based on a commonsense look at the factors which affect expenditure. Analysis of actual expenditure patterns should be kept to a minimum. In practice, I envisage a significant threshold above the level of standard expenditure before grant support under the block grant system begins to taper off. No generalised method of assessing standard expenditure can take full account of each authority's circumstances. There has to be a threshold of safety above the standard level of expenditure. Those are the main principles of block grant.
Much remains to be settled in consultation with the local authority associations. In no way do I apologise for the fact that I have left much to be settled in consultation with the local authority associations. It seemed right to me that in introducing the new system, rather than laying down a central concept before consultation, I should have the most detailed consultation with the local authorities in order, as far as possible, to devise with them a system which we all agree to be reasonable and practical.
Mr. George Cunningham: But the old formula was worked out in consultation with local authorities, too. The Secretary of State is criticising the old formula. We all know of its weaknesses, although I believe that one or two of the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms are not justified. The Secretary of State is saying that he will replace it with a new formula, of the content and nature of which he gives us no indication.
Mr. Heseltine: It is unfair to say that I have given no indication. I have given a broad indication of the sort of ways in which I wish the work to proceed. It is true that I have not tried—as a deliberate policy decision—to indicate how I believe the problems should be solved. If I had done so, the local authorities would have been entitled to turn round and say that I was imposing the system upon them rather than involving them in a genuine period of consultation. No.

1683
doubt, the House will want to come back to this subject and there is time, in the process of the legislative arrangements, to go through a detailed and genuine period of consultation, along the lines that I have outlined. We are trying to find better and more comprehensible ways of measuring the individual needs of authorities. That is a matter upon which there must be detailed and lengthy consultation.
The other principle that is equally clear and which I am introducing as a change—
Mr. George Cunningham: What is the first principle?
Mr. Heseltine:To seek other ways to move from the process that is currently settled by regression analysis.
Mr. Cunningham: Is that a change?
Mr. Heseltine: Of course it is. I have made the point to the hon. Gentleman.
The second point that I am pursuing as a matter of principle in introducing the block grant is that there has to be an ending of the automatic assumption that the more one spends, the more one gets. There has to be a system that recognises the need for an incentive to economise, a system which treats authorities fairly. Those authorities that economise—many Labour authorities have done so—know that the price of that economising is not simply that another less prudent authority pockets those economies.
Mr. Cunningham Mr. Cunningham rose—
Mr. Heseltine: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman and I have made my point.
Mr. John Fraser: With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman calls the tapering provision, which I call a penalty clause, is it his intention that that should operate in the financial year 1980–81?
Mr. Heseltine: The new arrangements cannot be introduced in 1980–81. They can come into effect only in the year 1981–82. However, as I shall mention shortly, I believe that in the climate in which we now conduct our public expenditure programmes there is a need for transitional arrangements. Those arrangements will apply in the year to which the hon. Mem-
1684
ber for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) referred. I should have come to that matter in the course of my speech. The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I wanted to say.
I have outlined the main priniciples of the block grant. As I say, much remains to be settled in consultation with the local authority associations. But, although the internal workings of any system which seeks to be fair to over 400 authorities is bound to be complicated, ingeneral block grant will be much easier for the wider public to understand. It is a single grant to bridge the gap between expenditure and resources. It will increase the accountability of local authorities to ratepayers. At present, the ratepayer has no means of judging whether the expenditure of his local authority is reasonable. Ratepayers will, in future, be able to make a rough comparison between the standard rate poundage and the poundage that they are asked to pay. If there is a significant difference, the ratepayer will want an explanation which an authority with soundly based expenditure plans should be happy to give. The new system will limit the extent to which a few high-spending authorities can take grant away from other authorities.
I should add—once again—that block grant will not force authorities to levy a particular rate or adopt particular expenditure plans. The amount that they decide to spend will be for them, but they will know that the further it is above the level of expenditure considered reasonable for local government as a whole, the lower the proportion of taxpayer's support they will receive and, consequently, the more they will have to account to their local ratepayers.
The legislative timetable will not permit block grant to be introduced until 1981–82. But, because of the need to tackle overspending now, my legislative proposals will contain provisions to amend the current RSG system, as a transitional step for the one year. Those provisions will allow adjustments to be made to authorities' grant entitlements at increase order stage next year, where there is evidence of serious and sustained overspending. Grant abatement will be made only to resources element entitlements, except in London, where adjustments will be made to the needs element of authorities that do not qualify for resources element.

1685

I shall use these transitional arrangements only if high spending authorities set out to challenge the Government. In any event, I would expect only a small minority of overspending authorities to be affected.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: The words with which the Secretary of State has described his intentions, as is often the case, are unclear. It is important to get the matter absolutely clear. Today he has said that he will use the transitional arrangements only with authorities that set out to challenge the Government. Will he measure that challenge in rate poundage, or will it be his political judgment about what a challenge amounts to?
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman and I will have no difficulty in judging which authorities have set out to challenge the Government. However, there will be one difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. I shall encourage those authorities to reduce expenditure, whereas the right hon. Gentleman would have gone round the country actually encouraging authorities to stoke up their expenditure. I very much hope that no authorities took the advice of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and I hope that they will not suffer under the transitional arrangement and as a result have to go back to their ratepayers and explain that they made decisions on his wholly irresponsible advice.
Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful for the repetition of that point, which the Secretary of State has made on every occasion this year, but can he actually answer the question? Is a rate poundage to be attached to challenging the Government? Have local authorities any idea that can be quantified of what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do?
Mr. Heseltine: We have made it clear that we shall judge the position when rate levels have been set. We will judge that position in the light of the expenditure, intentions and decisions of individual local authorities. I wish to be sure that Opposition hon. Members understand what we are talking about. After all, they are responsible for advising their local councils and for the decisions of the House.
1686
The House will be aware that the Government have asked local authorities to reduce expenditure by 1½ per cent. below that of last year, and by a further 1 per cent. next year. Labour Members go round advising authorities not to do it. Some authorities have already said that they have no intention of sticking to the targets, or of even trying to approach the targets established by the Government. There is a prima facie case for suggesting that those authorities have not made any attempt to economise or shown any interest in doing so. As a result, those authorities represented by the bulk of Labour Members will suffer. They will get less money in order to pay for the profligacies of the few.
I cannot turn to my right hon. and hon. Friends, nor to the local authorities that they represent, and genuinely expect them to economise and cut back if a handful of profligate authorities, urged on by the right Hon. Member for Spark-brook, are scooping the pool of consequences. That would be an abdication of responsibility, and I shall not do it.
I have sought to put the rate support grant settlement within the overall context of the Government's policy to pull back public expenditure and the crucial importance of local authority spending. The settlement is, therefore, of exceptional importance. We have put local authorities in a position whereby they can support the Government in the battle against inflation. Within the limits of the present system, I have made a fair settlement as regards the percentage of grant, the cash limit and distribution. I now ask local government to recognise—as many councils do—the critical challenge that we face of constraining public expenditure by scrutinising every programme and searching for every economy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I understand that, as the Secretary of State has said, it will be for the convenience of the House to take together the three motions in the Secretary of State's name.
5.33 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: Earlier in his speech, the Secretary of State said that one of the problems of the rate support grant was that only three or four people in his Department fully understood it. As a

1687
compliment to him, may I say that it is clear that the ranks were swollen on 3 May. The Secretary of State described the rate support grant with great clarity and in great detail. I am sure that the House found it an impressive exercise.
However, it was less impressive when the right hon. Gentleman attempted to describe the unitary grant that he proposes to introduce. Discussion of that proposal is best left until the long-awaited local government Bill is presented and until we have a clearer idea of how the Government intend to justify his prejudices. The Secretary of State persists in stating in all the speeches that he makes to parliamentary audiences that his proposals for the rate support grant, the supplementary orders for this year and the principal orders for next, will not result in anything other than marginal differences within local authorities that can be accommodated by good housekeeping and elementary prudence.
My hon. Friends will give the Secretary of State example after example of county and metropolitan area where his proposals result in real, damaging and dangerous reductions in services. He does his cause no good by pretending that the entire paraphernalia of public expenditure reduction can be accommodated by elementary prudence. Apparently he finds that prudence lacking not only in Labour-controlled local authorities but in many Conservative-controlled authorities, which find that the effect of his policies is not one of saving candle ends but of drastically reducing services.
The Secretary of State has an impressive and touching way of assuming that no one is prepared to argue with, or doubt, the validity of the basic policies upon which the Government's intentions and his intentions are based. He talks as if we have to accept the extraordinary economic condition that we find ourselves in and as if it were unavoidable. He talks as if the movement from slight growth to economic stagnation to literal decline were unavoidable. It is not unavoidable, but it is the direct result of the Government's economic policies. With the exception of the precipitate reduction in income tax, everything that
1688
the Government have done since 3 May has been done intentionally to deepen the slump and to decrease industrial activity.
There is not a sensible economic observer who does not believe that the deflation into which the Government have plunged the economy since May was a mistake. It is not even necessary within the terms of their own economic policy, nor is it sensible monetarism. If the Secretary of State has any doubts about that, I refer him to a speech made by the new economic adviser to the Government, Professor Terry Burns. He said:
"Secondly, monetarism does not say anything directly about public expenditure…Whilst appealing to market economists in general, the issue of Government spending is essentially a different argument and is not necessarily part of monetarism as it is now being practised."
The Secretary of State should not present himself to us in the belief that we shall accept all the prejudices of Conservative policy and Conservative economics. The deflation of the economy is not to rational people a justification for imposing cuts on local authority spending that will be damaging, dangerous and in many ways unacceptable, not only to the Labour Party but to the people of Britain.
We certainly do not accept the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument concerning his relationship with local government. It goes deeper than that, because it fundamentally concerns the nature of local government. That is certainly the case as regards the unitary grant system. We should discuss that system when the local government Bill is presented. However, the so-called transitional arrangements that take us from rate support grant to unitary grant are fundamental to our discussions today. They apply during the life of today's order, and the Secretary of State could not have been more frank about his intention to influence local authorities to accept the pattern of rate support grant settlement that he chooses.
Therefore, even though it is not the law of the land and is not even presented to the House in a Bill but is simply in the mind and hope of the right hon. Gentlemen, we have today to discuss the transitional arrangement.

1689
The intention of the transitional arrangement can be easily described. The Government intend to impose on local authorities a spending ceiling by use of powers that they do not at present possess. They will be included in a Bill which, although specified in the order, through the incompetence of the Government's business managers is not yet presented to the House of Commons. The Government propose a major reduction in the next financial year of the autonomous powers of democratically elected local authorities, which amounts to a constitutional change this year brought about by retrospective legislation.
The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): Rubbish.
Mr. Hattersley: I say to the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services that, if we had the Bill of Rights that the Lord Chancellor and many other Conservative Members are pressing for, exactly the sort of measure that is being proposed would not be allowed because of the effect that it would have on local authority after local authority. If a Labour Government were to impose a penalty on local authorities, the Conservative Party, The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and The Sun would say that it was totalitarianism, and they would be right because of the effect on local councils.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman and his Minister of State what such a measure will do to local councils. Today, all over the country, councillors are deciding their rate poundage for next year in the light of the RSG about which they now know a good deal. They are deciding whether, in the light of funds that they receive from central Government, they want to increase their rate to supplement the reduction that they must suffer and protect the services in which they believe.
The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that many local councils have the choice between increased rates and reduced services. They have the right under law to increase rates to compensate for losses that they presently expect from the rate support grant settlement. If they exercise that right under the law, and if in March and April rates rise to compensate for those losses, although they
1690
have behaved in a wholly legal fashion they are opening themselves and their local authorities to penalties that will be passed, if the right hon. Gentleman has his way, appreciably after the decisions are taken. They make the rate now under one law, and the law is changed if the local government Bill is passed.
Mr. John Townend: I speak as an ex-leader of a county council. Local authorities always have that problem. They never know exactly what the rate support grant increase order will be at the beginning of the year when they levy their rates.
Mr. Hattersley: It is forgivable for the hon. Gentleman not to follow what I have said, but I do not believe that he will be so easily forgiven for not following what the right hon. Gentleman said.
A large passage in the Secretary of State's speech was concerned with the changes that he is making for the transitional period. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Vote Office is full of official papers describing what the transitional arrangement will be. The Secretary of State could not have been more clear in saying that, for the transitional arrangements to apply, the local government Bill has to be passed into law. If the hon. Gentleman can give me an example of when, as leader of a council, he had to measure his rates against a notional figure invented in Marsham Street, and when the rate did not conform to that notional figure, he had the grant withdrawn, we shall be able to say that nothing new has happened—because that is what will happen if the Bill passes into law.
Mr. Townend: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. When councils make decisions to levy a rate, they have to make them when the full facts are not always known. Councils always have to gamble on the rate of inflation and on the question whether the rate support grant increase order will compensate the authority in full.
Mr. Hattersley: No one would disagree with that, but the fact that we are persistently trying to draw attention to is that a considerable new uncertainty has developed. If the hon. Gentleman were still leader of a council, he would find that actions that he took totally legally

1691
would be the subject of penalties if the Bill became law.
Mr. King: That is incorrect, and I shall explain it.
Mr. Hattersley: The Minister of State assures us that he will explain later this evening how that is incorrect, and we look forward to that with great anticipation.
The uncertainties are greater than those that I tried to describe to the right hon. Gentleman. It appeared initially that the Secretary of State had it in mind to penalise all authorities that went over his notional limit, but uncertainties have grown. He told us this afternoon—he has certainly said this with accelerating force in a series of documents—that there will be a margin of sin, passing through which a wide variety of authorities will be punished in various ways. He initially said that he would penalise those authorities wih a "large difference" between their notional rate and their actual rate. He went on to say that he would penalise those with a "substantial difference." His third definition was that he would penalise those with a "very substantial difference", and this afternoon he said that he would penalise those that flagrantly challenged the will of the Government.
In a letter sent out by his Department in the past week or so, the position was slightly changed again. The Department said that some authorities would have to spend more than the 119p,but because of their specific individual circumstances the Secretary of State might let them off. It also said that the Secretary of State hoped, believed, wished, that he would have to penalise only a handful of authorities.
In terms of simple constitutional justice, is it remotely right that such arbitrary powers should reside in the hands of the Secretary of State? He will say to one authority "You have broken the limit that I set down but I will let you off", to another "You have broken it, but not by enough for me to cut up rough with you" and to a third "It is not your rate poundage that I am complaining about but your attitude and decision to challenge the Government."
Challenging the Government is a matter not of public expenditure but of politics. The right hon. Gentleman should under-
1692
stand—and I hope that others will grow to understand—that this power has absolutely nothing to do with public expenditure. If, as his letter suggests, he intends to penalise only six or eight authorities, his savings are absolutely minimal. The right hon. Gentleman wants half a dozen scalps to take with him to the Conservative Party conference, and that is what the entire operation is about. It is throwing an uncertainty into the operation of local government which is wholly intolerable, and it has been done for partly political and partly personal reasons.
We shall fight the Bill and explain to ratepayers the standards with which the right hon. Gentleman discharges his stewardship. The Labour Party believes in local government autonomy and the right of elected councillors to make their own decisions for their areas:
"Local authorities are usually best placed to assess the needs of their localities and to know the priorities. That is why they are elected. They must enjoy the maximum freedom to use their discretion and not have to refer to civil servants for detailed approval of their policies and proposals".
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his latter remark with the 1976 Education Act, where choice was directly removed from local authorities?
Mr. Hattersley: I thought that I might be asked that question. I do not reconcile it. Lord Butler does. His 1944 Education Act said that education was a national service, locally administered. His Second Reading speech made it absolutely clear that from that day onwards there would be a great deal more national description, of the secondary system in particular, than is the case with other services. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would like to go down in history in the manner of his illustrious predecessor, and will describe it in exactly those terms—a national service, locally administered, which is what it says in the Act.
Before I was interrupted I was reading—I hope touchingly—from the works of the Secretary of State. I was informing the House of his comments on local authority autonomy—about councillors being best placed to decide the interests of their areas and the importance of keeping civil servants out of the detailed

1693
working of local government. The right hon. Gentleman said that in a speech made in Banbury on 1 July 1978. I assure him that we still believe in that and that we would pursue the policy that he then accurately described, not least because of what the alternative does to local government.
If local authorities cease, in effect, to be housing authorities—and that is what will happen if yesterday's Housing Bill is passed—and if the unitary grant system is brought in—which is what will happen if the local government Bill is passed—one is bound to ask why men and women of talent, both Conservative and Labour, should want to spend their time administering the details of policy that is decided in Westminster. The drift away from local power and local autonomy to the centralised decisions of Marsham Street seems to be fundamentally bad for local democracy and local community.
To the Opposition these powers are wrong in principle. When they are applied, as they must be, against the financial details of the rate support grant order, it becomes clear how bad they are in practice. Before I describe the Opposition's view about the distribution of funds, I must return to one of the supplementary points in the order and in the statement made by the Secretary of State when he announced his intention to the consultative council.
He told the council—he has not mentioned this today—that his assumptions about rates and his decisions about the RSG were based on the belief, hope and intention that local authority rents would be increased by £1·50. Clearly, that has a direct effect on the rate support grant because it has an effect on contributions other than rents to the housing revenue account. The anticipated level of rents is a central issue in the rate support grant settlement, which is why the Secretary of State announced his £1·50 intention at the outset. In fact, he said that he hoped that councils that were legally entitled to do so would increase their rents by £1·50. Some are not entitled to do so because at present they are not allowed to maintain substantial and permanent balances in the housing revenue account. But if the Housing Bill, which got a Second Reading yester-
1694
day, becomes law they will be so entitled. Therefore, I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that if and when that Bill becomes law he will expect an increase of £1·50 in those local authorities' rents as well.
That will result in substantial permanent balances—what in crude terms might be called profits—in housing revenue accounts. In other words, there will be surpluses. When the consultative document on housing policy was issued in November, the Secretary of State said that he would shortly tell the House and the country what would happen to those surpluses. He has not done so. I specifically asked him yesterday what would happen to the surpluses, and his Minister of State either did not or could not tell us in his winding-up speech.
It is extraordinary that we should go through two legislative processes about an issue central to the life of this country—the building un of surpluses or profits in local authorities' housing revenue accounts—when all we know is that the Secretary of State wants local authorities to make and hold this money. He persists in not telling us what he expects them to do with it. I hope that when the Minister of State replies, as well as telling us that this is not a change, he will tell us exactly what will happen to that housing money. In so doing he will make up for the defects of his colleague yesterday evening.
Mr. George Cunningham: Tell us now.
Mr. Hattersley: No. I do not ask him to tell us now. I look forward with eager anticipation to the winding-up speech at 9.30 pm.
In anticipation of that, I shall make two or three comments about the financial settlement. First, it has a superficial resemblance to last year's settlement. The proportion is 61 per cent., as was our settlement. The needs and resources elements were 67·5 per cent. and 32·5 per cent. respectively. The same ratios applied to our needs and resources elements. But there is one way in which this settlement is substantially and significantly different from ours, and that is the way in which cash limits are to be used. I make it clear that I am a supporter of cash limits. Some of my hon.

1695
Friends are not, and most of the trade unions and the public services are not. I believe that cash limits, properly applied, are a necessary element of financial prudence within local government and within national government in the nationalised sector.
There are two ways of looking at this issue of cash limits, and the way in which the right hon. Gentleman looks at it—describing the limit as "an envelope figure"—is a total misuse of that principle.
When cash limits were invented, the idea was that reasonable assessment would be made of necessary approved and unavoidable expenditure. The cash limit describing that would be set, and in order that there should be no frivolous or flippant expenditure that cash limit should not be exceeded.
The right hon. Gentleman has not made an assessment of necessary, agreed or unavoidable expenditure but has made an artificially low estimate so that an artificially low cash limit, in itself, acts as a further cut, albeit a disguised one. I refer to his intentionally Delphic statement that a 13 per cent. cash limit was "compatible" with increases in prices and wages of 13 per cent. That was not a cash limit that anticipated that wages would increase by that amount. It was one that would tell local authorities that they must not increase wages by more than that, otherwise they would have to pay a penalty.
I see the Secretary of State nods as if he approves of my definition. If he does, he is imposing a surreptitious incomes policy on the local authority sector. I am in favour of incomes policies that are not surreptitious. I actually believe that an incomes policy is an essential ingredient in the economic health of this country. But I believe in open incomes policies that apply to the economy as a whole and not in surreptitious ones that apply only to local government. The Secretary of State is not saying that he thinks local authorities will be forced into 13 per cent.—although the figures show that his cash limit is not consistent in 1980–81; he is telling local authorities that unless they hold wages down to that level they have a problem and they will have to sack people or cut services. This is an additional cut, and the Secretary of State should admit it.
Mr. King: I am very interested in the right hon. Gentleman's comments. He criticises what we have done. Perhaps he would tell us his alternatives. Is his alternative to have no cash limits on the increase order, to wait and see what happens to all the wages and then undertake to pay, regardless of whatever wage agreements are reached in local government? Or is he saying that he would take a judgment at a later date on the amounts that he would pay? Does this not leave his alternative open to the earlier criticism that he made—that local authorities would have no idea where they stood?
Mr. Hattersley: Extraordinarily enough, I expected to be asked about that. What I would do for the future is what we announced we would do this year. As part of the pay policy, the national Government must be involved in local authority negotiations. I believe that, as we take part in those negotiations, we must say that any national agreement forged between the local authorities and their unions would be underwritten by the Government. Therefore, if we were party to an agreement, we would pay 61 per cent. of the consequences of that agreement.
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, of whom I genuinely expect better, should have asked me that question, because the former Chief Secretary—my right hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett)—who is becoming one of the gurus of the Opposition on public expenditure, said on 19 March last year that his cash limit intention was that as the Government involved themselves in a proper incomes policy those local authority agreements which were endorsed by them would obtain grants from them.
That seems to be the only way to run this policy. It has the second advantage of being honest. I believe that there are substantial bonuses in that, rather than trying to impose the extra squeeze in this disreputable and perverse way. Local authority associations—at least, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—calculate that the difference between the honest figure and the surreptitiously low figure, which will result from the bogusly small cash limits, amounts to about £300 million, and that that total, 3 per cent. of the wage bill of local authorities, can

1697
result only in substantial reductions in expenditure and substantial reductions in services. It forces on local authorities the decision to choose between cutting services, sacking employees and increasing rates, or all three things. In some areas, it impinges on their rights and destroys their services more heavily than others.
This leads to my final point on the settlement itself. Anyone who has read previous rate support grant debates will know that the right hon. Gentleman has three passionate beliefs. One is that regression analysis is bad. The second is that it is not helped by what has come to be called dampening. The third is that London in general, and central London in particular, is normally helped to an over-generous degree.
In this settlement, the right hon. Gentleman has observed all of his three prejudices. When he says that the rate support grant has been distributed on a standstill basis, he means that he has used the formula for needs which was applied last year. As a result, he is right in saying that the shire counties get a little more, although not quite so much more as he led them to believe at the county councils' meeting.
That is neither here nor there. I welcome the fact that they have not got as much as promised. I do not believe that there is great advantage in paying more to those people who neither want to spend it nor intend to spend it. Equally, the metropolitan areas have a little more. But the sufferers have been London, in general and inner London in particular. Inner London has suffered because of a strange piece of sleight of hand for which the right hon. Gentleman, who knows about rate support grant, is directly responsible.
In all his statements, the right hon. Gentleman says that the London total was distributed on the standstill basis for which the London Boroughs Association and the Greater London Council had asked. But they asked for that standstill basis of distribution on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman would update the formula and carry out a needs calculation this year. Standstill to them means something different from what it apparently meant to the right hon. Gentleman. As a result of the right hon. Gentleman's choosing part of their
1698
formula and applying it, but not applying the other part, numbers of London boroughs in desperate social environmental and financial need will be the main sufferers from this distribution. Hackney, Hammersmith, Islington, Lewisham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets are all authorities with substantial social and environmental problems, much greater than those throughout the country as a whole.
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman is making a serious charge. I ought to try to put the record straight. What he suggests is a fiction. The reason why London appeared likely to be losing so much this year is that relative wage levels in London, compared with the rest of the country, have narrowed substantially over the last 12 months. That factor, carried through into the calculations, brought about the changes that I then had to mitigate substantially by adjusting the clawback. That was the major contribution that I made in the discussions.
Mr. Hattersley: I do not doubt that for a moment, but the point that I made holds wholly true. The London Boroughs Association and the education authority asked for two things. One was a recalculation of the needs element and the other a distribution on a specific basis. The right hon. Gentleman chose to abide by their second suggestion and boasted about it in his statement. But he ignored their first suggestion. As a result, London loses a great deal.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that he has constructed a safety net through which no one suffers by more than 3p. But he is requiring local authorities to cut down their expenditure and threatening to penalise them if they fail to do so. To say to Hackney, Hammersmith, Islington, Lewisham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets that before they start on the operation they are the equivalent of 3p down on the rates is an enormous burden for those authorities to carry. It is a burden that they have to carry before facing, in common with all authorities, the additional squeeze due to the bogusly small—I almost said fraudulent; but certainly intentionally small—cash limits that the Secretary of State is imposing next year.
How should local authorities respond? The right hon. Gentleman seems to believe that he is doing my character and

1699
reputation deep damage by describing me as chief proponent of resistance to the cuts. That is not quite my role, although I have no great objection to the right hon. Gentleman continuing so to describe me. The right hon. Gentleman claims to believe that this is wrong in principle. In his statement to the consultative council of the authorities' associations, he says that all parties in local government in the past have accepted the judgment of the party in national Government about overall levels of expenditure. That was so when there was a national consensus on these matters and when all believed in preserving and protecting public services, but the Government have spent the last year bragging about how they have broken down the consensus. If they have broken the consensus, they cannot expect to recreate it from time to time on individual items that happen to be convenient to them.
Different councils will react in different ways. All, I believe, will react according to law. That is a special obligation imposed not only on all citizens but especially on men and women elected to democratic local government authorities. But, as they respond, they must make their own judgments on what is best for their areas. They must make their own judgments about the necessities of their ratepayers and about the promises they made when elected. Those judgments need not be influenced by circulars sent to them by the right hon. Gentleman. Despite the extraordinary arbitrary powers that he is taking to himself, and his right—if a Bill yet to be presented to the House becomes law—to descend on local authorities and punish them for using their discretion, Great Britain is not ruled at this moment by ministerial circular.
A ministerial circular is a statement of the right hon. Gentleman's opinion. Until he changes the law in order that these pains and punishments may be exacted, I expect that many local authorities will want to use their own judgment about what is best for their areas. Some may be penalised by the right hon. Gentleman. In the meantime, I hope that they will do two things. I hope that they will be adamant and specific in describing where the blame lies—not simply blame for reduction in services but blame for increasing rates, which are also the
1700
right hon. Gentleman's responsibility, in county after county and in borough after borough across the United Kingdom.
I was delighted to find, on visiting Wales, that two authorities, not controlled by the Labour Party—although I believe that they soon will be—were exercising their proper rights, using ratepayers' money, to explain that when services were closed down this was a direct result of Government action rather than the will of the locally elected councillors. I hope that more authorities will do the same. I hope that they will place the blame where it belongs and that when they have an opportunity they will make sure that where cuts must fall—for some will fall—they fall on the shoulders of the people most able to bear them, specifically the people who benefited most from the income tax reductions six months ago.
Finally, I hope that Labour local authorities will go on making clear that our intention is, for as long as we can, whenever we can, to protect public services during the tenure of office of the right hon. Gentleman and to restore them at the first opportunity.
6.10 pm
Mr. Hugh Fraser: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made what Labour supporters will regard as a fine, rousing speech, but many of us on both sides of the House are devoted to two prime local government and taxation matters—keeping taxes down and rates down. Those are the problems that face the country. It is also important to explain how the rates are arrived at, which is becoming more and more obscure to the average ratepayer.
We in Stafford shire are grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, because there has been a slight reduction in what might have been the imposition under the previous system, as run by the Labour Government, of about £1·8 million this year. Nevertheless, Stafford shire faces this year an increase in rates, even after the cuts, of between 20 and 25 per cent. This is what should worry every hon. Member.
I should like to say a few words about the presentation of rates to the ordinary citizen, so that he has some idea of what

1701
they are based on and how they are arrived at. Most hon. Members will agree that the principle of multiple regression analysis is about as complicated for a layman to understand as multiple sclerosis is for those who do not suffer from the disease. I can imagine nothing more complex, nothing that has become less understandable to the general public. If we look at the various factors that are brought into the analysis, we find again and again that they are outside the comprehension of the ordinary individual, and certainly of many councillors and councils. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has said again and again that he wishes to be rid of this principle.
Unfortunately, some of my right hon. Friend's proposals, when he goes on to the question of what I think is called the universal grant system, still contain concepts similar to the various factors which I think run very unfairly against individual counties and authorities. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider a simplification of these factors in the needs element.
The needs element can be laid down by the Minister concerned. I believe that in Stafford shire we have about 14 categories, which I think could easily be reduced in number. I hope that they will be reduced when my right hon. Friend gets to work on the categories. In my view, they could be limited to four—population, education, social services and costs. Stafford shire county council has produced a working paper which I hope my right hon. Friend will consider. The principle that I have advocated would make it much easier to comprehend the problems that are put before the average ratepayer.
Mr. George Cunningham: It is very convenient to suggest that one can reduce this complex apparatus to four variables, but is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that, for example, the area of the rating authority should not betaken into account? Is he seriously suggesting that the speed of population rise, which imposes severe burdens, and the speed of population decline, which imposes severe burdens on other areas, should not be taken into account? Does he not think that if one gets down to it one must have one factor after another, and that in the end one will return to
1702
something that is almost as complicated as the present arrangement?
Mr. Fraser: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Population is a broad category, but at present a great deal of the needs element is worked out on data which are out of date or do not exist. Much of the data is computerised, and there is a data freeze which means that the figures are often two or three years out of date. This is one of the great problems facing the Government.
I am very nervous about what my right hon. Friend proposes as regards the unitary grant system. I am sure that he is having consultations about it. It could mean that a needs grant would have to be applied to the 430 local authorities, which would be even more complex. This is worrying. It would put an extreme burden on my right hon. Friend's Department and it could be dangerous in the hands of successor Governments, who might use this method of controlling local expenditure against the interests of an authority's citizens.
Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will have long and deep consultations before the unitary grant is imposed. I hope also that in the process the needs element will be more simply assessed than it is now. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind Stafford shire county council's working paper proposing simplification, which would be of great benefit.
The burden of local government expenditure has risen, is rising and needs to be checked, but an even more serious factor is now emerging. It is that some of Labour's efforts to patch up inner urban areas, to transfer money from the slightly better-off areas to central London, Glasgow, Liverpool or wherever, are merely cosmetic and do not deal with the main problem, which is much more serious than the question of rates or even Government grants in one year. Inner city decay is far too serious to be dealt with by switching a few million pounds from one county to an inner city area. I know that my right hon. Friend is considering the problem and that one day he will take action. It is probably the biggest environmental problem that the country faces, and it cannot be met by such measures as moving a few million pounds from Stafford shire.

1703
We in Stafford shire are grateful for what my right hon. Friend has done to help us this year. We are fearful of the rate burden that will still have to be imposed after the cuts that our county council has made. We ask my right hon. Friend to look very carefully at the question of the unitary grant before it is imposed on the country.
6.18 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: Thousands of my constituents are currently in despair and in a state of considerable anger because of the steel strike. Therefore, I propose to speak very briefly, as I should like to have an opportunity to say a word about that matter tomorrow. However, I believe that I should also speak this afternoon, because, although thousands of my constituents are steel workers who are currently feeling anger, I have even more constituents who will feel distress and despair as a result of the arrangement that the Secretary of State has commented on relatively briefly and slightly.
I did not believe that the shabby and not entirely honest approach of the last Conservative Government in the months before the February 1974 election could be repeated, but it seems to me that there is a real parallel now. I suppose that it was understandable that in January 1974 that Government should have been rather less than frank and less than honest in their presentation of the local government financial arrangements. An election was impending, and I suppose that the temptation was great. But we are perhaps quite a long way from an election, and the right hon. Gentleman's partisanship and less than fair presentations are not at all justified.
I believe that the rate support grant statistics were demonstrably out of date as soon as the right hon. Gentleman delivered the assessments, and that he knew it. I believe that the basis of his calculation is grossly inadequate. I do not think that he has allowed for the level of interest rates which applied at the time the grant was announced, and it certainly will not counter the enormous effects of the high interest rates that have since developed.
The right hon. Gentleman has left local government to bear a heavy burden that has been compounded by his contempt for service in local government. I say
1704
that regardless of party. People of all parties devote their leisure time to serving their communities, and their capacity to serve, and meet the needs of, those communities has been greatly imperilled. Despite the obvious contempt in which the right hon. Gentleman holds local government, I hope that he will have meaningful consultations with the local authority associations in the next few weeks about two or three important matters.
First, the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider the level of increase orders which he clearly knows will be necessary during 1980. Secondly, he should consider with the local authorities a case for necessary changes in his proposal for capital expenditure arrangements. Perhaps at the same time he can consider with local government the appalling effect of his policies on the building and civil engineering industries. They are already benighted and will be crucified as a result of his policy during 1980.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be more frank and less ambitious in his approach to waivers. My authority, Rotherham borough council, is precepting for the current year at 116·9p in the pound. The right hon. Gentleman says that that authority will have to levy an increase within 116·9p in the pound. There is no way in which our borough council can meet his requirement. It will be an offender entering the area of sin to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred.
The right hon. Gentleman suggests that councils—already prudent—should carefully monitor appointments as vacancies arise. The already prudent Rotherham council, which cannot meet his target, has operated that procedure for a long time. The problem is not the result of political extremism or anything of that sort. I believe—and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has adequately considered the point—that the smaller metropolitan authorities, such as we find in Yorkshire, whether Labour or Tory-controlled, have a particular problem.
Areas such as mine, consisting of smaller and older industrial communities, with some rural seats normally identified with the affluent shire counties, also have severe problems. The distribution and

1705
apportionment of grant does not take account of those problems. This is not the first time that I have made the point. Some hon. Members may remember that I criticised my own Government in November 1978. Some advantages ensued in 1979, but metropolitan authorities with populations under 350,000 could be at a particular disadvantage.
I notice that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), who should be aware of the problems of smaller metropolitan areas, is moving his head. I do not know whether he agrees with me or not. Those authorities face difficulties. They are exercising prudence and seeking to meet needs, and I hope that they will continue to do so. However, it seems to me that the rules under which local government must operate in 1980 will make their task exceptionally difficult.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise sometime during the year that, though his personal ambition may be important, the maintenance of education services and the care of the growing number of elderly people—a problem causing distress and anxiety to many hon. Members—will not be ensured unless he adopts a more generous and thoughtful attitude.
I trust that I am not being unfair to the right hon. Gentleman, but it has been said that he does not like his job and that he would prefer another important Department of State. I hope that the comment of my right hon. Friend that there is a strong suspicion in the country that the Secretary of State is looking for a few scalps to dangle before the ladies at the Tory Party conference in a bid for more popularity in the party is not correct. If it is correct, and if it results in the right hon. Gentleman's being transferred or promoted to some other high office, I hope that his attitude will not have been maintained to the point at which the whole of local government—Tory or Labour-controlled—will say, as it is justified in saying now, that the Department of Industry's loss is the Department of the Environment's gain.
If that movement were the case, I suppose that the price of those half-dozen scalps would be relatively modest. Far though we may be from a general election, the right hon. Gentleman is not being fair and honest in maintaining
1706
the position which he has so far outlined.
6.25 pm
Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I am glad that this year we are having a full day's debate on the rate support grant. Those of us who were here at this time last year will remember that on the day when we should have had this debate the Tribune Group mounted a campaign which meant that we, then in Opposition, lost a Supply day. That Supply day was then moved to a day when the Government said that we were to have a debate on the rate support grant. Therefore, a whole day on the rate support grant was lost. We did not begin the debate until after the 10 o'clock vote. We had four hours' debate. That is how much the then Government cared about the rate support grant. Mr. Deputy Speaker at that time said that we were to have a debate within a debate, because the Scottish Members also took part. Many hon. Members sat until the early hours of the morning and never got the chance to discuss this important issue.
My constituency is in an area adminisstered by Trafford council, which is a new authority. It was set up during local government reorganisation and it consists of seven smaller local authorities. When the Labour Government announced the rate support grant figures in 1974, we were given 50 per cent. of what could have been expected for each of those seven smaller authorities had the old system applied. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) shakes his head. I ask him to check the facts. At that time Trafford had a massive rate increase, perhaps the biggest in the country. Trafford's basic problem was that prior to reorganisation no part of the new borough of Trafford had enjoyed county borough status.
None of those smaller authorities, therefore, had a social services department of its own or was itself a local education authority. The reasons for the increase put forward at the time were that it was difficult to assess the grant for a new authority such as Trafford. We therefore had to start from scratch with parts of Lancashire and Cheshire. Disparate problems—as, I am sure, hon. Members will admit—are created by the merging of such areas.

1707
Although the council has tried over the years to be careful about spending the ratepayers' money, we have, in successive years, been clobbered by the rate support grant. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that the policy of the late unlamented Government was to pour money into spendthrift councils and to deprive thrifty councils of necessary cash.
Trafford's problem results from the way in which the resources element has been worked out. In 1979–80 the resources element for our council was £2·8 million, but that accounted for only 3·7 per cent. of expenditure. That element worked out at £12 per head of the population. That figure is far and away the lowest in Greater Manchester county and is derisory compared to the £91per head that is paid to Wigan.
The resources element is the root cause of many of the problems in my area and has plagued us ever since the formation of the Trafford authority. It arises from the so-called relative wealth that Trafford enjoys due to its rateable resources. The effect appears to be that the resources grant tends to allow those authorities with low resources to spend more without undue effect on their ratepayers. Trafford ratepayers have suffered as a result of the treatment that we received from the last Government.
In 1971–80 the average domestic rate bill was higher in Trafford than anywhere else in the Greater Manchester area, and yet the rate levied by Trafford was below average. The rate support grant for Trafford was £96 per head of population, but over the whole of the Greater Manchester area it was about £166. That is one of the difficulties with which Trafford has had to contend.
It is not easy to explain the complexities of the rate support grant to constituents who complain about their rates. It is particularly difficult for a council that has tried desperately to keep down expenditure and consequently is penalised by the amount of rate support grant that it receives. We hoped that we would have a fairer deal under the new Government. The settlement was greeted with relief in Trafford. We feel that we are being treated more fairly. Had we received the same treatment when the Labour Party was in power, many of our problems would have been avoided.
1708
The Labour Party has much to answer for. The Labour Government determined the needs element of the rate support grant on the basis of multiple regression analysis. That is difficult enough to say; it is even more difficult to understand. That method relies heavily on out-of-date statistical information.
The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) moved resources from the shire counties, where the populations were increasing and the demand for services was increasing as a consequence, to the conurbations, where the populations were decreasing. Perhaps I am being cynical, but it happens that the shire counties tend to be run by Conservatives and the conurbations by Socialists. There is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman, with an eye on the forthcoming general election, urged local authorities to spend more. That there was no economic growth did not seem to bother him, because the game was how to win the election. Fortunately, the British people were not as gullible as the right hon. Gentleman thought they were.
We must accept that the economy is not in good shape and that public expenditure must be contained. Far too high a percentage of GNP is being used for public expenditure. As a consequence, taxation is too high. In order to create new wealth, we must reduce the burden of taxation and encourage incentives. If we create new wealth, we shall be able to afford socially desirable programmes and live within our means. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is being completely fair with the settlement. After the general election he asked local authorities to cancel the 1½ per cent. increase in expenditure that his predecessor encouraged. He then asked for a further reduction of 1½ per cent.—a total of 3 per cent. That is much in line with the last Government's proposals, when the International Monetary Fund had to intervene and censor the rate of public expenditure. In view of that, the screams of anguish from the Opposition sound rather hollow.
The Secretary of State is asking local authorities to effect economies. Because of that, and because he is asking them to take action that is not easy, he has maintained the level of central Government assistance at 61 per cent. The fairness of the settlement is illustrated

1709
by the reactions of the local authority associations. The Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of District Councils are, of course, not delighted with everything in the rate support grant settlement. However, they have accepted it overall. They have said that they are aware of the economic problems facing the country and of the Government's determination to reduce inflation. They believe that, taking those factors into consideration, the settlement is fair.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) is right to fear that ratepayers will be faced with substantial increases this year. I wonder how long we can continue the present domestic rating system. Before the 1974 general election, the Conservative Party promised a change in the system. The pledge has been pushed into the background.
Since then we have experienced four and a half years of Socialism, with enormous increases in taxation. I realise that the present Government's priority is to reduce direct taxation in order to get the economy moving. I hope that we shall find an alternative system of raising local government finance. The present system is grossly unfair. It takes no account of a person's ability to pay. I am sure that every hon. Member knows of elderly people living alone who pay exactly the same rates as the family next door with four wage earners. The houses are identical and, therefore, the rate bills are identical.
Rate rebates help marginally and offer some relief to hard-pressed ratepayers. However, water rates are now levied on the basis of rateable value and there are no rebates on water charges. That causes great bitterness and a sense of injustice, particularly among the elderly and the retired.
I welcome the rate support grant settlement. It attempts to be fair. I hope that we shall have a clear indication that the Government are still examining means of changing the present antiquated rating system and that they intend, before the end of this Parliament, to introduce a fairer system for raising local government finance.
6.37 pm
Mr. Kenneth Marks: I agree with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) about the difficulties experienced by some authorities created under the Conservative Government's reorganisation of local government in 1973. Trafford was formed from seven authorities. Part of Tameside is in my constituency. That was formed from nine authorities. The Knowsley authority has a similar problem. The difficulties of administration are caused partly because the municipal buildings are scattered all over the place. Whichever Government are in power should examine those problems.
The Labour Government did examine the problem. They did not make the reductions in rate support grant that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale claimed they made. He said that Trafford has the lowest rates in Greater Manchester, but he should consider whether that council is doing its job. He did not say whether he agrees with the cuts in education made recently by that council.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) talked about inner cities. He said that the solution to their problems cannot be achieved simply by transferring money from shire counties to inner cities. Our inner cities policy made an effort to solve the problems. We made a joint examination, by central and local government, and we took joint action. The same policy could be adopted for the shire counties. I am not sure that increasing rate support grant to the county councils will solve the problems of the less-well-off people in those counties. The problems should be examined jointly by central and local government. The Government should find the money to attack the problems.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone suggested that there should be a data freeze. That is precisely what we do not want. Multiple regression analysis comes in for much criticism. Sometimes I wonder whether it is not a little like democracy—the worst system, except for all the others. We have no idea whether the proposed system will be better.
The right hon. Gentleman may have ideas that he intends to discuss with

1711
local authorities, but we do not know what they will involve, whether they will involve civil servants from the regional offices visiting the various authorities and deciding what the needs are.
In the past I visited a number of local authorities which suffered a great many disasters—coastal erosion, flood, blizzard and pollution of the air and water. However, the impression I get now from visiting local authorities—not simply those that are Labour-controlled—is that there has been no greater disaster than the appointment of the present Secretary of State, although perhaps the Tory reorganisation of local government in 1973 would run him a close second.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the effect of his solution on particular groups—young families, for instance? I am referring not to those on supplementary benefit but to those on low wages who need the incentive to work. Probably no group has suffered more from the Government's policies than families in this group—a family in which the husband is working on a fairly low wage, with children to support. I suspect that if the right hon. Gentleman knew of the effect he would not care.
I remember when the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who is now Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, became Secretary of State for the Environment. I recall his visiting city centre areas and industrial towns and being profoundly shocked at the conditions. I do not believe that the current Secretary of State is capable of being shocked. He is perfectly happy as long as the Conservative Party conference is happy. However, his proposals, combined with those of Treasury Ministers and Ministers in the Departments of Education and Science, Social Services and others, attack the young family. We heard this afternoon about the increases in gas prices. Those families will cop it. There has been news about a freeze of child benefits. That, too, will hit the same group. In education there will be big increases in school meal costs—particularly with Conservative local authorities—and school transport charges. That large, valuable and important group of families is being made to bear the brunt of the cuts.
The Secretary of State ordered, demanded or asked for—whatever the term
1712
is—a freeze on local government recruitment as soon as he took office. Such a freeze can be one of the most stupid of measures. One of my local authorities imposed such a freeze when the Conservatives came into power locally. It delaved the placing of every advertisement for 10 weeks. Posts for health inspectors, highways inspectors and so on, jobs which are needed to assess requirements, were simply not filled, and the whole programme was delayed. That kind of staff shortage caused by a freeze harms the very efficiency that the Secretary of State is demanding.
The right hon. Gentleman demanded a 3 per cent. cut from the local authorities to enable them to make the adjustment to the lower levels of expenditure that were coming. The cut was to get them in the mood. Then he said that he would assist them by giving them greater discretion. At the time, I asked him what he would do if councils failed to carry out their statutory obligations as a result of making the cuts. He replied that he did not expect any local authorities to do that. However, he is removing the statutory obligations on local authorities to carry out functions that are necessary to provide decent services. The Secretary of State is not the only Minister to do that. He and his colleagues are producing a series of measures concerning public services which can be designed only to worsen them. They have done it in such a way that the local authorities—this applies certainly to Conservative-controlled Trafford and Labour Manchester and Tameside—will get the odium and blame for what is to be done.
In his speech to the local authorities, and again today, the Secretary of State spoke of the drift of grant from the shire counties and the metropolitan areas generally. I was amazed to hear that the metropolitan authorities had had an increase in the proportion of the total grant of 0·7 per cent. in five years.
Mr. King: This is a complicated subject, and I understand the hon. Member's difficulty. He is confused over the change this year. The drift over the period to which my right hon. Friend referred is not from the shire counties to the metropolitan districts, but much more from the shire counties to London.
Mr. Marks: But the attack is largely upon the metropolitan districts, some of

1713
which are being considered, though not named, as the big spenders.
One of the problems facing councils in their consideration of this year's rates stems from the announcements that have been made in respect of the rate support grant about the unitary system and the temporary measures to be taken this year to achieve it. I believe that the Government are building a new grants system on an ossified rate system, using completely out-of-date rateable values. When those rateable values were originally set, there were a great many anomalies throughout the country. In certain areas they are much higher than in others. In Wales, for example, they tend to be much lower. This is not simply a question of the amenities. It is because the district valuers who did the job were used to doing it for a particular area. That should be considered with the introduction of any new grant.
Mr. Gordon Oakes: Quite the reverse of that is that the Government have postponed the 1981 revaluation, which will make the position the worst it has been for years.
Mr. Marks: We do not know when it is postponed until. No date has been given for a possible new revaluation. These transitional arrangements for the new unitary grant are worrying councils at the moment.
Both authorities in my constituency ask whether they are regarded as one of the big spenders. The Secretary of State spoke this afternoon—I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) missed the additional definition that the Secretary of State gave about "substantial" and "very substantial" and so on—about local authorities that indulge in serious and sustained overspending. What did he mean by "sustained" overspending? Did he mean for the next three years or for the past three years? Will the matter be judged simply on this year's rate poundage, or will the past be considered?
Let us consider Manchester, for example. Its present rate at £1·25 is 6p over the standard which the Secretary of State is suggesting. If that goes up 10 per cent.—and we have heard of some rates going up 25 per cent—will Man-
1714
chester be regarded as one of the big spenders? Manchester does not regard itself as overspending. It has had the backing throughout the years—in spite of the unpopularity of Labour Governments—of the electorate, because the councillors have retained their hold on Manchester. They have done what they have done honestly and openly and have put the facts to the people, spelling out the requirements, as have other metropolitan authorities which might be accused of being big spenders.
Where do such authorities stand on this matter? In working out the rates, they have to consider whether the Secretary of State will penalise them. They must consider whether they will need to impose an even bigger rate to pay the punishment that they will suffer for going too high. They have no idea, and they are now discussing what their rate poundage should be for the coming year. The Minister of State owes it to those local authorities to be much more explicit when he replies to the debate than the Secretary of State was.
Let me give an example of what may be regarded as overspending. The city of Manchester sends 50 per cent. of its children aged between 3 and 5 to nursery classes or nursery schools. I think that Trafford sends 10 per cent. Who is doing the job? What are the needs of the areas? I believe that it is for those local authorities to decide what they should be spending on education and whether nursery education, which Manchester regards as vital to the whole education system, should be provided. This applies to a great many other matters, such as pupil-teacher ratios and so on. What we have before us is an incentive to some authorities to increase their rates to more than they would have done. I hope that the Minister of State will consider that carefully.
I put one other specific question. Where there are county and district authorities, which authority is to be punished? The city of Manchester has two lots of rates—and so does Tameside. It has its own and it has the precept which the Greater Manchester council, which is of a different political persuasion, puts on it. If they are to be regarded as big spenders and spend substantially more, or if we use the other definitions given by the Secretary of State, who is to do the suffering—the county or the city, or both?

1715
It was in the 1930s that we last heard the expression "guns before butter". What we have been hearing from the present Government—I say this despite recent events—is "guns before education; guns before meals for children; guns before child benefit."
I hope that we shall examine whether we seriously need the expenditure that is being made in other fields and whether, for the future of our country—and that is what we are talking about—the kind of expenditure that local government makes is not the most essential expenditure of all.
6.52 pm
Mr. Graham Bright: This debate on the rate support grant for the next financial year is of great importance to the country. For many years, local authorities have been undertaking a growing range of responsibilities. An increasing proportion of total Government spending has been in their hands. The burden on the taxpayer and the ratepayer has grown accordingly. As the people of Britain recognised last May, there is a clear limit to the amount that they can be expected to pay. That is a fact that we should all recognise. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not only on recognising it but on translating it into action by the Government. His proposals are realistic and will remove the anomalies that have developed in the past five years.
The biggest problem that local authorities have had to cope with recently has been the formula employed to calculate their spending needs. If there is an uglier combination of words in the English language than "multiple regression analysis", I have yet to hear it. The way in which these calculations were made and the formula was altered from year to year for the purpose of shifting resources to inner urban areas was objectionable in principle and damaging in practice. One does not solve the problems of the cities by starving the rest of the country of resources. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will welcome the fact that the drift of resources away from the counties has at long last been stopped.
My own county of Bedfordshire, which has had to cope with continuing immigration from London and Birmingham, has suffered from much more severe financial
1716
pressures than were necessary. Our rate now stands at 99p in the pound. As a result of my right hon. Friend's announcement on 16 November last year, we shall get the equivalent of an extra 2·3p. This is a small but welcome step in the right direction. But this new formula must be flexible enough to take account of special local needs, such as the high level of loan servicing and capital expenditure necessary in Bedfordshire.
I hope that this is a point on which the House can be more fully informed in the debate. It is one that I hope my right hon. Friends will follow with more pronounced effect when the new formula is worked out.
Quite how high a proportion of Government expenditure local authorities should be responsible for is a matter for the Government and the House. In the present economic situation, public spending and local authority spending have to be cut. The planned reduction of 4 per cent. in expenditure for 1980–81 that has already been announced represents relief from an illusory target. A total bill of £15,737 million is a reasonable sum.
I welcome the fact that central Government support is to be maintained at the 61 per cent, level. Local authorities need stability if they are to meet their commitments. I am particularly pleased that the level of domestic rate relief is to be kept at 18½p in England and 36p in Wales.
The pressure on domestic ratepayers has to be kept under very strict control. They are the people who will suffer if the effects of inflation on local councils get out of hand. Strict cash controls on the overall level of spending and on the allowance made in the increase orders is vital. I can assure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he will have my full support in adhering to the limits that he defined two months ago.
The steps that the Government have already taken are the right ones. We are fully entitled to ask local authorities to accept national responsibilities. We are entitled to define the guidelines within which they operate. But it is for local authorities themselves to define their own priorities. Some steps have already been taken. Local authorities now have greater discretion in providing and charging for certain services and in relaxing

1717
planning controls. Over 300 controls and requirements set out in Government circulars have been eliminated.
The new system of capital expenditure envisaged in the Government's consultative paper will allow local authorities more flexibility in determining their priorities. Provided that central Government allocations are equally flexible, there will be an important extension of local control in this area. Overall control at the centre must not restrict local choice. Bedfordshire must not have to submit inordinately detailed plans for approval by each and every Ministry. Provided that it is within the national standard, it should be free to act.
There is only one thing missing from this impressive list of measures—the most important aspect of local government finance: the reform of the domestic rating system. Domestic rates are an antique, unjust and highly inappropriate form of taxation. The system makes no distinction between the resources of ratepayers of vastly different means and it is subject to considerable geographical variation. It is a form of taxation that the Conservative Party has long been pledged to reform. It is a form of local taxation that I and many of my hon. Friends are determined to see replaced before the end of this Parliament.
Mr. George Cunningham: By what?
Mr. Bright: I fully support the reforms that my right hon. Friend has made. I ask, in response, for a recognition of the urgent need to relieve the domestic rate-payer of the burden he has borne for too long a period. This will complete the programme of reforms on which so promising a start has been made.
6.59 pm
Mr. John Fraser: I should like to start with what I suppose is a head note but which is really a footnote. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) about the necessity for rebates on the water rate. The extent of rate increases has been disguised by the extent to which some local government expenditure has been transferred to water authorities, not only for the supply of water but for sewerage.
1718
I rise mainly to oppose the orders and to speak largely about the London borough of Lambeth. I make no apology for doing that. I was elected to fight penal increases in taxation, because that is what one expects in terms of rate increases.
I do not defend gross attacks upon welfare and local government services—housing in particular. According to this Government, if an authority decimates its services, it is extremist and is acting in defiance of the Government. That, of course, will happen in some London boroughs. I do not apologise for mentioning Lambeth in that respect, because it is typical of other London boroughs.
Will the Minister tell me, either in his winding-up speech or during my speech, whether Lambeth is one of the relatively few boroughs which, on present assumptions, will be subject to the transitional provisions to which the Secretary of State referred?
Lambeth has two characteristics, shared by other London boroughs, which the Government choose either to ignore or to suppress. The first is that, if the standard of services per person is to remain constant, it requires an increase in the needs element in the rate support grant which goes to a borough such as Lambeth. One visualises that the needs in inner city areas will go on increasing in terms of the number of children in care, the number of old people and the symptoms of poverty with which we have to deal. That is the first thing that the Government fail to take into account in the inner London boroughs.
The second thing that the Government fail to take into account is what still remains a desperate and urgent housing shortage in Lambeth. Recently I took a selection of housing cases on one day only for Norwood in the borough of Lambeth. I should like to quote briefly from that one day's correspondence. The first letter reads:
"When Mr. X was interviewed by the Homeless Families Unit he was advised that the Council could not assist him with alternative accommodation."
Lambeth has a good housing record.
"…he had no children, his wife was not pregnant and both of them enjoyed good health."
Mr. John Major: Is not the fact that assistance was not

1719
available a clear indication of the need to revive rather than to destroy the privately rented sector, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) suggested yesterday?
Mr. Fraser: The legacy of misery in my borough and constituency has come largely from the abuses of privately rented accommodation.
I take a second letter, which reads:
"The period of deferment expires at the end of November 1979, but, on checking, it is apparent that there are over 1,000 more highly pointed applicants who have priority for rehousing."
A further letter reads:
"I am informed that a notice has been served on the owner of this property for substantial disrepair, and the council will carry out works in default…However, the property is not unfit and no action in respect of closure is proposed."
I refer to another example from the same day's correspondence relating to a house in multiple occupation, in gross disrepair and in need of fire escapes. There were many hundreds of families further up the waiting list and nothing could be done. My experience and that of many other inner London Members is of a despairing and tear-jerking list of housing cases which come to us every week despite everything that has been done.
The growing needs, expressed in needs element terms in the rate support grant, and the continuing urgent housing problem are not properly understood. The housing problem in inner London has got worse as a result of the Greater London Council's transfer of the outer London estates and the reduction in the amount and supply of accommodation which comes from the GLC.
Mr. King: I am asking this question not in a pejorative sense but out of genuine interest in the hon. Gentleman's comments. I have heard it said that Lambeth has more empty housing than any other authority in London in proportion to its housing stock and that it has the greatest rent arrears. I do not know whether that is correct, but, as the Member for Parliament for that area, the hon. Gentleman will be concerned about that matter. Would he care to comment on it?
Mr. Fraser: Rent arrears in Lambeth amount to about £3 million. That is too high and something should be done about it.
Lambeth has a number of empty houses, but the figure is distorted. If a local authority has a large housing and rehabilitation programme, which Lambeth has, there are bound to be empty houses. The bigger the programme of rehabilitation, the greater the number of unoccupied houses during that process of rehabilitation. I think that that to some extent explains those two matters.
I turn specifically to the effect of the orders. I shall deal first with the increase order for 1979–80. For Lambeth it involves a cut in expenditure for 1979–80 not of 3 per cent. but, because of the way that the cut of 3 per cent. across the board operates, of 4½ per cent. Put in another way, the increase order will involve a loss of £2·1 million for Lambeth borough council, or the equivalent of a 3·8p rate rise. That is a substantial incursion into the finances of a local authority which is already hard pressed both on services in general and housing in particular.
I turn now to the increase order for 1980–81. The Government require a reduction of 5 per cent. in relevant expenditure. That will involve Lambeth making a cut of one-twentieth in its services or, in cash terms, a cut of £8·6 million in rate support grant on top of the cuts which must come as a result of the increase order.
In order to maintain services at their present level—for example, the housing programme—we shall require a rate increase, discounting a rent increase, of about 56·3 per cent. Because of the extent to which the Government have failed to take account of the growing needs of the borough and because of the way that the grant has turned out in Lambeth, we are left with a cut for last year of about £2·1 million and for 1980–81 of about £8·6 million in a total budget—housing apart—of between £60 million and £70 million. That is a substantial cut. It is a cut which goes beyond decimation. In order to compensate for the cuts set out in the orders, there would have to be a rate increase of 10·5p before taking account of the effects in inflation, which would clearly

1721
lead to a substantial rate increase, and the effects of the increase in the minimum lending rate. That is without taking into account one penny of the housing revenue account, and that is where the greatest problem arises.
This Government—and to some extent their predecessors—have rightly allowed capital programmes for housing to go ahead but have not been prepared to subsidise the results of that capital expenditure. Over the past four years Lambeth has had £30 million of capital expenditure, none of which is to be allowed for subsidy purposes. There is no dispute that we need to spend this money on housing if we are to show concern for the dignity, welfare and standard of living of our constituents. Yet Lambeth had capital expenditure of £30 million over the past four years on which it is to get no subsidy at all. That is where the biggest element of the prospective rise in rates will come.
It is no use talking about rent increases. I said that I discounted rent increases in the anticipated rise of about 56 per cent. in the rate poundage. But we cannot get that much from rents. If we were to put up rents in Lambeth by 10 per cent., we would reduce the rate increase by about 2 per cent. Likewise, if we put up rents by 20 per cent. we would decrease the rate increase by about 4 percent.
If we want to put our housing revenue account into balance and if we want to compensate for the lack of subsidy on our housing programme, we shall have to increase every council tenant's rent by an average of £14, not the £1·50 standard, or charge a rent of between £55 and £60 a week for every new unit of accommodation provided. That is the rub. We cannot get over this by merely increasing the rents of council tenants.
Mr. King: The arguments that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is advancing seem to be consistent with what I believe has been the situation in Lambeth, where I believe rents have not altered since 1977. Can he confirm that that is correct and that the view is that there is no point in increasing council rents?
Mr. Fraser: It is true that, in accordance with a programme that was put forward by Labour councils at different
1722
elections, rents have not been increased over that period. But what I am trying to put into context is that the rent increases would not make a substantial diminution in the expected rate increase resulting from the Government's policies. The truth of the matter is that a borough such as Lambeth is caught in two jaws—the jaw of the decrease in rate support grant as a result of the freezing of the needs element and in the jaw of a Government who fail to provide enough subsidy to finance the capital rightly invested in council housing programmes in previous years to deal with the appalling housing conditions in which some people have to continue to live.
Mr. John Townend: If what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) says is correct, Lambeth now faces the same problem as many shire counties faced under the previous Government.
Mr. Fraser: I am afraid that is not right, because in terms of housing need there can barely be any comparison between the conditions in inner city areas such as Lambeth and the shire counties. That must be beyond dispute. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) will tell me whether his authority has a housing waiting list of 15,000 families and with about 500 people not only homeless but accommodated in hotels and guest houses because no council accommodation is available. That is the measure of the housing problem that we have, and it has been made irreparably worse because of the actions of the Greater London Council in getting rid of its out-of-county estates and putting a cordon round Lambeth, turning it into a housing ghetto. That is the result of the policies that have been pursued both by the Government and by the Conservative-controlled GLC.
Mr. John Heddle (Lichfield and Tam-worth): I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) because he has given way so generously on a number of occasions. It seems as though he is pleading a special case for wanting to spend more and more money to accommodate people who are putting pressure on his council's housing waiting list. However, he also admitted a few moments ago that his borough probably has more vacant properties than any other London borough. I should like to ask

1723
him two questions, one of which overlaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major) said a moment ago, the Housing Bill that we debated yesterday.
First, does the hon. Member agree that the short hold provisions in that Bill will reduce the pressure on his borough's housing waiting list by reaccommodating those people for whom new housing will otherwise have to be provided in existing vacant property? Secondly, does his borough pursue the excellent scheme of homesteading set up by the GLC?
Mr. Fraser: My borough does not pursue the homesteading scheme of the GLC. I know perfectly well that some of my constituents are denied the chance to be rehoused because of the policies pursued by that county authority. Furthermore, the figure for vacant accommodation is not the same as the figure for empty accommodation that is available for occupation. If one looks at the extent of the rehabilitation schemes in the borough, one understands immediately why there are empty premises. Many of those premises are actually in the course of acquisition for rehabilitation. So it is a red herring to talk about the number of empty properties that are available.
Given the present arrangements for the rate support grant, and given the failure of the Government to subsidise the capital expenditure that they have generously made available for the provision of new housing, discounting any rent increase, we are faced with an increase of about 56 per cent. in the rates. That is a horror story for one's constituents, if no other policies are pursued.
But that is not the end of the horror story. A further instalment is likely to come in November 1980. That is when the Government will have powers under the local government Bill and can operate the transitional provisions that were described by the Secretary of State in his opening speech.
I have the figures for Lambeth in rough form. The uniform rate for the country will be 119p. Lambeth's actual rate will be in the region of 150p. When we apply the Government's formula, Lambeth's notional rate will be 200p in the £ which is an excess of a little over 80p on the Government's standard rate. As
1724
I understand it, that makes Lambeth a borough that would be liable for what I call a penalty and what the Secretary of State calls the transitional provisions.
I would like an answer to this question: is Lambeth on the list? Lambeth has made it quite clear, as it is legally, democratically and politically entitled to do, that it will defy Government policies. That is what politics are all about. Lambeth is entitled to go to its electorate, as it did, to get a political programme that is in direct opposition to the Government's.
Lambeth is proudly guilty of its defiance. I suppose the Lambeth council rate poundage will be in excess of the Government's uniform rate poundage, and I believe that it is entitled to an answer before the rate decisions are made in the weeks approaching 1 April. I believe that Lambeth is entitled to know from the Secretary of State, or the Minister of State, whether, on present assumptions, it is on his list. I can assure the Minister that Lambeth has not been influenced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and has come to its own decision. But perhaps the Minister can tell us whether Lambeth is a candidate for the powers that he proposes to exercise in November this year.
The Government have put boroughs such as Lambeth in a difficult position. Such boroughs have been presented with three choices or, perhaps, a combination of choices. They have the choice of the bankruptcy of the council, the bankruptcy of local services, in the sense that they will have to be cut back to a significant extent, or possibly the bankruptcy of some ratepayers if there is to be a rate rise of the dimensions that are under discussion and in draft form at present.
In addition to that, the Government are forcing authorities such as Lambeth not merely into a state of defiance of and disagreement with the Government but into a form of rebellion. I was not elected to Parliament to cause the bankruptcy of my ratepayers or of my local services. I was elected to rebel against a system that compels people to continue to live in rotten housing conditions, sometimes having waited for a quarter of a century on a housing list.
I warn the Government that, unless they change their mind about the amount

1725
of resources that are to go to a borough such as mine, they are not merely creating hardship in terms of a cut in services or of a rise in rates; they are placing strains on society, on councillors and on those interested in politics and local affairs which tempt people to go beyond the law.
I hope that I shall have an answer to the question whether Lambeth is on the list and that we shall have an indication that, even at this point, the Government will think again about the effect of these orders on the borough of Lambeth in the forthcoming months.
7.17 pm
Mr. John Townend: We must look at this rate support grant settlement in the context of present economic circumstances. Having listened with interest to the way in which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley) prepared himself for the interventions that eventually arose, I was surprised at his audacity in blaming the economic situation purely on the present Government.
It seems incredible that the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten what happened last winter, when the previous Government's incomes policy was destroyed in a welter of industrial disputes and near anarchy in industry. The right hon. Gentleman has possibly overlooked the public expenditure plans to increase spending by £3,500 million, equal to 8p in the pound income tax, with no provision for where the money would come from. He seemed to ignore his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who admitted that public sector borrowing was £1½ million in excess of what he had planned.
With a problem such as we have in this country, where the gross domestic product is likely to go down rather than up, it must be that it is not so much the fault of this Government as the fault of strikes, low productivity and over-manning. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would do more good by suggesting to his trade union friends that they should always ballot members of trade unions before there were strikes. That would do a lot to put up this country's growth.
I welcome this year's rate support grant settlement. I agree with the view ex-
1726
pressed by the Association of County Councils that the settlement is as generous as could have been expected in the circumstances in maintaining a level of 61 per cent. Against the present economic backcloth, which is, without doubt, becoming worse, it is essential that we limit public expenditure. Indeed, many people who believe that to be true would feel that perhaps the Government have, if anything, been overgenerous in the rate support grant and that a settlement of 60 per cent. would have been more in keeping with the overall need to cut spending.
On the question of the distribution of grant, I must disagree with the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I welcome the change, because the Secretary of State has brought to an end a tendency which has been continuing now for a considerable number of years, taking grant away from the shire counties. Since 1973–74 they have lost about 16 per cent. of their share of rate support grant. I therefore welcome the fact that this trend has been halted and, in a very small way, reversed. This year my own shire county of Humberside receives in real terms an extra £1 million.
That is an important change which is to be welcomed, since over the past decade we have seen more and more resources poured into the inner cities, into central area redevelopment and central area renovation, especially in areas represented by Opposition Members. These areas have had an increasing share of resources, but at the same time many people have been unaware of the needs of other parts of the country.
In this connection, I speak in particular of rural deprivation. It is a myth that everyone who lives in the countryside is wealthy, living in a large detached house and running two large cars. In fact, many of our country areas have poorer services. Many of them have a large number of residents on low incomes. Let us be honest: work in agriculture has always been low-paid compared with work in manufacturing. Country people have often had to travel further to work and incur higher travel costs. The same is true of heating costs, since in many rural areas people have not had the advantage of cheap North Sea gas which those in the big cities have enjoyed.
Mr. George Cunningham:While I accept the validity of the sort of points that the hon. Gentleman is now making, apart from the weight to be attached to them, may I put to him this question? There is one extra factor to be taken into consideration. What is the average cash payment per domestic hereditament in his county of Humberside? I am referring to the actual cash payment, not the rate in the pound or the rateable value but the average cash payment on rates per domestic hereditament.
Mr. Townend: I have to say frankly that I do not have that figure in my head. I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman know in due course.
Mr. Cunningham: I know.
Mr. Townend: If the hon. Gentleman knows, he is better informed on that matter than I am. But I do not think that it is altogether relevant to the point that I am making that, whatever be the averages, within an average there are high and low, and a lot of people are not aware of the true extent of rural deprivation.
I turn now to the question of cash limits. I believe cash limits to be essential in local government if we are ever to bring common sense and control into public expenditure. Nevertheless, we should be frank and say that a cash limit of 13 per cent. will not prevent substantial increases in rates in many areas. I am convinced of that because it clearly does not take fully into account the existence and activities of the now famous—or perhaps I may say infamous—Professor Clegg and his comparability awards.
I can illustrate the size of the problem in my own area—I do have the figures for this example—by explaining what has happened in Humberside. When the Secretary of State last year asked all local authorities to reduce their budgets by 3 per cent.—the 1½ per cent. growth which has been allowed by the Labour Government and a further 1½ per cent.—Humberside loyally endeavoured to fulfil the Government's policy, and this required a reduction from its budget of about £5 million.
It is interesting to note the way things have gone in recent years, and I speak here having had many years' experience
1728
in local government before I had the honour to be elected to the House. When the Labour Government got into financial difficulties and had to make substantial reductions in public expenditure at the time when they were under the control of the IMF, they naturally turned to local government. The significant difference between what happened then and what is happening now is that the vast majority of Conservative-controlled councils, and, indeed, the vast majority of Conservative opposition on councils with a Socialist majority, fully supported the then Government's policy to bring public expenditure under control, whereas today, sad to say, many Labour authorities do not put the national interest first in the same way.
As I have said, the amount which Humberside had to save to get within the Government's guidelines was £5 million, yet the amount which it is likely to have to find in the coming year for increased wages is 10 times that £5 million.
It has now been suggested in many quarters that the comparability award in respect of teachers is likely to be about 20 per cent. An additional cost at this level cannot be met within the 13 per cent. cash limit, and, equally, it will not be possible to meet it by a reduction in manning levels. I do not think that there is any suggestion that the number of teachers should be reduced as the increases given by the comparability study rise.
With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues, I believe that they made a crucial mistake on taking power last May, a mistake which has made the task of the local authorities far more difficult than it need have been. In my view, in the first Budget soon after the election, when the new Government were considering public expenditure, they should have forthwith abolished Professor Clegg and his team.
Not only have the professor and his colleagues played a not insignificant part in increasing Government spending and borrowing, but the whole basis of their comparability awards is suspect and, in the view of many, inflationary. This is particularly so, I suggest, where the comparability is set by productivity in the private sector. Furthermore, it appears

1729
clear to me that the Standing Commission does not take adequate account of the value of inflation-proof pensions and job security in the public sector.
Some of the Clegg awards have been completely incomprehensible. I think, in particular, of last year's award for ancillary workers. It is generally accepted that the wages of cleaners and catering staff in the private sector are not higher than in the public sector—in fact, in many cases they are considerably lower—so that if there had been true comparability there would have been a reduction. I am not saying that there is no case for giving an uplift to these lower-paid workers in the private sector, but to increase wage rates in the public sector by a bogus comparability scheme is, in my view, just helping to twist the spiral of inflation.
I submit that the Government made that mistake, but there is always time to put it right and I ask my right hon. Friend to consult his colleagues at once so that this issue may be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Let the Standing Commission be abolished altogether or let its terms of reference and its personnel be changed.
I assure the Secretary of State that among the vast majority of local authorities he will receive complete support for what he is trying to do. Nevertheless, it is not in practice quite so easy to do it, and I think that it may be a little misleading to speak as we do of the number of employees in the local authority sector. During my period of office as a county council leader, my authority worked hard to reduce staffing levels. However, in getting the support of local authority leaders it would be helpful if certain facts were accepted unequivocally by the Government.
It should be recognised, for instance, that a considerable proportion of increased manning has been the direct result not of local government action but of central Government action. I draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the health and safety at work legislation. Of course, we are all in favour of health and safety. However, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no recorded death of a young school child by fire in a day school within the past decade. Despite that background,
1730
hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds have been spent on providing fire doors in schools that have been built to the highest level of safety. I am told that the number of children receiving injuries from fire doors has risen. Such factors should be considered.
Secondly, we are increasing expenditure on law and order. As we recruit more policemen, so expenditure increases. There has been a large increase in the number employed in the fire service. Responsibility for that increase lies to a great extent with the Labour Government, who interfered with the negotiations between local authorities and the union at the time of the firemen's strike. If ever there was an example of an issue being taken out of the hands of the local authorities by central Government, that was it. In trying to keep within their rigid pay policy, the Labour Government tried to cook the books. Instead of settling for one or two extra percentages in cash terms, they did a deal which, when costed a year later, was found to have cost local authorities an extra 30 per cent. That was an extremely expensive deal.
The raising of the school leaving age has to be taken into account. That action had the support of both sides of the House. However, in the view of many, including many in education, it has been a disaster. We now have to provide accommodation and teachers for many children who do not want to be at school and who cause disruption.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's undertaking to reduce statutory duties. I hope that he will continue the good work. There is scope for economies in manning. I ask hon. Members to remember that another factor has been the continuing reduction of working hours and a continuing increase in the length of holidays for local authority workers over the past decade. We read in the press that there is growing pressure for a further reduction in working hours. That will make it even more difficult to make staff economies.
I welcome the end of the multiple regression analysis. Despite numerous discussions with the county treasurer, I never really understood it. I always felt rather inferior, until I attended a meeting and was told that there were only about four people in the country who understood it.
Mr. John Fraser: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the definition of multiple regression analysis is repeating in future the mistakes that have been made in the past?
Mr. Townend: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's definition, but I do not think that it enlightens my understanding of a complex subject.
It is important that we deal with profligate authorities. Although some of the changes will be welcomed by local authorities, there will be some serious reservations. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take careful note of the comments of local authority associations. They accept that there are advantages in having a standard rate of expenditure and in profligate authorities being penalised. However, they are afraid that another Government will be set on expanding public expenditure at a rate that is faster than that which a local authority wants to pursue in increasing its rates. They are afraid that local authorities that "underspend" may be penalised.
We are to have a new capital framework. There is a real fear that there will be practical difficulties because the capital allocations are to be based on expenditure rather than on loan sanctions. We all know of the delays that can arise. The new system could increase public sector borrowing. There would be less inclination for local authorities to finance by other methods—for example, out of revenue or by leasing. The need for the changes is accepted, but there are worries and doubts. It is up to Ministers to try to overcome the problems by discussing them with local authorities. I support the rate support grant settlement. All in all, it is a fair one.
7.36 pm
Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) made two confessions I read in "Dod's" that he is a chartered accountant. However, he never got to understand regression analysis. I accept that the regression analysis device is not the easiest thing in the world, but nor is it something that ought to baffle in the end a person who is simultaneously a chartered accountant and the chairman of a largish local auth-
1732
ority. I think there is something bad about that.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman confessed that, despite those two positions, he is at the moment unaware of what the average rate payments in his area are, which I must say astonishes me. The average rate payments in my borough of Islington are £255 a year, just under £5 per week per domestic ratepayer. I do not think that he should be permitted to stay in his state of uncertainty for longer than is necessary.
Mr. John Townend Mr. John Townend rose—
Mr. Cunningham: Perhaps when the hon. Gentleman intervenes—in addition to saying whatever he is going to say—he will have a guess at what the average rate payments in his area of Humberside are.
Mr.Townend: Part of my professional training was never to guess. That is why I did not make the mistake that the hon. Gentleman hoped that I would make. As I did not have the figures in front of me, I did not guess. He was hoping that I would guess. He had the figures in front of him, and he would have been able to shoot me down.
Mr. Cunningham: I am just hoping to show that the hon. Gentleman does not know the answer.
Mr. Townend: Iintended to be honest to the House. I never indicated that I had the figures in my head. I admitted that I did not know them offhand. It is most unfair for the hon. Gentleman to say that I tried to imply that I had the answer in my head.
Mr. Cunningham: I did not suggest any such thing. It is perfectly clear that the last place that the answer is in is the hon. Gentleman's head. Here are the figures anyway. In Humberside the average for the rural districts is £101·65. That is for both the averages given in the normal publication on the subject. That is for all districts and the county area total. There are districts, for example, which go as low as £85 a year. The highest is £128 a year. That is, on average, just under £2 a week, and the very highest is less than £2·50 a week. That is not the be-all and end-all, the only relevant consideration, that we are discussing at the moment.

1733
But when the hon. Gentleman says that he welcomes the shift of central Government funds from areas like Lambeth and Islington, and inner city areas throughout the country, to areas like his, my God, he must explain how it is that more funds should be shifter to areas where the average domestic ratepayer is paying less than £2 a week and taken away from areas where the average domestic ratepayer is paying about £5 a week.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman bears in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and myself do not represent Mayfair. My constituents, who are paying an average of £5 a week in rates, are, very many of them, living in council flats—not in council houses with gardens, but often in tower blocks. They are paying, nevertheless, enormous rates of that size for very, very imperfect accommodation. That says something not only about the distribution of central Government finance but also about the entire rating system. The time is long overdue for a Committee of the House—an obvious body would be a Select Committee covering the Department of the Environment—to make an investigation into the rating system and highlight the inequalities of which so many hon. Members, not only the hon. Member for Bridlington, remain unaware.
Mr. Pawsey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last sentiments, when he calls for a Select Committee to examine rating. However, does he accept that in many rural areas there are what used to be termed rural slums? There are many low-paid farm workers in such areas. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those workers do not necessarily earn as much as those in inner cities? Surely, that is reflected to some extent in valuations of property and in the amount of rates that people can afford to pay.
Mr. Cunningham: Absolutely. If the hon. Gentleman joins me in trying to persuade Ministers that the level of income in an area should be relevant to the determination of the distribution of rate support grant, he will find that he is up against a brick wall. There was more validity in the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington that
1734
there are special and expensive costs lying upon the local authorities in rural areas but that the costs lying upon local authorities in city areas are even greater, costs that are different and certainly more onerous.
Rates are supposed to be an expenditure tax—a tax upon the amount of money that is expended upon housing, whether in the form of a capital sum, mortgage repayments or rent. It is normal when revising an expenditure tax to express it as a percentage of the thing on which it is a tax. Value added tax stands at the rate of 15 per cent., thus enabling people to see the original amount that they would have spent had VAT not been added. Rates in many parts of the country—my constituency is a prime illustration—are rising to a level where they are becoming a 100 per cent. tax on actual paid rent. A typical three-bedroomed flat in my constituency might have a rent of £8·64 a week. The rates on that flat would be £6·51. Subject to approval by the full council, Islington will be raising its rents next year by about 15 per cent. The rates seem inescapably bound to rise by about 40 per cent. The result is that I expect next year's rates to be about 90 per cent. of rent. As an expenditure tax, it is monstrously too onerous. Something must be done about it.
By contrast, many people living in other parts of the country pay rates which constitute only a tiny fraction of the amount that they expend on rent, mortgage repayments or the equivalent in a capital sum. As a tax on expenditure on housing, rates are a monstrosity.
As an aside, if we were looking for forms of expenditure which should be taken away from rates I believe that we should look carefully at expenditure on the police. In part of the United Kingdom there is a system whereby the cost of the police is not borne by local rates. In Northern Ireland the cost of the police force is borne by central Government. It is iniquitous that that should be the system in one part of the country and not in the rest. In my view, it is in the nature of the police force that its costs are better borne by national finance and not by local authority finance.
The Secretary of State proposes to remove to a considerable extent any real

1735
local autonomy in the rating and expenditure sector. Local authorities, including my own, are intensely concerned about the matter. My local authority is trying to make up its mind what to do about it for the year 1980–81. Local authorities are faced with the possibility of breaching an unknown offence with a penalty of an unknown nature hanging over their heads. All they know is that, if the Secretary of State's words are not to be belied entirely, he has to find somebody to shoot at the end of the day. He is really saying to all local authorities "Race around the field, and one thing that you can be sure about is that the last man in will get it in the neck." Perhaps it will be only the last authority that suffers. I suspect that that last one might well be Lambeth. Perhaps it will be the last half a dozen.
That is the full extent of the certainty that local authorities have about the matter. A hostage has to be shot pour encourager les autres. That is wrong. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, if the Labour Government had done that they would have been crucified. If we had brought forward proposals of that nature we would have been told that Ministers were lecturing local authorities, were thinking that they were gods and not bothering to pass legislation which told local authorities where they stood. We would have been accused of passing legislation that made the authorities adhere to what we wanted, under the threat that we would later pass legislation that would clobber them. Not only would the Conservative Party have been giving us hell for that in the House, but practically every newspaper in the country would have done the same.
Indeed, the newspapers in the country should be picking up this point because the essence of democracy is involved in saying to local authorities "You will face a penalty for an offence we have not defined, a penalty of an unknown nature. We do not even tell you when it will be applied and we do not tell you how you need to behave in order to avoid it." That belies all that was said in the previous Parliament by the Conservatives about setting free local authorities.
1736
The Secretary of State made a big point of saying that the present system of rate support grant hands money over to those who spend the most. We all recognise the limited sense in which that is right. It is a fault in the present system, but he is wrong to put the matter as baldly as that. If we imagine two local authorities with identical characteristics, so far as the needs element is concerned, and one proceeds to spend a lot while the other spends less, the one that spends a lot will not thereby attract more RSG than the other. The system works in general and not with reference to individual authorities and their individual actions. Under the present arrangements, local authorities have every incentive to save money individually, even though there is a built-in arrangement whereby, if a certain group of local authorities with similar characteristics tends to spend more, the system assumes that it is spending more because the authorities have needs justifying that expenditure.
That brings me to the system that is to be put in its place. The Secretary of States does not know what he will put in its place. He says that he does not like the present system. It is always a mistake to take a feature of the present system and say that one does not like it and that at some time in the future something better will be found. The right hon. Gentleman gave no positive indication today of what he would find in the future that would be a better system. He told the House only of the bad characteristics of the present system as he saw them. Therefore, we can have no faith in his future ability to devise a better system. What we can say is that it cannot be simple. Local authorities are too complex and too different for any simple system remotely to begin to accommodate their needs.
We will get a new basic system and year after year Ministers will find a flaw with it, and they will add another characteristic and another, and so on. Ultimately, we will end up with something that is just as complicated as that which we have now. We will go through the whole weary round again. Someone will say that he does not like it and we will start again. It is always best to find a replacement before getting rid of the present system.

1737
I wish to put one specific point on London rates to the Minister who is to reply, but neither he nor the Secretary of State is here. That is great. We have been told that the arrangements for London will provide a formula to convert the notional universal rate into something different, by pretending that London's rateable resources are the same as those in the rest of the country. I am aware that the content of the formula is more complex than that. However, at present local authority wages constitute a very large part of local authority expenditure. In London those wages are inflated by London weighting, which currently stands at about £750 per person. The average local authority wage is probably about £6,000 or £7,000 and, therefore, London weighting must constitute 10 per cent. or more of the wages bill. The present arrangements do not appear to take that into account, because that can be taken into account in the claw-back arrangement that otherwise applies.
If we are to have a formula that pretends that London has the rateable resources of the rest of Britain and not the higher rateable resources that it has, we must build into that formula a device that takes account of the fact that local authority wage bills in London are bound to be 10 per cent. higher for the same gradings and number of people. I hope that the Minister will answer my point.
The Secretary of State said that part of the explanation for the arrangements concerning London was that the Government were informed that wages in London had not gone up as much as in the rest of the country. I cannot believe that that applies to local authority wages, because local authority wages are determined upon a national basis, subject only to London weighting and a few other qualifications. Surely the cost of wages in London is just as high as those in the rest of Britain, if not higher. If the Secretary of State's statement meant anything, it meant that other wages in London had not gone up as much, and, therefore, it is not the expenditure of local authorities that has gone up less but the wages of those who are paying for that expenditure. That is a reason not for clobbering London but for doing the opposite. London bears as much expenditure as other local authorities, yet
1738
it has less income resources upon which to base it.
The House of Commons works only—when it rarely works—when Government Members, in whom parliamentary democracy lies in trust, follow their own judgment rather than do what they are told. I believe that many Conservative Members who have consulted their local authorities and local authority associations about the proposals have severe reservations about these proposals and their effect on local autonomy. I hope that Conservative Members will consult their local authorities and local authority associations and that, as a result, they will do whatever is necessary to make sure that the encroachment upon local authority by national Government does not take place.
7.55 pm
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I particularly welcome the rate support grant proposals as they relate to shire counties. Under the previous Labour Government, shire counties suffered extensively. The previous Government put their money where they believed their votes to be, and they paid little attention to the specific problems of county councils. They are problems of distance, of road construction and maintenance, of rural schools and of the transport of children to those schools. Those problems are specific to shire counties, and they were not taken into account by the Labour Government when they set rate support grant settlements.
The settlements of the last five years were basically political settlements, and during that period the rate support grant was cynically used in an attempt to buy votes with money moved from shire counties to, for example, metropolitan counties.
I have welcomed the rate support grant, yet I do so with some reservations. There is very little improvement for the shire counties, and that improvement represents only 0·7 per cent. over the expected 1979–80 figure. That is not enough to remedy the problem that counties have experienced in the last five years. The shire counties' share of the needs grant fell from 62·6per cent in 1973–74 to 51·6 per cent. in 1979–80. That is a fall of 16 per cent. despite a marked growth in population within the shire counties.
I shall quote from a letter dated 17 December which I received from the chief

1739
executive of Warwickshire county council. He said:
"The settlement generally protects the shire counties from the further loss of needs element expected under the previous Government's distribution policy but does little to reverse the cumulative losses suffered by the non-metropolitan areas (for Warwickshire probably as much as £15 million per annum)."
One fairly small shire county has suffered a swingeing loss, and that loss is not made up by the current proposals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not taken enough account of the difficulties that shire counties experience.
I am concerned also about the operation of cash limits. At best those limits can be described as a somewhat blunt instrument. That instrument will particularly affect the authorities which obeyed Government demands to cut expenditure during the past five years or more. The authorities which were good little boys, which listened to what the Government said and obeyed the dictates, will now suffer because they have little or no fat to cut out. They use Government spending plans as a basis for their budgets.
Although it may not be the Government's intention, those authorities will effectively be penalised. I accept the need to reduce Government spending and borrowing, and I also accept that local government must bear its fair share of any economies that need to be made. Local government must play its part in that policy. Although I accept that there have been spendthrift local authorities—and I expect that the Minister will mention those councils which have been spending money almost as if it were going out of fashion—it is unfortunate that the responsible counties will be penalised because of that.
I am also concerned that some of the growth in local government bureaucracy has been due to legislation from this House. Not all of the growth in local government has been due to empire building in the town hall, and there I welcome the Government's proposals to reduce the controls imposed on local government.
I have had experience as a member of a parish council, of a rural district council, of a borough council and of a county council. I do not pretend that they were perfect, but, equally, there was not a great deal of waste. Economies have been made, but further economies can be made only
1740
at the expense of services. It is a paradox that as services decline rates will increase, and that is due to the economic situation that the Government have inherited. The problems that the Government are experiencing, particularly with lack of growth, are underlining the difficulties that will increasingly be faced by local government.
I believe that the first turn in the upward spiral of rates came with the reform of local government in 1973–74, and I take no pleasure in the fact that my party was responsible for introducing that reform, which turned out to be an absolute and unparalleled disaster for local government. It was expensive and we gained the worst of all possible worlds, although I accept that some reorganisation was necessary. My experience over 21 years in local government clearly underlines that, but we threw the baby out with the bath water.
Reform of local government occurred at a time when the philosophy was "biggest is best". Mergers and changes made local government much more remote from the people that it was representing. When the rural district and urban district councils were abolished, the number of councillors was reduced, which removed from local government the intimate knowledge that the majority of them had of the areas that they were administering. In the rural district of which I was a member, we had 49 members to administer about 50 parishes and parish meetings, and a councillor was able to discuss the problems of an individual council tenant, which demonstrates the degree of knowledge that local councillors were able to bring to local government. That has all been lost.
The reforms have tried to replace that intimate knowledge with a growth in bureaucracy, and more staff have been recruited. What was done by a voluntary local councillor is now done by a paid officer, which again has resulted in greater expenditure.
I should like to offer a word of advice to my right hon. Friend. Disquiet is being caused to local authorities by information being released by his Department, not by circulars but directly to the press. Authorities have been in touch with me to say that they very much resent the fact that they read in the press of changes

1741
and proposals that will affect their authority before they actually receive formal notification. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend and his Department came to office with the declared intention of reducing the number of circulars, but I ask him to consider whether we have taken such measures too literally.
Local authorities have criticised the block grant system, which they believe does not deal with the difficulties of properly assessing the spending needs of about 456 local authorities. I do not pretend that I know the answers, and the old method of assessing rate support grant was cumbersome and extremely complicated, but these problems may, perhaps, give a new impetus to trying to find a new and fairer method of financing local government. Rates and grants are clumsy and unfair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Bright) criticised the method of financing local government and the rating system in general, and I support him in that. I hope that we shall find time to consider in the busy timetable of this Parliament a new and fairer method of financing local government.
8.5 pm
Mr. David Alton: I listened with interest to the speeches of the hon. Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) about the sorry state of affairs in their constituencies. The hon. Member for Norwood talked about potential rate increases of up to 56 per cent., and in Liverpool I suspect that they could increase by as much as 40 per cent. this year, which will come as a body blow to ratepayers who are facing many other increases. As the Secretary of State said, council tenants will face average increases in their rents of £1·50 a week as well as the rate increases.
In a sense, local government is being made to do the Government's dirty work and local authorities are being left to find a great deal of money to combat the inflation caused by the policies of this Government and the previous one. Local authorities are expected to find money solely from their own resources and many will be severely financially squeezed.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) told
1742
the Secretary of State for the Environment that many of us do not accept the economic premises on which the Government are working. I assure the Minister of State that on the Liberal Benches we are also worried about the Government's over-reaction to its predecessors' policies. They criticise the previous Government for their wet-nurse approach, for applying poultices to problems and hoping that by throwing money at them they will go away, but in their over-reaction they are stripping the patient's dressings from his wounds, the wet nurse has been sacked and the hospital closed.
The result will be that services will be far lower than in the past. Unfortunately, cuts in local government expenditure do not necessarily reflect a reduction in bureaucracy. Administrators are inclined to cut services rather than administrators, and I suspect that that scenario will be played out again this year.
I told the Secretary of State earlier that thrift has not paid off. Local authorities that have tried to be prudent and frugal have found that they will be particularly hard hit during the 12 months ahead. Those authorities with money to spare and fat to cut will be able to make savings by reducing grandiose or pie-in-the-sky schemes, but those that have applied the Government's guidelines over the past five years will be in a much more difficult position.
From speeches from the Government Benches, one would imagine that there had not been public expenditure cuts during the previous Administration. In fact, year after year local government has been asked to meet reduced standards and spending targets, ever since a former Labour Secretary of State told us that the party was over and that local government had to reduce spending. Many local authorities did so, trying to cut out waste where they could by establishing performance review and financial control sub-committees, searching out waste and making savings. I believe that that is the right way of reducing public expenditure rather than by going about it with an axe or hacksaw and cutting without minding the consequences.
It would be far better if the Secretary of State turned his attention to local authorities such as South Oxford shire, in his own constituency, where the local

1743
authority in Crow marsh has decided to spend £5 million on building new council offices. Many of us would say that that sort of expenditure at this time was a gross waste of local ratepayers' money.
In Southwark, the local authority anticipated expenditure of many millions of pounds on new council offices. Southwark is a good example of an authority that has now decided not to go ahead because of the new financial climate. Thus, it will save money and it may well be able to protect some of its basic services as a result. But what happens in cities such as Liverpool, which has been a shining example to many other authorities in the past? On one occasion it actually reduced rates without cutting services. Both of those authorities will now have to cut into the flesh of their basic services. It will mean that meals on wheels, home helps, school meals, school transport services, street sweepers, basic environmental services, housing and building programmes will have to be reduced.
Conservative Members have spoken of economy measures such as abandoning the provision of fire doors in nursery schools. The Conservative-controlled Association of County Councils has also suggested that fire doors and fire safety schemes might be eliminated from old people's homes and that the nutriment in school meals might be reduced as a means of saving money. That is way beyond the point of reason, and such excesses bring national Government into disrepute in terms of their dealings with local government.
We have heard a great deal about the shift of rate support grant from the urban areas to the shire counties. Anyone would think that suddenly, overnight, the shire counties would be that much better off, but the fact is that all ratepayers throughout the United Kingdom this year will face massive increases imposed on them by the bankrupt policies of this Government. Anyone would think that the shire counties were about to have a reduction in their rates. That is not so. All that will happen is that one group of ratepayers will be set against another. The Secretary of State has tried to disguise the basic fact that rates throughout the country will increase and that
1744
many people will suffer undue hardship as a result. The mask is beginning to slip.
As the right hon. Member for Spark-brook said, the reason for these policies is to pay for the Government's reductions in taxation. We have seen the benefits from those. They give advantage to people at the top end of the income scale and those who have inherited wealth. But the vulnerable, the weak, and the poor—those who are most at risk in our society—invariably are those who will suffer.
Inevitably, this rate support grant settlement undermines the autonomy of local government—a point that has been mentioned several times today. Like the Housing Bill, which we discussed yesterday afternoon, this Bill takes away the right of local government to decide its own fortunes in future. Local councils which have been elected on a platform of increasing services, with the implication that that inevitably has for increased rates, of selling council houses or not, of implementing comprehensive systems of education or not, will find that their right to take such decisions is being eroded by the shift towards more and more centralisation in government.
One remembers the promises that were made in the Conservative manifesto at the last election. The Tories talked about greater decentralisation and a shift of power back to local government. They talked about giving local authorities greater control over their own affairs. Indeed, the Secretary of State made great play with these points during the election campaign.
Mr. Heddle: Much has been said in the debate so far about local autonomy. Surely the unitary grant principle will retain local antonomy in principle, because it will give local authorities the opportunity to decide their own priorities.
Mr. Alton: Not for the first time, the hon. Member is proceeding in the wrong direction. The unitary grant principle is one that the local authorities themselves, when consulted, rejected. The new block grant system, which is outlined in paragraphs 38 to 41, has been criticised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. This quote from that body answers the question raised earlier by the Secretary of

1745
State about consulting local authorities on the new unitary system. It said:
"The proposal does not appear to differ substantially in theory from the former Government's proposed Unitary Grant system. The block grant system depends on the assessment by central Government of a standard expenditure figure for each local authority and the calculation of a standard rate poundage for each class of authority (e.g. metropolitan districts). The Report envisages that Government would incorporate in the schedule of rate poundage a threshold above the standard expenditure level so that if individual local authorities spent beyond that level they would receive a progressively reducing rate of Government grant. The Association opposes this proposal in principle and doubts whether in practice Government could devise a system which is both fair and efficient. The issue of principle is at the centre of the debate on central, local relationships. Local authorities have always recognised central Government's role in macro-economic policy. But while recognising central Government's role, local authorities are independently elected autonomous bodies, directly accountable to their electorates. Given the good record of local government in meeting the public expenditure policies of successive Governments, the Association considers that the block grant proposal, which would increase central control, is unnecessary and would, if implemented, seriously erode the autonomy of local government."
Those are the views of the Conservative-controlled Association of Metropolitan Authorities. Not only are these interim measures unsatisfactory; the long-term proposals are equally ill founded.
I believe that there is a need for a total reform of the rating system. We surely all agree that the local tax base is suspect. The last revaluation was in 1973 and even that was highly unsatisfactory. The next would have been in 1982, but without any reference to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities or the local councils the Secretary of State decided to abandon the rating revaluation at the drop of a hat. Subsequently he had to apologise to the local authorities for his failure to consult them. That behaviour is very much a hallmark of the way in which the Secretary of State has conducted his affairs since taking up his present position.
1746

The rating system must be based not on arbitrary notional values but on an ability to pay. It should be based on the income of the person living in the property. A classic example of the present inadequate system is the water rate. An elderly lady living alone can occupy a house alongside a family containing two or three wage earners. They pay the same water rate. Yet the family will be consuming much more water than the elderly lady living alone. The rating system, to be fair, should be reorganised on a basis of ability to pay.
I turn now to the question of punishment. The Secretary of State talked a great deal about the punitive measures that he would introduce to penalise local authorities that failed to comply with the rate support grant settlement. There is already sufficient uncertainty facing every one of the 456 local authorities in England and Wales. These bully-boy tactics, or blackmail, simply increase that uncertainty.
The Secretary of State said that local authorities should, if necessary, sack employees. I do not believe that such action will bring any savings for the public purse. It simply means that qualified people will have to be paid unemployment and social security benefits. It will add to the number of people on the scrap heap of unemployment. It will increase hardship and add to the social problems that the country already faces. That sort of approach will not solve any problems.
The way to reduce waste in local government is to look systematically at every line of expenditure, searching out abuses and waste, dealing with excesses, where and when they arise, consulting sensitively with the authorities and their representative organisations, and endeavouring to reform the rating system so that it is fair and equitable. Until the Government are prepared to bring forward radical and far-reaching proposals, I believe that we should continue to operate the present system.
8.20 pm
Mr. John Heddle (Lichfield and Tam-worth): I speak as a Member of this House and also as a member of one of the larger county authorities. In view of the time and the fact that about six hon. Members still wish to speak, I intend to keep my remarks short.
I should like to ask the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), who will wind up for the Opposition, two questions. Is it true that as far back as May 1977 the Government in which he was a Minister acknowledged the need for reform of the grant system and that a Green Paper, Cmnd. 6813, proposed that the unitary grant, suggested by the Lay-field committee, should be adopted? Although that Government remained in office for a further two years, they failed to implement the grant system.
I also invite the right hon. Gentleman to agree with me, and therefore to disagree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who said that there were only three options open to local government, that there is a fourth. The first is to reduce services, the second to increase unemployment, and the third to increase rates. The fourth, I suggest, is to cut out waste that every hon. Member knows still exists within most local authorities.
I agree wholeheartedly with those hon. Members on both sides, particularly the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who proposed that there should be reform of the rating system but that such reform should not take place until a realistic alternative had been found. I agree that the search for that realistic alternative could be one of the responsibilities of the new Select Committee on the Environment.
I also agree wholeheartedly with, and would like to be associated with, the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) in thanking the Government for the consideration given to Stafford shire in its rate support grant settlement. I fear, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said, that the increase in grant will be negated to a certain extent by the possible
1748
recommendations of Professor Clegg. Stafford shire, along with many shire counties, has made a concerted effort to keep within the Government's guidelines. If the Clegg settlement on teachers' salaries is, as expected, in the region of 20 per cent., Staffordshire and many other reluctant shire counties will be forced to increase rates.
I should like to welcome the stability in the settlement that the Government have provided. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will concede that any attempt to vary significantly the calculation and the distribution of the settlement would have been unfortunate, particularly at a time of considerable economic uncertainty coupled with significant and necessary reductions in local government expenditure. I am sure that this will be endorsed by all hon. Members. The retention of the overall grant level of 61 per cent. must therefore be most welcome in local government circles.
I am particularly pleased, too, that the Government have sought an early opportunity to halt the drift in the allocation of grant from the shire counties to the inner city areas. I am acutely aware of the needs of the cities, particularly in regard to population drift away from the inner areas. I have noted in Birmingham, which is but 12 miles from my own West Midlands constituency, the difficulties that arise from inner city blight problems. Whilst recognising the problem, as do many of our colleagues in local government, I feel that any central Government financial assistance to tackle the problem should be made available in addition to, and not as part of, the normal rate support grant finance.
I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has frozen the formula for the distribution of the 1980–81 grant on the previous year's basis. However, this does not mean that all recipients of grant will receive the same share of the total as they did last year, because changes have been made in the data used for the calculations. It is perhaps singularly unfortunate that some of the data are particularly volatile. I refer particularly to the labour cost index data. Perhaps my right hon. Friend who winds up the debate for the Government will touch upon this.

1749
Whilst applauding the stability in the present grant proposals for 1980–81, all hon. Members must surely agree that at the very centre of the grant distribution proposals there is the thorny question of the assessment of needs of individual areas. Attempts to quantify these needs have in the past been related to levels of expenditure incurred in the various areas. That is a very rough guide, particularly when such expenditure levels can hide factors varying considerably between areas.
The question of the assessment of need has taxed the minds of many people over the years. I think it fair to say that the present arrangements are no more than a compromise—a compromise needed because of the many and varied, and often conflicting, demands made by various types of councils in respect of services with widely different impacts upon the population.
This problem will not go away when the House considers the proposed changes for 1981–82. The consultation papers thus far produced still indicate that the thorny question of the assessment of needs remains at the heart of the new proposals. I trust that every effort will be made by those charged with the technical tasks of the new proposals to measure this need more realistically than has been possible. I am particularly pleased to hear from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that full consultation will continue to take place with the local authority associations in an endeavour to improve a long discredited basis.
My final comments concern the cash limits, about which we have heard so much in today's debate, which my right hon. Friend included within the settlement for inflation in respect of both pay and prices expected in the year in question. I believe that it is absolutely right that the inclusion of those cash limits should be seen as a fundamental part of the Government's overall fight against the ravages of inflation, the symptoms of which we inherited from the last Government. No Government, however incompetent—this Government are the epitome of competence and good housekeeping—could possibly have been party and handmaiden to an increase in inflation from 10 per per cent. to 16 per cent. or 17 per cent. within six months. Inflation, like an
1750
ocean liner, takes a long time to turn round.
Mr. Alton: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the rate of inflation. Perhaps he will explain why it is now standing at 18 per cent.
Mr. Heddle: As I have just said, inflation takes at least six months to work through the system. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that it took 18 months. He has far more experience than many others of producing 14 or 15 Budgets within four or five years. It certainly takes more than six months for inflation to come through the system. Therefore, this Government cannot be held responsible in any way for the present inflation figure.
With the support of the Opposition and their friends in the trade union movement in exercising wage restraint, the nation can bring inflation down to an all-time low, which will remain static for years to come, provided that in both central and local government we practise prudent finance and good housekeeping.
Mr. A. P. Costain: Does not my hon. Friend find the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton), who is a member of the party which kept the last Government in power through the Lib-Lab alliance, somewhat repulsive? The hon. Member tries to blame the Conservatives for the inflation caused by the party which was kept in power by the Liberals.
Mr. Heddle: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). I have great regard for his long experience in the House, and as an inexperienced Member I would not venture to disagree with him on that issue. The Conservative Party is committed to controlling the modern dinosaur of inflation. If our country is once more to become great, prosperous and profitable, it is vital that the proportion of the gross national product taken up by public expenditure—at central and local levels—is at worst contained and at best reduced.

It is essential, therefore, that wage and salary negotiations now in the pipeline should be pursued—while recognising our present dire circumstances—with a refreshing degree of realism. As a nation, we cannot continue to pay ourselves more

1751
than we earn. We cannot continue to pay ourselves more from profits that are not there. Those profits are not there because we are not producing the wealth that comes from greater productivity. However, given the time and the will, we can do that. Both central and local government must set an example to our people.
8.34 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts: In the general context of our discussion of the rate support grant, I shall speak of the background against which the settlement of the rate has been reached and relate the circumstances in the Sefton metropolitan district council area to the general factors relevant to the rate support grant.
Inner city areas are currently suffering as a result of the Government's economic policies, to an extent such that I question the future of local government itself. The present rate support grant proposals are symptomatic of the Government's approach to local government. The Government are mounting an attack on the fundamentals of local democracy.
I am surprised that members of the Tory Party, both in the House and in the country, should allow the Secretary of State for the Environment and his colleagues to get away with a major attack on local government. When local government—that is, the grass roots of the local political parties to which people belong in order to take an active part in deciding the issues affecting their lives—is attacked, the very basis of British democracy is attacked.
Great strides in social progress have been made in this country in recent times. For example, better living conditions have been provided for our people by local government. I have never known a Government, of whatever political persuasion, to give power to local government rather than take it away. Labour Governments have fallen into the trap laid by civil servants and have introduced legislation to take powers away from local government. The responsibility to care for the health of our citizens has been taken away from local government and placed in the hands of non-elected bodies. Even the gas industry, which began as part of local government, has been removed from the control of local government.
No previous Government have so obviously, purposefully and blatantly set
1752
out to destroy the basis of local democracy. The rate support grant settlement and the Secretary of State's statement on 16 November lay bare the Government's philosophy. The Government obviously believe not in democracy but in dictatorship from Whitehall.
The settlement comes on top of decisions which have already been taken by the present Government. In the Budget, the Government cut the rate support grant by £300 million for the year 1979–80. This year the Government have taken about £310 million from local government. Local authorities have had a dramatic reduction in the moneys which they expected to receive and which were promised by the Labour Government.
Liverpool lost £3½ million at a stroke, although it was expecting to receive that sum and had budgeted for it. That loss took place before the current rate support grant settlement. The Secretary of State for the Environment pretends that this is a 61 per cent. settlement and not really a cut in what was promised by the previous Government. In reality, the Secretary of State is reducing the money available to local authorities way below that figure. The Government have refused to accept as relevant expenditure many items which were previously acceptable. The Government have limited the items on which local authorities can spend money on the basis of receiving a central Government contribution.
The settlement is based on a 13 per cent. rate of inflation. It is likely to be more than 20 per cent. If Ministers continue to make statements such as that made today about gas prices, the rate of inflation is likely to soar way beyond 20 per cent. The rate of inflation on which the settlement is based in unrealistic and will result in a massive cut in the rate support grant.
The Government are mounting an attack on the cities, the metropolitan areas and the areas in the greatest stress. That attack has only just begun. We are experiencing only the beginning of the shift of resources from the areas of greatest need to the shire counties. During the Labour Party's period in office, there was a gradual shift in the distribution of rate support grant in favour of the needy inner urban areas. In the last five years London's share of needs element increased from 17½ per cent. to 22 per cent. The

1753
metropolitan districts' share increased from 25 per cent. to 26½ per cent. I accept that the reversal contained in the current settlement is not great, but the process has begun and I have no doubt that it will continue.
Rural deprivation has been mentioned. Government Members have bemoaned the fact that money goes to the areas of greatest need. They even dispute that places such as Liverpool, Bootle and Manchester have worse problems than Shropshire, Cheshire and Wiltshire. The figures demonstrate a clear need for even more redistribution in favour of the urban and inner city areas. For example, there are 121 persons per 1,000 of the population living in houses lacking basic amenities in the shire counties. The figure for Liverpool is 288, for Manchester 268, and Birmingham 194. Unemployment in the shire counties is running at 23 per 1,000 of the population. In Manchester the figure is 46 and in Liverpool 71. In the face of those figures, the Government dare to suggest that the shire counties are in greater need than the inner cities. In the shire counties there are 10 lone-parent families per 1,000 of the population. For Liverpool the figure is 16 and for Manchester 22.
We come next to the amount that is paid in rates. In spite of the Labour Government's redistribution under the rate support grant in favour of the inner city and urban areas, the citizens of those areas still pay fantastically higher rate bills than people living in shire counties. The average rate bill in 1979–80 for standard domestic properties in Wiltshire was £138. In Gates head the figure was £159 and in Hackney £358.
One of the worst aspects of the current rate support grant and the Secretary of State's statement is the threat being held over the heads of local government about what will happen if they do not do what the right hon. Gentleman wants and keep their rates lower than is necessary to provide essential services in their areas. However, at the moment no Minister has the power, through manipulating the rate support grant settlement, to penalise individual authorities which increase their rates to meet the expected needs of their areas. Since he does not have these powers, the Sec-
1754
retary of State is happy to take them in the local government Bill. That Bill is not yet law, but there is the promise or threat that if the local authorities do not do as the right hon. Gentleman tells them he will take retrospective action under that Bill to claw back rate support grant from individual authorities which will have assessed their needs and levied their rates on the basis of prevailing law. If that is not retrospective legislation, or near to it—something that is considered abhorrent in this country—I should like to know what is.
Mr. King: Has the hon. Gentleman never heard of resource clawback? Does he not know that what he has described is precisely what happens at present? I do not know whether his authority has suffered under this procedure, but during the middle of the year grant can be clawed back from authorities in the manner to which he is taking such great exception.
Mr. Roberts: That is true, but it is done under existing legislation. If the Minister is satisfied with that arrangement, why is he proposing to legislate to take further powers?
Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Will my hon. Friend tell the Minister that the resource claw-back is carried out for specific reasons but that the new provision is purely political—t will be applied to Labour authorities but not to the Conservatives?
Mr. Roberts: What does the legislation proposed by the Secretary of State seek to do, and why is he proposing it? In his statement to the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, he says:
"Resources element provides the same marginal rate of grant support to a local authority's expenditure regardless of how extravagant that expenditure might be.…Needs element is distributed on the basis of an analysis of past expenditure patterns."
Neither of those statements is 100 per cent. accurate. At present, needs element is assessed on a variety of factors, not merely on the basis of analysis of past expenditure patterns. It is related to spending needs, total population, the number of elderly people and the number of children. Resources element is essential in terms of trying to establish justice between one local authority and another.

1755
Perhaps I may give an example—the city of Salford and the city of Manchester. The city of Salford—although some people who live in Salford might not admit it—has a city centre which is really within the city of Manchester. Most of the commercial property with high rateable values lies in the city of Manchester. If it were not for the resources element that enabled the city of Salford to get help in view of the fact that it does not have the same amount of property with a high commercial value in its area from which to attract rates, the city of Salford would have been in a fantastic mess over the last 20 years or so in terms of trying to carry out its policies of slum clearance and in dealing with serious inner city problems, lacking, as it does, unlike the city of Manchester, the commercial centre that is needed to raise the revenue necessary to carry out those policies.
The Secretary of State is getting rid of the needs element and the resources element and introducing this new block grant, which he or his civil servants will determine by an assessment, on the same basis for all local authorities, of standard expenditure and a standard rate poundage levied on an authority's rateable value. If ever there was an attack on the freedoms and independence of local government, this is the worst, because no local councillor can take decisions about his area if he cannot take decisions about the amount of money that he can raise from the rates to meet the area's needs, as he sees them in the light of the result of the democratic election that he has fought.
Only last week, the consequences of the Government's financial policies were highlighted in the local newspaper in Bootle, in my constituency—not by the Labour councillors in the area, who are in opposition, but by the Conservative chairman of housing, Councillor Keith Parkinson. He announced the probable £4 rent increase. In so doing and referring to the Government's economic policies and the cutback in Government support to local authorities, he said:
"Sefton has been carrying out this policy for some time and the Government is simply saying what we have been doing. I can see nothing wrong with reducing the subsidy…I see no reason why those who could afford to pay should receive half their rent from public funds."
1756
Not only are moneys to local authorities being cut in the RSG settlement. Housing subsidies are being cut, and local authorities, because of cuts in housing subsidies and in the RSG, are emptying their housing revenue accounts of rate fund contributions, pushing up rents by increases of £4 a week—at this particular time.
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) blames the previous Labour Government for the present rate of inflation. At a stroke, in this RSG settlement, in the cuts in housing subsidies, not counting VAT, the Government are pushing up inflation to a level at which working people in constituencies such as mine will be demanding wage increases to combat these massive rate and rent increases.
I do not see how Conservative Members can escape some responsibility not only for the present rate of inflation but for the rate of inflation that we are likely to have next year which will affect the rate support grant settlement.
The lion. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to rates in Liverpool. I never know whether to call him my hon. Friend or my honourable enemy, because I am not certain whose side he is on. Indeed, he has become known in Bootle as Liverpool's nowhere man: a man who has no point of view and knows not where he is going. None the less, I think that he will be voting with the Labour Opposition tonight.
I predicted some time ago during Environment Question Time that we would have a crisis in Liverpool verging on New York proportions as we were likely to have a 40 per cent. rate increase. The Secretary of State said that I knew nothing about the rate support grant or how it worked if I could make a statement like that, because he had not then announced the settlement. He has now. Indeed, we are having a 40 per cent. rate increase, so Liverpool is verging on a New York crisis situation.
Liverpool suffered from a Lib-Tory pact which cut services, held down rates and put up council rents. There is nothing in the coffers. We had a deficit before we started, despite the cuts and the rate support grant settlement. Therefore, Liverpool people face cuts in services and a massive increase in rates at the same time.
Mr. Alton: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the increase in Bootle, where there is a Conservative-controlled authority, is likely to be greater or less than that being suffered by Liverpool? Does he accept that rate increases throughout the country will be incredible as a result of the announcement of the rate support grant settlement today? Does he agree that to try to lay the blame on individual local authorities is nonsense?
Mr.Roberts:Yes. There is not much difference between Liberal-Conservative rule in Liverpool and Conservative rule in Sefton. The problems are similar. One of the advantages that some Labour authorities have—it will not be long-lived under this Government—is having money in reserve because of prudent management. Neither Liverpool nor the metropolitan district of Sefton has that advantage. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which ones do?"] I do not have to name them. The Secretary of State has been naming them since he became the responsible Minister. He has called them over spenders because they spend money on essential social services, housing and education.
The difference between the city of Manchester and the metropolitan district of Sefton being asked to cut services is like asking one man to take off his overcoat—that is the city of Manchester—when another man—Sefton—is already stripped to his underpants. If we have to make any further cuts, everyone, including those who receive the services, will be embarrassed.
The Government are trying to get Labour councils and councillors to do their dirty work for them in the hope that, when the cuts are made and the rate bills go through the doors, the town halls, not they, will be blamed. I assure them that the Labour movement will ensure that that does not happen. If the Secretary of State thinks that Labour councils are stupid enough to allow that to happen, he is greatly mistaken.
We must in the national interest fight the cuts in public expenditure which are being imposed on local authorities. It is not in the national interest to cut public expenditure It is not a matter of cutting our coat according to our cloth. We believe that public expenditure is essential for the good of the country and its economy. Public expenditure leads to
1758
more private expenditure and to more jobs. In areas such as Merseyside the only hope is public expenditure, and much of it must come through the local authorities.
8.55 pm
Mr. John Major: When I came into the Chamber early this afternoon, I did not expect to speak in the debate. However, having listened to the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) I felt that I should like to refer to some of his observations. I shall wait for a few minutes before doing so, in the hope that he may return to the Chamber. I hope that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) will also return, because he made some remarks about Lambeth on which I should like to comment.
The rate support grant settlement was awaited with considerable trepidation in the counties. It was awaited with trepidation, first, because of the effect of the rate support grant throughout the past four or five years and, secondly, because of the economic situation and the fear that there would be substantial cuts in the level of grant.
If I may speak for Cambridge shire in particular, a county that has done badly in the past four or five years, there was an expectation this year that the 61 per cent. level of grant would be considerably reduced in the light of economic circumstances. When it was not, there was great relief that the Secretary of State had decided to maintain it at that level for the present year. Whether that can be done in future years is a matter which the course of the Government's counter-inflationary policy may well reveal in the months to come. I hope that it will be possible in future, in the light of the general reduction in expenditure, to look for a lower percentage of grant when it can be introduced without undue hardship for rural and urban counties.
The most favourable aspect of Government policy with which the counties were especially pleased after the events of recent years was the distribution of the rate support grant. Being parochial for a moment, I must say that the own county or Cambridgeshire has lost about £20 million per year in the past four years. This year, for the first time in the last five years, Cambridgeshire has found its

1759
grant maintained at a level at which it could reasonably have expected it to be mantained. Cambridgeshire had a minor gain, but certainly there was not a continuation of the loss suffered in recent years.
I am an urban creature. I have spent most of my life in urban areas. There has been some suggestion from hon. Members who represent urban areas—I can understand it—that there is no need for the money to be returned to the counties because they do not face special problems and that the justification for any form of switch back to the counties is extremely flimsy.
I say to those who think that way—again using as an example Cambridgeshire, which is atypical to a degree but none the less symptomatic of what has happened—that in Cambridgeshire there has been the most enormous population growth over the past four or five years. Much of that population growth has come from inner city areas. For a variety of reasons, including the policies of the borough councils in city areas, people have tended to flee from the inner city areas to the rural counties of England. In my own constituency of Huntingdonshire we have large overspill estates of Londoners, at Huntingdon and St. Neots. We also have half of the Peterborough new town in the constituency.
I turn for a moment to deal with what was said by the hon. Member for Norwood. Three years ago I had the privilege of being the chairman of the housing committee in the London borough of Lambeth for a brief period. I shall give an illustration, from those days, of why it is practical justice that there should be some return of the rate support grant to the county areas.
At that time, when I was housing chairman in Lambeth, we had precisely the problems which exist today, and one of the initiatives which we were pleased to take, and which people in Cambridgeshire were happy to see adopted, was the expansion of Peterborough new town and a special linking agreement so that families and individuals could move out of Lambeth, where conditions were appalling, into Peterborough new town. There has in fact been an enormous spillage of people specifically from Lambeth into my constituency of Huntingdon-
1760
shire, and especially into the northern ring of it in Peterborough.
The effect of that over the past nine or 10 years has been cumulative, but, from the standpoint of the services needed to cater for that large influx of people, the reward for Cambridge shire's gratuitously saying "Yes, we will assist" was year by year to see a continuous reduction in the level of rate support grant.
Mr. Marks: What is the rate poundage now paid in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, compared with the 119p that the Government are giving as the standard?
Mr. Major: I shall come to that, because there are other matters which need to be adjusted with that, as was pointed out a little earlier. The point that I am making now, specifically in response to the hon. Member for Norwood, is that the reward for areas beyond London for endeavouring to assist with the London problem has been a continuing diminution in the amount of funds available to them. That is grossly unfair, since so soon as one accepts a large influx of population there is of necessity a call on a considerable number of services to be moved to a far higher level of operation, and the funds have simply not been there for that purpose.
There have been other references to Lambeth, and I have already said that I am an urban creature. In fact, I spent most of my youth living in one of the less salubrious parts of Brixton, and I am well aware of the problems of inner London and of Lambeth. In my view, the hon. Member for Norwood does less than justice when he fails to recognise that many of the problems of inner London have been generated from within by some of the barren policies of total municipalisation and the successive policies of rent control which have driven out of the privately rented sector so many units of accommodation which could have helped. This has been a material factor, and, although hon. Members on the Opposition Benches choose to ignore it, it has added and is still significantly adding to the real and understandable problems being faced today in Lambeth.
Lambeth and other boroughs have added to their own problems. I shall deal specifically with Lambeth, and perhaps with Camden, if I am pressed to do

1761
so. These authorities are to a substantial extent recognised as spendthrift authorities. They have heavy social problems, they spend money on those problems, and that is understood, but beyond that they also go in for a large amount of quite gratuitous and unnecessary expenditure.
I put to the hon. Member for Norwood—he must have been most embarrassed about it—the example of the special newspaper produced by Lambeth borough council and distributed to every house in the borough asking people to join a march and demonstrate against the Government's cuts and economic policy. I do not know how much that cost, but the amount involved might well have helped with some of Lambeth's social problems. Moreover, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that was by no means an isolated example.
I turn now to the forthcoming demise of regression analysis. It has seemed to many of us, as I have said, that the spendthrift local authorities, like greedy crocodiles, have under this principle been fed with more and, because they were fed with more, have demanded more. That happened, as I have tried to show, at the expense of my county and other county areas, and the effects of regression analysis have seemed to us to be wholly unfair in a large variety of ways, and inflationary, too, in some respects. I suspect that, on its demise, the corpse of regression analysis will be the most popular in this or any other year.
Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I recall the hon. Gentleman in his period as housing chairman in Lambeth, but I do not recall the London Boroughs Association receiving from him any demand in respect of the loss of money in the rate support grant for London.
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman has a splendid memory, for I do not recall ever having met him at that time, although I recall that on one famous occasion a lady threw a rat at me in the mistaken belief that she was throwing it at him. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that in the event she missed. But the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I have to say that in my youth I made no such representations to the LBA. Perhaps I should
1762
have done, but I certainly did not at that time.
The right hon. Member for Spark-brook talked of the reduction of services as a result of the rate support grant settlement and of the deflation of the economy. The right hon. Gentleman has a charming style of delivery but a flawed memory. It is barefaced for him to talk about deflation in the light of the policies of the Cabinet in which he sat as such a distinguished ornament for so long, namely, as Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection.
I recall that his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, was a great deflater. Usually the right hon. Gentleman deflated in panic, and usually at the behest of the IMF rather than as part of a considered policy. The present restraint, difficult and painful though it may be, has a clear objective, which is the continued reduction in the level of inflation.
There has been some talk—notably by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts)—of the levels of inflation and other problems. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton), in his usual fashion, blamed Conservatives and Socialists—indeed, everybody except Liberals. It seems that disaster follows whenever the Conservative Party or the Labour Party enters into a pact with the Liberal Party.
I remind those who criticise the Government for the levels of inflation, and the results of those levels, of a distinguished speech that was made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East at the Lord Mayor's banquet in 1976. I do not have his speech chapter and verse before me, but I recall that he touched upon the principle of the time lag between input and the outturn of inflation. If my memory serves me correctly, in 1976 the right hon. Gentleman was talking of a time lag of 18 months. I suggest that before Labour Members blame the Government for the present level of inflation they should re-examine that speech and their own views.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Edge Hill left the Chamber so soon after completing his speech. He talked about the reduction of services. Out came all the usual pat arguments about meals

1763
on wheels and grannies who are to be shot by wicked Tory councillors. He made precisely the mistake that I expected him to make. Every time that the hon. Gentleman and others with his views speak, they refer to the reduction of services. They never think about the reduction of staffing levels—it is always "Maintain staffing levels and get rid of the services." Whatever we may think about the level of unemployment, that is a most barren and dangerous philosophy and not in the interests of ratepayers whom councillors are elected to serve. We have heard a great deal about local democracy and the necessity for councillors to serve their ratepayers.
There has in some respects been an aggregation of responsibilities for local authorities. My area provides an illustration of how staffing levels may be maintained, or even cut, notwithstanding a population growth of nearly 25 per cent. The staffing level of the Huntingdon district council, which includes a housing authority, has remained broadly static over the past five years. It is valid to consider those who voluntarily retire and leave local government each year. I think that the number is well in excess of 100,000. Without wholesale sackings and draconian measures, there is the possibility of staffing reductions without the desperate reductions of services that are often claimed as likely to ensue. I believe that the figures offer a practical way in which we may proceed out of our present problems.
As we proceed, it is highly desirable that, in real terms and over a period, the level of Government commitment to local authority expenditure via the rate support grant should fall. I hope that it will. I hope, too, that at some stage we are able to find a rather better system than rates to fund local government. My heart goes out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, whenever anyone suggests that the rating system should immediately be reformed wholesale. The anomalies in the rating system are recognised. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will take good time to consider the issue, so that when he brings forward proposals they are more likely to be right than wrong.
1764
Some hon. Members have spoken of the wicked habit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of postponing the rating revaluation. I was tempted to intervene at the time, but I was not sure of the facts. However, I am sure now. I hope that the Opposition spokesman will confirm that not one rating revaluation has been carried out by a Labour Government since the war. Whenever the issue appeared, they scrapped it. It just did not happen. Not once have they proceeded with a rating revaluation. I suggest that when they criticise us for the practical measure of removing the rating revaluation because of the rapidly impending reform of the rating system, they should have a look at their record first.
I conclude by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on balancing most carefully the twin needs of trying to reduce the sum total of Government expenditure, in the general interests of containing inflation, and trying to strike a balance between urban and rural areas which will bring equity and fairness to both.
9.10 pm
Mr. Gordon Oakes: Without doubt, this is the most important and by far the most damaging rate support grant ever to come before the House. I am surprised that, although the level and quality of the contributions to the debate have been high, so few hon. Members—both sides of the House are equally to blame—seek to participate. Many hon. Members, certainly myself, came into Government via local government. We were schooled there; it was our apprenticeship. Therefore, I should have thought that there would be a high participation rate in the discussion of any order affecting local government. Also, all hon. Members find that a considerable amount of the time, probably 75 per cent. or 85 per cent., that they spend dealing with constituency problems is devoted to local government problems rather than national problems. Any order affecting local government as massively as tonight's one has immediate repercussions upon all hon. Members.
It may well be that one reason why hon. Members do not participate in such debates is the form and shape of the orders. Frankly, they look more like tables of logarithms than the documents

1765
that usually come before the House. They might frighten off some hon. Members. For that reason, I do not propose to go into the minutiae of the formula. Five years ago, between 1974 and 1976, I had the misfortune to be the junior Minister at the Department of the Environment who dealt with rate support grant. I did not fully understand the grant then. I understand it less now. However, one thing is certain. The complicated jargon, confusion and difficulty of the formula have not changed from that period of time. It is rather like the old games that we played as schoolboys—think of a number, double it, add one and, in the case of RSG, divide by 2·3045, take away the number first thought of, and that produces the allocation for the local authority of the needs element of the rate support grant for the next 12 months. To any outsider, certainly to many councillors in local authorties, it seems to be like that.
I treated seriously the criticisms that I received when I was Under-Secretary, particularly those from Conservative Members, about the complication of the formula. They all pointed out that it should be simpler and presented in a more simple way. They were right. I tried to do so and I failed. I notice that those who made the criticisms at the time have tried to do that and they, equally, have failed. However, one thing could be done within the existing system. In a moment, I shall come on to talk about the proposals under section F.
One of the main criticisms that I had as a Minister—I am sure that it is true today—was the complaint that the statistical information that goes into the grant is hopelessly out of date and that authorities are penalised thereby. I received that complaint more than any other. In these days of microprocessors, computers and rapid communication of statistical information, I am surprised that that should still be so. I am certain that the same complaint will be made about the rate support grant that we are discussing tonight.
This rate support grant is unusual because it has two distinct parts. For that reason, unusually, my right hon. and hon. Friends will be dividing tonight against the order. One part is the ordinary financial provision for this year and next.
1766
That is a matter that we always debate—the amounts that local authorities will receive. However, there is a second part. Section F of the order has been the subject of considerable debate. The Government would probably call that section a declaration of intent, but I would call if a threat of punitive dictatorship.
On a number of occasions the Secretary of State has tried to have fun with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about his approach to local authorities. However, my right hon. Friend does not encourage local authorities to spend, spend, spend for spending's sake, nor does he encourage them to waste money. He encourages local authorities to stand up for their rights and for the services for those who elected them. They are not to be dictated to by central Government. The Secretary of State cannot level the same criticisms at me, and he knows it.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) mentioned that when the late Mr. Anthony Crosland was Secretary of State for the Environment he told local authorities in Manchester in 1974 that the party was over. I was the unfortunate junior Minister who had the invidious task of going up and down the country shouting "Time gentlemen, please" and collecting the glasses. That was not a very pleasurable occupation, but it worked. I worked by exhortation, not by force, threats or punitive measures. It worked not because we cut the rate support grant as it is now being cut but because it persuaded both Tory and Labour local authorities of the need to an it. I agree with the hon. Member for Edge Hill that that is the approach to take rather than the draconian measures introduced by the Government.
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman will take into account that he had an Opposition who supported what he, as Minister, was trying to do. This Government do not enjoy that facility.
Mr. Oakes: I tried to persuade local authorities not to waste money and not to cut into essential services as this Government have done. At that time, in 1975–76, we suffered because a massive number of new local authorities had been created by the Conservative Party in 1972. Those authorties were far-away places with strange-sounding names and

1767
they cropped up all over the country. Expenditure ran out of hand at that time. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) fairly made the point that that was one of the major causes of the highest increases in local authority expenditure that Britain has ever known.
The hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major) congratulated the Secretary of State on maintaining the level of rate support grant at 61 per cent. A number of other Conservative Members have also made that point. It is no such thing. The expenditure calculation behind the rate support grant and upon which it is based is £15,737 million. However, the figure put forward by the local authority associations for relevant expenditure was in excess of £18,000 million. The Government's figures are wrong. The Government are always arrogant about local government figures. I accept that there is a discrepancy in accounting procedures between central Government and local authorities, but not of this size. Mr. Jack Smart, the leader of the Labour group in the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, said that to talk about 61 per cent. of relevant expenditure was a myth.
There is a belief, even among hon. Members, although not the Government Front Bench, that every authority gets 6 per cent. rate support grant and has only to spend 39 per cent. That is not so, as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) knows to his cost. His local authority has to find considerably more because of the vagaries of rate support grant.
In addition, the cash limits assume wage rises of about 13 per cent. I remind the House that over 17 per cent. of local authority expenditure is on wages, and there have been certain developments regarding wages since the right hon. Gentleman's meeting with the local authorities. The latest agreement is a 14 per cent. rise for local government manual workers which was agreed a week ago, and it is one of the best that the Government can hope for. An announcement was made this morning that wage increases in November 1979 were 19·2 per cent.—a 2 per cent. increase from October. That is the background against which these cash limits must be viewed. We must consider the pay of other local government workers as a result of the Clegg report—teachers, white collar
1768
workers and craftsmen—whose rises have yet to be announced.
In addition to the 13 per cent. built into the rate support grant for wages, the non-salary figure is calculated at 9 per cent. Only a few days after the rate support grant was negotiated with local authorities, it was announced that the mortgage rate would rise to 15 per cent. and the bank rate to 17 per cent. I doubt whether even representatives from Conservative-controlled local authorities would have so readily agreed to the rate support grant had they known of the increase in the bank rate. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the level of interest rate is of enormous importance to local authorities.
I am talking not only about approved capital expenditure, where a loan has to be obtained, but about the indirect results of a high bank rate. A local authority that does not have all its rates in and has to borrow money for expenditure will be badly affected. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that there will be general cover and not just for specific items where borrowing approval has been given.
The other major non-salary expenditure is for energy. It is significant that today, when the rate support grant is being discussed, we have had mention of swingeing increases in gas and electricity prices, all of which will affect local authorities adversely. The cost of motor fuel has also risen since the settlement was reached. All those items cost local authorities a great deal of money and will have a drastic effect on their expenditure this year and next.
The effect of the rate support grant will be twofold. Labour and Conservative local authorities will endeavour to reduce expenditure—they will have to—and introduce a lower level of services, although that will vary with the authority. We shall also have the most massive rate rises ever known as a direct result of the rate support grant.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) made the point clearly when he said that Stafford was a prudent county that will endeavour to follow Government policies, and would even go so far as to reduce services. Despite all that, he assured his right hon. Friend that there would be rate increases of between 20 and 25 per cent. These are the sort of figures that we will get

1769
in London and some other urban areas, even with major reductions in spending—I would say too heavy reductions in spending. Despite all that, there will be rate increases of more than 50 per cent. in many areas as a direct result of the order that is before us today.
I should like to quote the words of the Conservative-controlled Association of County Councils. In a document which went out with a letter from the secretary, Mr Hetherington, on 8 January, the association says:
"The settlement means that authorities will be forced to make large rate increases as well as to cut back further the level of their expenditure and the standard of their services. The ACC's membership have always been, and will continue to be, strongly interested in achieving maximum efficiency and economy in the provision of their services. But it cannot be contended that the expenditure reductions sought by the Government, this year and next, can be achieved wholly, or even mainly, by improvements in efficiency: the level of service which local government provides has to fall if the expenditure 'targets' are to be achieved."
Those are not the words of the Labour Party; they are the words of the Association of County Councils.
The other effect of reducing services is on the levels of unemployment within local Government service. Thank God, no hon. Member in this debate has used the pejorative term of "bureaucrats" which we have heard in the past from Conservatives. Dinner ladies, teachers, firemen, and road roller drivers are not bureaucrats. Even if one considers administrators in the true sense of the word, I am surprised by the amount of vituperation of the media which brushes off on Conservative Members. They should remember that they must often deal with local authority officials in their constituencies.
We do not always get the decisions we want from local authority officials, but we must remember that they are servants of the public just as we are. We have problems to put before them and they have problems as well. I do not see why the attack that is so frequently made by Conservatives on local authority workers should ever be made at all. It is unfair to suggest that they are bureaucrats—whether they are manual workers or administrators—and to speak of them as if in some way they are spongers on the community who do not deserve their wages.
1770
These are the people who may lose their jobs as a consequence of cuts in services resulting from this rate support grant. Hon. Members should make no mistake about it: the level of cuts envisaged in this rate support grant goes far beyond the frills and far beyond dealing with waste and the elimination of unnecessary buildings. The cuts will go deep into the heart of employment, of both full- and part-time staff in local government. It is disgraceful that insufficient attention is given to the prospect of tens of thousands of local government workers being put out of work by the deliberate act of Government policy. Tomorrow we are, quite rightly, discussing the level of unemployment among steel workers. A considerably greater number of local government workers could lose their jobs as a result of Government policy, and the House should be aware of that fact.
I turn to the distribution of the needs element. When I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment, I could see the point that many shire counties made very forcibly to me about their special needs. There are difficulties of distance, of sparsity of population and of rural transport in many shire counties. These difficulties were put forcibly to me.
I should be glad, in normal circumstances, to see that the position of shire counties did not deteriorate. The difficulties of Welsh counties especially came to my notice while I was a Minister. But an improvement for shire counties has occurred at a time of considerable reduction in the amount of rate support grant. Shire counties are, therefore, helped at the expense of metropolitan areas, and especially at the expense of London.
My hon. Friends the Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr.Cunningham) and for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) posed the problems of local authorities, such as Lambeth. The expenditure of shire counties is often less because they export their problems to London. The young girl who is pregnant disappears into the city and becomes the responsibility of Lambeth or Islington. The runaway husband and the person without work also becomes, the problem of inner city areas, especially London.
I would normally welcome a greater proportion of grant for shire counties.

1771
But the effects on inner areas can be considerable. It is regrettable that, at a time of savage reduction in the amount available, money has been given to the shire counties at the expense of all urban areas, especially London.
I turn to the contentious section F and the transitional arrangements contained in paragraphs 42 to 46 of the document. The balance between the House and local government is a delicate and sensitive partnership. We are elected by virtually the same franchise. Hon. Members are elected at national level and members of local councils at local level. We are responsible to our constituents. They are responsible to their constituents. For many years, a delicate balance has existed. The right hon. Gentleman is shattering that balance. The whole of section F reveals the arrogant contempt for local government and local government democracy that the right hon. Gentleman feels. That contempt is shown vividly when he is interrupted by my hon. Friends and retaliates against those authorities that he thinks will defy him.
I say "arrogant" for two reasons. There was no consultation with local authorities over the proposals in section F. I intend to quote chapter and verse of what the local authorities think. I accept that the previous Government of which I was a member put forward a Green Paper which advocated a unitary grant. It was not a unitary grant with all the punitive strings that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced. The previous Government put forward that proposal because it was recommended by the Lay field committee.
It is right that when a high-powered committee such as Lay field is set up, its proposals should be presented in Green Paper form to local authorities and to the nation for discussion. The local authority associations unanimously rejected unitary grants. My Government were democratic enough, and sufficiently sensitive to the balance between local and national government, to abandon the proposals for a unitary grant. The present Government have resuscitated the unitary grant without consultation and have added the punitive strings.
The attitude that has been adopted is doubly arrogant. As many hon. Members, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook,
1772
have indicated, the Government have included this proposal in the order before the Bill which will contain the legislation has been brought before the House. The Government's legislative timetable is in a mess. In nine months in office, they have introduced a Bill into the House of Lords and abandoned it, saying that they intend to introduce a Bill in the House of Commons. Nothing has been forthcoming, and it is almost February. Local authorities are awaiting that Bill to know what they need to do in next year's rating and rate support grant discussions. We have not even had the Second Reading of that Bill.
When I listened to the Secretary of State's replies to my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members about his yardstick for deciding which authorities were in defiance of the Government, were too big spenders, and all the other words that we have heard from him to describe those that offend him and his principles, I thought how subjective it all was. It is subjective in that it depends entirely on the Secretary of State's will and decision. What would have happened if we had dared to introduce such an arrogant measure as the present Government have introduced?
It was even more sinister when the right hon. Gentleman said that one of the ways in which he would judge whether an authority was in defiance of central Government was by the things that it said. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be the Secretary of State in 1984, so councils had better beware. The young bright-eyed councillor, of any party, who goes on to an authority not knowing much about the procedure will be warned by the chief executive "Do not say a word against the Government, or they will put us on their black list and we shall have our expenditure reduced." It was the right hon. Gentleman who said that one of the things by which he would judge an authority was not simply its level of expenditure, not what the money was spent on, but what it said. That is far too subjective a way in which to deal with local authorities.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he would have discussions and consultations with local authorities. That may be, but he has produced the order and we have had none yet. What is said by the Association of District Councils, a

1773
Conservative-controlled organisation? It says:
"The association is most concerned about Section F of the Order, relating to the proposed new grant structure and the transitional arrangements. This proposal strikes at the very foundation of our system of democratically elected councillors taking spending decisions in the light of local needs and circumstances." The ADC is quite right.
I think it was the hon. Member for Edge Hill who quoted the response of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which was similar. I should like to quote also the response of the Association of County Councils, in a letter of 10 January from Mr. Hetherington to me and, I think, to all hon. Members whose constituency is part of a shire. The letter said:
"The report of the Secretary of State mentions the proposals for a new he proposals for a new 'block' grant system which were set out in the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill (H.L.), and proposals for transitional arrangements for 1980–81. These proposals are a matter of the utmost concern for the Association: we believe them to be strongly prejudicial to local democracy; neither do we believe that they are in the true interests of central government."
Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman is doing his consultation with the local authorities, he has three Tory-controlled local government associations strongly opposed to the very principle of what he is trying to do in the order. He will have heavy weather with them, and, I suspect, with many of his hon. Friends as well as the Opposition.
My last quotation comes not from an association but from an individual councillor:
"If the proposals are approved by Parliament, local democracy will be dealt a bitter blow. Very substantial additional powers will be placed in the hands of central government to influence the decisions of individual local authorities. The proposals threaten the survival of local government as we know it today and we shall be taking all possible steps to oppose these provisions."
That is not the leader of Lambeth council speaking. That quotation does not come from Sheffield. It comes from Mr. Tom Holman, a distinguished Conservative who is deputy-chairman of Cheshire county council. These are the people who are opposing this order, and I suggest that many Tory Members will also oppose the proposals in the Bill. Many Members on both sides of the House—particularly those who have
1774
served in local government—have a deep and profound respect for local government. We shall not allow it to be trampled on in the arrogant way attempted by the Government in the rate support grant order and in the Bill.
I hope that many Conservative Members who have given great service in local government will think hard about the proposals. I also hope that other hon. Members, who know that their colleagues in local government have put them here, will do the same. I hope that they will all think hard tonight and, when the Bill comes before the House, about whether they should oppose it or at least abstain.
There will be serious repercussions from Conservative-controlled local authorities and associations and from Conservative Members of Parliament if the Secretary of State tries, in this arrogant way, to force the straitjacket of financial dictatorship on local authorities. If he does that, it will be at his own whim and without proper yardsticks and objective standards.
Section F alone is enough to cause my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to oppose the order. There is much worse. The order means a drastic reduction in services for people most in need. It discriminates most against those urban authorities with the greatest need. In addition, it will produce a massive increase in rates for all authorities.
The Tories reduced income tax in the Budget and immediately increased VAT. They did that almost in the same breath. Few people benefited from the income tax reductions. Let the world outside and the House make no mistake about it: the Government are doing the same in the order. They are saying that, having reduced income tax, they need to reduce local and public expenditure. The result is that the rates are increased.
Hon. Members—particularly Tory Members—have described the rates increase as the most regressive of all taxes. The Government are transferring the burden away from income tax on to that most regressive tax. It is the latest con trick of a Government who have lost the confidence of the British public more rapidly than any other Government this century.
I hope that not only my right hon. and hon. Friends, and the Liberal Party, but some Tory Members will, in the interests

1775
of local democracy, come into the Lobby with us tonight.
9.43 pm
The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): I welcome the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) to the first local government debate in this Parliament. I did my homework on his earlier contributions since he referred to his earlier career in the Department of the Environment. I was hoping to find a suitable mine of his earlier speeches. However, I am afraid that his contribution on a previous occasion, in 1974, was rather more limited than on this occasion. Hansard noted that
"The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes) rose—"[Official Report, 27 June 1974; Vol. 875, c. 1782.]
Unfortunately, at that point a Liberal Member was rude enough to get in the way, and that was the sole, and not very large, contribution by the right hon. Gentleman in that debate. We welcome him on this occasion all the same.
The right hon. Member for Widnes was honest enough to say that he was trying to demonstrate that we are discussing a controversial and enormously important settlement but that the debate was marked by the emptiest Benches on the Labour side that he could remember during such a debate. That did not help his argument. I sympathise with him in his honesty.
The right hon. Gentleman admitted candidly that he found it difficult to understand the rate support grant system and the mechanics and finances involved. I have grappled with the system for several months and I understand his problem. The right hon. Gentleman made one mistake. He confused the estimate of outturn expenditure for next year—he used a figure of £18,000 million—and the relevant expenditure estimation, which is about £15,700 million at November 1979 prices. In order to make a proper comparison, one must add the adjustment for price changes and allow for increase orders and specific grants. A number of commentators have made the same mistake and have suggested that the Government are involved in a terrible plot. There is confusion about the terms in which the figures were originally expressed.
1776
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) complained that he had failed to receive a reply from the Government about what happens to the surplus on the housing revenue accounts. I am pleased to have the privilege of making an important statement on that matter. The consultation paper on the proposed subsidy system said that we should be making separate proposals about the way in which any surpluses that might arise on the housing revenue accounts could be used. It is an important and complex issue, and we are considering the alternative possibilities carefully. We shall be making proposals, as promised, shortly. I hope that that is clear and that we shall have further information shortly.
My hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) and for Luton, East (Mr. Bright) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) questioned the future of domestic rates. I do not need to repeat our anxiety about the rating system. We made clear in the election and subsequently that we had to give priority to the reduction of direct taxation and that, changes in the rating system or its abolition would have to take second place. We have started a review of alternatives, and I take note of the warnings by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major).
I turn to the issues raised by the right hon. Members for Sparkbrook and Widnes and the transitional arrangements in the introduction to the order. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook waxed lyrical about a Bill of Rights and a constitutional outrage. We all enjoy a certain amount of hyperbole, which removes some of the dullness from our debates, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot seriously sustain his argument. There is no question of retrospection in terms of an order. No increase order is involved. Such an order will not be introduced until next November. The increase order about which the right hon. Gentleman waxed so lyrical will appear next November, when we trust that a Local Government, Planning and Land Act will be on the statute book. Such an order will be laid under that Act. We are giving guidance in advance. That is the proper way to proceed, and Governments of both parties have done that frequently.

1777
The right hon. Member also was churlish enough to complain that we had not yet debated in the House the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill, which will shortly be introduced here. He complained about the way in which it had been handled, and the right hon. Member for Widnes complained about the way in which the Government were getting their programme in a muddle. That is particularly churlish, since we responded to an Opposition request. The Bill having been introduced in the House of Lords, the Government responded to representations by Labour Members that we should introduce it here, and if that is all the thanks we get it is no encouragement for us to respond in that way on future occasions.
Mr. Marks: Previously Governments of both parties have paid out money to local authorities on the ground that they were planning to bring in legislation. Has money ever been taken off them before under legislation yet to be introduced?
Mr. King: The clearest warning has been given at this time. The increase order is not paid until next November and the Government are perfectly entitled to make quite clear the basis upon which payment will be made subject to the approval by Parliament of the Bill and the order. The Opposition cannot possibly sustain a charge that such action is inappropriate or unconstitutional.
The next complaint concerned uncertainty faced by local authorities in fixing their rates. We have made clear and have given as much guidance as possible on what the notional uniform rate will be. That rate is, in essence, the middle ground of the rates of all authorities. It is implicit in the present way in which rate support grant is organised. We are merely making more explicit what is implicit. I should have thought that hon. Members would welcome that.
In those circumstances, it is inevitable that a number of authorities will exceed the notional uniform rate, but we have made clear that only those authorities that are substantially in excess—[HON. MEMBERS: "By how much?"]—I cannot answer that, because that will depend upon rating decisions that have not yet been made by a whole range of authorities, and those decisions will depend
1778
upon their relative positions. However, it serves this warning: if there are authorities that are substantially in excess of any reasonable assessed spending need and they continue to increase their expenditure beyond what would be considered and what has been assessed—this assessment has been going on for many years—as a reasonable standard of assessment of need, they will obviously be moving into an area in which they could not expect automatically to enjoy the same continuing level of grant regardless of their expenditure.
I am told that this gives rise to great uncertainty, and I am asked how local authorities can possibly plan. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) is not the world's greatest living expert on the rate support grant system. He now seems to have departed, after his contribution to the debate. He said that it was outrageous that local authorities could lose some grant on which they had budgeted midway through the year. He seems to be blissfully unaware that that is precisely the way in which the system operates at present. But the iniquity of that is that it happens because there is a finite pool, as my right hon. Friend explained, and that if certain authorities spend to an excessive level they attract to themselves more grant—and the only source of that grant, as we have seen in year after year, is from the more prudent and the more economic authorities.
Mr. Hattersley: On the specific question of retrospection, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why this following piece of reasoning is wrong? A London borough—let us hypothesise Lambeth—could, wholly within the law, in April increase its rate to 160p in the pound and express the view that it was doing it in defiance of the Secretary of State. That action at that time would be wholly legal. According to the Secretary of State and his circulars, that borough would be penalised in October. How is that not retrospection?
Mr. King: I was anxious to complete the whole of this section of my speech on the question of transitional arrangements, because I shall be dealing with the question of what is alleged to be punishment. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so, I shall complete it in my own way.

1779
The second point covered in the arrangements is that we have made clear that there will also be the power to provide a waiver from any diminution or tapering of grant for those authorities which, although they may be very substantially above the level, have clearly made a significant effort to contain their levels of expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is so.
Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. King: I think that it would be helpful to the House if I dealt with the whole of the transitional arrangements in one go. Then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Great excitement was aroused by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook when he said that this was the most appalling, arbitrary, dictatorial use of power by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and that it would be exercised totally outside Parliament and without any question of parliamentary control. However, unlike, as I understand it, the claw-back arrangements, which I think are administrative arrangements under which authorities lose funds to which they have previously thought they were entitled, under this arrangement, when we reach a time at the end of next year when the next increase order has to be laid and the question of the allocation of that increase order and whether any authorities will suffer from tapering of grant will arise, it will be my right hon. Friend's responsibility to lay a report before Parliament, to set out in that report not only the details but the principles on which such tapering has been applied, and to get Parliament's approval for such action. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's allegation—I am sorry that he did not have the opportunity to check this matter before—that this was an arbitrary, dictatorial, extra-parliamentary act by my right hon. Friend is totally untrue.
I now turn to the issue raised about punishment, penalties and the question of people being penalised when acting in a perfectly legal way. The situation of local authorities remains exactly as it is. We have had some fairly flamboyant speeches about the end of local government and the undermining of local autonomy. Suggestions have been made and alternative schemes halve
1780
been put forward to the effect that, somehow, there should be a cash limit on individual authorities, a ceiling on rate increases, or a cash limit on total expenditure of an individual authority. Any of those suggestions would totally undermine local authorities.
The situation is that the rate-fixing of local authorities will remain entirely the responsibility of councillors and local authorities. It will be up to them to determine their levels of expenditure. They will be entitled to fix their own rate levels. What we are saying is that we reserve the right on behalf of the taxpayer to determine just how far we are prepared to go on that journey with them. We are prepared and entitled to say not that they may not fix rates at whichever level they think is appropriate but just how far we are prepared to subsidise increasing levels of expenditure with public money.
People will be acting in a perfectly legal way. They will be entitled to fix their rates. There is no question of illegality. But we are giving the clearest advice that we can at the earliest possible stage that if people rate very substantially in excess of expenditure levels they cannot automatically expect a contribution of public money to accompany that.
Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister look at the metropolitan areas? Let us suppose that either a metropolitan borough or a metropolitan county grossly exceeded the levels of expenditure which the Secretary of State wishes to see. Given the method by which the present Government are operating, is it not inevitable that although the borough or the county may be not at fault, both of them would be penalised by these arrangements?
Mr. King: I accept that the hon. Member has raised a perfectly fair point on the transitional arrangements. Although it can sound more of a problem in the way in which the hon. Member has put it, I do not expect a great problem in that respect. But there is a technical difficulty here, and I accept that in that respect there is an element of rough justice.
I am surprised how many hon. Members are quite unaware of the current problems over the resource clawback. No one can claim that the present system is very fair.

1781
A number of my hon. Friends and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) asked about the block grant that we are proposing. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook kept referring to the unitary grant and made the interesting remark that he could not understand why, with the unitary grant, anybody should wish to continue to serve in local government. He seems to have forgotten that the Labour Government put forward the unitary grant when he was a member of that Government. We would not accept such a crude and unsatisfactory system as the unitary grant. We propose a number of important changes.
Everyone recognises that the rate support grant, in terms of its allocation, is not satisfactory and that there is a need for change in that respect. The Labour Govenment, as usual, put forward their Green Paper and, again as usual, did nothing about it for two years.
Mr. George Cunningham: I get the impression that the right hon. Gentleman is winding up his winding-up. I hope that he will not overlook the specific question that I put, which I hope was passed on to him, about the arrangement relating to London weighting.
Mr. King: I am trying to make progress, but the right hon. Member for Widnes ran over the time that I expected.
We are not prepared to continue a system of grant distribution and arrangement that rewards high spenders and penalises the prudent. We are determined to change that system. We are not prepared to have a system that removes the maximum autonomy from local authorities. Contrary to the many fears that have been expressed—I hope that in discussions on the Bill much of this will be clarified—I do not believe that it significantly alters the balance of autonomy or the relationship between local government and central Government.
Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. King: I should like to make some progress. The method of assessment of need is absolutely crucial. We have now started our discussions with the local authority associations. The work has started, and I hope that we shall be able
1782
to produce for the House a more comprehensible, clear and fair system of needs element distribution than exists under the multiple regression analysis. As my right hon. Friend said, no one understands the system. It is far too complex. It is also self-sustaining in the drift that has taken place in its distribution.
I turn now to the points made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). He will appreciate that his question about a Select Committee is not for me. He will also appreciate that the transfer of the police from local to national funds raises a fundamental issue.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question, of which I have a note, about the London weighting aspect. As there is some uncertainty whether we have the question right, perhaps he will write to me, and I shall give him an answer. I have an answer, but I suspect that it is not the answer to the question that he posed.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) criticised the point on rateable values and the weaknesses there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said, that came ill from a member of a former Labour Government when no Labour Government ever since the war had a single rating revaluation.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) raised the point about local authorities and the position of those authorities that defied the Government on expenditure cuts. They are perfectly entitled to do that and are within their legal rights. They may continue to do so. What those authorities cannot automatically expect is that they will get Government support for their actions. I should like to make that quite clear.
Mr. John Fraser Mr. John Fraser rose—
Mr. King: May I just give an instance of this? My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington drew attention to his experience of local government and the way in which Conservative local authorities sought to support the Labour Government when they called for economies in earlier years. I thought that it was disingenuous of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook when he said "Ah, yes, but things are different now, because this is a Government who are attacking local government and calling for massive

1783
economies." I recall that we were the Government who called for 1½ per cent. economies in one year and that it was the right hon. Gentleman's Government who called for 2½ per cent. economies in one year. I note just how much those standards have changed, and how quickly.
Mr. George Cunningham: I must protest at the way in which the Minister has dealt with my question. My question was put before 8 o'clock. When I put a question, which may be obscure, before 8 o'clock in a debate asking for it to be dealt with in the winding-up speech, there were plenty of opportunities for me to be found to clarify any obscurity. That is not the proper way in which a Minister should respond.
Mr. King: That is perfectly fair point to make.
Having discussed the transitional arrangements and the block grant, the real subject of the debate is the rate support grant orders. The lack of attendance earlier in the debate, and the lack of criticism in Parliament and outside it, makes clear our contention that these are tough but fair and realistic orders. They are a stark contrast to the orders laid a year ago by the right hon.
Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), who is now present. He had the nerve to criticise the increase order that we made when in fact the previous Government assessed it at 5 per cent. for wage settlements and 8½ per cent. for inflation, and even invited local government to go for 1½ per cent. growth.
We faced a very difficult economic picture—one that we inherited from the previous Government. The suggestion that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook tried to make, that all our difficulties started with a Conservative Government, is the most outrageous calumny, and he knows that all too well.
In these orders we have sought to establish a fair and reasonable settlement. It is a settlement that gives local authorities the opportunity to rate fairly in the present situation. We shall make every contribution that we can in giving local authorities freedom in charging and removing controls to loosen the burdens of expenditure that lay upon them. We believe that we have made a fair rate support grant settlement, and on that basis I commend it to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 257.

Division No. 138]

AYES

[10.08 pm

Adley, Robert

Browne, John (Winchester)

Dykes, Hugh

Aitken, Jonathan

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Alexander, Richard

Bryan, Sir Paul

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Alison, Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Eggar, Timothy

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Buck, Antony

Elliott, Sir William

Ancram, Michael

Budgen, Nick

Emery, Peter

Arnold, Tom

Bulmer, Esmond

Eyre, Reginald

Aspinwall, Jack

Burden, F. A.

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Butcher, John

Fairgrieve, Russell

Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

Butler, Hon Adam

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Farr, John

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Fell, Anthony

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Banks, Robert

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Bell, Sir Ronald

Channon, Paul

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Bendall, Vivian

Chapman, Sydney

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

Churchill, W. S.

Fookes, Miss Janet

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Forman Nigel

Berry, Hon Anthony

Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

Fowler Rt Hon Norman

Best, Keith

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Fox, Marcus

Bevan, David Gilroy

Clegg, Sir Walter

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cockkeram, Eric

Fraser, Peter (South & St)

Biggs-Davison, John

Colvin, Michael

Fry Peter

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Costain, A. P.

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

Bowden, Andrew

Cranborne, Viscount

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Critchley, Julian

Glyn, Dr Alan

Braine, Sir Bernard

Crouch, David

Goodhew, Victor

Bright, Graham

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Goodlad, Alastair

Brinton, Tim

Dorrell, Stephen

Gorst, John

Brittan, Leon

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Gow, Ian

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Dover, Denshore

Gower, Sir Raymond

Brooke, Hon Peter

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Brotherton, Michael

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Gray, Hamish

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thoroe)

Durant, Tony

Greenway, Harry

Grieve, Percy

Marland, Paul

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

Marlow, Tony

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Scott, Nicholas

Grist, Ian

Marten, Nell (Banbury)

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Grylls, Michael

Mates, Michael

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Mather, Carol

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, lain (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, lain

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)

Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Stanley, John

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Steen, Anthony

Hooson, Tom

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Stevens, Martin

Hordern, Peter

Murphy, Christopher

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Howe, Rl Hon Sir Geoffrey

Myles, David

Stewart, John (East Ronfrewshire)

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Neale, Gerrard

Stradling Thomas, J.

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Needham, Richard

Tapsell, peter

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Nelson, Anthony

Tebbit, Norman

Hurd, Hon Douglas

Neubert, Michael

Temple-Morris, Peter

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Nott, Rt Hon John

Thompson, Donald

Jessel, Toby

Onslow, Cranley

Thome, Neil (Ilford South)

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Thornton, Malcolm

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Osborn, John

Townsend, John (Bridlington)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Page, John (Harrow West)

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

Trippier, David

Kimball, Marcus

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Trotter, Neville

King, Rt Hon Tom

Parkinson, Cecil

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Parris, Matthew

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Knight, Mrs Jill

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Viggers, Peter

Knox, David

Patten, John (Oxford)

Wakeham, John

Lamont, Norman

Pattie, Geoffrey

Waldegrave, Hon William

Lang,Ian

Pawsey, James

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Percival, Sir Ian

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Lawrence, Ivan

Pink, R. Bonner

Waller, Gary

Lawson, Nigel

Pollock, Alexander

Walters, Dennis

Lee, John

Porter, George

Ward, John

Le Marchant, Spencer

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Warren, Kenneth

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Watson, John

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Wheeler, John

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Raison, Timothy

Whitney, Raymond

Loveridge, John

Rathbone, Tim

Wickenden, Keith

Luce, Richard

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Wiggin, Jerry

Lyell, Nicholas

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wilkinson, John

McCrindle, Robert

Renton, Tim

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Macfarlane, Neil

Rhodes James, Robert

Winterton, Nicholas

MacGregor, John

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Wolfson, Mark

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Ridsdale, Julian

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Younger, Rt Hon George

McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

McQuarrie, Albert

Rost, Peter

Mr. David Waddington and

Madel, David

Royle, Sir Anthony

Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Major, John

NOES

Abse, Leo

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Adams, Allen

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Cartwright, John

Allaun, Frank

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Alton, David

Bradley, Tom

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Anderson, Donald

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cohen, Stanley

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Coleman, Donald

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

Conlan, Bernard

Ashton, Joe

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

Cook, Robin F.

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

Buchan, Norman

Cowans, Harry

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Beilth, A. J.

Campbell, Ian

Crowther, J. S.

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Cryer, Bob

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Canavan, Dennis

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bidwell, Sydney

Carmichael, Neil

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

1786

1787

Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Prescott, John

Dalyell, Tarn

Janner, Hon Grevilie

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Davidson, Arthur

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Race, Reg

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

John, Brynmor

Radice, Giles

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

Richardson, Jo

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

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Deakins, Eric

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Dempsey, James

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Dewar, Donald

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Dixon, Donald

Kerr, Russell

Robertson, George

Dobson, Frank

Kilroy-Sllk, Robert

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Dormand, Jack

Kinnock, Neil

Rooker, J.W.

Douglas, Dick

Lambie, David

Roper, John

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lamborn, Harry

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Dubs, Alfred

Lamond, James

Rowlands, Ted

Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Leadbitter, Ted

Ryman, John

Dunnett, Jack

Leighton, Ronald

Sandelson, Neville

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Sever, John

Eadie, Alex

Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

Sheerman, Barry

Eastham, Ken

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Litherland, Robert

Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Short, Mrs Renée

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

English, Michael

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Silkin, Rt Hon S.C. (Dulwich)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

McCartney, Hugh

Silverman, Julius

Ewing, Harry

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

Field, Frank

McElhone, Frank

Snape, Peter

Fitch, Alan

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Soley, Clive

Fitt, Gerard

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Spearing, Nigel

Flannery, Martin

McKelvey, William

Spriggs, Leslie

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Stallard, A. W.

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Maclennan, Robert

Steel, Rt Hon David

Ford, Ben

McMahon, Andrew

Stoddart, David

Forrester, John

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

Stott, Roger

Foster, Derek

McNally, Thomas

Slrang, Gavin

Foulkes, George

McWilliam, John

Straw, Jack

Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

Magee, Bryan

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Marks, Kenneth

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

Freud, Clement

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

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

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

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

George, Bruce

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Maxton, John

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Ginsberg, David

Maynard, Miss Joan

Tilley, John

Golding, John

Meacher, Michael

Tinn, James

Gourlay, Harry

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Torney, Tom

Graham, Ted

Mikardo, Ian

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Watkins, David

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Weetch, Ken

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Wellbeloved, James

Hardy, Peter

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Welsh, Michael

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

White, Frank R. (Bury a Radcliffe)

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Morton, George

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Whitlock, William

Haynes, Frank

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Newens, Stanley

Willams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Heffer, Eric S.

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

Ogden, Eric

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

O'Halloran, Michael

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Home Robertson, John

O'Neill, Martin

Winnick, David

Homewood, William

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Woodall, Alec

Hooley, Frank

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Woolmer, Kenneth

Horam, John

Park, George

Wrigglesworth, Ian

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

Parker, John

Young, David (Bolton East)

Huckfield, Les

Pavitt, Laurie

Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

Pendry, Tom

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Penhaligon, David

Mr. John Evans and

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Mr. Joseph Dean.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant Order 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 November, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order 1979, a copy of which was laid before
1788
this House on 28 November, be approved.—[Mr. Heselane.]
Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (No. 2) Order 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 November, be approved.—[Mr. Heseltine.]

RATE SUPPORT GRANT (SCOTLAND)
10.22 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 November, be approved.
In introducing the order to the House I shall be a brief as I can. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the end of the debate to deal with points that will be raised by hon. Members in the course of the debate.
Before coming to the provisions of the order, I should say a few words about the economic background that has led to it. The extremely difficult economic background to the settlement is summarised in the opening paragraphs of the White Paper "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1980–81", Cmnd. 7746. The White Paper notes the long-term deterioration of the British economy and points out that under the previous Administration public spending plans were increased on assumptions about economic growth that were, and can now quite clearly be seen to be, quite unrealistic. The previous Administration's proposals were set out in the White Paper, Cmnd 7439. A growth of just under 1 per cent. annually was planned for local authority current expendture for the years from 1978–79 to 1982–83.
No justification can be found for that from the economic prospects of the same period. I should have thought that Labour Members would recognise that those prospects were, to say the least, bleak and difficult throughout that time. Moreover, that substantial further rise would have followed a substantial growth of about 18 per cent. in total between 1973–74 and 1978–79. Indeed, that was equally difficult to justify by any calculation or even cursory study of the economic circumstances of the period.
The lack of realism shown by the previous Labour Government and by Labour Members over expenditure levels was also carried into their forecasts of cost increases. The most notable example of that was the forecast made at the time of the 1979–80 grant settlement that local
1790
authority wage costs would rise by 5 per cent. in the ensuing year. It was apparent to everyone from the outset, even when the announcement was made, that the forecast was totally misconceived. It was, of course, rapidly overtaken by the high wage settlements for local authority employees made during the past year.
The over-optimism that underlay the initial forecast was not only ingenuous but was damaging, in the sense that when preparing their budgets local authorities placed little credence on estimates of grant entitlement under the increase order, as they saw that it made no sense even before they got it. Loss of confidence as between central and local government in this way is always regrettable, and it creates considerable problems leading to budgeting and estimating based on figures that no one believes in—even at the time of their making.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is not the Secretary of State being over-optimistic and completely unrealistic in basing his rate support grant order on a rate of inflation of 13 per cent. when inflation is already approaching the 20 per cent. mark? We are unlikely to get inflation down to 13 per cent. in the lifetime of this silly Government.
Mr. Younger: It is my besetting sin that I am always far too kind to the hon. Gentleman. I should not have given way to him, because I shall come to that point later. His comparison is misleading, because he was looking back to a former rate of inflation whereas we are looking forward to 1980–81 in this order.
Unlike our predecessors, we are determined to tackle the root cause of the economic difficulties in which we find ourselves. To that end, stabilisation of public expenditure and realistic forecasting are an essential part of our economic strategy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made that same point this afternoon. As a piece of extra information, I should add that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's recent statement about further reductions in public expenditure in 1980–81 does not affect the provisions of the order.
Local authority current expenditure forms a substantial proportion of total public expenditure in Scotland. On

1791
taking office last year, I was acutely concerned to learn that local authorities were planning to exceed by nearly £50 million the expenditure estimate on which the rate support grant settlement for 1979–80 was based.
I am, of course, aware that that excess was above the figures commended to authorities through the rate support grant settlement for 1979–80 by my predecessor. I support the objective of controlling local authority expenditure that has frequently been expressed by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), along with his colleagues. There is no doubt that the general tendency that has been shown by authorities to budget for ever-increasing levels of expenditure was encouraged by the lax attitude generally shown by the previous Labour Government on fiscal matters. That has been touched upon by Conservative Members and by several courageous Labour Members.
Accordingly, as a first step in bringing current expenditure under control, I asked all authorities in Scotland to review their spending plans and to ensure that actual expenditure was held to the level assumed in this settlement and, indeed, below that if possible.
I warned authorities at the same time that if they failed to heed my advice they would have difficulty in adjusting their programmes to the more realistic level of expenditure that I had in mind for 1980–81 and future years. I am hopeful that authorities will constrain their expenditure, although I am sorry to say that there is evidence, especially in manpower figures for the second quarter of the year, that further action still needs to be taken. It can only be seen as worrying that in September 1979, at the time of the last manpower survey, the figure for local authority manpower was 7,319 greater than in September 1978 and no less than 13,336 greater than in September 1977. I hope that all in local government will look carefully at that matter and do their best to correct it.
Turning to 1980–81, I have based the rate support grant settlement on a volume of expenditure just over 2 per cent. less than the corresponding figure for 1979–80. Before deciding on that level, I undertook consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which were both extensive and effective. From May to
1792
November, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pent lands (Mr. Rifkind), who has responsibility for home affairs and the environment, and I met the convention, or its president and office-bearer, on seven separate occasions.
Hon. Members know that the convention, naturally enough, has reservations about some aspects of the settlement, but it has been good enough to acknowledge that it has had ample opportunity to express its view. That is how things ought to be, and I shall do my best to see that that is so.
Overall, the convention's contribution was most helpful and effective. It was one of the factors that I took into account in my review of all the expenditure programmes for which I am responsible and that enabled me to set the necessary reduction of all local authority expenditure in 1980–81 at £145 million, compared with the £175 million originally contemplated and which I originally put to the convention. Also, by accepting the convention's recommendation that a higher proportionate cut should be made in capital rather than in current expenditure, I was able to set the reduction in current expenditure relevant for RSG at only 3 per cent. of the figure planned by the previous Administration.
Although I have been greatly encouraged by evidence from a number of individual authorities that the force and sense of the Government's economic policies are recognised by them and that an overall reduction in expenditure of the order now proposed should be attainable without prejudicing essential services, it is most disturbing to me, and I dare say to ratepayers, that other authorities are contemplating budgets reported to involve substantial rate increases. I believe that many hon. Members will agree that it is a pretty commonly held view by ratepayers and the public at large that expenditure growth and rating levels must be checked.
I must therefore clearly warn any authority that is making irresponsible decisions that the Government will not bail it out and that its ratepayers and electors will undoubtedly hold the authority responsible if excessive spending leads to excessive rating levels.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Will the right hon. Gentleman

1793
give an estimate of what he believes the likely rate increases will be on the assumption that local authorities take the advice set out by the Government and embodied in the rate support grant order? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we tried hard to get this information from the civil servants at the hearing of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Perhaps understandably, they said that they could not give it, but an addendum to the report says that
"A number of estimates"—
of rate increases—
"were however made within the Scottish Office of what the increase in the total rate burden might be on various assumptions."
Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore tell us what these estimates and assumptions are?
Mr. Younger: I am afraid that I am not in a position to do that. Any estimate made at this time would be wholly irrelevant and would depend on decisions that local authorities still have to make. An estimate made by me would have no meaning and no relation to the likely level of rate increases in various authorities.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Younger: I shall give way in a moment. It would not have any relation to anything that made any sense, and in any case it is not my practice to give future estimates of this kind. This is a matter that must await the decisions of individual local authorities.
Mr. Norman Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The report of the Select Committee has an addendum that makes it crystal clear that the assumptions were made. A number of different assumptions and calculations of estimates were made of the total rate burden. What were the assumptions and the relevant estimates based upon them? The crucial question is this: given that every local authority obeys the Secretary of State's guidelines, what is the likely increase?
Mr. Younger: That is something that has been done in the past. Incidentally, I noted that an estimate was made last year that was wildly wrong—wrong by 100 per cent. or more. The right hon. Member for Craigton made an estimate
1794
that the increases were likely to be in single figures, but they turned out to average 20 per cent. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that those are the figures. I do not intend to make an estimate of that sort at this time. I am waiting for the decisions of individual local authorities in the light of the guidance and guidelines that have been given. I have given local authorities the strongest possible advice to be careful in their expenditure and not to be extravagant. If they follow that course, they should be able to keep rate increases to a reasonable level. That is the correct position for me to take at the moment.
Mr. Robert Hughes: But it is made clear in the addendum supplied by the Scottish Office civil servants that certain assumptions were made about rate burdens. We are not asking for a whole range of different assumptions. The one question we ask is whether the estimate has been made and the evidence provided to the Select Committee is accurate. If it is accurate, on the basis that local authorities do exactly as the Government wish, what is the likely effect of that on the rates?
Mr. Younger: The assumptions to which the hon. Member refers are not assumptions made by Ministers in the course of ministerial discussions. They are made as working assumptions as a result of much official work over many months. They are not definitive assumptions. Incidentally, I can confirm that I was correct in suggesting that the estimate made by the right hon. Member for Craigton last year was that the average rate increases in 1979–80 would be in single figures, provided that local authorities accepted the previous Government's guidelines on inflation assumptions. In the event, the average increase was about 20 per cent.
Mr. Bruce Millan: Will the Secretary of State now give us the figures for 1980–81? Is he seriously suggesting that the Government have produced this order without any idea at all of the rate increases next year in Scotland? That cannot be so.
Mr. Younger: My general maxim for approaching my task is not to repeat any of the mistakes made by the right hon. Gentleman. As his error was clearly demonstrated as a 100 per cent. error, I

1795
might be well advised not to embark upon the same course.
Paragraphs 9–20 of the report give a brief account of the assumed level of expenditure on particular services. Since time is short, I shall not go over the ground exhaustively under each heading. It is, of course, for individual local authorities to decide what level of current expenditure to incur on particular services. My hon. Friend will be glad to reply to any questions on particular services that hon. Members may wish to raise during the debate.
There are two points that I should make. The expenditure estimates for many services show a small increase compared with 1979–80. In particular, I have urged authorities to give priority to maintenance of law, order and protective services and services for the handicapped and disadvantaged. But in proposing a material reduction in expenditure on education—the largest single programme—I have taken into account the continuing decline in the school population. It would be irresponsible for the Government to propose continual increases in total expenditure having regard to such a steady decline in pupil numbers.
The reductions proposed for 1980–81 assume that authorities will be able to make significant savings on milk, meals and transport as a consequence of the greater discretion that we intend they should be given as to the nature of and the charges for these services, without in any way imperilling exemptions from charges as appropriate.
Mr. John Maxton: In view of his statement about the decline in pupil numbers, which is happening in the primary schools and is beginning to happen in the secondary schools, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he has asked for restraint and cutbacks both in the further education sector and in the area of the central institutions that are under his direct control, where over the next few years there will be a large expansion in the number of people entering?
Mr. Younger: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The position of those sectors is that we can allow for some growth, but I accept that it will not be as much growth as we should like, and it will probably not be as much as the
1796
demand would require if we had all the money that we wanted. This is one of the many factors that we shall all have to face—the fact that we do not have, and will not have for a long time in the future, the money to doall the things that we want to do. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman made a valid point, and no doubt he will develop it further if he has the opportunity.
On the basics of education—the classroom work in our schools—we plan to maintain standards. Whereas the pupil population is expected to decline by 2·8 per cent. in 1980–81 compared with 1979–80, the expenditure that we are allowing declines by only 1·4 per cent. As is mentioned in the report, expenditure per pupil will actually rise during 1980–81, from £538 per head to £548 per head.
Paragraph 22 of the report records that the rate of grant for 1980–81 will remain at 68½ per cent., the same as in 1979–80. The background to my decision to keep the same rate of grant is that I am anxious to ensure that local authorities are able to meet the expenditure levels proposed without placing an undue burden on ratepayers. I very much hope that authorities will respond positively to the lead that I have given by exercising stringent control over their expenditure programmes.
Application of the grant percentage to the relevant expenditure figure at November 1979 prices produces an aggregate grant of £1,362·8 million, of which £114·9 million is due to be distributed through specific grants. They are set out in appendix E of the report. That leaves £1,247·9 million to be distributed as rate support grant.
As in previous years, there will be a cash limit for 1980–81 on the additional grant that may be paid in due course, by way of increase orders, towards increases in the level of prices, costs and remuneration after November 1979. That cash limit will be £194 million. It is compatible with increases in costs affecting the level of relevant expenditure of 13 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1980–81. Allowance has also been made for the cost of outstanding comparability awards.
I must stress that this 13 per cent. assumption relates to local authority expenditure that is relevant for rate support grant and that other assumptions

1797
may be appropriate for different or non-specialised purposes. I must also emphasise that the significant figure for local authorities is the £194 million cash limit on grant payable under the increase orders for 1980–81. This is a firm ceiling and I think that it is fair and realistic. It compares with the £63 million cash limit set last year on the basis of the absurd 5 per cent. wage increase, which turned out to be wholly inadequate.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Younger: I have such an embarrassment of riches here. I do not know to which of the young eagles I am supposed to be giving way.
Mr. Dick Douglas: If the Secretary of State is not able to estimate the effects of his policy on rate increases, will he tell the House what effect his policy will have on the increase in unemployment or job losses in the public sector, particularly in relation to local authorities?
Mr. Younger: I wish that I could make such estimates. Even supposing I could do that, what good would it do me? The simple fact that is so important for all of us in the House to understand is that this is all the money that this country has earned and can afford to spend upon supporting local government. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), who is well versed in these matters, will accept that there is no such thing as a limitless, bottomless purse into which we can dig. Therefore, he must accept that were I able to make a calculation such as he wishes me to make—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. Since this debate started, many hon. Members have continually been making remarks from a sedentary position. The Minister has given way. If hon. Gentlemen wish to ask the Minister to give way, they must rise in their seats and do so. It is most discourteous of hon. Members to talk the whole time.
Mr. Younger: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I conclude my last point by saying that in the last two years the numbers in local government have increased by about 13,000. We are nearly bust as a
1798
result. That is what has happened. The estimates laid down by the right hon. Gentleman have proved to be quite inadequate. The money to back them up is not there. It is not an option that is open to us. We must get our expenditure under control. It is essential that hon. Members on both sides face up to that.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Younger: I shall be accused of taking up too much time if I give way again. If hon. Gentlemen will not find me discourteous, I hope that they will not mind if I carry on. I must allow time for other hon. Members to speak.
The ceiling also includes provision for the Clegg comparability awards, in addition to the provision for an annual rate of increase in relevant costs of 13 per cent.
The purpose of the £194 million cash limit—which will not be adjusted other than for the effect of interest rateson loan charges—is to make clear to local authorities what level of support they can expect for 1980–81 so that they may take action, whether in their budgeting or their wage negotiations, to contain their expenditure in the national interest.
I do not think I need delay hon. Members for long over the arrangements for distributing grant in 1980–81. They are similar to those adopted in 1979–80, with one exception.
Domestic relief will remain at 3p in the pound. The needs portion will be distributed on the same formula as that which was adopted in 1979–80, except that population estimates, as at June 1979, will be used in respect of total population and that the weighting for total population in the distribution formula will be increased so that grant transferred from the resources element—a matter that I shall deal with in a moment—will be distributed according to population. The amount of grant paid through the extraordinary expenses portion of needs element on the net costs of services and infrastructure connected with offshore oil exploration shows a small increase of £1·7 million over the corresponding figure for 1979–80. The resources element will be distributed in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions, the national standard amount being notified, as is usual, at a later stage when information necessary for its calculation becomes available.

1799
The notable change to which I referred is in the ratio of the resources element to the needs element. I should explain that the actual rate poundage struck by each authority is an important factor in determining entitlement to resources element. In needs element on the other hand, distribution is based entirely on demographic factors. Individual authorities' entitlement is not influenced by decisions on expenditure or rates.
I have been anxious to discourage high levels of expenditure and I have accordingly reduced by about £100 million the amount of grant paid through resources element by altering the ratio from 1:4—as in 1979–80—to 1:7. The effect of the change will not be substantial, provided that authorities show a uniform degree of responsibility in fixing expenditure and rates. It will, however, mean that total grant payable to an authority opting for a relatively high increase in rates will represent a smaller percentage of its expenditure than if the ratio had remained at 1:4.
In present circumstances, I think that there is general agreement that this is a just policy. I hope that authorities will respond positively. I shall weigh carefully the reactions of authorities as a whole and I am consulting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities before deciding whether any changes are required in my statutory powers to enable me to give even more positive encouragement to stringent control of expenditure.
It is my wish to be able to announce to the House a rate support grant settlement that allows everyone in local government to expand services and spend more money. It would be totally irresponsible to do that today. I have no prospect of doing that and there is no prospect of a rate support grant in such a style under this or any other Government for many years.
I hope that everyone will now adjust to the idea that money does not grow on trees. We have to cut back expenditure to what we can afford. Until the economy begins to pick up, everyone in local government must learn to economise, as everyone in private life does already. With that in mind, I hope that local authorities will respond positively to our fair rate support grant settlement. It requires and encourages them to save
1800
public money and the money which ratepayers are called upon to provide.
10.52 pm
Mr. Bruce Millan: As some of my hon. Friends have indicated in questions to the Secretary of State, ratepayers are interested in the rate increase for next year. The Secretary of State makes his estimates on the assumption that local authorities do exactly as he asks—that they cut expenditure in the way that he requests and that they made the same assumptions about the rate of inflation. He is not willing to give those estimates to the House because they will show that substantial increases in rates will occur in the next year.
When I was Secretary of State, I provided estimates. As it happens, in the years before 1979–80, I overestimated because in each year the actual increase in rates was lower than the figure which I gave to the House. In 1979–80 the figure was greater because the authorities over-budgeted. The rates increase in the current year is not 20 per cent. but 14 per cent.
In the last two years taken together for which the Labour Government were responsible—1978–79 and 1979–80—the domestic rate-payers of Scotland paid less than a 10 per cent. increase in rates. The increases in 1980–81 will be substantial. A typical increase in rates next year will be between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. In many local authority areas the increase will be higher than 30 per cent. I shall explain later why that is inevitable. The Secretary of State's refusal to be frank with the House about these matters is typical of the lack of frankness that we have seen, for example, on the housing support grant and on the form of the order before us.
Let me now deal with the question why the rate increases next year will be very large. Conservative Members had better understand that, because they will have some irate ratepayers to deal with next year and these increases will come deliberately and inevitably as a result of the actions of the Government and the meanness of the order.
Let me deal first with 1979–80, because the Secretary of State pretended that the variation in the grants was somehow generous. It is anything but generous, as his order brings out. Paragraph 5 makes

1801
it clear that the moneys to which the local authorities were entitled have been reduced by £36·5 million. To put that in simple terms for Conservative Members, that simply means that a further £36·5 million has to be provided by the ratepayers. That is what happens when the Government cheat on the rate support grant and the cash limits and take the money from the local authorities.
COSLA says—perhaps in replying the Minister will deal with this—that the reduction has been not £36·5 million, but £63 million because another £26 million has been taken from the local authorities for other reasons and quite unfairly. I have no doubt that if that is not so the Minister will give us his information. The information that I am providing comes from COSLA, not from me.
Because of the reduction in grants for the current year it is unlikely that many local authorities in Scotland will start the next year with much cushion of balances in hand to enable them to moderate rate increases in that year. The direct result of these penalties on local authorities this year means that they will start next year with very little in the kitty and therefore the full rigour of the order will affect the rate increases next year.
To pretend that maintaining the same rate of grant is somehow a generous settlement is hooey, because when one takes account of cash limits one sees that the rate of grant will be considerably less than 68·5 per cent.
The right hon. Gentleman is making unrealistic estimates of savings and relevant expenditure for 1980–81. Ho says that the figure is only about 2 per cent. compared with the current year, but it is more than 3 per cent. compared with the projected figures in the Labour Government's White Paper. Without going into the Secretary of State's tortuous and unconvincing economic argument, I san say that there is no economic justification at the moment for the public expenditure cuts being made by the Government, and in Scotland the only effect of the cuts will be to add to an unemployment figure that will already probably increase substantially for other reasons in the course of next year.
At least the reduction of 3 per cent. is rather better than the reduction of 7½ per cent. that the right hon. Gentleman was
1802
assuring us in the debate in July would be perfectly easily achieved by local authorities in 1980–81. I said then that that was nonsense, and the Secretary of State is having to admit that I was right. Nevertheless, the reduction is a very painful one.
Mr. Younger: Hear, hear.
Mr. Millan: I am glad to have that agreement. Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are trying to tell us that there are no reductions, that they are keeping public expenditure up and that they cannot understand what the fuss is about. The fact is that the cuts will be painful. I am glad that the Solicitor-General for Scotland who does not normally grace us with his presence on these occasions, also agrees with me.
The way that the Government reckon to achieve these savings in 1980–81 is, first, outrageous and, secondly, completely unrealistic. The vast bulk of the saving—without this saving the relevant expenditure figures will not be achieved—will be in education on school meals, milk and transport.
I got the figures in answer to a question on 17 December. The estimate for expenditure on school meals this year, at constant prices, will be £39·3 million, but next year it will be only £22·2 million—a reduction of 44 per cent. in 1980–81. That is utterly disgraceful. But it will not happen. It could take place only if the school meals service were completely savaged and, in some areas, obliterated. That will not be possible until the Education (No. 2) Bill goes through, and it will not go through in time for the start of the local authority financial year. If these savings are to be achieved—I say with absolute confidence that they will not be achieved in 1980–81—they will have to start from the autumn of 1980, and the reduction in school meals expenditure starting then will be considerably greater than 44 per cent.
Mr. Ian Lang: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that because of the fall in pupil numbers expenditure, in real terms, next year will be up by £10 per pupil? Therefore, is he not giving a misleading picture?
Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman is talking about something different. That is a phoney figure as well.

1803
I want to concentrate on school meals. According to the Secretary of State, expenditure on school meals is to be reduced savagely by 44 per cent. in 1980–81. The school meal charge would have to be increased to 55p or 60p a day—it is being increased anyway under the terms of the order that has been introduced—so that it would be about double what it was when the Government came to office. But it will not happen, because Scottish local authorities have no intention of obeying the Government's injunction on school meals. They are right to take that course, and I shall support them in their refusal to make these outrageous savings.
The Government estimate a reduction of 48 per cent. on school milk expenditure next year. The National Farmers Union does not like that. As a good deal of the money is subsidised by the EEC, it does not make sense in terms of the Government's intention to try to get more money out of the EEC.
There is to be a modest 14 per cent. reduction in expenditure on school transport, but regional authorities in Scotland have indicated that they will not change their school transport arrangements because of what the Government are asking them to do. COSLA has officially said that it wishes the clause on school transport to be withdrawn from the Education (No. 2) Bill. Even Grampian and Tayside, which are usually anxious to please the right hon. Gentleman by making any savings for which be asks, have said that they will not make reductions in school transport expenditure. There is no chance that savings on the scale asked for by the Secretary of State will be made next year. Therefore, the relevant expenditure figures—the figures for which the authorities will budget—will be higher than those in the order.
The Secretary of State will no doubt say that the authorities should make savings elsewhere. But other services are under pressure as well. There is considerable concern and agitation about public expenditure cuts in the social services, home helps, and so on.
Even the manpower figures are quite interesting. I agree with what the Secretary of State for Scotland said; his figures are perfectly accurate. I make it clear that I am not in favour of local authorities constantly increasing their manpower. I said that as Secretary of
1804
State for Scotland and I repeat it now. Some of the increases during the past year are very worrying.
Mr. Peter Fraser Mr. Peter Fraser (South Angus) rose—
Mr. Millian: Let me just finish this point. I received a useful answer today. If we exclude from the local authority manpower figures teachers, policemen and firemen, the total number of other employees is still actually less than it was in March 1976. These are the figures that I have received today.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Rifkind): The right hon. Gentleman is right, but will he accept that the figures show that there are 11,000 more employees than there were in 1977?
Mr. Millan: I agree with that. I have already said that there have been worrying trends over the past 18 months. I am agreeing with the Government on that. But the Government have given the impression that these are outrageous figures. However, it is still true—one has to say this on behalf of local authorities—that the number of general employees is lower than in 1976.
The number of policemen has risen substantially during the past year and so has the number of firemen. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but the figures he quoted this evening included policemen, firemen, and categories of employees that he wanted to see increase in number. Therefore, he was cheating a bit by the figures that he gave this evening.
Mr. Peter Fraser: If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the increase in the number of local government officials taken on by local authorities, why, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, did he do nothing to secure agreement with local authorities to give a breakdown of increases in recruitment, authority by authority, as has now been achieved?
Mr. Millan: The manpower figures were first published by the Labour Government. They had not been published before. It was under myself as Secretary of State for Scotland that we produced these figures because I was worried about local authority manpower.
The figures I have given are still accurate. A number of misleading things

1805
are said about local authority manpower, and the idea that there has been, over the years, a remorseless increase in local authority manpower does not bear serious examination.
But if one wants to reduce manpower and one is not going to achieve—as this Government certainly will not—the savings in expenditure on school meals, milk and transport, it is necessary to look at the number of teachers. I suppose that is the reason why we had the extraordinary statements that the Under-Secretary of State made the other day about the excessive number of teachers in Scottish schools. I hope that teachers took careful note of those statements.
The main factor causing the rates to be considerably increased next year will be the cash limit. The cash limit of £194 million that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced, as he emphasised again tonight, is a firm figure. As I understand it, that figure will not be changed, whatever happens, apart from allowing for loan charges.
That has not happened before. Before, the Government have always said that the cash limit was based on assumptions and that if the assumptions proved to be false adjustment of the cash limit would be considered. The difference here is that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the figure is firm. So it does not matter what happens to inflation; local authorities will not receive any more money.
The inflation rate that is written into the cash limit is 13 per cent., but nobody, not even the right hon. Gentleman, believes that the rate of inflation for local authorities next year will be 13 per cent. The general rate of inflation at present is 17½ per cent. Earnings, according to the latest figures published today, have increased by 19·2 per cent. over the past year. Even the leaked Treasury document on costs, about which we read in the newspapers over the weekend, contained a figure of 14 per cent. for wage settlements, and I understand that when the Civil Service complained about that the Government gave certain assurances that it would not necessarily apply to civil servants. Rents will go up, as we saw on Monday, by 33 per cent.
The truth is that the Government are gaily putting up the cost of all sorts of
1806
other essential services. Only this afternoon we heard what is to happen with electricity and gas. In these circumstances, to pretend that the figure of £194million and the 13 per cent. inflation rate are realistic is nonsense.
Mr. Lang: Is the right hon. Gentleman proud that his Government a year ago anticipated a rate of inflation of 5 per cent. and does he agree that a rate of 13 per cent.—
Mr. Millan Mr. Millan rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman gave way to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang), and it is not right for him to stand up while the hon. Gentleman is still making his intervention.
Mr. Lang: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that his Government's figure of 5 per cent. a year ago was more realistic in anticipating inflation than the 13 per cent. given by my right hon. Friend for prospective inflation?
Mr. Millan: In fact, the figure was not 5 per cent., but if the hon. Gentleman will look not only at what was said but at what was done in previous rate support grant orders he will see that the cash limits were adjusted for increases beyond the assumptions that were made at the point at which the cash limits were originally calculated. The point that I am making is that this year nothing will happen; even if inflation goes to 20 per cent. the local authorities will get nothing more.
Moreover, the figure of £194 million includes amounts for comparability settlements and the rest, and the Secretary of State has refused to give a breakdown. The cash limit figures fixed by the Labour Government were on every occasion broken down in detail for COSLA at the settlement meeting. The COSLA representatives were able to discuss them, and, for that matter, we sometimes adjusted the figures on the basis of the comments made.
Now, however, the Secretary of State, with his open government, does not give COSLA any information, and he still refuses to give a breakdown of these figures.
What is clear—I could argue it but there is no time now so I simply assert

1807
it—is that the figures included in the £194 million are extremely unlikely to meet local authority costs which will arise from the comparability studies, particularly in respect of teachers. I simply assert that, and I believe that that will be the situation.
What will the authorities do? The Secretary of State may think that he is being rather clever in refusing a lot of information and leaving them a bit in the dark, believing that he will get some sort of solution at the end of the day that will be more agreeable to him than otherwise. If he believes that, he is utterly misguided.
Of course, the local authorities could just assume a 13 per cent. inflation rate and finish up at the end of the year with very substantial deficits—which, incidentally, they are not by law permitted to do—but I forecast that what the typical local authority will do is make its own inflation estimate, which will be considerably above 13 per cent., and then rate accordingly.
In so far as an authority rates for inflation above 13 per cent., each 1 per cent. that it rates for will cost it three times as much as the figure for which there is coverage under the rate support grant. So if it estimates for an inflation rate of only 17 per cent., which is very modest, the rate increase by that alone will be 13 per cent. plus three times the additional 4 per cent., which will inevitably bring us to a rate increase of 25 per cent.
Even if the local authorities did all that the Secretary of State asked them to do, we could not, I believe, have average increases of less than 20 per cent., and I repeat that in my view they will be between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent., and in some cases more than that, because as well as the inflation factor there is the understatement in respect of comparability awards and there is also the un realism of the relevant expenditure that has been assumed in this order.
Perhaps the Government do not care. They do not seem to care. They were elected on the promise to reduce inflation, yet every major action they take has put inflation up, starting with VAT in the Budget and finishing with today's rate support grant order and the gas and electricity price increases announced this afternoon. Some Conservative Members looked rather sick this afternoon when the announcements were made. Some of them
1808
do not look too happy now. No doubt they have in mind the prospects over the next year for ratepayers in the areas that they represent.
The Tories were elected on a myth, namely, that public expenditure was out of control and that they could make easy, painless savings. Public expenditure was not out of control. In the local authority sector the increases projected in the Labour Government's White Paper were modest and realistic. They could have been achieved and maintained. There could have been a decent level of essential services.
The Tories found themselves in office, and they have been attempting to wield the butcher's axe. The result of their policy is soaring inflation and rising unemployment. We shall have poorer local authority services. The poorer services will cost Scottish ratepayers considerably higher rates. That is the result of the order, and that is why the Opposition are voting against it.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is due to conclude at eight minutes to 12 o'clock. Short speeches will enable more hon. Members to participate.
11.17 pm
Mr. Barry Henderson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has managed to secure a rate support grant order that brings real benefits to Scotland and contributes to the battle against inflation. Having listened to some Labour Members, one begins to form the impression that they regard the public service generally—this applies not only to their comments on local authorities—as a new form of job creation scheme to disguise the unemployment that the Labour Government created in the past five years. That is not the purpose of local government. That is recognised by the order.
The outturn this year is more than that for last year. Scotland's special needs are recognised. My right hon. Friend has redressed the unfair rigging of last year's order. Local authorities that curb expenditure will receive benefits. Those are some of the good features of the order. As for the latter feature, I hope that my right hon. Friend will go a great deal further when he introduces next year's

1809
order. However, the order will give benefits to authorities that have been careful with their expenditure during the financial year. There should be some recognition of authorities with historical good records of careful expenditure. Cuts hurt most the authorities that have been the most careful in the immediate past. I hope that by next year my right hon. Friend will have found a way of recognising that in the rate support grant order.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) said, it is important to understand that the education budget provides more money per head of pupil than last year. As with the health services, so the personal social services are totally protected from cuts in the order.
I have referred to features that are contained in the order, but there are two items that should have been in it that are missing. First, I refer to local authority subsidies to bus operators. The traffic commissioners recently rejected the proposition from the Scottish bus group that fares should be increased equally across the board. There is a threat to the existence of the commissioners, and that rejection seems to be the first useful thing that they have done for a long time. I say that for one reason, if for no other—that the Fife regional council has done an enormous amount of work at the ratepayers' expense—
Mr. William Hamiliton: Of course, it is Labour-controlled.
Mr. Henderson: As the hon. Gentleman says. it is a Labour-controlled authority. I do not deny that. Because it is a Fife one, it is much better than most. It is not as bad as other forms of Socialism. Because of that work—greatly encouraged by the Conservative group on the council—savings have been created for Alexander's, the bus organisation that operates in Fife, of about £500,000. For the Scottish bus group to ask for an across-the-board increase in fares would be wholly unreasonable. Alexander's would not require that sort of fare level, because of the savings that have been made.
Not only is that cross-subsidy unfair to regional councils that operate effectively to help bus companies save money; there is further serious injustice that results
1810

from bus operators being treated separately. If Alexander's makes a profit it pays corporation tax on that profit and it will not go to help other bus operators. That must be wrong. I hope that the Secretary of State will see that something is done about the cross-subsidy on the one hand and the corporation tax on profitable bus undertakings on the other.
Last but not least, I hope that in the coming year my right hon. Friend will take the necessary steps so that early in the next Parliament, when there is a Conservative Government, we shall see the final abolition of the domestic rate.
11.21 pm
Mr. David Lambie: The first point that I shall make is one that I have made in previous debates on the rate support grant. The debate is a farce. In one-and-a-half-hour debate we are dealing with a rate support grant of £1·2 billion. No consultation has been held between the Government and hon. Members. In October of last year I made representations to COSLA asking that confidential negotiations between the Government and COSLA should be broken and that Members of Parliament should be involved in those negotiations. Unfortunately, COSLA did not accept that suggestion and tonight we are in the same position—hon. Members are being asked to vote "Yes" or "No" on large sums of money. I hope that the new Select Committee on Scottish affairs will look at the matter so that in future years we will not have this complaint. We should have more participation and negotiation by Members of Parliament in the debate before decisions are reached by the Government.
The Secretary of State said that the Government have given the same percentage award that the previous Government gave, 68·5 per cent. He did not stress, as was stressed by COSLA, that the percentage is on a narrower expenditure base. According to COSLA, the increase in cost that is to be paid by the local ratepayer, out with the 68·5 per cent., will be £63 million. Again, according to COSLA—as reaffirmed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Millan) tonight—local ratepayers—even if councils carry out the Government restriction on such things as school meals, transport and milk—will be faced with increases of between 25 per cent.

1811
and 30 per cent. Where Labour authorities say that they will maintain the services, ratepayers will be faced with increases of 35 per cent., 40 per cent or even 50 per cent. The Government must come clean and state clearly that they are estimating for rate increases of up to 30 per cent. across the board—even from Tory local authorities.
In 1978 we had a revaluation in Scotland. We should have had a revaluation this year in England and Wales. The Secretary of State for the Environment told English ratepayers that they could tear up their revaluation notices because the revaluation of England and Wales had been delayed. Has any account been taken of the fact that revaluations took place in Scotland but not in England and Wales?
Mr. Donald Stewart: Not for the first time, either.
Mr. Lambie: Can the Secretary of State explain why the domestic rate relief for England is 18½p and for Wales 36p, yet the domestic rate relief for Scotland is only 3p? These figures may have been correct last year but they are certainly not correct this year. I made that same point last year to the previous Labour Government. Why has that figure of 3 per cent. not been increased, bearing in mind that revaluation has not taken place in England and Wales?
Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to complain about comparisons will he also complain that the percentage in Scotland is 68·5 per cent. whereas in England it is 61 per cent.?
Mr. Lambie: I accept that. Last year the figure was 68·5 per cent. as well. I have made this point before. I did not get a satisfactory answer last year, but perhaps I shall get a more satisfactory answer tonight.
Revaluation is an important factor. In the Scottish revaluation there was a shift away from the domestic ratepayer to the industrial and commercial ratepayer. Because revaluation has not taken place in England and Wales the Scottish commercial enterprise is at a disadvantage. Why has the Secretary of State not taken that into account in the rate support grant? Certain areas, such as those represented by my two local district councils of Cunningham and Kyle and Carrick, which are
1812
mainly represented by Conservative Members, discriminated against the domestic ratepayer by imposing a higher than average increase in revaluation. Why did the Secretary of State, when he was in opposition, say that the ratepayers in Ayr, Troon and Argyll were being discriminated against in the rate support grant settlement, yet tonight nothing has been done to help those ratepayers?
I put it to those new hon. Members representing Tory constituencies—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) is not here—that they must vote against the order, in order to represent their ratepayers. If they do not vote against the order they will not be playing fair by their ratepayers and they will be carrying out a policy that they criticised when they were in opposition.
1980–81 will be a hard year for ratepayers and for services. That is why shall vote against the order. I ask the Government to take the order away and to come back with a better one, which gives a better deal to Scottish ratepayers.
11.30 pm
Mr. Donald Stewart: During the debate on Monday on the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) claimed as a justification for the Government's action that they gave a pledge not to the local authorities but to the public in Scotland that every council tenant would have the right to buy his house. I refer to that Bill only to pinpoint the fact that whether one believes that the Conservative manifesto at the last election as a good one, a bad one, or something of a curate's egg, fact is that it was decisively rejected by the people of Scotland.
Mr. Henderson: So was the right hon. Gentleman's party.
Mr. Stewart: I am not forcing the SNP manifesto on to the people of Scotland. I wish that I were, and when we have a mandate to do so we shall. The Government have no mandate to bring in an order such as this, especially in a country whose oil is the lifeline of the Government, as their document states.
It is clear that the highest cuts will be in education, and the Government assume, as they say, that authorities will be able to effect substantial savings on

1813
school meals, school milk and school transport. This is bringing us to the realisation of the old expression about the unkindest cut of all. But of course we have a Government run by a Prime Minister who first came to prominence as a snatcher of milk, and the Government's actions are based on the same ungenerous and unfeeling attitude.
The Government say that authorities will be able to effect substantial savings on school meals, school milk and school transport as a consequence of the increased freedom that they will have in providing and charging for these services. That is another example of the old expression about adding insult to injury, because it is fraudulent for the Government to make a virtue of giving local authorities power to use their own blood for the necessary blood transfusions.
The order also raises the question—I refer to it only in passing—of the functions that are being wished on local authorities by successive Governments. It is true that at first these functions were funded by the Government, but we are nearing the situation in which Governments will expect local authorities to carry on these functions, while withdrawing the necessary finance. I suggest that local authorities should think seriously of putting it to their people that these functions cannot be continued, and laying the responsibility for their retraction or withdrawal where it belongs, which is on the shoulders of the Government.
The cuts in education will have drastic consequences. Even the NFU in Scotland has been moved to protest. Parents with more than one child may find it impossible to send their children to school, particularly if they have to walk two or three miles to get there. There will be fewer passengers for buses. Bus services will be withdrawn. There will be more rural deprivation. There will be a spiralling effect. That is inevitable as a consequence of what is being done.
Let me deal with the school building programme. It is true that the demand for places has decreased, but what about the condition of the existing buildings? Many Victorian buildings are still in use in Scotland, and many of the buildings in my constituency—it is not alone in this—are more than 100 years old. These buildings ought to be brought up to a
1814
proper standard. Some of them would not meet the requirements of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, yet children are being taught in these schools every day. That is the kind of thing that the Government are doing. The buildings should be refurbished to modern standards. That is what the situation demands.
Expenditure on recreational services is to be reduced by £3·5 million. Normally this would not be the highest priority of a Government faced with the need for financial stringency, but I ask the Secretary of State to consider the rising figures of unemployment, of young people running around with nothing to do. These young people ought to be used to the full, physically and mentally, yet, as I say, they are running around with nothing to do, and it is a serious matter that this provision is to be cut.
I shall not go into detail about the other services, but I agree with the view of COSLA that 13 per cent. is nonsense. Every Conservative Member knows that it is complete nonsense, and I should like to see them all stand up to defend it. These cuts are being made regardless of the needs of Scotland and without a mandate from the people of Scotland. We have more than our fair share of deprivation. The Government will never convince anybody in Scotland that there is any justification for the cuts in these services.
11.35 pm
Mr. Iain Sproat: Unlike the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), I support warmly and strongly the settlement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has brought to the House tonight. In one word in his speech, which I thought was almost the most important thing he said, he described this as a realistic settlement. Realism was the one commodity which was totally absent from all the speeches we have heard by Labour Members.
The fact is that the Government had to cut public expenditure. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] If there is anybody in this country today, let alone in the House, who does not understand why we have to cut public expenditure, he cannot know the meaning of "bankruptcy" and he cannot realise how it was we came to that

1815
dread situation. It was precisely because we had been led to the brink of bankruptcy by the Labour Government that it was essential to cut public expenditure, and local government had to bear its share of the cuts.
We understand, of course, why certain local authorities do not like it when told that they must cut back or restrain their expenditure. Nobody likes to be restrained on his favourite projects. If we understand that, those on the other side must understand that there just is not the money. It is no use crying out "We cannot cut", because they can cut. There is waste to be cut out.
Unfortunately, in the few minutes at my disposal I cannot list all the examples of waste. One need consider only one local authority—Lothian—which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) has exemplied so often in the House. There is the miserable affair of the Haymarket escalator of £180,000—or was it £¼ million?—which it was just to throw away. Yet it says that there is no waste. The very same authority wanted to pay its employees to come from Edinburgh down to London—this is the profound irony of it—to lobby against cuts in public expenditure. Yet it says that there is no waste.
There was the sad and bizarre saga of the Lothian public relations department and the man who was to receive a golden handshake of £24,000. It turns out that it is not £24,000, but the officials are so ashamed of what it is that they will not tell us what the sum is.
There are thousands of examples of waste. I suggest to councils like Lothian and those hon. Members who represent them that they should take a leaf out of the book of Grampian regional council. Not only does Grampian regional council have the lowest administrative costs of any region in Scotland, but it gives value for money.
Hon. Members have spoken about school transport. Grampian was the first regional council to say "No, we will continue by giving support to rural transport, to support those of our people who live in the countryside". My right hon. Friend rightly said that councils have an option to do what they want. Grampian was so well run that not only did it have the lowest administrative costs but it now
1816
says that it can afford to continue this vital service to its constituents. That is what I mean by having a good regional authority.
Not only in that way, but through its North-East of Scotland Development Authority, Grampian has managed to provide about 27,000 new jobs in the past five years. That should appeal to Labour Members as well as to Tory Members. So it is perfectly possible to have a region that is so well run that white having the lowest administrative costs in Scotland it gives the people of the region what they want.
Having said that to my right hon. Friend, I will enter one small caveat. It is on the question of the oil-related grant. Over the past five years Grampian region has spent about £30 million on providing infrastructure for oil companies. However, having spent £30 million, we have received only £16 million back from successive Governments. That deficit of £14 million has had to be borne by the ratepayers of Grampian.
I very much hope that my right hon. Friend, who has done so much in the settlement order to encourage thrifty regional councils, will look at Grampian. Not only has Grampian been thrifty but it has had the additional burden of an extra £14 million to push forward the national oil programme, and we maintain that the development of North Sea oil is a national programme that should have greater national funding.
Having said that, I completely support my right hon. Friend. He has made a realistic settlement. If Grampian regional council can do it, so can spendthrift councils like Lothian and Strathclyde. Let them get down to it now.
11.40 pm
Mr. John Maxton: I shall be brief, as time is short, but I should like to develop the point that I raised with the Secretary of State for Scotland on the statistics on education that have been bandied around from the Government Benches.
I has been said that the figure has risen by £10 per head for children in school. A changing structure within the school and further education system, with fewer children at the bottom and more at the top, will inevitably cost more per child. It costs less to educate a primary school

1817
child than a secondary school child doing highers or O-levels. It is a simple fact and there is no way round it, and it costs more again to educate a student in an FE college.
The Secretary of State accepted that we would have more people coming into the FE and post-school education area, but he said that we could not afford it, which is economic nonsense. Is he saying that the country does not want and need skilled and trained people, who are required by private industry if we are to get the economy going? Who will provide that training and ensure that there are more engineers and other skilled people? The only way to do that is through FE colleges, central institutions and universities, yet this Government say that they cannot afford to expand in an area that more and more people are entering.
I notice that the Secretary of State is nodding his head, and I therefore leave the matter there.
11.42 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) made great play of the fact that the Government are not willing to make estimates of what the rate increases might be, and took great credit for the fact that when he was Secretary of State he insisted on making rate estimates on each occasion. He did make such estimates, but on each occasion he was absolutely wrong. Sometimes they were higher than he expected and on other occasions lower, but never was he correct.
The simple point is that, if a rate estimate is given to a local authority, it will not be of the slightest use unless it bears some relation to the rates that it will be setting. For any Secretary of State to indulge in pleasant guesswork and give guesses, suggestions or estimates to local authorities, when the experience of the past few years is that these have been totally wrong, is a meaningless exercise that we do not intend to indulge in.
What is of importance to local authorities is that they should know the cash that will be made available to them. It is on the basis of cash and not estimates that they will be able to determine what rate increases are required, and they may
1818
be slightly different in some areas, depending on the response to the Government's expenditure proposals.
Mr. Dewar: Does the Under-Secretary accept that estimates are often wrong because local authorities do not perform as the Government wish—and that point has often been made from the Conservative Benches? However, it is still valuable to have an estimate, which must be available, of what the rate rise will be if local authorities conform to the Government's wishes. We know that estimates have been made from the evidence of the Select Committee, and will the Minister now give us the estimate?
Mr. Rifkind: The point was conceded by the right hon. Member for Craigton that rate increases will be different in different areas, even if local authorities respond to the Government's wishes, and the hon. Gentleman must be aware of that. What is important to authorities is to know the cash that will be available, the cash limits and the nature of the distribution of the rate support grant. That information is being made available, and it is only right and proper that it should be.
The right hon. Member for Craigton made various predictions about rate increases. Of course we all know of one local authority that intends to reject any attempts to make savings, and to impose upon its ratepayers in the Lothian region a rates increase of 38 per cent. We might have expected the right hon. Gentleman to give some condemnation, advice, suggestion or exhortation to people of his own party who, contrary to the public interest, are refusing to meet a reasonable request. It may have been thought that the reason this is happening in the Lothian region is the intolerable burden being put upon councils by the Government. Yet after the rate support grant was announced, Councillor Bill Taylor, the secretary of the ruling Labour group on Lothian region, was quoted in an article in the Edinburgh Evening News of 17 November which read as follows:
"Lothian region's Labour councillors had expected much tougher cuts from the Government than those announced by the Secretary of State. Councillor Taylor agreed that he and his colleagues were not as annoyed by the Government's spending plans as they had expected to be."
The ratepayers of Lothian region can take some comfort from the fact that they

1819
are expected to suffer a rates increase of only 38 per cent., because Councillor Taylor was not as annoyed as he might have been.
The simple fact is that if local authorities accept the Government's advice on expenditure there will, of course, be rates increases, as there were under the previous Government. But these will be modest—not the frightening increases that the Lothian region appears to be contemplating.
Mr. Harry Ewing Mr. Harry Ewing (Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth) rose—
Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. It is very important for me to answer the points that were made in the debate.
The right hon. Member for Craigton also referred to the manpower situation, and indicated his rather mild complacency that, because the figures in 1976 were slightly higher than they are now, we could ignore the fact that in the last two years they have increased by some 13,000. What is most worrying is that even the last quarterly figures show a frightening increase in Scotland at a time when the figures in England and Wales are actually beginning to fall. This must be a matter for concern because the overall figures conceal the fact that, while some responsible authorities are reducing their manpower, progress in this area is being offset by increases elsewhere.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that he did not believe that inflation would be only 13 per cent., and therefore the Government were being wicked in using that figure. Did he believe that earnings would increase by only 5 per cent. when he used that figure in his negotiations with local authorities? We know for a fact that the level of earnings increased by three times that amount, and, whatever doubts some authorities might have about our cash limit, they far prefer it, as a more realistic assessment of their requirements, to the bogus figures used by the right hon. Gentleman when he was in charge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) referred to the problem of assisting prudent authorities, rather than giving out even-handedly to high spenders. This year we have made
1820
a radical change in the needs-resources ratio in Scotland. We have transferred £100 million from resources element to needs element, which, while it has not affected the total aggregate of grant available, has ensured that those authorities that insist on levying high rate poundages will not benefit at the expense of the general taxpayer. This is only the beginning of many other changes that the Government are contemplating to ensure that prudent authorities benefit from their prudence and profligate authorities do not benefit from their profligacy. I believe that the public as a whole will welcome this.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) complained that the Government had not increased the percentage grant from 68·5 per cent. I understood that he was suggesting that it should not have been kept constant, that we should feel no satisfaction over the fact that it was kept constant. He might like to know that the only time when that grant was reduced was during the period in office of the last Labour Government, as a result of the public expenditure cuts imposed by the IMF.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned that revaluation in England and Wales had been cancelled, but the fact is that no revaluation is due in Scotland for some time. My right hon. Friend will take a decision on that matter at the appropriate time. The hon. Gentleman need have no fear about the effect on rate support grant. It has had not the slightest effect on rate support grant in England and Wales this year, nor will it have any effect in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) pointed out the particular needs of the Grampian region as regards extraordinary expenditure which is oil-related. We have been able to maintain the special help given to those areas that have had special oil-related expenditure. I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes this.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) raised the question of education and complained about the provision for further education. He must accept that a real increase for further educations provided for, at a time when other areas have had to suffer a real decrease. He should appreciate that that is

1821
a very realistic and reasonable contribution when we are all experiencing great difficulties.
Equally, it is surely reasonable that, at a time when school rolls are falling dramatically, particularly at primary level, we should be able to ensure a reduction in expenditure on education and not thereby have a dramatic effect on standards. I think that any hon. Member, on either side of the House, will appreciate that as being a reasonable response to the present period of difficulties. We said that in Opposition, because any sensible person would recognise it as being desirable.
The whole tenor of the Opposition's case appears to be that there should be no restraints on public expenditure, no restrictions on local authority expenditure. They appear to wish to encourage
local authorities to spend more this year and next, and to encourage the use of more manpower. Yet we know that the major problem that local authorities face came about because the previous Government planned for 3 per cent. extra spending without providing a penny to meet it.
The right hon. Gentleman complained about the abatement of £36 million in the current year. He did not comment on the fact that local authorities were overspending by £49 million. That is a very important consideration.
Therefore, I have no hesitation in commending the order to the House and asking the House to give it its full and unqualified support.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 215.

Division No. 139]

AYES

[11.52 pm

Aitken, Jonathan

Clegg, Sir Walter

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Alexander, Richard

Cockeram, Eric

Hannam, John

Alison, Michael

Colvin, Michael

Haselhurst, Alan

Ancram, Michael

Cope, John

Hastings, Stephen

Arnold, Tom

Cormack, Patrick

Hawksley, Warren

Aspinwall, Jack

Corrie, John

Heddle, John

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Costain, A. P.

Henderson, Barry

Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

Cranborne, Viscount

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Critchley, Julian

Hicks, Robert

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Crouch, David

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Hill, James

Banks, Robert

Dorrell, Stephen

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Dover, Denshore

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Bendall, Vivian

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Hooson, Tom

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

Durant, Tony

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Jessel, Toby

Best, Keith

Eggar, Timothy

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Bevan, David Gilroy

Emery, Peter

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Kimball, Marcus

Blackburn, John

Fairgrieve, Russell

King, Rt Hon Tom

Body, Richard

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fell, Anthony

Knight, Mrs Jill

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Knox, David

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Lamont, Norman

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Lang, Ian

Braine, Sir Bernard

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Bright, Graham

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lawrence, Ivan

Brinton, Tim

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lawson, Nigel

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Forman, Nigel

Lee, John

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

Fox, Marcus

Le Marchant, Spencer

Browne, John (Winchester)

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Fry, Peter

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Loveridge, John

Buck, Antony

Glyn, Dr Alan

Luce, Richard

Bulmer, Esmond

Goodhew, Victor

Lyell, Nicholas

Burden, F. A.

Goodlad, Alastair

McCrindle, Robert

Butcher, John

Gorst, John

Macfarlane, Neil

Butler, Hon Adam

Gow, Ian

MacGregor, John

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Gower, Sir Raymond

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gray, Hamish

McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Greenway, Harry

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Grieve, Percy

McQuarrie, Albert

Chapman, Sydney

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

Major, John

Churchill, W. S.

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Marland, Paul

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Grylls, Michael

Marlow, Tony

Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

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

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Mather, Carol

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Prior, Rt Hon James

Stradling Thomas, J.

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Proctor, K. Harvey

Tebbit, Norman

Mayhew, Patrick

Raison, Timothy

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mellor, David

Rathbone, Tim

Thompson, Donald

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Thornton, Malcolm

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Renton, Tim

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Rhodes James, Robert

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Miscampbell, Norman

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Trippier, David

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Ridsdale, Julian

Trotter, Neville

Moate, Roger

Rifkind, Malcolm

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Monro, Hector

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Montgomery, Fergus

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Viggers, Peter

Moore, John

Rost, Peter

Waddington, David

Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Wakeham, John

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Waidegrave, Hon William

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Scott, Nicholas

Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

Murphy, Christopher

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Myles, David

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Waller, Gary

Neale, Gerrard

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Ward, John

Needham, Richard

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

Warren, Kenneth

Nelson, Anthony

Shersby, Michael

Watson, John

Neubert, Michael

Silvester, Fred

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Onslow, Cranley

Sims, Roger

Wheeler, John

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Skeet, T. H. H.

Whitney, Raymond

Osborn, John

Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

Wickenden, Keith

Page, John (Harrow West)

Speed, Keith

Wiggin, Jerry

Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

Speller, Tony

Wilkinson, John

Parkinson, Cecil

Spence, John

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Parris, Matthew

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Winterton, Nicholas

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Wolfson, Mark

Patten, John (Oxford)

Sproat, lain

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Squire, Robin

Younger, Rt Hon George

Pawsey, James

Stainton, Keith

Percival, Sir Ian

Stanbrook, Ivor

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Pink, R. Bonner

Steen, Anthony

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and

Pollock, Alexander

Stevens, Martin

Mr. Peter Brooke.

Porter, George

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

NOES

Adams, Allen

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Allaun, Frank

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Alton, David

Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

Hardy, Peter

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

Deakins, Eric

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Ashton, Joe

Dempsey, James

Haynes, Frank

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

Dewar, Donald

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Dixon, Donald

Heffer, Eric S.

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Dobson, Frank

Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

Beith, A. J.

Dormand, Jack

Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Douglas, Dick

Home Robertson, John

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Horam, John

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Dubs, Alfred

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

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dunnett, Jack

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Eadie, Alex

Janner, Hon Greville

Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

Eastham, Ken

Jay, Rt Hon Dougias

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

John, Brynmor

Buchan, Norman

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

English, Michael

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Campbell, Ian

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Evans, John (Newton)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Canavan, Dennis

Ewing, Harry

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Carmichael, Neil

Field, Frank

Lambie, David

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Flannery, Martin

Lamond, James

Cartwright, John

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Leadbitter, Ted

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Leighton, Ronald

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Ford, Ben

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Cohen, Stanley

Forrester, John

Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

Coleman, Donald

Foster, Derek

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Foulkes, George

Litherland, Robert

Conlan, Bernard

Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Cook, Robin F.

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Freud, Clement

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Crowther, J. S.

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Cryer, Bob

George, Bruce

McElhone, Frank

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Ginsberg, David

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

Golding, John

McKelvey, William

Dalyell, Tam

Gourlay, Harry

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Davidson, Arthur

Graham, Ted

Maclennan, Robert

1824

1825

McMahon, Andrew

Penhaligon, David

Straw, Jack

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

McNally, Thomas

Prescott, John

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

McWilliam, John

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

Marks, Kenneth

Race, Reg

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

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

Radice, Giles

Tilley, John

Marshall, Or Edmund (Goole)

Richardson, Jo

Tinn, James

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

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Torney, Tom

Maxton, John

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Maynard, Miss Joan

Robertson, George

Wainwright, Edwin (Deerne Valley)

Meacher, Michael

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

Mikardo, Ian

Roper, John

Watkins, David

Millar,, Rt Hon Bruce

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Weetch, Ken

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Rowlands, Ted

Wellbeloved, James

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Sever, John

Welsh, Michael

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Sheerman, Barry

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radeliffe)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Whitlock, William

Morton, George

Silkin, Rt Hon S.C. (Dulwich)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Silverman, Julius

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Newens, Stanley

Snape, Peter

Winnick, David

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Soley, Clive

Woodall, Alec

Ogden, Eric

Spearing, Nigel

Woolmer, Kenneth

O'Neill, Martin

Spriggs, Leslie

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Steel, Rt Hon David

Young, David (Bolton East)

Park, George

Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

Parker, John

Stoddart, David

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Pavitt, Laurie

Stott, Roger

Mr. Hugh McCartney and

Pendry, Tom

Strang, Gavin

Mr. James Hamilton

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 November, be approved.

VALUE ADDED TAX
12.4 am
The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees):I beg to move,
That the Value Added Tax (International Services) (No. 2) Order 1979 (S.I.,), 1979, No. 1554), a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 December, be approved.
The order exempts from VAT supplies of certificates of deposit made to persons outside the European Community and the Isle of Man. The change means that from the date of the operation of the order supplies of certificates of deposit will be exempt where they are made to persons in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. The order is necessary to stop a loss of revenue resulting from the zero rating of supplies of certificates of deposit when made to persons outside the European Community and the Isle of Man.
A certificate of deposit is a form of security which is defined in the Exchange Control Act 1947. There is a note in the order to be attached to schedule 4 to the Finance Act 1972 defining it. In short, it is a form of receipt which may be issued when a deposit of money is lodged with a bank at a fixed rate of interest for a fixed period of time. It is a negotiable document and may be traded for its face value, plus the accrued interest during its currency before final redemption. Banks and other institutions whose business is not wholly or mainly the dealing in securities are allowed, under the VAT general regulations, to disregard the value of such supplies in calculating their deductible input tax. As from 1 January 1978, an alteration was made which would allow dealings in securities such as the certificates of deposit in which there is a growing trade for very large amounts to be zero rated so that the banks' inputs could be set against their taxable outputs. This has resulted in the recovery of input tax by banks and similar institutions at a rate of £20 million a year and is almost entirely due to certificates of deposit.
This was not contemplated by the House or the Customs and Excise when the original orders were introduced, because the true input tax relative to a certificate of deposit is negligible—it is merely the VAT on paper and the overheads. Under the calculations made for determining the amount of the input tax
1828
to be recovered, the full value of the zero-rated certificate of deposit enters into the calculation. There have been detailed discussions with the British Bankers Association, with the consultancy committee of the accountancy bodies, with the Unit Trust Association and the Association of Investment Trusts. They all agree in fairness that this drain on the Exchequer should be staunched.
Those institutions whose main business is dealing in securities—such as unit trusts and investment trusts—have to take their exempt and their zero-rated supplies into account in compiling their VAT returns, so that there is no artificial distortion as in the case of banks. On that basis, I hope that the House will recognise that this is a modest order that will prevent a drain on the Exchequer, and I hope that after due exploration hon. Members will approve it tonight.
12.8 am
Mr. John Horam: I am delighted that the Minister of State has made a speech tonight. We were rather disappointed late last night when the hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear at the time to know exactly what were his responsibilities in respect of the Third Reading of the Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill. We were deprived of his Pickwickian charm and enchanting flow of rhetoric, to which the House is accustomed on these occasions, and also deprived of our opportunity of asking him further questions about PRT.
When I saw the prominence with which the Isle of Man featured, I thought that perhaps we were to pursue some fascinating tax loophole, well known to the hon. and learned Gentleman in his previous capacity—perhaps one that he even helped to exploit—which, as poacher turned gamekeeper, he was about to destroy for all his erstwhile clients. That is not the case. We are dealing with certificates of deposit which are basically negotiable receipts given by banks for money deposited with them.
The hon. and learned Gentleman explained that before 1 January 1978 these deposits—the international, not the domestic, version—were an exempt category for VAT purposes. However, on 1 January 1978, to conform with EEC law, international deposits of this kind became zero rated, That meant that banks could reclaim VAT paid on them and, since

1829
they involved very large sums—the certificates of deposits are denominated in very large sums—they would have reclaimed a large amount of tax on them. Therefore, the Customs and Excise, I presume, argued that that was unfair and it wished in this order to revert to the pre-1978 system of exempting rather than zero rating them.
The Opposition accept that this is a sensible order and do not intend to oppose it. But why was it not apparent in 1978 to the Customs and Excise that the result that we have seen would flow from the order that was laid at that time? Why did it make the change on 1 January 1978 with the consequences that it wishes to reverse so soon afterwards? I am sure that it will say that it did it to comply with EEC law. If so, why does it now have to change back? Is it now out of line with EEC law as a result of changing back? What is the practice in other EEC countries which presumably are subject to the same EEC rules and regulations as the United Kingdom? It seems odd that the Customs and Excise should have done a U-turn so rapidly on this point. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to enlighten the House briefly on that matter.
Secondly, will the result of the order in any way affect the supply of these deposits, or will it merely affect the profits or the tax paid by the banks?
Finally, are very large sums involved? I take it that the point of the order is that there is a loophole of which the banks are taking advantage to increase their profitability. We know that bank profits have been extremely high in the past year or two. Are very large sums involved, or are we talking about relatively small amounts?
I do not expect the hon. and learned Gentleman to answer those three matters immediately—he may not have the figures to hand—but I hope that he will make a stab at enlightening the House on them.
12.12 am
Mr. Peter Rees: I am flattered that the Opposition should be so keen to hear my rhetoric, even at a late hour. I should be the last person—although perhaps the Patronage Secretary may have a different view—to cheat them of these opportunities. It is not perhaps for me to go over
1830
the events of last night. I am deeply sorry if the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) or his hon. Friends did not have an opportunity to air their views on what was admittedly an important matter. We had a Second Reading debate and a full Committee stage upstairs. However, that is now history.
I note and register with appreciation what the hon. Gentleman said, and I assure him that, in so far as it lies in his power, on future occasions he will always hear my rhetoric if he is minded to do so.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his lucid and succinct analysis of an admittedly extremely complex, if narrowly defined, area.
The hon. Gentleman asked three questions, and I am happy to respond to all of them here and now, because they were—dare I say—exactly the same questions as I put to the Customs and Excise when I was attempting to master this intricate subject.
The hon. Gentleman asked why this point was not apparent in 1978. If I were not such a generous-spirited person, I might say that that was a question more appropriately to be directed to those who were occupying this Front Bench in the years before 3 May last year. Indeed, he might have asked his right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who perhaps could have given him a more appropriate answer. I put that question to the Customs and Excise, and, in particular, I asked what the trade in sterling certificates of deposit had been.
The figures can be extracted from the Bank of England statistics, although there is no precise breakdown between the trade in certificates of deposit inside the Community, plus the Isle of Man, and outside. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for that. We have not been able to make a precise breakdown but he can cross-check agains the Bank's statistics.
However, I will give the figures that I have. In 1975 the trade was about £3,000 million; in 1976 it was £3,340 million; in 1977 it was £4,640 million; in 1978 it was £3,810 million, and in 1979 it was £3,850 million. So they were fairly considerable sums.
The hon. Gentleman then asked me whether we would be out of line with

1831
the sixth directive. It is important to reassure ourselves that there is no breach of our obligations there, and I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that this is not so.
I was then asked whether the profits of the Bank would be affected. I do not think they will, except in the sense that the Bank will not be able to recover its inputs on this range of transactions. In the sense of gross profits the answer is "Yes", but in the sense of profits for corporation tax purposes the answer is "No".
It is thought that we shall be preventing banks and similar institutions from setting about £20 million of inputs against their outputs—that is, about £20 million in VAT. By reference to the enormous sums that we are accustomed to bandy across the Dispatch Box when we discuss public expenditure, that is not a large sum. None the less, I hope that the House and the Opposition will consider that it is worth moving this modest order to staunch this flow.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman, who, with his customary courtesy and lucidity, has explored this problem for the Opposition. On that basis, I hope that the House will approve this modest yet important order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Value Added Tax (International Services) (No. 2) Order 1979 (S.I., 1979, No. 1554), a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 December, be approved.

ADULT EDUCATION
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]
12.18 am
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I am grateful to the House for this opportunity to raise the subject of adult education, which I believe is of increasing interest to several hon. Members in the House and will come increasingly to the fore in several constituencies up and down the country in the next few months.
The first movement towards that increase in interest is reflected by the fact that during the past two or three months a number of Back Benchers have grouped
1832
together to pursue the interests of adult education in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who I understand will be seeking to catch your attention later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the chairman of that group of Members of Parliament and is responsible for articulating some of the concerns that are shared by Back Benchers interested in this subject.
I begin by making clear my objective in raising this subject in the House this evening. I am not asking my hon. Friend the Minister for detailed statistics on the level of spending by local education authorities on adult education nor am I asking him to defend the particular spending decisions which local education authorities may or may not have made. My hon. Friend will rightly tell me that local educiation authorities are the primary decision-making machines on adult education matters and must carry the responsibility for their own decisions. However, I believe that the Government have an important contribution to make, not so much by making individual spending decisions but by creating the political environment in which those decision are made. Many of us feel that adult education lacks a clear political commitment from the top about the underlying value of the work of that sector. That is not something that has come forward in the last few months. The whole sector has been drifting for the last two or three years. What is needed is a new top-level commitment to the ideas, aims and goals of adult education.
Some of the spending decisions that have been taken by local education authorities in the past four or five months reflect a lack of political will and direction. I shall mention one or two of the more publicised examples.
My hon. Friend will know that Humberside, West Glamorgan and Hampshire have all imposed, at one time or another, a total suspension of adult education activity. Nottinghamshire, the county next door to my own, has imposed cuts that will reduce the number of places offered to adults by approximately 80 per cent. My own county of Leicestershire has, perhaps, been less swingeing than most in the cuts that it has applied, but I was told this morning that the local people involved in adult education expect

1833
a drop in student numbers of about 25 per cent. to 30 per cent.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I have for many years been a tutor in adult education, via the University of Wales extramural department and in many other ways—the WEA, and so on—and I am surprised to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He refers to West Glamorgan, where I was a lecturer in various subjects in adult education. I had the interesting experience of talking to a broad range of talented people who had never had the opportunity of education in the conventional sense, and they were dependent on a very small element of higher education grant which was taken away from them by the Government of which the hon. Gentleman is a supporter.
I heartily support the hon. Gentleman in having an Adjournment debate tonight on higher education, and I have in mind especially those who have not had the opportunity of grants, who have not got A-levels, O-levels and the rest. But these are the people who are bereft of help at the present moment, and it surprises me that the hon. Gentleman can be so passionate at a time when his own Government are taking away the very cash which gives help, succour and joy to a wide range of people.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but I must tell him that it is not customary to intervene in an Adjournment because it is such a short debate, and, if the hon. Member whose debate it is gives way, it is not customary to intervene at undue length.
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point but not, I think, an accurate one, because I said at the outset that I was not concerned about the particular application of specific spending decisions because that is not a subject which is directly the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister or of the House. What is the responsibility of the House and of my hon. Friend is the political environment in which those decisions are made. That is why I ask my hon. Friend to make clear tonight—or at some other time if he cannot do it now—the Government's underlying political commitment
1834
to the aspirations of adult education so that decisions of that kind are taken in an atmosphere more positive towards the ideas to which the hon. Member has given expression.
Adult education is nothing very new, and certainly my party's political commitment to it is nothing at all new. Anyone who is involved in the adult education world, as the hon. Gentleman was, will be well aware of the letter written by Winston Churchill to the TUC in 1953 in which he said:
"There is perhaps no branch of our vast education system which should more attract within its particular sphere the aid and encouragement of the State than adult education."
I am asking the present Government to renew the commitment which Winston Churchill gave in 1953 and underline their attachment to the idea which he then embraced.
I turn now to one or two aspects of this subject. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) was, I thought, a bit scathing about this Government's record in adult education, so perhaps I should begin by speaking briefly about what they have done in the basic education of adults, because here they have, I think, already made a start down the road which I suggest they take.
In a parliamentary answer to me on 17 December, the Secretary of State announced that the adult literacy unit was to continue for a further three years and that the funding of this unit was to be increased from £330,000 to £½ million.
That does not fit in with a picture of total cutbacks on all forms of adult education. My right hon. and learned Friend announced also in accepting many of the recommendations in the report of the Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education that the adult literacy unit would be extended to cover a wider range of basic skills.
I warmly welcome that, though I enter one caveat. I hope that that commitment at the centre will be reflected in the local education authorities, for there is not much point in having that commitment to the adult literacy unit if at the same time we do not have the commitment in the local education authorities at the sharp end to carry out the ideas that the literacy unit is supposed to be propagating.

1835
Adult education is not primarily about basic education. It is concerned fundamentally with the much wider subject of the development of knowledge, skills, judgment and creativity for each citizen throughout adult life. I hope that the Minister's statement will emphasise that adult education is concerned not merely with the use of leisure time. Nor is it confined to the way in which a few privileged persons use their evenings to enjoy themselves. It is about providing an opportunity for all our citizens to develop throughout life. We must move away from the idea that education ends when we leave school, whether that be at 16 years, 18 years or, for the lucky few, when they leave university at 21 years. Education is a continuing and permanent process.
It is necessary that that is made clear for two reasons. First, there is the purely utilitarian reason that we are short of talent. We do not have talent to waste. We cannot afford to allow those who are late developers to fall by the wayside. We need their talents. We need them to contribute to the economy. We need to encourage upward mobility so that extra skills may be acquired and the quality of the population is developed and is better able to contribute to a fast-changing society.
Secondly, we need to provide a second chance for those who do not take full advantage of their time at school, for whatever reason. We need to provide an opportunity for people to improve later in life and to improve the contribution that they make to our society.
Those are utilitarian arguments. However, adult education is also concerned with the development of a free society. The development of the individual and the improvement of the contribution that he can make is not confined to improving the economy. It is also concerned with everything that the Conservative Party has stood for—namely, higher individual attainment and the pursuit of excellence. That is a process that cannot stop at 18 years. It is something that should be pursued throughout adult life.
If that is the role that we understand for adult education, it cannot be regarded merely as a commercial enter-
1836
prise. The public funds education for the primary, secondary and university sectors because it sees public benefits coming from that funding. Individuals benefit, but the public benefit as well. That is equally true of the adult education sector. We accept that if cuts are to be made in other sectors of public expenditure they must affect adult education too. However, we argue that they should not affect it disproportionately.
12.28 am
Mr. Harry Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) on his initiatives in this important area. I thank him for accommodating me for a few moments in this Adjournment debate.
I speak as the chairman of the new all-party committee on adult education. The committe has already had two meetings and it is getting down to business. It looks forward to making a contribution in the important sector of adult education. I have had 15 years' experience of adult education. I have worked in this field in addition to my other big jobs in education.
Clearly, schoolchildren and young people in colleges and universities should come first. However, we must try unremittingly to establish and maintain throughout the nation a firm infrastructure for adult education upon which, when the economy is stronger, can be set up those vital classes for older people, young mothers, the increasing number of early retirers, the unemployed, the illiterate, those with increasing leisure time and others in every walk of life with active minds and bodies who seek stimulating and/or relaxing courses which can come only through the adult education service.
Such people make keen students. As my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough said, some of those people may well have not made the most of their schooling and have to come to understand the need for education later in life than many of us. Whether they are late developers or people within the categories that I have described, they are keen students who want to learn. They inspire, among those who teach them, keen tutors. Such tutors give a service that makes adult education probably the most cost-effective sector of education, public or private. The tutors are paid by the hour,

1837
but they give their time freely for travelling and lesson preparation before and after classes.
Authorities throughout the country, but particularly Inner London and notably Ealing of the outer London boroughs, have long had a good record in adult education. If a local authority offers a good adult education service, it reaches the whole community. Although people do not necessarily enrol every year, in an area near this House research has shown that 20,000 people have enrolled for adult education courses over the past three years, whereas the annual enrolment has been 9,000 a year. Notable people in this matter in London—Joan Adams, Jimmy Maple, Peter Clyne, Sidney Hearen and others—are equipped to comment on the situation. On adult education they say:
"We touch a large part of the community."
Any of us, just by talking to people, can usually discover in that conversation that people have attended a class in adult education at some time or another. I should like to see, as soon as possible and by whatever means possible, daytime classes, as well as evening classes, increasing in academic, physical education and vocational areas. Over 2,000 classes in the small region that I have referred to are held in the daytime. The adult education institute concerned has some accommodation of its own, but it has to work hard to find extra accommodation. Such accommodation should become increasingly available as school rolls fall and premises are vacated. Not all schools will easily be sold and some might well be saved for the purposes of adult education. They would make a valuable contribution.
I should like to continue the quotation that was started by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough from what Sir Winston Churchill said to the Trades Union Congress in 1953, in the context of the post-war situation:
"How many must there be in Britain, after the disturbance of two destructive wars, who thirst in later life to learn about the humanities, the history of their country, the philosophies of the human race, and the arts and letters which sustain and are borne forward by the ever-conquering English language? This ranks in my opinion far above science and technical instruction, which are well sustained and not without their rewards in our
1838
present system. The mental and moral outlook of free men studying the past"—
as well as the present, I would add—
"with free minds in order to discern the future demands the highest measures which our hard-pressed finances can sustain.
I have no doubt myself that a man or woman earnestly seeking in grown-up life to be guided to wide and suggestive knowledge in its largest and most uplifted sphere will make the best of all the pupils in this age of clatter and buzz, of gape and gloat".
This, for me, is the crunch of his remarks:
"The appetite of adults to be shown the foundations and processes of thought will never be denied by a British administration cherishing the continuity of our island life."
No Administration cherishes our island life more than the present Government. We have a deeply patriotic Government and I am confident that they will do all they can for adult education and thereby for the true fulfilment of our people.
12.35 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) has chosen the topic of adult education for the Adjournment. The last time that we spoke together was in a school meeting during the general election. I first met my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) when we were in the Oxford university settlement in Mope Street, Bethany Green. Both of us were then involved in the teaching profession.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough asked whether the Government's commitment carried on that of previous Conservative Governments to adult education. I reassure him that that is so. We believe that expenditure on adult education is one of the most purposeful and productive aspects of all education expenditure.
Mr. Sheerman: Does the Minister accept that it was the Labour Government of 1966 who pushed the Open University through Parliament? Surely that is the greatest contribution to adult education that the country has ever known. I seem to remember that the Conservative Party was in two minds about whether to support that great advance.
Dr. Boyson: The greater product of adult education is the Workers Educational Association. I welcome the Open

1839
University, but the Workers Educational Association has battled on for over 60 years. If the Open University does as well as that association after 60 or 70 years, I shall agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman).
We did have doubts about the Open University. All rational men have doubts from time to time. We looked at the proposition, but we were not sure whether it would be successful. That does not seem to indicate an irrational frame of mind. When my right hon. Friend the Pirme Minister was Secretary of State for Education and Science in 1970, she came to the conclusion that the Open University was doing a good job. As the Open University is now within my sphere of responsibility, it was one of the first places that I visited upon taking office. I am convinced that the money spent on the Open University is well spent, and I agree that it is part of adult education.
There are three facets to adult education, all of which have been covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough. First, there is the technological facet, in which the Open University plays its part. Because of the rapid change in technology and industry, not only do we require a well-educated population possessing the basic skills, but special skills need to be ret aught from time to time. There also needs to be the development of new skills that are flexible to new demands if we are to attain the economic revival that we all seek.
Secondly, the remedial or balanced aim of adult education is for children who leave our schools to be able to read and write. We have by no means reached that stage. I have talked to people about the figures for adult illiteracy. Adult education has a role to play in remedial education, because people can return to education when they feel the need for literacy and numeracy. I am particularly sympathetic to that need, and facilities are provided to those people so that they can learn skills for their own satisfaction, as part of their job, and to make up for something that they missed when they were at school. The same consideration applies to the minor ethnic groups. Many of these people require the skills of numeracy and literacy to enable them to fit into our society. This applies also to the boat people who have recently arrived
1840
here. The older ones would gain from adult education.
Mr. Dorrell: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. I said that the Government had made a good start on adult literacy. I ask my hon. Friend to address himself to the problem that arises when the Government put funds into the adult literacy unit but some local authorities reduce their spending at the sharp end on those objectives.
Dr. Boyson: I shall come to that when I have completed what I want to say on the other matter.
There is a third need that has to be met, and that is self-fulfilment. It means that people can go to classes similar to the old WEA classes in literature and history and in that way gain a further insight into the society in which they live. That is a justifiable expenditure.
I shall come in a moment to our commitment to adult education and compare the figures for this year with those for last year.
Let me deal with the rate support grant. It is not just a question of adult education. One has to consider also stationery, books, and so on. Once money has been put into the rate support grant, one has to reply upon the local authority and public opinion within that authority to ensure that the money provided for adult education is used in that way. That can be done only by creating the proper climate of opinion.
Where cuts have to be made—and in many cases they have to be—one must ensure that that is done. After all, we were elected to bring the economy into balance. That is something in which all of us on this side believe. Special cases are difficult to deal with. Everyone is a special case if one allows it.
It is essential that local authorities do not cut so near the bone that we cannot get the situation going again once we put more flesh on. That is the first important point to make. Secondly, voluntary associations and voluntary bodies have an important role to play. The WEA is one such body. A local education authority must not just keep its own classes going and run down the funds that go to voluntary bodies, because in many cases those bodies meet the demands of people in the area and can

1841
expand most easily when the situation eases economically.
I must make a point about guidance to local authorities. I understand that the Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education hopes to provide indications of practical ways in which provision is being maintained at local level within reduced budgets. I think that that would meet the point raised by my hon. Friend about what is happening where cuts have to be made but where there has been a retention of the standards that had been achieved.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will be glad to hear that there will be no reduction in grant-aid from the Department to bodies such as the WEA and university extra-mural departments, which are also grant-aided by the local authorities and which supplement LEA provision. We intend to provide the same amount of money in 1980–81 as has been provided this year, so there will be no reduction in adult education. That shows that we believe in adult education. We are providing real money for this purpose.
Mr. Greenway: To that I say three cheers.
Dr. Boyson: That was a very pleasant intervention. If the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East wants to intervene and give only one cheer, I shall gladly give way.
Just before Christmas, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced that he had decided to extend the term of the Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education for a further three years beyond October 1980, to which it was timed, to enable it to complete its important work of reviewing current practice and the means of most effectively deploying existing resources and of identifying the policies and priori-
1842
ties which it considers important for the evaluation of a coherent pattern of provision in tune with present and future needs.
Similarly, just before the Christmas Recess, we took an initiative with the adult literacy unit—with which I have had many conversations—for the development after March of the unit into one with a wider remit, covering not only literacy but other related basic skills. Although my right hon. and learned Friend felt able to give central support, it is particularly important to mention tonight that we are providing the same funds as before. We have given it another three years. We are working very closely with it.
In particular, we want to move the adult literacy unit into a basic education of adults unit, where it will cover proficiency in areas such as literacy, numeracy and communication, without which people are impeded in applying or even being considered for employment. I have had a number of conversations with these people and I have no doubt that they are doing an excellent job. We shall watch carefully to see what further help we can give them. We have given them a budget of £500,000 in the first year, and we have promised its continuance over three years.
It gives me pleasure this evening to answer my hon. Friends and say that our commitment to adult education is clear. It has been shown financially. We have put our money where our beliefs are, by not cutting the amount going to adult education. If we can give a lead by saying that this is one of the priorities that must be maintained not just for the present but for the future—and that includes the Open University—I am sure that this debate will have been useful for all concerned.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to One o'clock

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Zambia
  Zambia
  Population (Colombo Declaration)
  Population (Colombo Declaration)
  India
  India
  Pakistan
  Pakistan
  Trade Union Education
  Trade Union Education
  International Year of the Child
  International Year of the Child
  ODA Personnel (Children's Holiday Visit Passages)
  ODA Personnel (Children's Holiday Visit Passages)
  Bolivia
  Bolivia
  Africa (International Red Cross Appeal)
  Africa (International Red Cross Appeal)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigration Rules
  Immigration Rules
  Mr. Mahmoud Zaid
  Mr. Mahmoud Zaid
  Firearms Act 1968
  Firearms Act 1968
  International Year of the Child
  International Year of the Child
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Restricted Patients
  Restricted Patients
  Mentally-ill Prisoners
  Mentally-ill Prisoners
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Electoral Reform
  Electoral Reform
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  International Year of the Child
  International Year of the Child
  Depo Provera (Research)
  Depo Provera (Research)
  PUBLIC BODIES (REVIEW)
  PUBLIC BODIES (REVIEW)
TRADE
  USSR
  USSR
ENERGY
  Oil Quotas
  Oil Quotas
  Offshore Supplies Office (Deep Sea Mining)
  Offshore Supplies Office (Deep Sea Mining)
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Pressurised Water Reactors
  Pressurised Water Reactors
  European Community (Imports-Exports)
  European Community (Imports-Exports)
SCOTLAND
  Great Line Crews (Unemployment)
  Great Line Crews (Unemployment)
  Local Government Ombudsman
  Local Government Ombudsman
  Intermediate Centres
  Intermediate Centres
  Northpress Project, Inverness
  Northpress Project, Inverness
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Trustee Savings Banks
  Trustee Savings Banks
  Local Authorities (Manpower)
  Local Authorities (Manpower)
  Bank of Ireland (British Accounts)
  Bank of Ireland (British Accounts)
  Tax Repayments
  Tax Repayments
ENVIRONMENT
  Publicly Owned Land (Disposal)
  Publicly Owned Land (Disposal)
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  International Year of the Child
  International Year of the Child
TRANSPORT
  Cars (Pavement Parking)
  Cars (Pavement Parking)
  Heavy Vehicles (Taxation)
  Heavy Vehicles (Taxation)
  Road Schemes (Contracts)
  Road Schemes (Contracts)
EMPLOYMENT
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
CIVIL SERVICE
  Public Servants (Redundancy and Severance Payments)
  Public Servants (Redundancy and Severance Payments)
  House of Commons Official Report
  House of Commons Official Report
  Public Service Pensions
  Public Service Pensions
  Documents (Security Classification)
  Documents (Security Classification)
INDUSTRY
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  Steel Production
  Steel Production
SOCIAL SERVICES
  London Health Planning Consortium
  London Health Planning Consortium
  International Year of the Child
  International Year of the Child
  Advice and Information
  Advice and Information
  1981 census
  1981 census
  Earnings and Pensions
  Earnings and Pensions
  Patients (Psycho-surgery)
  Patients (Psycho-surgery)
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Sterilisation)
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Sterilisation)
  Mentally-ill Patients
  Mentally-ill Patients
  Patients (Special Hospitals)
  Patients (Special Hospitals)
  Broadmoor Hospital
  Broadmoor Hospital
  Elderly Persons (Heating Allowance)
  Elderly Persons (Heating Allowance)
  Special Hospitals
  Special Hospitals
  Secure Units
  Secure Units
  Mental Health Review Tribunals
  Mental Health Review Tribunals
  Industrial Injuries
  Industrial Injuries
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit)
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit)
  Social Security Payments
  Social Security Payments
DEFENCE
  Chemical Warfare and Defence
  Chemical Warfare and Defence
  Army Scholarship Scheme
  Army Scholarship Scheme
  Service Personnel (Children's Holiday Visit Passages)
  Service Personnel (Children's Holiday Visit Passages)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board
  White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board
  Bull Semen
  Bull Semen
  Lamb
  Lamb
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Helsinki Agreement
  Helsinki Agreement
  Prague
  Prague
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Soviet Ambassador
  Soviet Ambassador
  Middle East
  Middle East
  France (British Motorists)
  France (British Motorists)
  Secretary of State Vance
  Secretary of State Vance
  Cambodia
  Cambodia
  Departmental Personnel (Children's Holiday Visit Passages)
  Departmental Personnel (Children's Holiday Visit Passages)
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Chile
  Chile
  USSR
  USSR
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Association of Overseas Territories
  Association of Overseas Territories
  MR. R. R. WEBSTER
  MR. R. R. WEBSTER
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 1964
  Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 1964
  Detained Persons (Deaths)
  Detained Persons (Deaths)
  Constable David Purse
  Constable David Purse
  Mr. Thomas Montgomery
  Mr. Thomas Montgomery

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Albans.

WESTCOTT DEFENCE PROJECT SITE
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the cost of running the Propellant, Explosive and Rocket Motor Establishment at Westcott, Buckinghamshire, and what they consider to be the long-term future of the site.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, the Propellants, Explosives and Rocket Motor Establishment, Westcott, is involved in a large number of continuing defence research and development projects, and there are no plans to change the use of the site. The noble Lord will however be aware that the functions of the defence research and development establishments as a whole are currently under review, and PERME, along with all other such establishments, is involved in this exercise. It is not the practice to give costs of research and development establishments.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for his Answer. May I congratulate him upon what I think is his first reply from this side of the House? First, may I ask my noble friend about the long term future of this establishment? Secondly, could he say whether he is satisfied that the co-operation between our allies and industry in this country is of the highest order in this case?
Viscount LONG: My Lords, the Propellants, Explosives and Rocket Motor Establishment, with its supporting resources, is the centre of the entire rocket motor design and development capability
108
of the United Kingdom. British Aerospace and other firms involved in making and selling missiles and rockets for British Services and overseas therefore depend upon it. That is a measure of its continuing value and importance. While we are in this business, PERME services are going to be needed. For example, they are engaged, and will for some time continue to be engaged, on high priority projects like the infantry anti-tank weapon LAW, the air-to-air missile Skyflash, vital for the Tornado, and the naval helicopter-borne anti-ship missile Sea Skua. Other projects, many of them possibly in collaboration with other NATO partners, are of course coming forward all the time.

NIGERIA: COMPENSATION FOR SEIZURE OF PROPERTY
2.40 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Nigerian Government has yet put forward proposals to compensate British interests for the oil and other properties seized by it last summer.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, as I told the noble Lord on 8th November, BP are in touch with the Nigerian authorities. Her Majesty's Government are also in contact with the new Nigerian Government on this question. I would prefer not to say more at this stage.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, is not my noble friend and is not the Foreign Office a little concerned, if this oil-rich country can help itself to British property and put forward no proposals for compensation for six months, that this may be a considerable encouragement to other countries where there are British investments to behave similarly?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, of course, my Lords. We deeply deplore the original action taken by the Nigerian Government. However, I would point out that there is now a new Government in Nigeria. We

109
are in touch with the new Government and we hope to make progress soon.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that he used this argument about the new Government two and a half months ago? Is he therefore aware that it is now two and a half months older?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we were not in touch with the new Government when I spoke from this Box on the subject a while ago, but we are now in touch with the new Government.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE CUTS
2.42 p.m.
Lord MILVERTON: 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, in the interest of retaining the support of the public in overcoming the present economic difficulties of the country, they will now call a halt to the cuts in public expenditure.
The MINISTER of STATE, TREASURY (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, our present economic difficulties are due in no small measure to an excessive level of public expenditure. We must tackle this problem. We are determined to do so. We have the support of the public and we shall continue to enjoy that support. We want a better future for all of our people, but we will only secure it by harder work and greater productivity.
Lord MILVERTON: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer. However, is it not possible that in one's zealousness to get the economic situation right one can overcut, or overcut too quickly, in much the same way as one can overspend, and that the problem has a greater dimension than economics? Therefore, through the economic wizards, could the Government give a little encouragement to the ordinary people of this land?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I understand entirely the point that my noble friend is making. There is, however, no evidence that we have proceeded too quickly or too far in restraining the level
110
of public expenditure. It is of course essential to get down the rate of inflation, and our policy on public expenditure is an integral part of that policy.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether the Government are really living in such a fool's paradise that they can believe that they have the support of the public, having regard to the most recent by-election? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether he does not realise that the cuts in public expenditure are falling very heavily on those sections of the community that are helpless and can least afford it? Thirdly, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the creation of unemployment is a central part of the present Government's economic policy?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, extrication of our country from the fool's paradise in which they were living under the Labour Government is a central part of our policy. Nobody takes any great pleasure in cutting public expenditure or in cutting public services, but the nation is in exactly the same position as an individual. We cannot spend money we do not have. The future of our country must lie in a rise in the level of production, and that can be achieved only if we lift from the shoulders of our people the burdens imposed upon them by an excessive level of public expenditure.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the present position is that so far the total of public expenditure is being held at about the same level, and it is future planned increases in public expenditure which are now being considered for reduction?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, as my noble friend says, the position is that the current level of public expenditure in real terms is the same as it was last year. We are of course now engaged in a major review of the whole field of public expenditure.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the present cuts are merely—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government accept the report of the EEC Commission of July 1979, that the proportion of GDP spent on central Government and local expenditure in Britain is the lowest of all nine EEC countries and 4 per cent. below the EEC average. and in the light of that what are the Government's criteria for determining their own level of public expenditure?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the criterion that we apply is whether the nation can afford the level of public expenditure concerned. It is perfectly obvious from what has happened in this country, particularly in relation to the level of the Government's borrowing requirement and the resulting rate of inflation which has flowed from that, that the level to which public expenditure was raised under the previous Administration was an insupportable one.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the present cuts are merely scratching the surface of the problems of waste, inefficiency and over-manning, so much responsible for our excessive public expenditure? And would he not further agree that it is the duty of Governments to govern in the interests of the whole community (which the present Government are doing) and not to pander to the misinformed and uninstructed opinions of certain members of the community?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, it is of course the objective of the Government to govern in the interests of all the people of our country, and we shall continue to do so. As I have said, we are reviewing in detail public expenditure in every aspect, and the question of waste and inefficiency are two important matters that are in mind.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he stated that it is the Government's objective to reduce inflation? The Government have decided to put up the price of gas by 29 per cent. and electricity by 22 per cent., and when that percolates through the economy everything will go up. How can inflation
112
be reduced when the Government adopt such policies?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, that particular question goes somewhat wide of the one on the Order Paper; but deficiencies, in particular in the case of nationalised industries, are reflected in the public sector borrowing requirement and at the same time surpluses made by the nationalised industries appear as credits in the public sector borrowing requirement. Therefore, one would not get any improvement by failing to charge proper prices.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will the Minister agree that a good deal of public expenditure is expenditure on goods and that this raises production and keeps unemployment down, and to that extent is it not a worthy object?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, public expenditure is expenditure not only on goods but of course on wages and salaries as well. The reason for trying to curb the level of public expenditure is to make room in the economy for the growth in the private sector, and from the point of view of the long-term health of the economy that is preferable to and much healthier than a growth in the public sector.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, can the noble Lord remind the House of the gap between the present rate of inflation and the present rate of productivity?
Lord COCKFIELD: The gap, my Lords, is unfortunately very wide indeed. We have a rate of inflation of approximately 17 per cent. per annum and a growth in productivity at present of virtually nil. That is why I said at the end of my Answer that our future rests upon achieving a much better level of productivity.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if wage settlements are below the rate of inflation does not that depress consumer expenditure and, as an ultimate consequence, lead to increased unemployment?
Lord COCKFIELD: No, my Lords; it does not have any such effect at all.

NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS: LIMITATION NEGOTIATIONS
2.50 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action has been taken to bring about negotiations between the NATO and Warsaw Pact Governments on the limitation of nuclear missiles on both sides.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we and our allies support the continuation of the SALT process and approved in December a United States offer to negotiate with the Soviet Union within the SALT III framework limitations on land-based long-range theatre nuclear missiles. The Soviet Union has so far responded negatively to this offer.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this: Recognising that the present breach of relations due to the invasion of Afganistan creates difficulty for negotiations, is it not a first necessity that there should be some negotiation about the limitation of nuclear arms in view of the danger of their escalation and their use? May I particularly ask the Government, will they be prepared when the opportunity recurs to support the French Government's proposal for a European disarmament conference to break the deadlock between the NATO powers and the Soviet Union?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we are always ready to discuss meaningfully with the Soviet Union in conjunction with our allies, but it is perhaps worth while pointing out that present negotiations—the MBFR talks at Vienna for example—are virtually stalled and no significant progress has been made for some time. With regard to the SALT process, we hope that, despite the present hiatus, that will continue.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, is it not obvious that the Soviet action in Afghanistan has made ratification of the SALT II Treaty by the Senate virtually impossible? Therefore, is it not, unfortunately, also obvious that in default of
114
some evacuation of Afghanistan by Soviet troops there can be no question of limiting nuclear weapons on both sides but rather of hastening on NATO action in the direction of achievement of nuclear parity?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Strathcona said to your Lordships on 13th December, the Government consider that the NATO decision on the modernisation of the alliance's long-range theatre nuclear forces and the parallel arms control offer are highly satisfactory, all the more so, I would have thought, in view of recent events in Afghanistan.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I, in putting this question to the noble Lord, join with, I am sure, everyone in this House in welcoming back in our midst and into very active participation in the proceedings of the House my noble friend Lord Brockway. It would perhaps be a misplaced description of his intervention to describe it as typically aggressive, but we look forward to more of that kind of aggression in our discussions.
May I put this point to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord said in reply to my noble friend that the Russians had proved negative in response to certain proposals put to them in regard to missiles. He then said that the Vienna talks appeared to be stalled. Despite the evidence that for the moment at least the Vienna talks are stalled—and this is not the first time those talks in Vienna have been stalled—do I nevertheless take it that it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to persist with these MBFR talks in Vienna, and should it not therefore equally be their intention to persist in seeking parallel talks on missiles with the Soviet Union and its allies?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we certainly hope that the Vienna talks can make some progress in the near future, but the noble Lord will know as well as I do the difficulties there have been at those talks and the problems we have encountered. My Lords, is it not the case that world security relies for its existence on the belief that the West can technically at least live at peace with the Soviet Union and its satellites? That belief, I submit, has been shaken to its foundations by

115
recent events in Afghanistan. While I am on my feet, may I join in the words of Lord Goronwy-Roberts at seeing Lord Brockway back in his place. It is a great pleasure.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but I am sure the Minister will wish to reassure all sections of the House that it is not part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw from either of the two sets of talks we have been discussing, despite our profound disapprobation of Soviet actions, especially in the last few weeks, and our continuing impatience with their unwillingness to talk realistically about mutual disarmament. I should like to be reassured that Britian will nevertheless continue to show every evidence of being ready to talk in Vienna and everywhere else where disarmament proves even faintly possible.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am sure that is right.

GAS AND ELECTRICITY: FINANCIAL TARGETS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Gowrie will repeat a Statement being made in another place on financial targets for gas and electricity industries, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a and to be printed.

OBSCENITY AND FILM CENSORSHIP
2.57 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD rose to call attention to the Report of the Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship (Cmnd. 7772); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to call attention to the Williams
116
Report on Obscenity and Film Censorship and to move for Papers. I should like to begin my speech by paying a tribute to this hardworking committee on the report they have produced. This is indeed the most comprehensive review there has ever been of the law and the related facts of this unattractive but not unimportant subject. I would like to record my admiration for the comprehensive and brilliant arguments which they have adduced for the radical changes which they advocate. My praise must stop short of thanks for their recommendations, because I am unable to agree with them.
My Lords, the substance of the report, which not all noble Lords may have read, lies in the arguments and the thoughts in Chapters 5, 6 and 7. In Chapter 5 the committee describe the philosophy, if I may put it that way, of the report, and they declare the principle that freedom of publication of all matter including pornographic matter should prevail unless the causation of harm is proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and this is argued very lucidly. Then Chapter 6, which is the biggest chapter in the report, comes along and proceeds to dispose of all arguments that pornography is harmful, and this clears the way for recommending that all existing laws should be swept away and replaced by a system which would make all written pornography completely free of any legal restraint; all pictorial pornography, or almost all, would be legal but would be legally restricted in regard to its place of sale. It would be restricted to be sold in separate premises in shops where there would be no display and no entry for youths under 18. There would be a new definition of pornography of
" what is offensive to reasonable people".
There is an important exception, which I shall mention later in my speech, to the wholesale liberalisation here indicated. Moreover, films are to be dealt with differently and I shall refer to that later as well.
Obviously as regards this very difficult subject—difficult in every way, difficult to enforce and so on—there are great attractions in the simplification and limitation of the law which would at the same time deal with the evil of display. The objections to this solution come from those who believe that pornography is intrinsic-

117
ally harmful. Therefore, when it reaches the level of being obscene—whether it is written or pictorial—it should be legally banned; and therefore the recommendations of the Williams Report provide no safeguard for the moral and cultural life of our people. Thus, a different legal solution is needed. That, I should say without any doubt, is my own personal belief and it is not shaken by the extremely lucid and clever arguments in Chapter 6 which dismiss my point of view as a reactionary resistance to cultural change. I still have the same conviction and I guess that a good many other people do, also.
I believe that pornography is harmful for two reasons. First, it is harmful to the individual. It has the effect of implanting in the mind of the victim sexual fantasies which exclude normal decent feelings, and worse than that, it is pervasive. Addiction usually follows, so that there is a progressive coarsening of the mind of the victim, suppressing his finer side and shutting him off from the life of his soul. That is the first reason why it is harmful. Secondly, it is harmful to the community as a whole. It is damaging, in my opinion, to the great institution of marriage and family, which is at the basis of the whole of our lives, because it presents sex as something between men and women which is trivial and lewd—indeed, the complete opposite to the consummation of the loving, married partnership of reality. Therefore, I believe that uncontrolled pornography amounts to progressive pollution of the cultural and moral environment. There is a danger, if not a certainty, of progressive debasement and corruption of our national life. That is the argument for Government legislation to strengthen rather than to weaken the law, as the report recommends.
I turn to the report. I think that there is quite an important fallacy in Chapter 5, which is a crucial chapter in the report, which states the argument that there should be no restriction of publication unless harm is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. All of us here, as legislators, are well aware that the general application of this test to any legislation which we were considering would stop altogether some important legislation reaching the statute book. I think particularly of legislation like race relations legislation, equal opportunities legislation and other
118
philosophical kinds of legislation which from time to time we feel we should tackle. The fact is that we, as legislators, well know that there are times when we feel that it is in the public interest that there should be some restriction of freedom of expression in the national interest. We have to balance very carefully just what that is. Without any doubt pornography falls into that category. Therefore, the test which the committee apply crucially to their argument in Chapter 5, that only what can be proved beyond reasonable doubt to be harmful should be restricted in publication, is not a valid test, and indeed is contrary to precedent in our legislative system.
I turn to the new definition of legal pornography which the report recommends. It begins by saying—and rightly in my view—that the existing situation of the law, statute and common law, which it reviews admirably and most lucidly, is a mess. I think that most of us could agree with that and that something is needed. However, its new definition of legal pornography which is to be, "What is offensive to reasonable people", does not seem to me to be likely to meet the needs of the situation.
It seems to me easy to see the weakness of this definition. Let us take the simple example of the salesman of pornographic material, which, of course, would now he completely legal, but he must sell the pictorial pornography in an inner room and without display. He does not do that. In order to increase his sales he sells it in the front of his shop and displays it in the window. So he is prosecuted. He is taken to court. But what does he do? He gets all his friends to come along—all reasonable people within the new definition—who all say that they have not been offended by it and therefore no prosecution is secured. I make the point that, although this is attractive as a definition, I doubt very much whether it will really stand up any better than the present position. I believe—and I am sure that noble Lords with legal expertise will have views on this—that the definition is bound to be weak because of its failings. There is nothing specific in it: "What is offensive to reasonable people". After all, every criminal offence is offensive, but each criminal offence which is on the statute book has a specific name—robbery, arson, fraud, rape and so on. However,

119
this definition is vague and I believe that it would be likely to make conviction even more difficult. I do not think that it would be satisfactory.
So I return to the existing definition of obscenity which tends to deprave and corrupt. That has the virtue of being something we all know and understand and it is descriptive. On the other hand, we must accept, as the report rightly says, that courts have failed again and again in extreme cases to convict on it. However, my view is that the reason for the failure of convictions is not that the offence is wrongly described, but the impossible wideness of the "public good" defence in Clause 4. Here I would interject the thought that we must accept, as I am sure all noble Lords do whatever view they take on this matter, that public opinion on this subject is sharply divided between those who give top priority to unfettered freedom of speech and those who give top priority to public morality. Of course, the great silent majority of the nation are somewhere in between.
In my judgment, the 1959 Act, which of course is crucial to all of this, was an unhappy example of a sincere attempt to find a compromise between those two conflicting points of view. The result was that the first three clauses of the 1959 Act set out to control pornography, as the moralists wanted, and then the fourth clause, for the "public good" defence, was designed to let them all off. The result has, of course, been that the authorities and the police have had an impossible task trying to make an inoperable law work.
I am not surprised that the report recommends that the "public good defence should be dropped. But, of course, the kind of solution that I wish to see is that perhaps it should not be completely dropped but should be sharply limited, anyhow. The report also indicates in this context that the words "deprave" and "corrupt" added to "obscenity", which were intended, of course, to assist, have proved a difficulty in the courts, and therefore there is obviously a case for dropping them. In the light of experience it seems that the Customs and Excise Act 1979—which consolidates the Customs and Excise Acts—which simply contains the offence
120
of obscenity and indecency, is probably better and, therefore, I should prefer it.
I turn to the exceptions to this general liberalisation which the report recommends. As recommended by the Williams Committee, there are two classes which are to be prohibited. The first is pornographic pictures which involve youths under 16 years of age or which involve actual physical harm in their production. Those are to be legally prohibited altogether because there are inherent dangers for the participants in such activities. The second class of pornography which is to be prohibited is the live sex show, either with adults or with children. Certainly I—and I expect most people—would welcome a legal ban on those activities of pornography. However, I make the point—and I shall make it again—that the validity of the great argument in Chapter 6 of the report that pornography is not harmful, is clearly shaken if these two classes of pornography are to be prohibited because they would be harmful. But evidently the Williams Committee has made a judgment in this case that the spectacle of the live sex show is harmful but the photo is not, even if it is a photo of perversions, bestiality and all the other activities in which pornography is involved. That is the committee's judgment.
I turn to films. Here the committee recommends that there should be complete control of films, which is something quite new. This again shakes the "no harm" argument. The committee recommends that a statutory film examining board should be set up with full powers of censorship—something we have never seen before. The justification for this is that the committee sees the film as a uniquely powerful form of media, with the danger of harmful disturbance to the minds of viewers. In its argument the committee recognises that there is no absolute proof of harm; nor is there a convincing link with violence in society. But it says that it would be "entirely sensible to be cautious" in dealing with such forms of pornography.
Evidently the committee was so disturbed by some of the films it saw that it recommended censorship as a safeguard. I believe that these two sectors taken together form a very important point. The reaction of the Williams Committee

121
to film pornography and the other two sectors of pornography is exactly the same as the reaction many other people have to written and pictorial pornography generally. We believe that at a certain level of obscenity they are so damaging that the law should declare them to be illegal. I certainly would not be one to accuse the Williams Committee of paternalism, of which the committee somewhat freely accuses others. I simply welcome the fact that at some level the committee feels that pornography should be legally banned.
These two incidents illustrate that even this liberally-minded committee recognises that at some level pornography is harmful; that such is the tremendous skill of the modern pornographer, that a line should be drawn; that these classes should be identified as being illegal while others fall within legality. The committee is defining a line which is a great deal lower than it has ever been before, with a much tighter control over films. I believe that the great Chapter 6 argument, that pornography is not harmful, should not be regarded as a new principle. It should be seen as a supporting argument for lowering the line between what is legal and what is illegal. I personally agree that it is a matter of judgment as to where the line should be drawn. I do not agree with the committee's conclusion as to where that should be.
There are many other points which I should like to mention, but in all our interests I shall bring my speech to a conclusion. In my judgment the report deserves very careful study before Government legislation proceeds. Whether or not one agrees with the argument—if one does not, one ought to know why one does not for the arguments are very lucidly set out—it is certainly a very valuable assembly of knowledge on this subject. I believe that the case for wholesale liberalisation, which is implied in the report, is not made out. I advise the Government to maintain the traditional offence of obscenity, dropping or greatly limiting the public good defence.
Finally, I believe that pornography is harmful to the life of our people; that it is being exploited today on a huge scale by powerful financial interests, both national and international, who are ever-
122
searching for an extension of their market to younger people by more prurient material. Therefore, it is the Government's duty to safeguard the individual and the moral life of our people from this cultural pollution by strengthening the law against pornography and against those who breach all canons of decency in their publications, rather than weakening it as this report recommends. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.17 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I speak in this debate as an individual who recognises that there is no really solid evidence to support the views which I am about to put forward. I believe—as I suspect most noble Lords who speak in this debate will believe—that my views are based on sound and shrewd instinct, and that the views of everyone else are based on wholly unreasonable prejudices. It is because there is this vast variety in approach to this difficult subject that I ought to begin by saying, on behalf of your Lordships, how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for giving us an early opportunity to debate the Williams Committee Report.
I should also add that because of the bewildering variety of views which, no doubt, will be expressed in this debate, the most astonishing feature of the Williams Committee Report is its unanimity. The fact is that it was not a hand-picked committee. I know several of its members and I have no doubt that they began with an open mind and a strictly rational intellectual approach. That they all came to agree on the matters which they were considering seems to me to be one of the most remarkable feats of chairmanship about which I have ever heard. The third preliminary observation I should make is to say how very much we are all looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strauss—the very distinguished parliamentarian whose speech is to follow when I sit down in, I hope, not too many minutes' time.
I begin by stating what, in a sense, I suppose is the classical Liberal position, which is simply that any form of censorship or control over the freedom of expression is intrinsically objectionable. I go on to add that it is, indeed, wholly

123
unnecessary in a society which would consist entirely of responsible adults. But, of course, that is not the sort of society in which we live. Censorship or control is not only intrinsically objectionable, but I believe that by its very nature it is bound to be capricious. One has only to think of the extraordinary decisions in adjacent geographical areas in this country in recent years. In one area a particular book has been found to be obscene, but a few miles away another court has ruled that it is not obscene. Any form of censorship is bound to be capricious in that way. Indeed, I add also that any form of censorship is bound, in the light of history, to look ridiculous. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that the obscene publications of today are likely to be the school textbooks of tomorrow.
Therefore, I begin by saying that any form of control is objectionable, capricious, and often ridiculous. I am sorry to have to go on to say that nevertheless I find, looking around at some of the material that is at present available, that some form of control is manifestly necessary. I say that because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that in certain circumstances pornography can be harmful; and I think not only of the pornography of sex but perhaps much more of the pornography of violence.
Perhaps I may add, as I deal with this question of whether pornography is harmful, how difficult I have always found it to accept some of the evidence given by the little troop of expert psychiatrists who have been going round our courts arguing that in fact the more obscene pornography is, the more therapeutic its effects on a substantial number of members of the community. Although that may be so in an isolated case, I find it difficult to take it seriously as a substantial argument.
When one considers what is the harm done by this form of publication, I ought to make it clear that I do not myself accept that pornographic publications are themselves likely to lead to the commission of violence or sexual crime. I accept that there are many cases in which those who have committed offences of that kind are found to have literature of that sort in their possession, but I am not sure that it
124
is a simple question of cause and effect. I suppose that the most notorious case in that respect was the Brady, Myra Hindley case many years ago, in which particularly revolting offences were committed, and Brady, if I remember rightly, had a large quantity of literature of that sort in his possession. It would be a rash conclusion to jump to that if that literature had not been available those offences would therefore not have been committed.
I believe that pornography can do harm in four different ways. The first is simply this: I believe that it demeans the writer, the reader, and, if there are illustrations, the photographer and the actor or model who is taking part. I cannot prove that assertion. I can only say that it seems to me self-evident that human beings who are exposed to great pieces of music, great masterpieces of painting, become, perhaps only transiently and perhaps only marginally, slightly better human beings for the experience.
I cannot remember who it was who wrote that after listening to a particular work of music he felt as though he were 10 feet tall and had a thousand glorious years to live. I believe it to be true. If works of art, works of literature, if reading or looking at pictures. can marginally make human beings slightly better human beings, I find it difficult to see why it does not automatically follow that looking at other sorts of pictures, or reading other sorts of writing, cannot make human beings slightly worse human beings. I must confess that I accept that exposure to publications of this sort is liable to make human beings somewhat more unworthy of being so called.
Secondly, there is harm that can be done, because clearly irreparable damage can be done to children who are exploited for the purposes of pornography. The Williams Committee quite openly recognised this. Thirdly, there is harm that can be done in the most literal sense because there are cases known where actual physical harm, sometimes with the consent of the victims and sometimes without their consent, has been done in order to produce pornographic or obscene pictures. Again the Williams Committee recognise that. In cases where there are photographs of torture, for example, it is not always axiomatic that the pictures are simulated. There is a real possibility of harm being done in that sense.

125
Fourthly, I accept, as I imagine all your Lordships will, the main argument of the Williams Committee that there is also harm done by pornography in the sense that its public display is found to be offensive: found to be offensive by people who find it either offends them as individuals or offends their concept of what a good society should be. Against that background of the possible harm that can be caused by publications of this nature I venture to look for a moment at the recommendations of the Williams Committee. I do so principally devoting my attention to what seems to me to be the most remarkable, and perhaps not the most commented on, recommendation, which is the one at Paragraph 7.22 which, in effect, states that the printed word shall be totally free of any sort of restriction or any sort of prohibition.
As I understand that—and I have re-read the paragraph; it seems to be self-evident—the Williams Committee are prepared to contemplate a situation in which, for example, a piece of sadomasochism, such as the Story of O, is available in paperback to adolescents at their local newsagents, if they wish to buy it. I find that a surprising suggestion. The main criticism that I have of what I accept as being a most helpful contribution towards the discussion of this whole subject, is that it appears to exempt the written word entirely from every form of control. It does so apparently on the argument that in some ways the written word is less immediately stimulating than the photograph. I doubt it, certainly to people who are capable of phantasising on sexual matters. I believe that if we are to proceed to consider the Williams Report as a basis for possible legislation in the future, it would have to be after looking again to sec whether the printed word has not in some way or other to be included in the proposals that are made.
There are other weird forms of pornography which will bring a smile to your Lordships' faces. There are pornographic gramophone records. I once took part in a case in which such records were produced. They were long-playing records. I think it took us a day and a half to listen to these things being played. Those of us who were still awake at the end were, I must confess, absolutely bored to tears, but it is extraordinary the devious
126
forms that pornography can take. Whether the spoken word is to be included as the written word in the Williams Committee's exemption, I am not entirely clear. It seems to me clear that there must be some restriction on the printed word. One cannot make the fundamental distinction that the Williams Committee did between the printed word without a photograph and the printed word with a photograph. The problem of censorship of the printed word in any way is not only the capriciousness and sometimes the absurdity of it but also the fact—and this causes one to hesitate—that it is liable to be entirely ineffective. It is liable to create if not a black market at any rate a blue market in literature of that sort. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, will well remember his distinguished defence of a slightly tedious book called Lady Chatterley's Lover many years ago. I suspect that at that time, when the book was thought to be banned, it was passed from hand to hand at university with a great deal more rapidity than it is today, when it is widely accepted as being unobjectionable and somewhat dull. Any form of censorship is bound to give rise to a situation in which there is trading under the counter and corruption and sometimes violence in the industry that grows up as a result. Nevertheless, despite that, it seems to me that we must look at the whole question of the printed word again in the light of this report.
Many other noble Lords wish to speak and I will not detain the House for much longer. I believe, subject to that, that the definitions proposed in this report are workable and are an improvement on those we have been seeking, rather ineffectually, to operate since 1959. The proposals for restriction and prohibition are sensible, and certainly the proposals for film censorship seem to be a tidying up and an advance on the present position. I would add only one comment about the film censorship matter. I may have missed it in the report, but I have not seen any recognition there of the difficulty that arises when films which are categorised in one way or another by the censor are shown on television, films now being the staple diet of our television channels most evenings.
At present, as I understand it, if the television authorities think a film is objectionable they sometimes cut out so

127
of the more remarkable pieces of the film and then salve their consciences by showing it very late at night when the parents have gone to bed and the teenagers are in the sitting-room still watching television. If we are to put films in categories in this way and endeavour to restrict their viewing to certain age groups, it appears that we shall have to consider with some care how that is to affect the position of the television authorities when they are showing such films.
I think that is sufficient by way of observation of this helpful and provocative report at this stage. I believe we would be right to have some major reservations about parts of the report. I believe too that it is right to suggest, as the report does, that the time has come when we might try to tidy up the whole of our existing legislation and introduce one new comprehensive measure to deal with this very difficult problem; and when we come to do that we shall find much in this report that is of real assistance to us.
3.34 p.m.
Lord STRAUSS: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time I wish to speak about the Williams Report because it deals with matters which have always interested me and with which at various times I have been directly concerned. The first occasion was a very long time ago, when I was elected to the London County Council in 1925 and was put on the sub-committee of the Theatres and Music Halls Committee. One of the first things we had to consider was whether the magnificent Eisenstein film Potemkin should be shown. I remember that, despite the persuasive arguments which some of us put forward, it was decided that the film should not be shown. That angered me very much, as have many subsequent bannings.
The most interesting and to me most satisfying incursion into censorship which I have had (and it is referred to in the report which is before us) concerned the action taken on the initiative of this House in respect of theatre censorship; and I wish to pay tribute to the many occasions on which your Lordships' House has taken the initiative in important humanist and libertarian reforms. A Motion was passed in this House setting up a committee, a rare bird, which led to the joint
128
Select Committee of both Houses, to consider the whole question of theatre censorship and I was honoured and delighted to be asked to be its chairman. After very careful consideration we came to the surprising conclusion—surprising in view of the different attitudes of various members of the committee when we started our proceedings—that theatre censorship should end. The most surprising aspect of that decision was that it was unanimous; it was surprising in exactly the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that the Williams Committee had come to unanimous decisions on the various censorship matters which came before it.
Normally a committee, after passing judgment, must wait for years before any action is taken. In our case—the theatre censorship report—the Government refused to take any action (their refusal was understandable because it was contentious and it would take up time) and finally we decided that the only way to make any progress was if a Member who was keen on the matter was lucky enough to draw a high place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills. I was lucky enough to do that, the first and only time in my 47 years' membership of that House. The Government said they would not give us any facilities—that they would not allow civil servants to advise us, something that was essential if we were to produce a sound Bill. But, by a lucky chance, on the day the decision was taken by the Cabinet, important Cabinet Ministers who opposed it were absent and, with the active help of the Home Secretary Roy Jenkins, we were given the facilities; the Bill scraped through on the last day of the Session and finally became the law of the land.
It was of course opposed by many organisations and bodies, particularly religious and moralist ones, as always happens when contentious measures dealing with moral issues are proposed They said terrible things would happen if the Bill became law, that it would lead to the moral disintegration of society, and so on. What in fact happened was that many excellent plays which otherwise would never have been produced were produced and have now become famous in this country and abroad. It is also true that some plays whose only appeal was sex were put on, and some of these

129
—and I have particularly in mind oh! Calcutta!—were very popular; they were seen by thousands who got great enjoyment out of them and there is no evidence that they did anybody any harm.
Believing, as I always have, that there should be the maximum liberty for every individual to read and see what he wants—I agree there must be certain exceptions, but they should be reduced to the minimum—I find the Williams Report admirable. Its conclusions are firmly based on the evidence put before it; it is not just the view of individuals, of amateurs, who have come to a conclusion without thinking about the matter much. Anybody who reads the report must be impressed by the weight of the evidence put by sociologists, psychiatrists and psychologists who are almost unanimous, with very minor qualifications and hardly any exceptions, in their view that pornography does no harm to the individual or to society.
I should like to quote just one sentence from the report; it is from Chapter 6:
"None of our psychiatric or psychological witnesses in fact saw very great harm in straightforward sexual pornography, and some, indeed, felt that cases more frequently occurred in which the effects of pornography were beneficial rather than harmful".
That kind of view is expressed frequently in the report. They are the views of the people who work in this field, psychiatrists and others. These are their conclusions after years of study and experience.
There was also the very important report of the committee set up by President Nixon. It was probably the most thorough and comprehensive report that has ever been made on the subject. That report, too, was unanimous. Its conclusions were rejected out-of-hand by President Nixon. After the interview of thousands of people, that report came to the conclusion that it had found no evidence that exposure to explicit sexual material plays a significant role in the causation of delinquent or criminal behaviour among youths or adults.
I know that individuals have different views on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, feels very keenly that it is wrong and that a certain
130
other view, which I call the moralist view, is right. It seems to me that against the background of the evidence put before the committee, and the now popular arguments of the libertarians in favour of freedom for the individual—apart from the adolescent, of course—to view and read whatever he thinks right, the report is sensible, exceedingly well written, and practical.
Of course, it is bound to be highly controversial. There are very many people, apart from some of those who have spoken in this House, who will be opposed to it, but I cannot myself see any strong argument against any single one of the propositions that it puts forward. There may be some matters of detail which are questionable but, broadly speaking, the attitude of the committee seems to be correct. For example, I can see no reason against the proposal for separate shops, as in France, for viewing and buying restricted material containing sexually stimulating pictures, or the proposal to replace the present film clubs with public cinemas for the showing of pornographic films, provided there are the necessary warnings and safeguards. That would exclude those who, in I think the view of everybody, should not see such pornographic material, but it would give adults the right to decide for themselves, without being told by moralists what is good for them and what is harmful.
It seems to me equally sensible that the recommendation that the written word should no longer be subject to prosecution should be accepted. Although this is largely a legal matter, I am told that in view of the acquittal in the case against the publishers of Inside Linda Lovelace, no prosecution against the written word in such matters has any chance of success in the future.
Legally the most important proposal of the committee is the change suggested in the definition of obscenity; that it should no longer be that contained in the judgment of Lord Cockburn in 1868: that it is something that tends to deprave and corrupt. That definition was incorporated in my Theatres Bill only because no one could think of a better one. Someone has thought of a better one now. It is stated categorically in the Williams Report that the lawyers who gave evidence all seem agreed that

131
the old definition is a bad one and that a better one should be substituted for it, and it seems to me that the new definition suggested is a good one, though to my unlegal mind it raises certain difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who has just spoken, seemed to suggest are not serious. In future the test will be whether pornographic material is offensive to reasonable people. I consider that it is admirable to make offensiveness the crux of the crime—not the degree of pornography.
But there is the question, who are reasonable people? We all think that we are reasonable people. Of course we do. Mrs. Whitehouse thinks that she is a most reasonable person, and indeed she argues her case very reasonably on television. Will the reasonableness of the viewer of pornography be permitted as a matter for discussion in the courts? Will counsel on both sides argue what is a reasonable person? I believe that what tends to corrupt and deprave is not a question on which witnesses can be called to give the court help. Will the question of the reasonableness of a person be a subject on which witnesses can be called? I do not know. It would be most helpful, and I should be relieved, if we were to have an authoritative answer to this question. Is such an answer possible?
I do not wish to waste your Lordships' time, and in a maiden speech I should receive a black mark which would remain for ever if I spoke for longer than about 10 minutes. So, in conclusion, I want to say that I think the report is wholly admirable. I hope that it will be considered quickly by the various bodies who will want to consider it. One cannot opeh to have a unanimous verdict, but I hope it will be sufficiently favourable to allow the Government to proceed. Probably they will say that this is a matter on which there should be no Government legislation, that it is a matter for the two Houses of Parliament, that it is up to private Members to put forward their views, and that the subject should proceed on that basis, as happened in my case with theatre censorship. I hope that when there is a verdict the Government will not only make arrangements for a Private Member's Bill enacting the provisions of this report to come before the two Houses,
132
but provide all the necessary facilities in time and Civil Service expertise so that they can, after proper scrutiny, become the law of the land.

GAS AND ELECTRICITY: FINANCIAL TARGETS
3.49 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I hope that the House will not mind if, following the distinguished maiden speech of the noble Lord (which my noble friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell will shortly be following) I now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy. The Statement is on the financial targets for the gas and electricity industries, and these are my right honourable friend's words:
" With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about financial targets for the British Gas Corporation and the electricity supply industry in England and Wales.
" It is a fundamental objective of this Government's policy towards the nationalised industries that they should be set a clear financial discipline. We therefore opened discussions with the gas and electricity industries on medium-term financial targets for the period 1980–81 to 1982–83. The external financial limits for 1980–81 announced last November were set in the light of those discussions, which have now been satisfactorily concluded.
"In a period of international uncertainty over fuel supplies and rapidly rising fuel costs, it is important that consumers should be aware of the true value of the fuel they are using. The prices which consumers pay for different fuels must reflect that value—taking into account in particular the fact that oil and gas supplies are limited. We must conserve our scarce energy supplies for future generations. After a year in which crude oil prices have risen by 100 per cent. or more, this is bound to mean heavy increases in other fuel prices. The need to move to economic pricing has been our main consideration in setting the financial targets for the two industries.

133
"I recognise that adjusting to an era of higher energy prices brings serious problems for many consumers, especially the old and the poor. The new scheme of assistance with heating costs announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on 22nd October last was designed to provide worthwhile help for those in most need. We shall take proper account of the cost of energy in our social policies and in determining benefit levels, particularly the levels of extra heating additions. We are reviewing in this context the whole range of help available to assist consumers with fuel bills.
"Turning specifically to gas fust, there are five reasons why domestic gas prices will have to rise. First, our reserves of natural gas represent a finite and increasingly valuable national resource. If the price is too low, we shall burn it up too fast and bring forward the day when we have to turn to more expensive sources of supply.
"Second, in the short term too, low prices cause peak demand to surge above what it would otherwise be, bringing the risk of shortages and supply cuts on cold winter days.
"Third, gas from new North Sea fields will cost several times more than earlier gas supplies and prices must reflect these much higher costs.
"Fourth, a sensible approach to pricing is vital if we are to achieve a proper balance of supply and demand as between all consumers of gas. For industrial and commercial customers it has been the long-standing policy of the British Gas Corporation to sell gas at a price broadly related to that of the competing oil product. The Government endorse this policy. The only alternative would be some form of arbitrary rationing and the risk of ever-increasing supply shortages.
"Fifth, artificially low prices concentrate the benefits on those who have access to gas supplies at the expense of the rest of the population. Correct pricing is essential if some of the financial proceeds from our natural gas resources are to be secured for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Honourable
134
Members will recall that even the Price Commission in their report last July, before recent oil price increases, concluded that domestic tariffs should be 30–35 per cent. higher in real terms.
"Against this background, and the background of soaring world oil prices, we have set the British Gas Corporation a target, expressed as an average annual rate of return to be achieved over the period April 1980 to March 1983, of 9 per cent. on net assets valued at current cost. The target is related to current cost operating profit after taking account of depreciation but before interest and tax. It will be adjusted if necessary after introduction of the proposed new current cost accounting standard. The target rate of return is expressed as an average over three years: the actual rate of return is likely to be lower than 9 per cent. at first, but will increase progressively over the period.
"Details of the tariff changes necessary to achieve the target are a matter for British Gas. However, in broad terms the Government expect domestic gas prices to increase this year by 10 per cent. over and above the rate of inflation, followed by comparable real increases in the following two years.
"Against the same criteria of economic pricing, electricity prices will also rise, though the expectation is that this will be less than in the case of domestic gas.
"The target for the electricity supply industry in England and Wales has been set at an average annual rate of return of 1·8 per cent. on net assets valued at current cost—again over the three years 1980 to 1983. As in the case of gas, details of tariff changes are a matter for the industry. Prices are likely to increase over the three-year period of the target by about 5 per cent. over and above increases in the industry's own costs, of which fuel costs are the biggest element.
"The Government have asked both the British Gas Corporation and the Electricity Council to phase this year's increases in two stages, one in April and another in October."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for having made a Statement at such length. We on this side of the House must express our appreciation that, uniquely on this occasion, the Minister has not quoted precisely from that section of the Conservative Party Election Manifesto which foreshadowed increases of the magnitude that have been postulated. We are indeed grateful for that small mercy.
This is a very serious Statement indeed. The authorities concerned have already announced the increases they propose to make in obedience to the policy which has been enunciated: a 17 per cent. increase in gas in April and a further 10 per cent. increase in October; a 17 per cent. increase in electricity in April and a further 8 per cent. increase in October. No noble Lord can conceal from himself the fact that this is bound to give an extra twist to an inflation rate which is already running at 17½ per cent.—an inflation rate that is presently going to be further increased by the forecast increase in rates, by increases in fares, by increases in monthly mortgage repayment charges and by increases in food prices due to the Government's present inability to obtain changes in the Common Agricultural Policy. I invite the noble Earl, when he replies, to give the House some indication of the changes he expects to take place in the retail price index during the period that is covered by these increases.
It is quite clear from the Statement itself that, although the Government have been protesting, "Conservation"—and indeed at various points the noble Earl referred to it—the main emphasis of the Government has been on dogma. I quote from the Statement:
"It is a fundamental objective …[to] set a clear financial discipline";
and,
"The need to move to economic pricing has been our main consideration".
In other words, considerations of dogma have taken priority over any reasonable and prudent steps that could be taken to contain the rate of inflation—even the rate at which, at the Government's stimulation, it already stands.
The noble Earl has made reference to the new system of assistance with heating
136
costs announced by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on 22nd October last. Yes, we well recall it. Due to the public expenditure cuts, the expenditure under that scheme, which was put at £45 million with a benefit to about 3½ million people, was, with the same cold fanaticism, cut to £14 million with a benefit to only one-tenth of that number, or 350,000. This is not the occasion, I believe, to indulge in lengthy debate, but, indeed, the contents of the Statement itself, and the Government's thoughts behind it, betray a degree of cold fanaticism which seems to have beset the Government. The duty of the Government is to govern in the interests of all the people. It is to govern with a strict sense of justice, with the object of obtaining as great a degree of consensus and unity as possible among the population as a whole. This announcement and the policies which flow from it will give an extra twist to the inflationary spiral; they are unjust and will cause unnecessary hardship among hundreds of thousands of our people.
4 p.m.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, we, too, welcome this Statement from the Government and would thank the noble Earl for the way in which he has presented it; but, unlike the last speaker, we from these Benches would create some doubt as to whether the financial discipline referred to in the Statement is perhaps as soundly balanced as the noble Earl might consider. While expressing concern for the consumers of gas throughout the country—and we will have an opportunity to debate this later—I will not go further in this direction.
There are a few questions which I should like to ask the noble Earl. First, he emphasised in the Statement the finite nature of this increasingly valuable national resource of gas. Is the noble Earl able to say whether the increase in price will be used to encourage oil producers in the North Sea to prevent flare-off and to use the gas which at the moment is being burned off? Secondly, will the noble Earl advise us whether the commercial and industrial consumers of gas may be encouraged to be weaned away from this source of energy over the next few years in order that the domestic

137
consumers of gas may have a supply for as long as possible?
Thirdly, the Statement goes on to say that the profits and return on capital will be for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Will the noble Earl explain how he gets the figure of 9 per cent. on net assets valued at current costs? What is the value being placed on the gas assets in the North Sea? It will be interesting to know this figure and to work out how he achieved the figure of 9 per cent. Finally, I should like to point out that the word "electricity" was mentioned only four times in the Statement. The electricity supply industry has a capital expenditure programme of some £10 billion in the next 10 years. Could the noble Earl explain whether the rate of return of 1·8 per cent. on net assets takes into consideration the capital expenditure which is anticipated by this industry?
4.2 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, where some of the points which the two noble Lords have put to me overlap, it may be convenient that I take them together rather than in turn. The main charge of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was that these price increases would be an extra twist in the spiral of inflation. He also asked me a specific question about the retail price index, which I shall come to. That inflationary point overlaps the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, about how one was going to go about seeing that the value of these assets was felt by the nation as a whole. The answer to both points is that the gas industry is very highly profitable because gas is a relatively easily available form of energy. Because other forms of energy have become very expensive, people have been rushing into gas; and this is one of the reasons for anxiety about the balance of supply and demand. But any profits which the British Gas Corporation hold in excess of their investment needs (which are not considerable) will go back into the Exchequer; and in that way they are reducing the public borrowing requirement and are directly counter-inflationary in their effect. In general economic terms, the noble Lord's anxiety is some-what misplaced.
138
Coming to the question of the retail price index, my information is that the April increases will add about ½ per cent. in the case of electricity and ¼per cent. in that of gas, spread over the subsequent three months; and the October domestic gas increase will add a further 0·16 per cent.; so that we are talking overall of a little less than 1 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asked me about flaring. Of course, the higher costs and rates of return of gas now—or subsequent to this going through—will make the incentives not to flare all the more considerable. He mentioned about weaning commercial and industrial concerns off gas. I think that is a difficult thing to do by central directive but, certainly, from the fact that commercial, industrial and domestic use are becoming more in line we will get a fairer distribution of the issues there.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that the present system of pricing, whereby the unit cost for large consumers is smaller than that for small consumers, should be changed, given the situation as it is now?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I think the net effect of that is rather different from what the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, is suggesting; because at present the British Gas Corporation charge an overall much higher rate to commercial and industrial users than to the domestic users, as we domestic users know. I have not done any calculation of the relative unit costs there, but surely the distinction must be made between the overall costs of commercial and industrial users and those of private consumers.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me for asking a brief question, knowing, as noble Lords must, that I have been concerned over the years with the problem of low rates for energy for domestic space heating. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, mentioned that we should have an opportunity to debate this. As your Lordships may have noticed, I put down only last night an Unstarred Question on the subject and I took care over the final words, which are:
"… and to what extent they consider that such a step is justified?"

139
If there is going to be a debate, I hope that I shall be permitted to withdraw my Unstarred Question. That would be prudent, provided that we will have an opportunity to discuss the matter at some later stage—but not too late.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I should like to answer the point made by my noble friend. He has put down an Unstarred Question. That obviously is a more suitable arrangement for a general debate on this issue than a repetition of a Statement in the House of Commons. I suggest that we have that debate, although it is not for me to say whether we do or not, as that is a matter for my noble friend. I shall be delighted to answer all of his points, and others at that time, should the Unstarred Question go through.
Lord ROBERTHALL: My Lords, while congratulating the Government on these very modest steps announced today, may I ask whether the Minister would not agree that the most urgent task for the whole of Western industrial society is to get the maximum economies in the use of oil and the maximum pressure for the development of substitutes for it? From that point of view, the faster the oil prices rise the better, and the more hope we have of surviving the crisis and the more we shall be doing for our successors. There is one more point. There is no need for these things to give a twist to the infllationary spiral, because Government receipts that go up because of increases in the price of oil will reduce the other financial requirements of the Government; and if you do not want to affect the cost of living, you could reduce other indirect taxation, exactly pro rata.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, effectively for answering the attack made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Extra receipts in one area have a counter-inflationary effect in another. This is the point that I was seeking to make. I am grateful that my noble friend made this clear.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, does the noble Earl realise that he made a mistake? I was speaking as between the domestic consumer, large and small, and not as
140
between domestic and industrial users. This is a very important question. What one can do to alleviate the small consumer's charge for energy which they both share is very important.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I apologise if I misunderstood the noble Lord. I took it that the noble Lord was making a distinction between the commercial and industrial users and domestic consumers. The burden of my statement was to say that in so far as these price increases in the costs of gas fall or are burdensome on smaller users or poor consumers, with whom I take him to be concerned, we are going to work through social policies—the additional fuel costs on supplementary benefit scheme and the rest—in order to get redress there.
The increases which are going to take place this year will not affect the heaviest bills until next winter, and they, of course, will be taken into account in the November uprating of pensions and social security benefits. We are extremely concerned to see that the weakest members of society, the elderly and those lower income groups, are given protection here. They are given some protection with the automatic indexation of some of the benefit systems. We are looking at additional protections where they are needed.
I should like to underscore to the House—following the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall—that it is impossible these days to insulate society as a whole from high energy costs. The costs of oil have gone up 100 per cent. in this last year alone and gas cannot be protected from that kind of increase, either.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Earl clarify two points that he made? First, are we to understand that the higher gas prices are now to be related to the higher cost of gas from the northern North Sea? Therefore, they will be notionally related to what might be the notional replacement cost. Secondly, are we to understand that he is calling in aid for the case to raise gas prices, the recommendation of the Price Commission which I think was set up by the previous Government?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, on the last point, it is true that the last

141
Government were faced with the same problem of a great imbalance in pricing between gas and other forms of energy, and customers were rushing towards gas at such a rate of knots that our sources of supply were in considerable danger. That is why, as my noble friend said, the Price Commission recommended, at the time that the last Government were in office, that there should be a price increase considerably more in percentage terms than anything that we are suggesting. On the point about the northern North Sea, as the Statement implied, the present costs of gas gathering—if that is the phrase to use—are in any case in real terms in excess of the costs in the southern fields.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, I trust that the noble Earl will appreciate the logical incongruity involved in first arguing that our domestic oil price must be raised to the full extent of every rise in the OPEC price in order to make the consumers in this country substitute other fuels for oil, and then arguing that it is necessary to raise the gas price because it has become too cheap in relation to oil. The two arguments are completely contradictory. Either one wants to encourage substitution or one does not. If substitution is too much encouraged, there is a perfectly good remedy in reducing the oil price and not in raising the gas price.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, the noble Lord's example in a pure world would be extremely effective. It is not effective in so far as we are dealing with finite sources of supply. Our anxiety—which is underscored by the international situation—is that the great imbalance between gas pricing and other forms of energy costs were using up our gas supplies at a rate which is extremely damaging to the overall interest of this economy.
Lord HAMNETT: My Lords, would the Minister explain to my probably non-economic and irrelevant mind, if the gas industry is so profitable and it is necessary to make these increases, why it is not possible to treat the whole of public industry as one entity and then solve the problem of the steel industry by encouraging the steel board to greater wage increases because of its non-profit-ability?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, all that would have been possible if the party which the noble Lord supports had not originally engaged in the creation of nationalised industry boards which presumably have to have some financial disciplines under which to operate. They were certainly given financial disciplines under which to operate by the last Government.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, in the Statement which the noble Earl gave us from the Government he said that it was hoped that gas would be made available by this policy for many generations to come. But it is well-known that the total supply of gas from the North Sea, so far as we are aware of it. is not likely to last for more than 15 to 20 years, which is not many generations. Therefore, there is no great advantage in conserving this gas, especially as one is given to understand that the producers from the North Sea will find it extremely un-remunerative if they have to cut back the supply. Is it not, therefore, a poor policy to adopt now, to try to conserve the gas in that particular way? Is it not also true that to raise the cost of gas with some quaint theory of thermal egalitarianism in which they would want to make the price of all fuels the same, is really ludicrous? The cost of electricity in real terms is necessarily not less than three times the cost of the fuel used; whereas the cost of gas, as used, is virtually the same as the cost of production. Is it not therefore quite foolish to try to have this quaint egalitarianism?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is putting a case for using up the gas as fast as possible. It is a perfectly credible case. I have heard it argued by supporters of my own party. But the fact is that it is not a view which, on balance, the last Government shared or the present Administration shares. We are not talking about conserving gas infinitely, or not allowing it to be used. We are correcting an imbalance which has made consumers go very heavily into gas, and at a rate which a broad, overall and sensible conservation policy—particularly in the light of the international situation—does not. in our view, warrant.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I——
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, there are 22 people who wish to take part in what is really the subject matter for debate this afternoon, before we come on to an Unstarred Question. The House might consider it appropriate that your Lordships are now prepared to resume the debate.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!

OBSCENITY AND FILM CENSORSHIP
Debate resumed.
4.18 p.m.
Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL: My Lords, it falls to me to take your Lordships out of the clear, cool waters of inflation, gas and electricity, and back to the murky subject of pornography. Before doing so, may I say that it is fewer than two years since I was asking for the indulgence of your Lordships in my maiden speech so it is almost an impertinence that I have the pleasure of being able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, with what great delight the whole House heard his distinguished maiden speech. It is a particular pleasure for me because in the latter part of my time in another place he was the "father" of that place and I sat under his chairmanship in the Committee of Privilege. To hear him again—and to see him again—is a personal delight. I know that the noble Lord will go on to entrance and inform this House as he did another place—and I hope for an equal number of years.
The committee whose report we are debating this afternoon took two years to consider this matter. They considered it in very great depth. It was laid before Parliament only in November 1979. It is the fruit of extensive work and calls for much study and reflection. It is a very short time since that report became available to individuals on which to form definitive opinion. Certainly the time between November 1979 and January of 1980 is far too short for anyone to represent or reflect what is public opinion on this matter.
144
Therefore, this debate, with great respect to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, must be a very preliminary essay into a very complex and difficult subject, with all of us, I presume, merely expressing our individual reaction. As my noble friend said, this is a very well written and skilfully presented report, as you would expect, because the committee was under the leadership of Professor Williams. Anybody who knows anything of Governments knows that when they appoint Royal Commissions or committees of inquiry, the most important thing to do is to select the chairman. If you select your chairman with skill you may get the report you probably want to get. I do not say that Professor Williams was the person who wholly and solely made this report, because it was a unanimous one, but it reflects his ability and, I should imagine, also much of his general attitude to the problem.
The work of Government committees and Royal Commissions is something to which we must all pay enormous respect. It is the depth of inquiry which matters and which therefore merits serious study and reflection. It is a foolish impertinence superficially and immediately to criticise people who have done a great deal of work on a very complex subject. They have heard the evidence, read the submissions and studied overseas systems. They have come up with their report and it should never be lightly rejected. Having said that, I immediately go on to say that I cannot find it acceptable and I come to a basic disagreement with it. But the subject is certainly complex and difficult and, apart from any of the social and moral questions, which I will deal with in a moment, the matter of offences concerning pornography poses enormous problems for the prosecuting authority.
For two particular periods I was personally involved in some responsibility in that area. In the period from 1962 to 1964, as Solicitor-General it fell to me, concerning the 1964 Obscene Publications Act which was introduced by Mr. Roy Jenkins, to be the Law Officer concerned with that Act. The assurance, as Solicitor-General, referred to on page 14, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph 16 of the Williams Report, was given by me in Committee in another place. Of course, it was that Act which followed the prosecution of Fanny Hill and the case of Lady Chatterley. The

145
purpose of that assurance, which I then gave as Law Officer, was to assure publishers that literate works would not be seized for forfeiture by justices of the peace but would be prosecuted, to enable publishers to advance the new defence of "public good", because at that time the great problem which was apparently presenting itself to publishers was that if their works were just seized and forfeited they did not have the chance of being prosecuted before a jury and of being able to advance the defence of "public good".
I accept that certainly did not meet the criticisms of the law; but now new conditions have arisen over the past few years so that there is a massive publication of magazines and massive quantities—almost cargoes—of foul filth, sometimes merely set out in stylographed form, literature which is imported into this country and for which seizure and forefeiture is the only practical remedy.
To those people who think that pornography and the defence of freedom of speech and freedom of literature is the main issue here, I would say it seems to me that the main issue is the vast exploitation of people by the filth which is turned out all over the world, which is brought into this country and from which people are making vast sums of money. It is those people for whom there must be an adequate and appropriate law to prevent their getting the profits from such vile and filthy trade.
My second period as a prosecuting authority was the time to which the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, has been referring, when for the first time there was the possibility of a prosecution being considered under the Theatres Act, when I was Attorney-General. That was when the play Oh! Calcutta! was presented to the public. I took the advice of Treasury counsel, who had to go to the play and sit through it and then advise me whether he thought a prosecution under the Theatres Act would succeed. He thought it would not, and so with great relief I was able to forgo prosecution—because it should not be forgotten what enormous pressures there are on the prosecuting authority, not only from those who do not want a prosecution, but from those who do want one. The difficulties of a prosecuting authority in making up
146
their minds and balancing the public interest on each side are indeed formidable. The difficulties under which the prosecuting authority is placed in the administration of this law are indeed grievous, but the law is certainly unsatisfactory at the moment.
Just to present part of it to your Lordships, when you think of the "deprave and corrupt" provision, a jury may find that a matter is obscene, in the sense that it depraves and corrupts, and then can meet and accept a defence which says that even though it can deprave and corrupt, nevertheless it ought to be published under the "public good" principle. It really is a nonsense. Therefore I think a law change must come about but I do not believe that the present law has been so draconian as to deprive writers, artists and publishers of their basic freedom. I do not believe there are many great writers who would say: "I daren't write that or have this published because I shall be so misunderstood that I will be prosecuted in the courts". I do not believe that is the situation. It may be partly due to the administration of the law by the Law Officers and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I very much regret to notice in another place formal criticisms of the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose decision, as I say, has usually been accepted in both Houses of Parliament as that of an independent officer taking a decision in accordance with the principles which he has to take note of and which in this field are, as I have said, intensely difficult.
Therefore, before I come to the main matters, I have considerable doubts about one proposal of this Committee—that to remove the right of individuals ever to institute proceedings in these cases. The desire seems to be to take away from the individual every right of every citizen and to put matters into the hands of authority alone. I have always believed that it is dangerous to limit prosecutions to public authorities. There should always be, save in cases of state security, that reserve power of the individual who can bring the prosecution.
My main objection to the present law is that it is ineffective and uncertain; and yet I cannot accept the solutions presented by the Williams Committee. The noble Lord mentioned Mrs. Mary Whitehouse.

147
I consider Mrs. Mary Whitehouse a person of great integrity and great courage. There has been a high level of sneers and abuse from unrepresentative so-called "trendy" people towards a woman who has stood up and spoken up for that which she believes in—and indeed her ideas are shared by many other people. She has done that with dignity and resolution and I do not believe that anybody should ever criticise her for that. Smart and glib interviewers who are riding the popular tiger are the persons, I think, who are less to be admired than someone with the guts and spirit of Mrs. Whitehouse. She has done much to represent the views of many who are neither fools nor prudes.
Another writer was referred to in this report: David Holbrook. He has expressed the view in letters and in books that there is a debased sexuality being thrust into our consciousness through the mass media—a corruption of culture by the trendy. It is significant that he claims his books can no longer be reviewed because editors often disagreed with the stand he has taken. I believe that he has played an important and significant role and, even if you do not agree with him, his voice should be heard and his claim taken very seriously.
The committee has certainly shed much light on problems, but it has taken the yardstick of harms caused by the existence of pornography and does not appear to have accepted any moral principle on which to base the legislation. I suppose that there will be some—perhaps many—who will think that acceptable and it is certainly explicable in a society so widely materialistic and agnostic. Therefore, though I share the opinion that the law required some change over the question of depraving and corrupting, and welcome the committee's acceptance that the law has to be practical and effective, I wonder whether it is not dangerous if a small committee of excellent people, with a mass of technical evidence, come to conclusions which may not reflect or may not understand the deep feelings of the general public.
On one occasion, if I may paraphrase it, Lord Melbourne said:
"All the clever men were on one side and all the damn fools on the other, and, egad, Sir, the damn fools were right".
148
I believe that in some of these matters affecting how people think the society in which they live should be, it is the so-called damn fools who are sometimes very much more sensible than the clever people who think that things should be altered. The committee decided, according to its report, not to publish a draft Bill, which I should have liked it to do, although it claimed that its proposals were capable of being put into legislative form. Having borne some responsibility in the past for some prosecutions, I should have liked to see how the committee would turn this into effective law, because it is something which has caused very great difficulty.
In my view, it is premature to call for early legislation. This important report requires greater study, but I doubt whether the basis of harm caused by the existence of material alone can justify prohibitions. Surely a thing can be evil in itself. and it is a sad and a sick society which has not the courage so to hold. So I invite the Government to proceed in this matter with great care and with very great caution, to allow more time for public reaction and to ponder very seriously indeed before accepting this report. It is a report which is of great interest, and parts of it have much merit, but, in my opinion, its basic answer is unacceptable.
4.33 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, my first task, and indeed pleasure, must be to congratulate my noble friend Lord Strauss on his maiden speech. It is a great asset that in all parts of the House we have Members with very great detailed experience in particular fields, and I think that my noble friend was wise to wait until he had a subject for his maiden speech on which he is an acknowledged authority. I remember well supporting the appointment of the Joint Committee on the Theatres, of which he was the distinguished chairman, which produced an admirable report and resulted in a very sensible state of affairs in the theatre. He has been the Father of the other place. I hope that he may live long enough to be the Father of this place also, and that we shall hear from him again both soon and often.
I must thank next the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for giving me an opportunity, and indeed for giving the

149
House an opportunity, to consider this report. As the House may remember, from what I said when my noble friend Lord Longford gave us a similar opportunity in relation to the May Report on Prisons, I am in favour of Royal Commissions and departmental committees. Unfortunately, as I then pointed out, so far as Royal Commission reports were concerned, two out of three had not been discussed in either House. I have since then asked a Question about departmental committees in the last five years, because I did not want to go back as far as the other question. The Departments of Employment, Trade and Health and Social Security said that it would cost too much to answer, but the other 24 had no such difficulty.
They said that between them in the last five years there have been 123 departmental committee reports, of which only 11 have been discussed in either House of Parliament. That is 10 to one against. It seems to me that these bodies work very hard, they are usually financially out of pocket, they take up an enormous amount of time and, apart from anything else, if their reports are not discussed it is extremely discourteous. While I follow the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, that this debate is a little early, I think better early than never.
This committee was unanimous, which is not as common as one would like. So often there are many dissenting reports, but here is this very well-known field for dispute and yet, at the end of it all, a headmistress, a distinguished professor acting as chairman, a communal relations officer, a solicitor, the film critic of The Times, a judge, a retired chief constable, a bishop and so on unanimously reported, having received written evidence from 114 separate bodies, so many letters from individuals that they could not count them and having heard 123 oral witnesses, some of whom represented 33 different bodies. This unanimous report is something which we should indeed take seriously.
The first point that I should like to make is simply this. There are three questions which we have to answer. First, "Are you happy about the existing law on pornography, or do you agree with the committee that the whole thing is
150
really in an appalling mess and needing a radical reform? "If the latter then, secondly, "Do you agree in the main with the proposals of the committee?" Thirdly, "If not Williams, what?" We have heard most interesting speeches on the first two. No doubt, among the other speeches there will be more answers to the third and important question, with which I suppose the Government will be particularly concerned: "If not Williams, what'?" It is, I suggest, illogical to say, "I do not agree at all with the committee as to how far pornographic books do people harm. Therefore, I do not accept the recommendations." I suggest that that is a complete non sequitur that we give to illustrations.
There are no speeches we hold in higher regard in this House than those of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. We all know that he takes a very strong view about pornography. In the debate in 1976 he put forward the proposal that pornographic matter should be confined to licensed shops. They should have to make a deposit. They should have on them "Licensed pornography" but nothing else, except a Government warning "Pornography corrupts and depraves". There should be no other display. They should not be nearer than a certain distance to certain places, such as railway stations. No other goods should be sold there and only adults should be admitted.
That is a large part of the Williams Report. I am not saying that the noble Earl has a cause of action for damages for infringement of copyright against the Williams Committee. But, for its first thoughts, the Williams Committee would have had to look somewhere. I do not know—because I have not been in touch with them—but I suppose it not unlikely that they took the precaution of reading the reports of recent debates in both Houses. If so, it would not be rational to go on to say, "Because pornography does harm, therefore I do not accept the report".
Another example comes from a fairly respectable paper, which is called the Law Society's Gazette. In reviewing the Williams Report on pornography in the issue of 19th December, the writer makes plain that whatever the commission in America may have said about there being no clear evidence that pornographic writ-

151
ings do anybody any harm, and whatever the Williams Committee may have said, he strongly disagrees. Then he goes on to say:
"They"—
that is the committee—
"were faced with a real problem—what are we to do about the torrent of evil gushing through our news-stands, booksellers, theatres and cinemas? Their approach was cautious and open-minded and their solutions can be turned into workable and enforceable legislation".
He says further on:
"These proposals are a practical method of controlling a social phenomenon which is rapidly getting out of hand".
So it does not follow that, because you think pornography does harm, you are against these proposals.
The only part of the report I want to mention, because it is the part to which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will particularly direct the Government's attention, is that in which they have summarised the evidence given by this horde of witnesses. It is interesting to see how far most of them agreed with the general lines of the committee's proposals. In paragraph 9.3 they say:
"Sir Geoffrey Howe, MP, commended to us the idea that if the law were effectively to meet three areas of legitimate concern, corruption of the young, affront to public decency and invasion of privacy, then society's grievances would be so well satisfied that more general restraints on obscene publications might no longer be needed. Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, MP, made a similar proposal in an article in The Observer in February 1976, suggesting that the law should be shifted on to a basis of public nuisance … Lord Justice Lawton expressed the opinion to us that the right approach was to regard pornography as a public nuisance and that the law should therefore concentrate on containing it rather than prohibiting it".
They went on to say that it was to be expected that bodies to whom the idea of freedom of expression was paramount, such as the Society of Authors, the Writers' Guild and the Defence of Literature and the Arts Society—I must confess here to a bias because I am the President of the Defence of Literature and the Arts Society—should regard a law against public nuisance as more acceptable than one aimed at total suppression. Then they said that many others were of the same opinion.
"For example, the National Federation of Women's Institutes told us that there was a general
152
feeling among their members that it was impossible to suppress pornography and that this, coupled with views about individual freedom, meant there should instead be strict supervision over its sale so that it would be less easily accessible to children and less likely to offend ordinary people. The Penal Affairs Committee of the Society of Friends considered that the control of pornographic material, particularly ensuring that people are not unwittingly exposed to it, was preferable to attempting to prohibit it".
Then they set out the views of the Liberal Party, about which we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. They said that the same views were expressed by the Mothers' Union, the Magistrates' Association and the Police Superintendents' Association of England and Wales, who all put forward the view
"that there might be special closely-regulated or licensed shops to which the sale of certain material should be confined".
They went on to point out that the opposition consisted almost entirely of Mrs. Whitehouse and the Festival of Light and, of course, Mr. Anderton, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester.
I am not at all an authority in this field. I must confess that I always intended to go and see, Oh! Calcutta! but whenever I got a night off to go to the theatre I always found that there was something else which I wanted to see more—which was a pity. But I expect that I have read the same sort of standard of obscene books which most well-to-do people have read.
My experience at the Bar in this connection has been entirely limited to two cases. The first was the case of—I wish I could remember its name. However, the author was a Catholic—this might interest my noble friend Lord Longford—who described the book as "the story of a soul's approach to God". The soul in question belonged to a woman who got into bed with various men. Ultimately she became a Catholic convert and the books ends with her in the arms—metaphorically, of course—of a Catholic priest. I hope my noble friend will regard that as not unsatisfactory. But in describing what she did when she got into bed the author was a good deal more explicit than was customary in those times. In reply to that, the author said, "I did it on purpose. If I had just published a sermon, nobody would have read it".
At the first trial the jury had disagreed. I was not in that trial. However, the counsel for the defence was appointed

153
to be a judge, and I was appointed to appear for the defence in the second trial. As a result of that case I received two impressions, although both may be wrong because they were not based on a great deal of material. As a result of thinking about this, which to me was then a new subject, I came to the opinion that there are a certain number of people who feel very strongly about almost any form of pornography, from which they think they should be protected, and that there are a certain number of people who feel very strongly about freedoom of speech. Both of these groups are probably minorities, but with juries in those days having to be unanimous you were not unlikely to find them on juries. Usually I think that a minority on a jury tends to give way to the majority but not, I think, if they feel very strongly about a particular subject.
Secondly, I formed the view, rightly or wrongly, that men are wrong on this subject when they think, as most of them do, that women will be very shocked by pornography. Women undoubtedly differ, as men do. But I do not believe that this is the case at all. On the contrary; I believe it is the men who are shocked. Women are much more down to earth about sexual matters, possibly because they have to be. Certainly in this particular case it was the two women on the jury who were nodding in agreement all the time with the defence, and the jury ultimately disagreed for the second time.
I will, if I may, reply to the point which was made about individuals, rather than the Director of Public Prosecutions, being able to bring an action. I think that this is most inadvisable. What happens is that their judgment is not as good as that of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am speaking from memory, and I may be wrong, but there was a book, which I shall describe as an awful book, called Last Exit to Brooklyn, which I believe was the subject of a private prosecution. When there was an acquittal everybody rushed to buy it.
Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL: My Lords, if I may correct the noble and learned Lord, the conviction at the Central Criminal Court was quashed on appeal.
Lord GARDINER: Yes, my Lords; but human nature being what it is, every-
154
body wants to read what is next to the line. I have a friend—a woman—who feels violently against pornography. I was telling her about a case which I think was called The Philanderer, tried by Mr. Justice Stable. When he gave what was called a summing-up for the defence and asked the jury whether they thought it would be sensible that what an adult could read should be limited to what would be suitable for a school girl of 14, the jury acquitted. As soon as I told her that she said, "I must get it from the library". The fact of the matter is that everybody is curious. What leads people to read obscene books, to start with, is curiosity. You want to see what all the fuss is about, and the more fuss the more curiosity there will be.
The second case was Lady Chatterley's Lover. In that case, having the views I had formed, rightly or wrongly, about women, my "criminal" friends—by which I mean only those members of the Bar who normally practise in criminal courts, whereas my practice was mainly in civil courts—said to me, "I suppose you will challenge any woman on the jury". I did not say anything, but I did not agree with that. However, one's case is not one's case; it is one's client's case. So I thought it right to ask the clients what they thought, and I found that they agreed with me. So when it came to the point, I had two women on the jury. I challenged a number of men in the hope of getting a third woman on the jury, and I did get a third woman on the jury. There again it was perfectly plain that it was the three women on the jury who were nodding in agreement with the defence all the way through the trial.
The other thing which I learned was this. I had made it plain that of course I should make the point that in every university in Europe where English literature was studied as a subject, Lawrence was always included among the modern authors and of course all his books, including Lady Chatterley's Lover. It was only in England—his own country ironically—that it was a banned book.
But one always has to think to oneself, "What would I be saying if I were on the other side?", and I said that I was a little afraid of the riposte that Penguins ought to have been particularly careful about publishing, this book, not only

155
because it was a well-known book, the sale of which in England had always been banned but because it was a book by a reputable author and they must remember that if it was obscene, being a well written book it would do much more harm than a badly written book. Of course, I did not know whether that was true or not, and I said that I should like to find out the answer to that, because I might be able to call some evidence to the contrary. You can go and ask the experts, who I suppose are the doctors and the psychiatrists who treat the criminals, but I said, "There are some rather odd Left-Wing psychiatrists; do not go to them because they will only upset the judges. Go to the Right-Wing psychiatrists in the teaching hospitals". This they did. They went to three of them and all three said exactly the same thing, which was: "There is more than one cause of sexual corruption". The most usual cause, of course, is another person.
I have been through all the notes of all the cases I have had and I cannot find a single case in which anybody has ever been corrupted by anything that he has read. I have not told the Williams Committee about this, because I have not given evidence before them. That, of course, is in line with what they found and the American Commission found. It was disappointing to me because I could not use it. If that was right, all it showed was that the well-known Hicklin definition of obscenity was based upon an unfortunate and wrong assumption of fact. I was not particularly surprised because I had always wondered who were the people who are corrupted. The barristers and solicitors have to read the books. One has to take this seriously; I am assuming that people really do believe, supporting the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that out of a given number of people who read one obscene book—because all the cases relate only to one book—some of those who read one obscene book will be sexually corrupted. Well, the barristers and solicitors have to read the book; they are of all ages and nobody suggests that they are corrupted. The judges have to read the books—heaven forbid anyone should suggest that they have been corrupted! The jury do not get any danger money and I have
156
always wondered who it was that was corrupted.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, may I put a point to the noble and learned Lord? Would it have occurred to him that it is more dangerous to read a book of this kind for enjoyment than to read it in a critical spirit in the way he has just described?
Lord GARDINER: I do not know, my Lords. I have not tried that. But those are my experiences from those two cases. Finally, because I have spoken for quite long enough already, coming back to the last point, may I put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. He may remember that in a debate which we had in this House in 1971 he proposed a solution: that is to say, he answered the question, If not Williams, what? His panacea was this: a censorship authority responsible for the whole range of artistic, literary and dramatic expression. I should like to ask him, respectfully, whether this will be a Quango or not. It would have to contain an enormous staff—the whole of English literature, ail the paintings, everything on the stage. every film in a cinema. Does it not raise an ethical question? If we really believe that out of any ordinary collection of people a certain proportion would be corrupted by reading one obscene book, are we really ethically justified in paying people to read nothing but obscenities month after month and year after year? I suppose they could be heavily insured but is money a sufficient compensation? There it is, my Lords, this is an interesting. report.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord obviously wants to have an answer to his question and I share the joke with him, which is also directed at the board of examiners which the Williams Committee would set up for films. They would be in the same difficulty. Personally, I do not favour that solution. It is nine years ago since I expressed that view, and if the noble and learned Lord has been good enough to read all my juvenilia he will have seen what I said in the 1976 debate, when I said that I thought we had better return to obscenity and possibly add indecency.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the noble Lord is a convert, at least on that point. Personally I agree

157
with all the recommendations of the Williams Committee, except that I do not agree with them about films, which explains the same point on film censorship. I think that is a mistake. I can see no sensible reason why films in cinemas cannot be treated like stage shows and theatres. With those exceptions, I think this is a very good report; I do not think that merely changing words is anything like the reform we need. The law is in a hopeless mess all round—it is extremely diverse; it badly needs simplification and rationalisation. I think the proposals as a whole are sound, that they will give protection where protection is needed, they will absolutely prohibit a number of things which can be done at the present time, they will sensibly restrict others and change the face of Soho overnight. My Lords, except for films I support the report.
4.57 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of DURHAM: My Lords, I should like to start with an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for the fact that I may not be able to wait for the end of the debate. I had hoped to stay until the end but we are running rather slowly and I must catch the last train back to Durham. On the whole I welcome this report. I like its general tone, I respect the way in which it assesses such evidence as there is on the subject and, with one major exception to which I shall come later and to which other Members of the House have already referred, I agree with most of its recommendations. But I must confess to considerable anxiety about the section which lies at the heart of it, the section on principles, and in particular Chapter 5, to which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has already referred. That is the chapter about the general principles of law, morality and freedom which are set out as a basis for the rest of the argument. These principles are of course much wider in their significance than the particular topic of obscenity. I hope that one of the effects of the report will be to focus attention on them and I intend to concentrate my remarks mainly on them.
We are introduced in the first paragraph of Chapter 5 to something called the "harm condition" and the point is made that all the witnesses to the committee in fact appealed to the harm condition, albeit in very different ways. It is difficult to see what else they could have
158
done because one does not have to be an old-fashioned utilitarian to believe that evil is evil because it does harm. What needs to be added, though, is that the harm may be of many different kinds. There is direct and indirect harm; there is short-term and long-term harm; there is physical, psychological, social and spiritual harm. But it seems to me that whether one is talking about crime or whether one is talking about immorality one is in some way or another talking about harm.
The report denies this in paragraph 3 by quietly adopting a much narrower definition of harm which then allows it to push questions of morality out of sight. I am not trying to be pedantic in drawing attention to the wide variety of meanings of the word "harm". The point is that in saying that they are adopting the harm criterion the committee seem to be saying something clear and signicant. In fact I suggest that it is not clear at all and that if harm is defined in a very general way then what they are saying is not significant either. If on the other hand they are deliberately choosing a narrower definition of harm then this choice itself embodies a value judgment, because there is in fact no such thing as a value-free concept of harm, any more than, as we see later in the report, there can be a value-free concept of offence.
The particular assumption chosen by the committee is that we ought to concern ourselves only with fairly immediate and identifiable harms to individuals, especially physical and psychological harms. And they go on in that chapter to quote the Devlin-Hart controversy to support their choice. I am sure many of your Lordships will know very much more about the history of the Devlin-Hart controversy than I do, but it is crucial to the whole argument of the report as well as to every debate in your Lordships' House on a matter of general social importance. My own view is that the report's treatment of the controversy in paragraphs 6 to 9 of their report is superficial, with all due respect to the distinguished authors, and this is the real point. The real point at issue in that controversy, as I read it, is how far protection of individuals from harm necessarily also entails the protection of those institutions under which the individuals live. That is the crucial issue in that controversy. And since the

159
most basic social institutions—of which monogamous marriage is, I suppose, an obvious one—entail within a society a whole network of assumptions, feelings, conventions and expectations, the practical question for the legislature is how many of those assumptions, feelings, expectations and so forth can be eroded before a particular institution of society is threatened.
I am not for one moment suggesting that pornography and obscenity are now seriously threatening the whole institution of marriage. My point is a much wider one than that. It is that basic judgments about values cannot be ignored or sidestepped by legislators however hard they try, because whatever you do in terms of legislation embodies value judgments. Therefore a report which deliberately tries to play down this aspect of things, or conceives it too narrowly, however sensible it may be in its actual recommendations, is not in the end helping the process of good government because it is fudging part of the issue.
Let me turn to what is said on the other side in Chapter five, namely about freedom of expression. Here the chapter quotes very tellingly from John Stuart Mill. But I wonder how far it is true that Mill's market place of ideas is the real inspiration behind all contemporary demands for freedom. There is another variety of liberalism which does not have truth as Mill conceived it as its goal but rests rather on a sort of indifferentism, the belief that one idea is as good as another because in the end all are equally false. And freedom to express anything because in the end nothing ultimately matters seems to me qualitatively different from the freedom that the report is very properly trying to safeguard.
The Committee described in Chapter 6 how some of their witnesses wanted to press their fears about general moral decline on to them, and these witnesses obviously received fairly short shrift. But, again, I wonder how wise the committee were in trying to separate the rather narrow sort of harms which can be studied by statistical comparisons from these much more general considerations about the health of society. The committee's refusal to define obscenity and to concentrate instead on the notion of
160
offence is all of a piece with this sidestepping of the question of values, and it is this that I regard as the main burden and the main error of Chapter 5.
I see the point of trying to make this decision and to concentrate on offence, and I think the formula that the committee proposed may well be useful in practice. But, as I have already suggested, it conceals the value questions which ultimately have to be faced, and in this instance the value questions are concealed under the word "reasonable". The noble Lord, Lord Strauss, in his admirable maiden speech has already drawn attention to this. My guess is that reasonable people, asked to decide what is offensive, will need more guidance than the report is willing to give them. I think it is a pity that a very sensible suggestion made by the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility about the definition of obscenity has not really been taken up and treated a bit more sympathetically in the body of the report.
The Church of England Board defined obscenity in terms of a fundamental assault on essential human dignity. Pornography on this definition is not necessarily obscene. What the board were trying to say is that the essence of the offence of obscenity is the element of deliberate assault, of destruction, of distortion and of degradation. This is the dangerous element in obscenity. It may well be distinguishable, too, by the element of malice which can motivate it. It seems to me that with some definition like this in the background it would surely be much easier for reasonable people to decide what is so offensive as to merit restriction and so destructive potentially of fundamental social norms as to merit outright prohibition. It would, of course, imply spelling out value judgments of a kind which the Committee was in general reluctant to make, but it is the failure to do this that I regard as the main weakness of the report.
Let me end by commenting very briefly on the recommendations where I am most alarmed by what the report is saying. Here I agree fully with what the normal Lord, Lord Wigoder, said earlier about recommendations Nos. 6 and 7 which would take all prohibition off the written word. It seems to me impossible to maintain this sort of distinction in a

161
kind of society where we have so many different forms of communication all of which overlap and where one can no longer draw hard and fast lines between them. But I am more concerned about the general social point behind this. What I am trying to argue is that the law, whether we recognise it or not, embodies certain moral values and therefore changes in the law, whether intentionally or not, change ways in which those values are generally regarded by society.
To have no limit on the extent to which the written word can deliberately assault human dignity and no limit to other material, apart from the two special categories set out in the report, seem to me to say something about a society in which freedom would be in danger of turning into indifference. To take up a rhetorical question which was asked earlier, do we really want today's pornography, the trash that comes in, to be the school textbooks of our children tomorrow? It also seems to me that this aspect of the report would open a very large door to unscrupulous commercial operators who have shown again and again that they can use well-intentioned legislation to their own advantage. So, I hope that these general recommendations, and in particular recommendation 6, will not be accepted by the Government, but that apart from the hesitations which I have expressed, the report will receive very careful and sympathetic treatment.
5.10 p.m.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for giving us this opportunity of considering the Williams Report. I am particularly grateful to him for the very clear and concise introduction he gave which covered the whole report. I should also like to congratulate my successor in paternity of the House of Commons, the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, who, like me, was engaged in the House on the subjects which the Williams Committee were considering. I should like to assure him that whenever he takes part in our debates, whether we agree or disagree with him, we shall welcome his intervention.
The reason I wish to intervene is that from 1956 to 1958 I was a member of the Select Committee on Obscene Publications and after Sir Patrick Spens, later Lord Spens,
162
became Chief Justice of India and left the Commons, I had to act as chairman of that committee upon whose findings the Obscene Publications Act 1959 was based.
The Williams Committee has criticised the 1959 Act, and I thought that it might be helpful if I told noble Lords the reasons why we made certain recommendations that have come under criticism and perhaps give my views now, looking back, on what should be done about them. The Williams Report contains two main criticisms of the Obscene Publications Act. The first is that it condemns the "tendency to deprave and corrupt" test for obscenity, and describes it as "useless" in Chapter 9, paragraph 21. In paragraph 7 of our report we declared that it would be inadvisable to depart substantially from the definition laid down by Chief Justice Cockburn in 1868. Our reason for doing so was threefold. First, this definition of obscenity had, at that time, been accepted in the courts for 90 years and therefore we thought that it was something that the courts were quite used to. Secondly, it was, in fact, the test of obscenity laid down in the draft Bill submitted to us by the Society of Authors, and it was also supported by the Publishers Association. Moreover, the definition had been the subject of explanation and application by the courts in 1954 in two important cases—Rex v. Reiter and Rex v. Seeker. Therefore, for those reasons, we felt that this would not be the time for swapping horses in mid-stream and we made that recommendation.
I find it hard to accept that that test is useless when one looks at the figures that are put forward in the appendix to the Williams Report. If we look at the year 1974 we find that out of 434 prosecutions under the Obscene Publications Act, 433 cases resulted in a verdict of guilty. Noble Lords may think that that was a rather extraordinary year. Let us take the latest year, 1978, when out of 209 prosecutions there were 158 verdicts of guilty.
I realise the difficulty of inserting a definition into an Act. However, I do not quite follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who said that the obscene publications of today become the school text books of tomorrow. But, undoubtedly the meaning of words and the

163
social attitude to certain words change. By inserting a definition into the Act one tends to crystalise the situation and it may perhaps impede the passage of society's regard for certain matters. It is rather like Lot must have felt when he was wandering along and suddenly turned round to find that his wife had become a pillar of salt. Therefore, if one can, one should try to avoid putting a definition into a statute. At the same time, so long as the word "obscene" is used the House must realise that the test laid down in Regina v. Hicklin is likely to be applied.
I turn to the Williams Committee's solution. I cannot believe that we would be wise to accept the Williams Committee's suggestion of "what is offensive to a reasonable man". The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham spoke a great deal on and explained very clearly the defects of Chapter 5, but at least it was looking at harm. When one considers "what is offensive to a reasonable man" one is departing from "harm" to "taste". I know that when we were compiling our report in 1957 there was a small minority on our Select Committee who suggested that a matter of taste should be applied. That was opposed by all our witnesses, who said that we must get at the harm of something and not merely apply taste. I personally believe that if we apply their definition it would discourage the suppression of a good deal of soft and hard forms of pornography.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said, "All right, if not Williams, what? "I should like to suggest today that if we look at our report it would be interesting for noble Lords to read the evidence that was given by Sir Alan Herbert at that time. It was so good that we included it as a fourth appendix to the evidence of our report, but it was written in his very inimitable style and I suggest that it is well worth reading as light reading, apart from the great common sense that it contains. Sir Alan Herbert expressed a preference for the word "pornographic" instead of "obscene". I think that a certain amount of thought is required on this matter because "obscene" is an out of date, rather theatrical word. What we are talking about is pornography.
164
I have listened to the speeches by noble Lords in this debate and I have noticed how often, instead of talking about "obscene", they have talked about "pornography". I personally should like to see the scope of the present Act altered to cover pornographic and sadistic publications, displays and entertainments. If we did that, there would be no need to have a definition in the statutes for the words that I have suggested, and the courts would be left to define what is "pornographic" and "sadistic".
The second main criticism of the 1959 Act contained in the Williams Committee's Report is what is called "the public good defence". I want to make it absolutely clear that the Select Committee never recommended the words "public good" in its recommendation of this defence. The committee was equally divided on whether there should be a defence on the grounds of the literary or artistic merit of the work in question. Indeed, the recommendation appeared in the report only as a result of the casting vote of myself as chairman. With hindsight, I confess that I believe that that vote was miscast. I believe that the Williams Committee is quite right to say that as a defence the public good defence is misconceived. However, I would not go so far as to agree with them—as they say in Chapter 9, paragraph 41—that it is unworkable, because the verdict in the case of Lady Chatterley's Lover was obtained entirely as a result of that defence. Provided that the law is sufficiently strong to suppress pornography. I cannot believe that there is any need for such a defence.
However, I take issue with the report of the Williams Committee—and this was also the view of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham—in its assumption that pornographic or sadistic material that is not illustrated should be legalised and so exempted from proceedings in court. That seems to be a quite naïve assumption on the part of those who have studied the trade in pornography, as my Select Committee had to do those many years ago. There is a very ingenious band of dealers in pornography who are in a very lucrative trade. If we exempt the written word, they will find very clever ways of getting salacious pornography on hire and on sale all over those parts of towns that are dedicated to that sale.

165
Therefore, I suggest that to advocate such a change at present is quite irresponsible. We must bear in mind the circumstances of today. In the last 10 years the number of persons found guilty of rape has increased by 50 per cent., and in the same period the number of persons found guilty of crimes of violence has increased by over 130 per cent. This is not the time to take risks such as are advocated in the report of the Williams Committee.
I believe that we, as a Christian nation, have a duty to clean up the moral filth in our cities. I also believe that we should stamp out those objects which excite lust, perversion and violence. This seems to me to be a very suitable matter to be put to the people of this country. I believe that if it is so put, a large majority of the people of this country today would be shown to be worried about the departure from the standards of even 10 years ago; they would be shown to be worried about the spread of pornography that is coming into this country—not the kind of novel about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, spoke, but the vicious glossy which is coming in. They would want those to be suppressed. I believe that there would be a vast majority against those parts of the Williams Committee's Report if they were to be put to the people in the form of a referendum.
5.26 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and to the House for the fact that regrettably I shall have to leave before the end of this debate because of a very long-standing prior engagement. Next, I should like warmly to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, on an admirable maiden speech, with virtually all of which I agreed. I want to congratulate wholeheartedly the Williams Committee on a really superb job. Their report is thorough and packed full of interesting but never irrelevant statistics and useful comparisons with other countries. It is also an honest report and a deeply thoughtful one. Finally, it is written in elegant yet straightforward English. It is a model of what such a report ought to be.
I thoroughly agree with most of what it says, in particular with the splendid
166
Chapter 5, and with most of the committee's general proposals, notably with Chapters 10, 11 and 12, and with such specific recommendations as the suggestions that prosecutions should be brought only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, that there should be no forfeiture of seized material without prosecution, that it should be illegal to send unsolicited material through the post, and so on. However, I am not sure that the committee's normally impeccable logic, reasoning and intuition is fully sustained in Chapter 9, specifically not in paragraphs 8 and 10 of that chapter which deal with the display of magazines in shops. In this particular realm of human activity we have a strange paradox. Nowadays bosoms are bared on bookstalls and on beaches the entire length of the Mediterranean, from Albufeira to Antalya; in other words, from the Roman Catholic world, through the Greek orthodox world, into part at any rate of the Islamic world. Yet in allegedly semi-pagan Britain this committee proposes that we largely ban such displays.
Coincidentally, as a sign of the times, I noticed in the Press the other day that a local council in Norfolk is attempting to ban nude bathing from its beaches. From a purely aesthetic point of view the Norfolk councillors are almost certainly right; and the Williams Committee is also almost certainly right, particularly in the case of those publications which specialise in photographs of a positively gynaecological character.
However, from the point of view of freedom, it is a very different matter. It would be ironic if, at the same time as the traditionally semi-authoritarian countries of the Mediterranean were adopting amore relaxed attitude in these matters, traditionally liberal Britain started to follow the lead of the Ayatollah's Iran, where, as the Daily Telegraph informed us only this morning, moral squads are roaming the streets tearing down:
"posters of half-naked women [and preventing] the publishing of sexy pictures in magazines"
Undoubtedly it is irritating constantly to see acres—indeed hectares—of naked flesh in a large proportion of the shops one visits, but surely far less irritating than seeing, and all too often stepping in, the heaps of dog excrement which infest the streets of London. Yet the latter, the dog nuisance, is not effectively prevented by

167
law, because I doubt whether there are as many as two prosecutions for every 50,000 cases.
In a free society the normal reaction when one is irritated by something is not surely to try and have it made illegal, but to take it up, in the first instance, with those responsible for the nuisance; and if this is not successful to avoid or boycott them and their businesses. This is precisely what has been happening (in a low key way) over the matter of what we call "indecent displays". The situation has taken an enormous turn for the better over the past 12 months. During the past year your Lordships will almost certainly have noticed that magazines that used to confront one-or one's children-at eye level have been moved up, in nine cases out of ten, to shelves seven feet from the ground, or even to the back of the shop. This has almost certainly come about as a result of the subtle but consistent pressure of public opinion—and because, after all, newsagents have families too.
Of course, there is still plenty of room for improvement but things are going, I suggest, in the right way. However, for the authors of this report it seems that it is not enough to put such magazines partially out of sight—nor will plain covers satisfy them—nor even the concealment of such magazines under the counter, to be produced only upon specific request. Only their total removal from the shop will do—with the consequent probability that many small newsagents and tobacconists will go bankrupt. The committee seem to be under the impression that the invisible aura of evil that emanates from these publications is such that even a copy of Playboy concealed under the counter would be enough to upset and disturb someone coming in to buy a packet of cigarettes. I am bound to say that this ascribes a degree of hypersensitivity to the ordinary man or woman that I simply cannot believe they possess.
Even if I am wrong and the committee are right, or partly right, I can see at least three snags in what they propose. First, the use of an imprecise and subjective word like "reasonable" is surely undesirable in a statute—I know there are precedents but they are not very encouraging. Secondly, and more important, will not a ban encourage the pub-
168
lishers of these magazines to concentrate on the written word? Here I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, and the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, that one simply cannot agree with the authors of this report in their contention that the written word, unlike photographs and illustrations, can never be offensive.
About five or six years ago I happened to pick up on a train a copy of Mayfair which had been left there by a group of teenagers dressed in school uniform. The photographs in it were pretty standard stuff, fairly innocuous, but there was a story—extremely well written, it must be said, and therefore all the more insidious—which concerned a young woman who was gang raped in The Hague, or Amsterdam, or some Dutch city, by a gang of teenaged youths. This was the most shocking thing I have read for many years; and I cannot but think that this is far more dangerous to young people of both sexes, for different reasons, than any number of nude pin-ups.
Thirdly, I fear that to transfer magazines like Playboy and Penthouse from the high street and corner shops to a smaller number of special shops specifically adapted for the purpose might very well encourage the customers for this soft core stuff to switch to hard core pornography in order to make their journey worthwhile and to get their money's worth. I cannot think that this would be at all desirable. At least the soft core porn occasionally manifests a sense of humour and a certain tongue in cheek attitude, in contrast with the grim obsessiveness of hard core pornography.
My Lords, by all means let us continue twisting the arms of newsagents to persuade them to put these publications even farther away from the gaze and the reach of children (and indeed of adults) than they are at present. By all means let us tax the stuff, if it is so desired, and if an effective method can be found: I can see no libertarian objections to this. Page 228 of this report shows how successfully the pragmatic French tax X films. But let us not ban. The test of a free society is surely whether one is prepared to tolerate the things that annoy one but which other people like, as well as the things to which one has no objection.
5.35 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord who has just spoken with such evident conviction, and other noble Lords who have made such significant speeches, will forgive me if I do not comment on what they have said except as I go along. I have rather a lot to say. I have my eye firmly fixed on the clock—at this moment, at any rate. I shall try not to exceed my ration. I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strauss. When I first joined the Labour Party, over 40 years ago now, we looked on him as an advanced radical. I am not sure how these things work out nowadays, but at any rate it has always been well worth listening to him, and we shall want to hear from him very often
I must join also others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for giving us this opportunity. At one time I was thrust into a certain prominence in regard to this unpleasant subject of pornography. When I survey the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, my mind goes back to an occasion many years ago when a number of undergraduates, as we were then, were commiserating with the first Lord Birkenhead, F. E. Smith, on not being elected Chancellor of Oxford. He, with his friendly style, probably after dinner, said, "You must remember my young friends that what Oxford needs at this crisis of our fortunes is a decorous facade. That, unfortunately, I am unable to provide." I feel a decorous facade is what the antipornography struggle requires and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, provides it ideally. Much more than a facade, he provides—I say this with much feeling—a moral leadership for which many of us in this House are profoundly grateful.
No one who has spent much time investigating pornography can fail to sympathise with the Williams Committee who have worked so hard at their unpleasant task. They have collected and sorted out for our benefit a mass of information not readily available elsewhere, which will always be of the utmost value to anyone—assuming such people exist—who wants to spend his life carrying these investigations further. They have gracefully performed many feats of dialectical gymnastics. For these things at least we can be grateful.
170
No one is less likely than I am to underestimate the complexity of their task, or the difficulty of finding solutions that will satisfy even their authors, let alone achieve a general consensus. But, making all such allowances, I am afraid I personally find the conclusions of the Williams Committee lacking in intellectual coherence at crucial points, and likely to cause serious moral damage if ever adopted. The committee of which I was chairman, and whose report was discussed here in the autumn of 1972, recommended a three-pronged attack on pornography. The worst pornography would be banned altogether. The milder, but still offensive, pornography would be banned from public display; and pornography would be altogether banned additionally if it involved the degradation for gain of those actors or models who were used in its production. The first two categories corresponded roughly to those of the existing law, though with the help of our distinguished legal group we tried to improve on them. The exploitation of the performers was not covered by the existing law at that time. The Child Pornography Act 1978 made a useful start in that direction. We also, on our committee, made proposals intended to strengthen the censorship of films.
The same broad headings can be read into the Williams Report. They set out an elaborate and ingenious machinery for restricting the availability of material likely to prove offensive to reasonable people. They refer also to a kind of material which would need to be banned altogether. But the types of such prohibited material under their plan would be very few. The amount of material altogether banned would be minimal. Leaving aside films for the moment, it would include only the material whose production would involve the exploitation for sexual purposes of a person under 16 or one who had apparently suffered actual physical damage
They make one, proposal as novel as it is unattractive; namely, that no restriction of any kind should be placed on written matter in any circumstances. They produce no cogent reasons for treating written matter isolated in this way as incapable of causing, offence, or serious offence. Indeed, they coyly admit that written works can no doubt be found, to some extent, offensive. The proposal

171
seems to me totally unacceptable, but I must leave it to other speakers to tear it to pieces, and already two eminent speakers have criticised it severely.
On the other hand, the committee, to be fair to them, are rather more restrictive or in my view rather more sensible than I had expected, in regard to the more outrageous films. Under their plans, some films would, I gather, still be banned altogether as unsuitable for public exhibition. For this mercy at least let us be grateful, though unless I misunderstood him, my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner finds that this is too restrictive whereas I find that it is the one thing at all agreeable, and I think I understood my noble and learned friend correctly.
Although the arguments involved could be developed endlessly, my basic reason for rejecting the conclusions of the Williams Report, so far as one human being can reject a report at all, can be stated in a sentence: The Williams Committee will not acknowledge that pornography does or is likely to do serious moral damage either to individuals or to society as a whole. The Bishop of Durham seemed to be unhappy about their fundamental attitude to that question yet to be quite well satisfied with most of their recommendations, but, as I said, I must not entangle myself with too much debating. My belief is precisely the opposite. Neither the committee nor I can prove the truth of our proposition in the sense of coercing, by sheer weight of empirical evidence, an honest person who disagreed with us so that he had to come round to our point of view. But it is at least worth exploring the probabilities involved and seeing whether they add to up as much certainty as can ever be expected in human affairs.
The committee accept what they call the "harm condition", the opinion that no conduct should be suppressed by law unless it can be shown to harm someone. There are ambiguities lurking in the phrase,
"unless it can be shown to harm someone".
That phrase may well be used to demand a standard of proof which is never made use of when we form our social policies, and that was a point the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, was stressing. The committee seem to treat material
172
which offends people as harmful in the sense of hurting their feelings, and I am quite ready to go along with them there. But they dogmatically insist that any additional moral damage or psychological harm on any significant scale does not exist.
In trying to establish their point, they confine the more serious part of their argument to a discussion of the alleged connection between pornography and crime, particularly sex crime, and they claim that such a connection does not exist. They spend many pages—unsuccessfully, in my view—trying to debunk Professor Court and to rehabilitate Dr. Kutchinsky, who I had the pleasure of cross-examining in Copenhagen eight years ago and who I would hardly put on the same level of objectivity as Professor Court, but I will not pursue those personal assessments here. We are still waiting for Dr. Kutchinsky's major book, so long promised; it is 10 years since he came into the open and created such a sensation with what seemed paradoxical views.
Let me concede for the sake of argument that the connection between pornography and the increase in sex crimes or any crimes has been, and is always going to be, very difficult indeed to establish. But so is the connection between any other single factor and crime. As it happens, I did a two-year inquiry into the causes of crime for the Nuffield Foundation and produced a book on that subject in 1958. Since then—not because of our labours, I am sure—crime has never stopped increasing here and in other countries. But neither when I was writing that book nor since has anyone been able to isolate any single factor as indubitably causing crime, either in the individual case or in general. No one, I mean, is able to produce a proof from statistics which would convince anybody who did not agree on other grounds. This does not prevent us as a community from trying to minimise the factors—alcoholism or broken homes, for example, or what you will—which seem to us in the light of all our experience, including any statistical data collected, to increase the risk of crime.
I venture briefly to lay before those who are tempted to sympathise with the Williams position a few thoughts which

173
taken together might well convince the reasonable man that pornography is likely to do moral damage, sometimes in a criminal sense but much more widely and deeply. In the first place, the Williams Committee seem to assume that the reasonable man will be reasonable in being offended by pornography; he is quite right, so to speak, to be offended by it. We may conclude (may we not'?) that he will legitimately be disgusted by it? May we not conclude that if he continues to see it long enough he will be adversely affected by the very element in it which disgusts him? May we not conclude that those who enjoy it initially—of course, this reasonable man may come to enjoy it if he sticks to it, I suppose—will be affected adversely still more than he is? In other words, what is inherently disgusting, and what it is right to consider to be disgusting, is likely to leave most people worse than they were before.
The committee wrestle somewhat disingenuously with the commonsense argument that we are inevitably affected by what we see and read; that we are made better by the good and worse by the bad. Commonsense logic seems preferable here to their tortured acrobatics. The committee seem to agree that we are made better by the good but, to say the least, they are very reluctant to believe that we are made worse by the bad.
Secondly, the committee themselves recognise that young people tinder the age of 18 are what they call vulnerable and that therefore they must be specially protected; that at least should be counted to the committee for righteousness. But they have no factual evidence to support them in the belief that children are damaged by pornography up to the age of 18 but thereafter become suddenly invulnerable. Here, as on other occasions in their report, they are simply combining the conventional libetrarian position, with which no doubt they started, with what they suppose the public will demand. Their dogmatism, in other words, is not based on the kind of facts which they themselves insist on when they are trying to destroy the contentions of their opponents.
I submit that if pornography is capable of damaging young people as a whole up to the age of 18, there is something inherently evil in it to which no age limit
174
can be set. Of course, it can be argued that even if pornography does moral harm to adults, they can look after themselves and children cannot—it may be argued that there is a distinction there—but I am not dealing with that point at the moment; I am dealing with the Williams Committee argument that pornography does not do moral damage.
My third point concerns films in the cinema. No one need enter the cinema. Reasonable men, after one taste of sex films, will be least of all inclined to enter the cinema where they might be offended, yet under the committee' plans some films would be banned altogether. There is surely an underlying assumption here that at least some forms of pornography are dangerous.
Fourthly, and finally, I venture to add that anyone who has gone into this horrible subject at all carefully, as I had to do all too intensively some years ago, has inevitably had much first-hand experience of people, young and old, whose lives have been gravely damaged by pornography; and in one's studies one has come across the cases of many more. If I am asked whether there are not those for whom pornography is actually a beneficial therapy, I can only reply that when we were undertaking our inquiry I went to great lengths to try to meet such people. I publicly asked for people to come and see me. Some did come to see me, but I never met one who did not leave me with the conviction that he would have been better helped in other ways. Quite a few of them were homosexuals who needed friendship far more than any of this kind of dirt. It may be that there are a few doctors who find pornography useful for therapeutic purposes. If that is true—and it may be—pornography should be very carefully restricted and obtainable only on prescription. It is disgraceful that pornographers should be free to make a fortune out of what is admitted to be a dangerous drug.
I repeat my awareness of the immense difficulties which confront anyone who tries to draw up plans which are acceptable to everyone to deal with this insidious evil. Nine years ago, when I opened the first debate in this House on pornography, I admitted that there would always be plenty of room for argument as to whether a particular piece of pornography—

175
Oh! Calcutta! or whatever—had corrupted any substantial number of individuals. But I insisted that no sane person could deny that over a period of years a diet of filth must inevitably corrupt a nation. After many investigations and innumerable discussions of all these issues in small groups and in quite large meetings, I see no reason to alter those words, which certainly brought me a much more favourable postbag from the general public than at any time before or since.
But, my Lords, it is one thing to deliver resounding pronouncements, for one's self-satisfaction perhaps, platitudinous in some eyes, provocative in others; it is another very much harder thing to frame the right legislation, as our committee soon found out, even though it included some of the finest legal brains in this country.
The Williams Committee have not published a Bill to give effect to their philosophy. In the time available this afternoon I will follow their excellent example. In conclusion, I will say only this: I do not think that proposals of the kind made to deal with indecent and offensive display and the proposals to deal with the exploitation of pornographic performers will present overwhelming differences. But when it conies to the question of whether some forms of extreme pornography should or should not be legally sold, then I cannot but see a parting of the ways. Some things are so manifestly evil and perverted that a society, a clean society, should say a firm legal "No" to them. A famous man once said,
"No one can set a limit to the march of a nation".
In my conviction no one can set a limit to the moral decline of a nation which says to its pornographers, "From now on you will have no difficulty in peddling the most extreme material in your portfolios, if you and your customers can get together in a blank-fronted shop or cinema for their excitement and your profit."
My Lords, I hope, and pray, and believe that such a state of degradation will never come about in this country and that the proposals of the Williams Report to this effect will pass into a historical limbo. I implore the Government to look in
176
other directions to make our obscenity laws far more effective than they are at the present time.
5.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I want to add my voice in the expression of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for introducing this Motion, and I, too, have to ask him and the House to accept my apology for being unable to stay for the whole of the debate since I, too, have a very longstanding engagement which requires my presence elsewhere later this evening. I am also glad to extend my felicitations to the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, on making his maiden speech, and I am glad that he is in his place to hear the chorus of praise which has been expressed by every speaker in the debate. I did not agree with all that he said, but I am very glad that he said it—and said it so clearly and so admirably. We shall indeed look forward to his contributions in the future.
I want also to add my thanks to the members of the Williams Committee for their report because, whatever opinion one may have about its contents, one cannot but admire the scope and thoroughness of the work, the excellence of its style, and the clarity with which it has expressed its conclusions. The report is undoubtedly a valuable and stimulating addition to the thinking on a very difficult and complex subject, and the research which is recorded in it will be of great use in further discussions.
The necessity to set up the Williams Committee is itself a sign of the times. Pornography is by no means a phenomenon which is confined to our generation, but since the Second World War its presentation and propagation has spread with an amazing rapidity until, as the Longford Report on Pornography remarked, a new watershed was reached in the summer of 1971 with the presentation of Oh! Calcutta, and, as it said, all kinds of people, not only those with religious standpoint, began to say for the first time that things had gone too far. The permissive society has established itself and no one, neither the law, nor Parliament, nor religious leaders, seems able to control or to abolish it. But there has been, and there is, deep concern on the part of many citizens that the proliferation

177
of pornography in its various manifestations is an evil and harmful thing, and that society must find means to contain it and to reduce as far as possible the baleful effects which it has on the security and the happiness of the citizens of our country.
So the Williams Committee is one outcome of this public concern, and whatever views we may take of its conclusions, we ought in fairness to remind ourselves of its terms of reference. It was set up:
"to review the laws concerning obscenity, indecency and violence in publications, displays and entertainments in England and Wales, except in the field of broadcasting, and to review the arrangements for film censorship in England and Wales; and to make recommendations".
The committee's remit was therefore to advise about the control by law or film censorship of the phenomenon of pornography, and we must not therefore be too critical if we think that it should have devoted more of its attention to the underlying moral principles involved in the very existence of pornography.
Thus from the outset the committee was concerned about the extent to which it is justifiable for the State to forbid individuals to do what they want to do even though others may dislike their practices. It came to the conclusion that the arguments in favour of freedom of expression outweigh those of censorship, and in general it agreed with the view expressed by the Board of Social Responsibility for the Church of England that it is inappropriate for the law to interfere with the voluntary activities of adults, unless such conduct causes harm to others. I should expect that most noble Lords would accept this guideline as correct. So, also, I expect noble Lords agree with the view of the committee that the terms "obscene", "indecent", "deprave", and "corrupt" have outlived their usefulness and should be abandoned. They are difficult to define and so, it appears, they have caused considerable problems in the courts.
The test of offensiveness seems to be a defensible one, but one must be more cautious about the term "offensive to reasonable people", since this involves a value judgment as wide as that required by the words "obscene" and "indecent". I may regard myself as a reasonable person, but I am quite sure that there are
178
many who take a contrary view. The report tells us that the law already uses the concept of the reasonable person in regard to matters of responsibility, negligence and so on. It would be interesting to hear from those who are learned in the law whether they think that this concept is workable, and whether they consider that it is an applicable criterion in deciding what is or is not morally offensive. I confess that I have my doubts about the ability to make such a definition.
In my view, the main controversy centres around the view of the committee as to what is or is not harmful. As the leading article in The Times of 29th November last year observed:
"There is, however, one very noticeable omission from the scheme"
which is proposed by the report.
"It does not purport to guard adult persons or society in general from harm (except a restricted protection of actors or models for pornographic productions from actual physical harm). This is because in the view held by the authors throughout most of their report pornography, including the pornography of violence, does not give rise to harm either of a type or of a degree which requires that the law should intervene".
In the chapter on "Harms", the committee marshals a formidable mass of evidence, mainly from experts, to suggest that the correlation between pornographic material and anti-social behaviour is minimal. In an area such as this, I am doubtful whether the best guidance is given by experts and by graphs. I think that common sense and "gut reaction" have a part to play.
For myself, I have no doubt whatever that the proliferation of pornographic material and displays must have, and does have, a debilitating and souring effect upon society—and I think that history is on our side. I think that the history of Germany between the wars, for instance, is a clear indication of the way in which the falling away from moral standards affected the whole standard and judgment of a nation. I am quite sure that this unpleasant stuff has an effect on the individuals who indulge in it. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has spoken of individual cases that he has known, and I, like so many noble Lords, have from time to time in the course of my work had to read some of this pornographic material. I know from personal experience that it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth, and that it takes a very long time to eradicate it; and what

179
goes for the individual goes also for the society of which the individuals are members. Though it cannot be measured, there can in my view be no doubt about the corrupting effect which access to pornographic material has on persons and on society.
In other areas Gresham's law is at work, and it can to some extent be quantified. Let me give an illustration. One of the most potentially delightful parts of this City of London is the area of Soho. There is living there a respectable and hardworking community. Into it has moved in recent years the vice trade, of which the pornography business is an important constituent. Today, according to recent figures available to me, 165 buildings in the area have been taken over by the pedlars of vice, and they house some 220 separate businesses, mostly pornographic bookshops and cinemas. As leases have come to an end, old-established shops which were of value to the local community, such as grocers and chemists, have been driven out by the increased rents and have been replaced by the traders in vice. Buildings once used for socially acceptable purposes have been taken over by establishments which supply the pornographic business, and the effect on the local society is undoubtedly very damaging.
I leave it to others in this debate to comment on the safeguards which the committee suggests in the sale of pornographic material. I confess that I am doubtful about the likely effectiveness of its sale in special places with warning notices, blank exteriors and lack of display. It seems to me that there would be nothing to prevent a qualified person buying material of a highly objectionable nature and immediately handing it on to an unqualified person outside.
There are, however, two matters in the report upon which I wish to comment. First—the point which has been mentioned by so many noble Lords—that the committee proposes that there shall be no restriction on the written word. In paragraph 7.22, in summing up the arguments, the report says:
"While written works can no doubt be found to some extent offensive, we believe that these various considerations provide a very strong case for withholding the possibility of restriction (let alone of suppression) from the written word, and we shall propose that, with respect to the area of
180
the law we have been appointed to review, no publication shall be liable to either suppression or restriction in virtue of matter that it contains which consists solely of the written word".
Later on, this is again expressed in paragraph 9.36, and again in paragraph 11.8, and, in the summary of recommendations, Nos. 6 and 7. This can only mean that, so long as it is not accompanied by any illustrative material such as covers or in the text any written material, however pornographic, violent or cruel, would be freely available to everyone of any age anywhere where they want to buy it.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, may I intervene just to make the position clear? This has been said by several noble Lords, and it is a very important point. My understanding is that the right reverend Prelate has just described the present situation exactly. That is the situation today. The Linda Lovelace case has meant that no public prosecutor will prosecute anything of this kind, I understand. I think it is important to know that the committee were not recommending a change, but were recommending no change. I do not say it is right or wrong, but that is the position.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I intervene in this little discussion? While the noble Lord is obviously right de facto, he is not right de jure. The law is this, that written pornography, if it reaches the level that the court would find obscene within the meaning of the Act, is illegal.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, of course that is the case, but so long as there cannot be a prosecution the situation is the same.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Whether or not he is right, I am simply making the point that the Williams Committee goes out of its way time and time again to say that all printed written material shall be completely free of any kind of restriction, and I find that an astonishing recommendation. It is based on the thesis that the harm done solely by reading is minimal.
I think most noble Lords would agree that the immediate effect of visual images

181
is powerful and lasting. Were it not so, book illustrators would be out of a job. Most of us, for instance, have formed our image of Alice and her companions from Tenniel's drawings; but, in my view, whatever the effect of the visual image, it is superficial, whereas the effect of the written image is profound. Surely some of the deepest and most lasting marks upon human behaviour have been made, for good or ill, by the written word. The holy books of religion, Shakespeare, poetry, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, have all been offered to the public without illustration and often abominably printed, but they have left an imprint on mankind far beyond any of the visual images. For from the written word the mind forms its own images, and these become engrained in a more possessive way than does the visual image. This is all the more menacing for those who already possess dangerous tendencies. Those, for instance, who have a leaning towards sadism, are attracted to sadistic literature and feed their aberration on the material they read.
As The Times leader that I have already quoted points out, the committee reveals the weakness of its argument in the volte face it displays in paragraph 12.10 over the case of films. They observe
"We found it extremely disturbing that highly explicit depictions of mutilation, savagery, menace and humiliation should be presented for the entertainment of the audience in a way that appeared to emphasise the pleasures of sadism".
Consequently it is recommended in the report that the film should be subjected to a censorship which The Times describes as exceeding in severity anything at present known to the laws of England. Those of us who believe that the written word can have an even deeper and more lasting effect on human behaviour than the visual image have a right to ask: If the film, why not the book or the magazine? If it is undesirable to feast the eye on such material in the film, why not the mind on the book?
There is another aspect of the committee's proposals, especially regarding films, which calls for some comment. If carried into effect, the proposals would almost completely remove the right of individual citizens to take initiative when others fail to do so. In paragraphs 9.50 and 11.16, it is suggested that the right of individuals to institute proceedings for
182
criminal offences should be removed and that such power should rest solely with the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions. Again, the film examining board would be the sole authority in deciding what films could or could not be shown throughout the country. The local authority would license the cinema but, once having done so, the local authority representing the people living in the locality would have no say in the films which were to be shown in the area where they live.
Thirdly, while an appeal from the decision of the film examiners could be made, it has to be made to the film examining board; that is to say, the people who have themselves appointed the examiners. Moreover, if the appeal is made by a person other than the applicant, the examining board need not even see the film before making their decision. This package is a passport to bureaucracy since all the powers for licensing films, for appeals, for prosecutions, will be centred in a small body in London. I hope that the Government will reject any attempt to remove the rights of individuals, especially in this sensitive area of public life where opinions are strongly held, and that the voice of the individual will be allowed to be heard closely.
My Lords, I began my speech with the reminder that we must be fair to the committee in remembering their terms of reference. I hope that I have observed that condition myself. I fully recognise that the report acknowledges that pornography is intrinsically offensive; that it is destructive of human happiness in the individual and in society; that it is negative; and that if there are those who want to wallow in it, they must do so without offence to others. However, I do not think that the committee would have been going beyond its brief if it had pointed out that, although the law can contain and limit these evil things, it cannot remove the root causes. It could have pointed out that because indulgence in pornography is sterile and joyless, it is bound to lead to an unhappy society. It could have reminded us that the only solution to the problems it is examining is to be found in a rediscovery of sounder social principles, of true family life and of sacrificial self-discipline. For St. Paul got things right when in commending men to seek peace, he told them that the

183
way to do it was to think on things true, honest, pure and of good report.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, like others who have spoken, I must join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, on his maiden speech which was distinguished in many respects and not least in the respect that it was scarcely uncontroversial. But he will always be welcome, as he knows; and any former colleague of his in the House of Commons, as I was for a while, will rejoice in his presence. Following the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I ask myself whether there is anything else to be said. The only case for continuing the debate and for mounting speech after speech saying very much the same things on the one side of the argument is to impress the Government, which have to make up their minds, that there is a strong body of opinion which is affronted by certain aspects of this report.
I am sorry that I cannot join in the general adulation that has been offered to the hardworking, distinguished and, no doubt, absolutely intellectually honest members of the committee for their work. I think that the adulation should first be poured upon the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who, alone in Parliament, nine years ago had the courage to raise this matter in all its stark beastliness and who has been lampooned and ridiculed ever since in the popular Press and elsewhere for his pains. If there is one man who should be thanked, I believe it is the noble Earl, Lord Longford; and I look upon this report as very much a sort of Civil Service, Whitehall attempt to provide what was thought to be a sober antidote to a man of religion.
We all agree that this is a brilliant piece of work; we all agree that it amasses an enormous amount of research; we all agree that the presentation is superb. But it has emerged from many speeches that there are basic contradictions. The most obvious one is the attitude opposing censorship of print but approving it of film; saying that pornography is acceptable in print, and does no harm there, but, on the other hand, that it can do great harm on film.
184
Perhaps the deepest error of the committee is in ignoring the nature of man. After what the right reverend Prelate has said, I think it worthwhile reminding the House of some words that the Pope used, I think, in Poland. He said that to understand man you have Rot to learn about Christ. This is not an occasion simply for religious confession except that it is religious belief that impels some of us to take a point of view. What this committee does is to ignore the nature of man, who is an amphibious animal, dwelling partly in the world of concrete facts and partly in the world of timeless values. Ignoring that, the report is infected throughout by an endeavour to evade value judgments, let alone moral commitments.
This is the fundamental issue: avoiding value judgments of right or wrong, the committee seek to resolve the matter in terms of harm. They try to judge harm by causal quantifiable and statistical evidence and, resorting to such evidence, they then come up with the conclusion that there is no scientific evidence to prove—to prove what? To prove that influences which debase sensibility do lead to occasional personal depravity which pollutes character and ends up in consequential corruption of family relationships. They say, first, that you cannot prove it statistically and then say that, because you cannot, it does not matter.
On the other hand, there are sleights of hand which I am calling hypercritical, intended to hide but in fact revealing both that these value judgments cannot be altogether avoided and that scientific evidence can never be complete. Take Chapter 6, for example. Listen to the subtle, seductive ambiguities. Paragraph 6.8, page 63, line 3 refers to no "very great harm". Is there harm, or is there not harm? It is like when newspaper correspondents on the Pakistan frontier report "heavy" fighting. Can anyone tell me what is "heavy" fighting? They report "many" casualties. What are "many" casualties? These are deliberate propaganda ambiguities. As an old newspaperman, I know the tricks. This report says no "very great harm". It does not mean a thing. Is there no harm or is there some harm?
Paragraph 6.16 of the same chapter refers to: no "significant role". What is

185
"significant"? Does it play a role? In the same paragraph it says:
"does not appear to be any strong evidence".
What is meant by"appear "? Is there evidence? One can say that the evidence is weak, but to say that there does not appear to be strong evidence is a literary sleight of hand worthy of the propagandist.
We are told that Brody has
"… not been able unambiguously to offer any firm assurance ".
Was he able, unambiguously, to offer a non-firm assurance? How ambiguous was he? Was his assurance 100 per cent. ambiguous or was it 60 per cent? We are not told. All we are told—and it is a literary sleight of hand worthy of the propagandist—is that he has not been able unambiguously to offer any firm assurance. This is the hypocritical, propagandist dodge where the picture is twisted by attaching adverbs and then destroyed as being inaccurate.
By such tricks of speech the moral criterion"deprave and corrupt"is not so much rejected as eroded and discredited. Inevitably then we come to the committee's preference for what is reasonable to the ordinary man. That is really coming back to public taste—that familiar resort of the Home Office trying to navigate the choppy seas of a very plural society. But as all taste is debased by repeated exposure to the inferior, the level of trash declines to the point when—and I quote the Jewish evidence to the committee:
" Nothing in past history compares "—
and the Jews have a long history—
"with the amount of open sensuality, lascivious and lewd publication and 'entertainment' that are available in today's world".
That is what the Union of Liberal and Jewish Progressive Synagogues put forward in their evidence.
Worse still, there are commercial interests which create the demand for trash and then proceed to supply it. So I was struck when the noble Lord, Lord Monson, brought up the hoary old argument:"Forbid it "—and this comes in paragraph 6.8—" and you will drive it underground ". Then, should we not forbid crime for fear that we shall drive it underground? It is underground exhypothesi. It is the silliest argument brought up by the humanists, this claim
186
that there is no scientific, statistical, quantifiable, causal evidence. It is sillier still to talk about driving pornography underground by banning it—when financial interests profit from its open circulation.
Here is a brilliant exercise—but recalling to mind that admirable quotation about fools, which my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell picked up from Lord Melbourne, I cannot help feeling that these very learned members of the committee behaved in a fashion recalling the right reverend Prelate's point: often it is better to have gut reaction and common sense than the evidence of experts—or, as the old adage put it:
"A nose that can see is worth two that can sniff".
My Lords, I give the committee alpha double plus for casuistry but delta double minus for contradictions and conclusion. Here is a snide retort intended to tilt the balance of opinion back again, in the name of reason as against emotion and religion, from the influence which was articulated and crystallised by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to whom we can never be sufficiently grateful. This report is compiled and presented with such conjuring sleights of hand as to suggest that the real aim was to make the world safe for hypocrisy.
6.26 p.m.
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, after that formidable speech I wonder if I could simply congratulate again the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, on his speech, and say what pleasure it gave me—particularly personal pleasure—because I had the honour of moving the Motion in your Lordships' House to set up that Select Committee on the abolition of the censorship of the theatre to which he referred in his speech. Yet at the same time I was also the chairman of a committee which reported on the future of broadcasting in which (in Chapter 16) we strongly advocated censorship by the authorities of all sorts of material concerned with violence, sex and bad language, and I want to try to introduce a note—which may be appropriate from these Benches—that all in these matters is not black or white. I suggest that one neither has to come down on a stand about this report that it is a report which is hypocritical, casuistical and

187
deplorable in its attempts to gull public opinion as to a danger which is facing us, nor that, as I thought I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, say, it did not go far enough. I believe that in these matters judgment is absolutely at the essence of the matter. Of course we will never all agree precisely where one evil ends and another good begins; but we must do our best to steer our way through these waters, and that is what this report is about.
I personally give a welcome to the report. It is, in its way, a wise one. Again, it is a pleasure to me, having once been Provost of King's College Cambridge, that my successor, Professor Williams, as Provost now, should have been the chairman of this committee. It is a report which is concerned with trying to hold balances. It is a report which is saying that for many reasons we should abandon a concept of censorship here, and for many other reasons should introduce censorship there. It is a report which deliberately tries to distinguish between different forms of publication. That certainly was one of the points which in my work on the committee on the future of broadcasting I thought it most essential to bring forward to the public; namely, that television is a particularly dangerous and difficult medium when one comes to discuss and judge what should be shown on it, and that therefore one should have a far greater care as to what is shown on television than what is, for example, read in the home. That is something which is important to emphasise about this report. It is judging between different media of expression. On the whole, it judges well.
I must here interpolate a philosophical point because of course the chairman of the report is a distinguished moral philosopher. I was very surprised indeed to hear the noble Earl say that there was no moral content in the report—a report from the man who has just resigned from the Knightbridge Chair of Moral Philosophy at Cambridge. However——
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? Perhaps I did not express myself very clearly. I did not say there was no moral content—I gave it delta double minus for content—but what I said was that the committee did not really tackle the moral issue, or words to that effect; and I stand by that.
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, of course I accept the noble Earl's explanation; but I should like to return to my point here. The Williams Committee was trying to judge a situation in which this country has quite clearly moved in recent years very far from the standards which were acceptable a hundred years ago. We may regret it and we may express views about it, but the committee had to deal with a particular situation of that kind.
I would draw attention to this philosophical point: it is not a report on utilitarian ethics. It does not argue that the onus is always on those who propose censorship; it does not argue that you have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that in every case someone is being directly and palpably affected by obscene material. In fact, contrary to what has been stated by some noble Lords, this committee accepts the existence of evil in this world and of evil resulting from pornography.
Here I do not quite follow in every respect the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, when he, I think, threw doubt on the idea that pornographic material causes evil. Here—and this is, again, an example of the way in which I find myself on the Cross-Benches—I feel very much in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and in disagreement with the committee. I think there are too many cases which can be cited by people who have been harmed by written pornography, and by pornography of all kinds, for that matter. However, I think the Williams Committee were up against the familiar difficulty that, even if you accept that, which I quite agree they did not do to the same extent as I would, you are left with the question, what should the law be on these matters and how should we approach the problem?
It is quite true that people are affected by the written word. A hundred years ago, when the Bible used to be read far more than it is today, poor, crazed individuals would take an axe to some neighbour or to their wives to fulfil the prophecies in the Old Testament: yet no sane, reasonable man, if I may say so, would use that as an argument for sneering at the Bible or saying that its reading should be restricted. Of course, there are cases in which people have committed crimes under the influence of pornographic reading. The other thing which always comes to mind is: what were the other

189
causes which also went to the creating of this situation and to the committing of that crime? That is what I think the Williams Committee were trying to cope with.
If I may go back into my own reminiscences about appearing at trials, I appeared as a witness for the defence when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was leading for the defence in the trial of Lady Chatterley. Of course, the book that was on trial that day was not Lady Chatterley's Lover: it was Mill's Essay on Liberty. On that occasion I had very good fortune, in that I was not cross-examined, because by that time the list of witnesses was so long. We had a verdict on that case in which the new law was tested for the first time, and literary merit was allowed. I am bound to have to say that, in the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses, statements were made by highly sincere people which I cannot but think that, on reflection, they must have regretted—because, in order to try to prove that the work had literary merit, very odd things indeed were said by witnesses. I will not go further and quote, because the time is short and we want to get on with the debate. However, the system of trying to prove literary merit and therefore defending a book such as Lady Chatterley's Lover—which, in my opinion, is not one of the best works of a man who was undoubtedly one of the greatest authors and novelists of the first half of this century—is not really, in our adversary form of law, acceptable. The curious result of that trial was the reaction against the defence witnesses by people who said: "People who can so convolute their arguments and twist their minds to produce reasons for defending what Lawrence wrote are really doing no service to literature."
My next experience, having appeared as a witness in that case, was that I was written to by solicitors who were preparing the defence for Fanny Hill. They asked: would I appear as a witness? I said that I would indeed, but that I must warn the defending solicitors that if I did appear in the witness box and was asked whether I thought the book was pornographic, I should say that it was pornographic and that, although written in a charming 18th-century vernacular, its intention was to
190
inflame desire (which certainly is one criterion that I think is inherent in pornography). I heard no more from the solicitors.
I have some sympathy with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, when he said that literary merit was a mistaken introduction into our law concerning obscenity; but I do not believe you can go back to the pre-1960 position. I think that is the problem that the Williams Committee were wrestling with. Having in the whole of their report admitted—or rather, not admitted, because that suggests that they did so against their will, but having quite clearly stated—that pornography is an evil, they then had to decide what can be done about it. This is the matter, the whole problem, with which the committee's report is really concerned.
I think that the report is extraordinarily wise when it comes to deal with films, with performances in public and with the mail and the use of the mail. In each of those cases the committee unhesitatingly came to the view that offences can be committed and that laws should be made which make it perfectly clear what the offence is: in other words, that there should be censorship of films, there should be prohibition of material passing through the mails and there should be certain standards set in public performance; and also that certain things should not be permitted in public performance—that is, censored in public performance.
These views are made perfectly clear in the report, and that is why I think it is a balanced report and why I myself think there is really no problem about"the reasonable man"—no more than there is a problem about the man in the Clapham omnibus. These are legal phrases which lawyers have long ago learned to interpret. Clearly, there are slight changes with every generation in what a reasonable man will or will not accept. That is why I thought that the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was of importance, when he reminded us that the possible reason why the Williams Committee reach the conclusion they do about the written word is simply that, today, it is very difficult to administer a law which tries to make distinctions of the kind that many people would like to see.

191
So those are the reasons why I welcome the report.
Since others wish to speak, I would make just one last point. Censorship is not, in itself, an evil and is, and should be, regarded as an acceptable bulwark for freedom. One of the most famous maxims of La Rochefoucauld is that,
"Hypocrisy is the homage which vice renders to virtue".
That is, in fact, what we have done about prostitution. Many people will remember the debates which took place after the Wolfenden Report, and the way in which many high-minded liberals said how disgraceful it was that the Wolfenden Report was intending to sweep prostitution under the carpet. May I say that I think it is a very good place for prostitution. I think this is so about a great deal of pornography, and that is what the Williams Committee is trying to do. It is trying to avoid giving offence. That was at the heart of the arguments of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting, when it argued about the deplorable effect of giving unnecessary offence in television programmes.
I therefore regard the report as, in some way, an advance on what has been done up to date in our discussion of this matter. It does, I think, give the opportunity of framing legislation. I can well imagine that the Government will say,"Let us leave this alone for some time, until we see which way opinion moves ", and it may well shift against the conclusions of the Williams Report. But if it does, there will be very considerable difficulty in framing legislation dealing with the written word, in view of what has happened in recent years.
May I just conclude by giving my apologies to both the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for being unable to stay until the end of the debate. I am extremely sorry, but I have to go back to my university for a function.
6.43 p.m.
Lord MACLEOD of FUINARY: My Lords, in an opening sentence as sincere as it is short, I also should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, on his maiden speech. As
192
regards the subject before us, in the light of the number of speakers I do not intend to delay your Lordships long. Agreeing with much that has been said, which I shall not repeat, I want to confine myself to one issue only, and that is a very central one.
There is one overriding factor, and that is the threat to our whole constitution as a country if the main thesis of this report is accepted and passed by an Act inaugurated in this House or in some other place. It requires no argument to claim that our world is one world, and known to be, and that that one world is in decline. Those of your Lordships who recall the collapse of the Roman Empire will recall the two main factors causing its collapse. One was its permissiveness and the other was what we would now call inflation. So far as the latter is concerned, we can leave out inflation for the purposes of this debate, except in a solitary sentence to notice that in the morning papers Hong Kong now decides for our united world what is the price of gold. Enough said about what is happening to inflation!
Let us confine ourselves to permissiveness. Would anyone deny that this is a worldwide mark of our time in all countries? How many people are aware that in Roman Catholic Italy in the last recorded year there were 1 million abortions? But we are not taking Italy or the Roman Catholic Church by themselves. What about the rise of permissiveness in our now united world? Secondly, how many people are aware that in the United States of America in the last recorded year there were more abortions than there were natural births? How many people are aware that in the city of Philadelphia there were more illegitimate births than there were births in Holy Wedlock? I do not have comparable figures for the United Kingdom, but who would deny that permissiveness, as a growing disaster, is in our country in the same degree? Or if you think that that is a cover-up for our country, let me give your Lordships one almost parallel example.
In Scotland, our Church has recently started a newspaper for youth, called Yes. It has a readership of some 10,000 young people and they recently had a Gallup poll. One thousand of them, all Church young people, were asked various questions

193
about different issues such as pornography, but also about sex before marriage. It may interest your Lordships to know that of 1,000 Church young people, over 40 per cent. said that provided there was affection there was nothing wrong with sex before marriage. In Italy, in the USA, in Britain, in our united world, what is the sum total of irresponsible lust by men revealed by the figures that I have told your Lordships of?—millions and millions of cases. And what is revealed by the heartbreak for women, for whom the day of a birth ought to be one of the great moments of their lives? We are revealing a terrifying situation. By this permissiveness, Western civilisation is threatened in its whole culture by near bankruptcy as of now.
It is against that kind of background in this, our now situation, that we are seriously being asked to broaden the facilities for obscenity and to extend the spread of pornography. Against that background let me repeat—and this I end on—what seems to me to be the threat to our whole constitution as a Christian nation. If ever the main conclusions of this report reach the statute book, let us be logical. Let us be honest. Let us be done with any idea of a Christian basis for our culture. Let us be done with opening every meeting of your Lordships' House with a religious occasion, a shibboleth of what we really believe, by passing such legislation as we are referring to. Such is the Christian situation. Let us be done with anything so old-fashioned as a religious coronation. No, my Lords, if we are to go into this kind of statement and this kind of legislation, let us be honest. Let us be legally secular. Let us welcome pornography. Why not, my Lords? The thing is open now. Let us give free way to vice, because of the complete absence of any acceptance of a religious basis for our nation.
6.49 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, with other noble Lords I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for initiating this debate. It is with some trepidation that I say to the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, following his maiden speech that I have been a Member of Westminster for only four years. I therefore pay tribute to him as having been Father of the other House, but I am in trepidation as I am
194
going to disagree with what he said. However, in other areas, I hope that I may learn from him following his maiden speech.
When looking at the distinguished members of the Williams Committee, chaired by a distinguished academic, one expected a report of quality and, like other noble Lords, one was not disappointed. Indeed, one was fascinated by the literary excellence and the hard and painstaking work involved. One also appreciated that there was unanimity on this committee. It is therefore with some diffidence that I take issue with some of the committee's recommendations.
I will confine myself to three areas of discussion: first, that the printed word should be neither restricted nor prohibited; secondly, Recommendation 8 concerning the display, sale, hire of material in premises having a separate access; and, thirdly, the report as related to the wellbeing of children. These three areas are, of course, interrelated.
The Williams Committee Report is an academic exercise meriting, in my view, a double first degree; yet this highly academic exercise, with expert witnesses quoted in the report is, in my view, at variance with the feelings—I say"feelings"advisedly—and the thinking of ordinary people. I count myself among the ordinary people. I feel that the ordinary people were not heard on this committee. Indeed, the report states:
" We could agree that it would be interesting and important to know more about public opinion on the matter ".
The report gives reasons why the Opinion Research Centre was not asked to do a survey. Therefore I speak from a practical point of view—from the point of view of the ordinary person: if you think of Lord Rawlinson, thinking of the fools or, if you think of Lord Gardiner, thinking of the women who have a practical, realistic approach. The report states that few people suppose the mere fact that a lot of people dislike something is in itself a good enough reason for supressing it. But in a democracy the views and feelings of ordinary people do matter.
In my experience, ordinary men and women do not want their families to read literature which is an offence to the reasonable man. Professor Williams has

195
quoted the philosopher John Stuart Mill, the psychiatrist Dr. Kutchinsky and Maurice Yaff é, but throughout the report he has not argued for or against those with religious beliefs which form a positive way of life for many. And those many should not be discounted. I refer not only to those of the Christian faith. I refer also to the ethnic groups. I have been in touch with the ethnic groups. I understand that the Islamic, the Asian, the Greek Cypriot and many other ethnic groups in our society, do not approve. It is outside the terms of reference of their religion to read pornographic literature or to see pornographic films or pictures. As we live in a multi-racial society, I believe that we should take note of all religions.
In the Guardian of 3rd January 1980 the black churches are said to be acknowledged as one of the country's most spiritual and creative groups. Perhaps we should take note of what they have to say. The case of the religious groups, including the ethnic groups, for or against the sixth recommendation concerning the printed word, has not, I submit, been argued in the report. Of the effect of the unrestricted printed word concerning offensive literature, may I quote Sir Basil Blackwell of Oxford, one of the greatest booksellers of our time. When giving evidence concerning the publication of the book Last Exit to Brooklyn he told the court:
" I do not expect in the time left to me to have the memory of this book erased from my mind; my mind was defiled and remains so ".
I need hardly say that in his case there were no causal influences, but he maintains that, having read this book, his personality has been diminished. I would suggest that this is so in the case of many ordinary people in our country.
On the subject of Recommendation 8 concerning sales of material from specified shops, first, how can a shop know who is over 18 and who is under 18 years of age? I tried it out the other day. I dressed up; I made up. I regret to say that people thought I was 16! It is quite easy to do that with cosmetics. It is equally easy to do it the other way. Secondly, once the pornographic matter leaves the shop I am absolutely certain that it will be bought, that it will be exchanged and that
196
it will be left about. There is no protection for people who do not want to read pornographic literature or for families who do not want their adolescents to read it. Therefore, I find that this recommendation is extremely difficult.
Finally, I come to the position of children and young persons. I am not sure whether I detect in the report a less than enthusiastic attitude to the Protection of Children Act 1978. It is stated in the report:
"No evidence was put to us that child pornography was a growing problem ".
The law was passed in July 1978. In 1978 there were six referrals to the Director of Public Prosecutions by the police, and one successful prosecution. In 1979 there were 20 referrals by the police to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The outcome of these is not, of course, yet known.
I submit that, well written and argued as this report is, there are gaps, a few of which I have tried to cover. Therefore, in my view the case has not been made for Recommendation 6 concerning the printed word.
6.58 p.m.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, first may I join in the gratitude which your Lordships have expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for giving us an opportunity to discuss this important report. Secondly, may I join in the tributes which have been paid to the Williams Report. Whether one agrees with it generally or disagrees with it totally or partially, I venture to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that it is a most remarkable document, written with great elegance. It could well become a literary classic. Its line of argument starts with the barely argued, but referred to, preference for the position of John Stuart Mill and Professor Hart as against Fitzjames Stephen and Lord Devlin. If the committee had adopted the position of the latter two and argued the case with equal cogency, they would certainly have arrived at very different conclusions. But the very clarity and general cogency of the argument does highlight, as this debate has shown, where the argument has lacunae, where it has jumps, where it is slightly smudged. For that, again I think we ought to be grateful.

197
My own recollection and experience of these matters certainly does not go back as far as that of the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, whose maiden speech we so greatly enjoyed. But I was the Home Office representative on the Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, and I shall not cover the same ground, except to say that even after all the experience we have had I do not myself think that his casting vote was miscast.
I was counsel in the Ladies Directory case when it came before your Lordships' House and I think it would be an impertinence for me to discuss that case. I was a Member of your Lordships' Appellate Committee which considered the appeal in Knuller; and perhaps I may refer to that case, because I was a party to what was quite clearly a narrowing of the ambit of the offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals. But on the other hand I was quite clear that there was a common law offence of outraging public decency and a common law offence of conspiracy to outrage public decency and I expressly said that I considered it to be a legitimate demand of the ordinary reasonable citizen that he should be able to go out in public without his sense of decency being outraged.
Therefore, I find the general approach of the Williams Committee quite acceptable. I shall have occasion to say where I think there are matters which one can criticise. The other thing that predisposes me very much to the approach of the Williams Committee was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and that is the analogy with the Street Offences Act, which I think has achieved with remarkable success what it set out to do as recommended by the Wolfenden Committee.
The Williams Committee recommended a rather stricter test than I ventured to recommend, namely outraged public decency. They recommended in Recommendation 7 that the offence should be what is offensive to reasonable people by reason of the various matters set out; and the question has been raised before your Lordships whether that is a workable test. Your Lordships have had the benefit of hearing great lawyers today. I can only give my personal testimony that it seems to me in every way to be a perfectly
198
workable test in the courts. It is the sort of matter that jurors have to decide, and do successfully decide, day in and day out.
Having said so much I now venture to criticise certain matters in the report. The question arises whether, if those criticisms are valid, they can be rectified and, if they cannot be, whether the whole Williams structure can stand. The first and most serious one in my view, in common with many of your Lordships, is the exclusion of written material. It seems to me quite astonishing that the committee did not consider that matter in the context that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—namely, the circulation of written material among young persons. Oddly enough, the example that occurred to me was mentioned by the noble Lord—namely, one of the most notorious works of sadistic pornography,The Story of O. What one has to ask oneself is whether it is really acceptable that mail order firms should be able with impunity to describe such a work of sadistic pornography, to canvass young people to buy it, to sell it to them with freedom and impunity: yet that question is not faced at all, so far as I can see, by the Williams Committee. I agree with the way it was put by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and I shall not pursue the matter further. But it seems to me to be a quite unacceptable exclusion and indeed one that is insulting to the power of literature to arouse the imagination.
My second very serious criticism is of the restriction of prosecutions to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said of the ordinary private prosecutor,
" His judgment is not as good as the Director of Public Prosecutions."
What is that except the argument that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best and that therefore it must be left to him? After all, those of us who stand, as we all claim to stand, for freedom of expression—the maximum possible freedom of expression, though different ones of us would draw the line at different places—do not do so because we expect every use of the freedom of expression to be wisely exercised. We do not expect the words of a Solon or of a Plato; what we want is for the individual to have this fundamental right to speak his mind, believing

199
in the traditional arguments that that conduces to the public good and to private happiness.
I would say equally that the right of private prosecution is a most important private right of the individual Englishman. It has already been very considerably eroded. A little more than a year ago I asked what restrictions there were on private prosecutions and the Director of Public Prosecutions then produced The Prosecution of Offences Regulation 1978, which is in your Lordships' Library. I defy any Member of your Lordships' House, with all your mastery of material, to marshal any sense into the farrago and hotchpotch of offences which one finds there restricted. Are we really going to add to that, as well as derogate from this traditional right of the private prosecutor? Then again the Director is at the moment under considerable criticism for certain decisions which he has made. I dare say that many people who would like in this field to restrict private prosecutions regret very much that the Southern Rhodesia Act did not allow private prosecutions for sanctions-busting.
Then there is the criticism about the Kelly case, about which questions have been asked in another place. Is this really the moment, against this sort of background, to deny the private individual the right to prosecute? The mere fact that feelings are strong seems to me to be a very cogent reason for leaving that right untouched in this field. Perhaps I may add one word more on that and it is this: that in the form in which it emerged from the Select Committee in 1959 and was then handed to Mr. Roy Jenkins the Bill included a restriction on prosecution; but the then Attorney-General, my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, as he is now, made such a powerful case against the restriction that, if my recollection is right, Mr. Jenkins accepted that it was quite overwhelming and withdrew that restriction. It seems to me those arguments are still as strong today, and I do not find them canvassed in the report.
Closely allied with the restriction on prosecution, I personally find objectionable that all the offences against the new Williams code are to be summary offences. That seems to me to be a trivialisation of the matters with which we are concerned,
200
particularly the offences so far as they relate to children. What is more, as I indicated earlier, deciding what is the standard of the reasonable man seems to me to be pre-eminently a matter for a jury in preference to even the most experienced body of magistrates.
My Lords, unless those matters to which I have referred—and there is one minor one more where I found the Williams Committee less than convincing and that was on the sale of loss-leaders from the porn-shops, which the Government might consider—can be rectified, and I see no reason why they should not be, it may well be that the Williams scheme cannot be accepted. It they can be, I myself would give it my backing.
7.12 p.m.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, first of all, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Strauss on his maiden speech. I have just been recalling to him that over 40 years ago he heard me make my maiden political speech in what in those days was considered to be a rather militant context; that is, I made it in company not only with the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, but Aneurin Bevan and Sir Stafford Cripps, on the issue of the Popular Front. I am very glad to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, because I agree very much with what he said at the beginning of his remarks, and certainly what he said about the written word. About other matters his legal experience and knowledge took me beyond my personal experience.
I want to start by expressing my admiration for Professor Williams' report. Not the least of its virtues is that it is so aseptic. As a newspaperman I have not led exactly a cloistered life; au contraire. But I must confess that I have never sought out pornography. Like my noble friend, I am still on my way to see Oh! Calcutta!, after six years, and I doubt whether I will ever get there. And curiously enough, pornography has never sought out me. But I owe my knowledge of its variety mainly to vivid descriptive condemnations of it by its opponents. I am not going to blame them for this because if they were going to convince the ordinary legislator, whom they could assume to be unaware of the horrid variety of things on offer, they had to

201
provide evidence. However, by the time Professor Williams and his colleagues got round to the subject they were able to assume that the knowledge of what pornography in all its nastiness is, is pretty widespread, though our knowledge of it is trifling, I imagine, in comparison with the ordeal that the committtee set themselves of inspecting the unsavoury material available in this country.
The subject is a difficult one, and all the more so at a time of rapidly changing standards of what may be said, may be written, may be depicted or even practised in ordinary decent society. We have reached a very strange stage of permissiveness. We once used to speak of unprintable language; that no longer exists, there is no such thing. There is now only unspeakable language, unsayable language. Words which are printed in the most highly esteemed newspapers read by all the family cannot possibly be voiced over the family dinner table. Nor would they be tolerated if they were repeated in this Chamber.
This report has a number of virtues. It is intellectually rigorous. I thought that one or two of its opponents were rather less than generous in regard to that. It is very clearly written and it is practical; that is, it has squarely faced the problem at the post-intellectual stage of the argument. How do you formulate a law so that all of us—citizens, police, judges, writers, printers and film makers—know where the legal limits are? Moreover, how do you frame an effective law, one that can be used and can secure convictions because it has general consent in the community?
The committee stood, as most of us do, between two camps: on the one side the extreme liberal camp which opposes all forms of censorship and regards abolition of censorship as something which is progressive; on the other the deeply-troubled people in the Festival of Light, the everyday disciples of Mrs. Whitehouse. I think the committee took their views seriously and does deal with them. They dealt with the problems that such people raise, I thought, with reason and respect and courtesy. Nor did they fail to appreciate that, while pornography may not have the effect on criminal behaviour that some people feel intuitively it must have, nevertheless its proliferation can be
202
an assault on human relationships and sexual values. I do not think I have read every word of the report, but everything I have read I found to be fairly convincing, though I would not go the whole way with all its recommendations.
Perhaps the most controversial section is the one in which the committee examined the evidence to support one's instinctive feeling that pornography, which so often deals with sexual violence, must inspire criminal sexual behaviour, and they find the evidence for that unconvincing. The committee conclude:
" It is not possible, in our view, to reach well based conclusions about what in this country has been the influence of pornography on sexual crime. But we do unhesitatingly reject the suggestion that the available statistical information for England and Wales lends any support at all to the argument that pornography acts as a stimulus to the commission of sexual violence ".
This is the unlikely conclusion that has to be faced.
I was going a long way with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in the opening of his remarks, but in the end he wanted to reject all the statistical evidence and to say that we must base ourselves on common-sense and gut reaction. My Lords, if we did that we would all be hangers and floggers tomorrow and we should all be racists today. It is, I think, a very bad counsel to say that you depend upon a mixture of common sense and gut reaction.
When we consider the committee's recommendations, we see a set of practical proposals. It is the moment when the philosophising has to stop and the committee must get down to something practical. They recommend that the term"deprave and corrupt"be abandoned, having outlived its usefulness, and the law as they see it should attempt to be not the guardian of our morals—that is not exactly the case because the committee do not say that absolutely, but say in effect that it should be very lightly concerned with the guardianship of our morals—but it must be there to ward off the harms involved, the type of harms which I think could be remediable at law. The law should protect us against what is offensive to reasonable people by the way it portrays cruelty, or horror, or sexual, or faecal or urinary functions or genital organs.

203
The committee would have no restrictions on the printed word. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and others in the doubts that they have about the wisdom of that. However, I take it that the committee are dealing with the matter wholly in the context of obscenity and are not dealing, for example, with the question of racism, because in the Race Relations Act there are restrictions on the printed word, and I feel sure that the committee would not want to remove them.
The committee then deal with the protection of minors. They propose a rational system of classifying films and they logically, but realistically, come down against a class of films which is unacceptable by any standards. For the pornographic addicts there are to be restricted facilities with no enticement to buy and no enticement to enter in. I am sure that it is not just a question of sweeping things under the carpet, but that it will have an immediate depressing effect upon the circulation of pornography. If one were the circulation manager of a magazine the one thing that one must do is fight day by day to get the bookstalls to exhibit one's magazine in a place that the customers can see it, because if they do not see it they will not buy it. I am sure that that is true of pornography.
I think that it is true to say that the committee's proposals can be found to be less than satisfactory, but we must be on our guard against perfectionism on this issue. We live in a society of changing values. We are in the midst of a sexual revolution which is unfinished but which may yet be reversed; indeed, at this moment the process of reversal may have started. We have as yet too little knowledge—despite the efforts by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, all those years ago—of the causation of crime. We are not certain whether pornography is a cathartic for the potential sexual criminal or whether it fortifies his potential for crime. I hope that the Government will provide time, during what may be a rather unacceptably long life, for legislation on this issue. The one thing that we can commend to them is that it will not cost a great deal of public money to put it into effect.
7.24 p.m.
Lord BIRKETT: My Lords, while congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on this debate and the opportunities that it has given us, and while congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, on his admirable maiden speech, I must confess that this afternoon's debate has rather surprised me. I read the report carefully, thought that it was exhaustive, unusually well-written and on the whole an exceedingly helpful canter over a course which we have cantered over very often before. Therefore, as I thought that I rather approved of it, I wondered to myself whether I was not being rather reactionary in doing so. Imagine my surprise, therefore, at this time of the night on discovering that what I had thought might be a rather reactionary document has been widely regarded this afternoon as licentious.
I have been surprised by a number of matters—not indeed by the heat of argument that has been raised, but by some of the attitudes. In particular—I am sorry that he is not present because I should like to say this in his presence—I was surprised by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. His reactions to the conclusions of this report caused me less than surprise; indeed, I could have predicted that they would have been so. However, his remarks about the committee itself and about its attitudes to its labours and its sense of duty, I thought bordered on the churlish and were quite undeserved by the committee. It has, I am sure, done a remarkable job whatever one thinks of its conclusions. I for one would like to congratulate it.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in emphasising that neither we nor the Government are surely obliged to take this report lock, stock and barrel—to cat the whole report or not a morsel of it. It seems to be to have a considerable number of drawbacks and one or two in my own area, that of films, which I would like to mention briefly. However, there are surely helpful matters in all departments. I hope that the Government will find it helpful, even if they do not find their way to accepting most of its proposals.
I was bitterly disappointed at the end of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, to find that he did not approve of the film section because I admired so much, as I always do, the wisdom and commonsense of his speech.

205
I rather approved of the film section, and so I am alarmed that he should not do so. However, I do not approve of all of it, and I hope that your Lordships will allow me to trespass on your time for a few minutes to go into a few details which might be of help when framing new legislation, if there is to be some, about a statutory body of film censors.
It is generally agreed and certainly acknowledged in the report, that the operation of the film censor has worked very well. Many people have disagreed with its judgment of individual films. Some actually disagree with how far it goes as a generality, but very few I think would disagree with the fact that it works very well. As an administrative entity, it is small, neat and operates exceedingly efficiently. Having said so in the report, I thought it rather surprising that the report regarded with such exaggerated horror the prospect of legitimising a body like the British Board of Film Censors and making it a statutory body. One cannot quite admire the operations of a body like that as much as that, and then show such a great state of shock about making it official.
I am rather nervous at the thought that one can add on top of an efficient body a hoard of 12 people without whom it has so far operated exceedingly well, because by doing so not only does one add 12 quite independent and in a sense unnecessary people, and one adds them really for the sake of respectability, but one also causes a danger which I think was overlooked somewhat in the report or at least skated over; namely, the danger of making the censorship of anything a Government agency.
In this country we are rather clever at distancing Government agencies from Government. The Arts Council is a marvellous case in point where the Government give money to the Arts and are at pains to be seen not to be administering it. All Arts Councils have lived very happily in that circumstance and I am a little alarmed that a body, which is a censorship body, should not be distanced in such a manner. Censorship through a Government body is, in fact, a great deal more dangerous in the administration of the arts. One has only to look at Czechoslovakia to see what a Government agency censoring the arts, and literature in particular, can do. It can, in simple
206
terms, stop all debate about the moral issues concerned dead in its tracks, because in a society like that there are no moral issues because morals are already decided for one.
Therefore, I am a little alarmed at the thought of a statutory body to replace the British Board of Film Censors simply by adding this enormous roof of a board over the top of it and making it a Government agency. Furthermore, I am a little alarmed at the function that that new hoard might have as a review body.
I understand that there must be an appeal against any body of censors, even an effective one; at the moment there is none, except, of course, to local authorities. The report is absolutely right in suggesting that local authorities do not welcome the function of being an additional film censor—a board of appeal from a professional censors body. Certainly I know that the Greater London Council, for whom I work, is almost unanimous in not relishing the thought of having that duty imposed upon it yet again. I am sure it is true that most local councils would not like it. Furthermore, I think it is true that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have never been particularly qualified to IT censors and to remove their functions in the matter will, I am sure, be of benefit to everyone, especially to them.
Nevertheless, there must be some form of appeal and it is suggested in this report that the board which appoints these examiners should actually be the board of appeal. That might be possible, but when it is suggested that anyone has the right of appeal to them, but that unless it is the man to whom the certificate is or is not granted, why then the board does not need to see the film, that surely is liable to put the board in ridicule. In fact, so much protest of a moral nature about what is and is not shown in the cinema and on television comes from people who have not seen it, that to perpetuate that in a piece of legislation would seem to me to be very unwise.
I sense the difficulty which the committee must have been in. It said to itself,"If we allow everybody in the land the right to object to a grading by this board of censorship, hundreds and hundreds of quite irresponsible and nutty ' people will proceed to do so and make the life

207
of the board intolerable. Therefore, we will suggest that only when it is the man himself who is applying in the name of the film shall we need to see the film and we can dismiss the nuttier ' of these appeals out of hand." If that was their difficulty—and I suspect it must have been—surely the thing to do is to frame the nature of an appeal in such a way that only genuine and sensible appeals get through, and so that the vast majority of flippant, as it were, appeals do not get through. But to allow the appeals and then to allow those appealed to not to take any evidence on the matter seems to me to be simpleminded and should not be allowed.
I welcome the suggestion that there should be some restraint upon clubs. I am not someone who is much in favour of censorship, but I appreciate that it is absurd to make quite stringent rules in the film world about what one does and does not allow to various age groups and then, merely by the anomaly of a club which anyone can join who knocks on the door, simply wipe out the provisions of the censorship at one blow. Therefore, to include the clubs within a general censorship provision for films is both sensible and salutory and should, in fact, bring the whole world of films into what, in a sense, I regard as almost an ideal condition in terms of censorship—a world in which one particular medium is treated with immense thought as regards age, the premises and in all directions. It is something which none of the other arts—probably to its relief—actually has offered to it. However, as the cinema has it and does not look like losing it, it may as well be as well-run as possible. Therefore, the inclusion of clubs is probably a good move.
If I were the Government, I think that I would be exceedingly chary of designated cinemas. The idea of designating a cinema in which one of the dreaded 18-hour films—which, frankly, will be pornographic—can and almost should be run is a dangerous procedure. If we allow dirty films, I do not believe that of our own accord we have to invent dirty cinemas in which to run them. A great deal more thought needs to be given to this question of designation and licensed premises. I should have thought that a licensing provision for cinemas, which is a function that will, at least in the opinion of the
208
Williams Committee, still be in the hands of local authorities, could surely work without anything quite as graphic as a designated cinema.
Having said—perhaps rather boastfully—how proud the cinema industry is in having its affairs so well organised already in the matter of censorship, I should perhaps add that I am a little surprised that so little reference is made in the report to television. Of course, the committee was not obliged to do so; indeed, it was deliberately asked to exclude television from its report. But the fact is that what is shown on television is so enormously relevant to cinema licensing and to cinema censorship that by careful programming from Monday to Friday we can simply make a nonsense of the entire provisions of film censorship. The idea which seems to run behind television programming is that certain age groups go to bed at certain hours. That the little ones will be in bed just after tea, that the slightly more grownup children will go to bed around eight o'clock and that the others will all be in bed by eleven o'clock is demonstrably false. One only has to look through the windows of any house to see very small children up very late indeed and, therefore, quite at the mercy—if that is the right word—of films which we have taken immense pains to ensure that such children could never see in a cinema. I do not know what the television companies can do about this; I am not pointing any kind of finger at the planning of television programmes, but some thought must be given to the fact that if we over-elaborate the arrangements made for the cinema, we may run the risk of looking a little foolish by looking in the Radio Times or the TV Times for the same week.
I shall end simply by saying, as I said at the beginning, that I hope the Government find this report useful and the few remarks that I have sought to make on the cinema useful. If they see the need for legislation—and I believe that there is a strong need—I hope that above all they will remember that our freedoms come even before our moral good.
7.27 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I should like to join your Lordships in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for allowing this debate to take place. I

209
should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, on his maiden speech. I want to make a couple of points in what I hope will be a brief speech. The first point I want to make deals not so much specifically with the Williams Committee as with the question of reports of Royal Commissions and departmental committees in general. Your Lordships will recall that some time ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, referred to the increasing sense of frustration which members of these commissions and committees feel when they have devoted a great deal of their time to membership of such a body and have worked very hard and very long to produce an interesting and informative report, only to find that no action follows. Indeed, often these reports are not debated in another place, though this House has a good record in such matters. Moreover, when such a debate has taken place, that is quite often the end of it—nothing else is done. Partly, of course, that is inevitable because often the reason committees like this are set up is to push the problem which is troubling the Government at the time to the periphery of the debate. However, I have a few suggestions which I want to take a little time to make; I think they are of general importance and of particular relevance to this report.
Would it not be helpful if the recommendations that are made in reports of this kind were addressed quite specifically to particular bodies for particular action? It is quite often easy for particular people to say that it is not their job but the job of someone else to implement a recommendation. There are quite a number of general recommendations in the report of the Williams Committee where it is not immediately obvious who should act. Also, where a report proposes legislation—and this report is predominantly about legislation—surely it should be axiomatic that the report should contain a draft Bill.
Your Lordships have seized the opportunity tonight to debate the general philosophical questions which underlie particular reports of this kind. But the real points which affect the liberty of the subject and the way in which public policy may be changed arise only when specific legislation is a matter for discussion in this Chamber or in another place. it cannot be beyond the resources of Government
210
to second a parliamentary draftsman to such a committee in order that the new legislation may be drafted for the committee in such a way that we in this House and Members in another place and lawyers can see the way in which the legislation would actually be framed and how it would actually work if it were brought before Parliament.
I turn specifically now to the subject of tonight's debate. The reason I have made this general point is because I think that the proof of this particular pudding is very much in the eating. I would think that it is much more important to discuss concrete detail than to carry on about the general principles which underline the Williams Report. Whether or not it starts from John Stuart Mill on the one side, or whether it owes any allegience to Lord Devlin, and so on, may be interesting philosophical points, but I do not think that they are terribly important at the moment. Whether one's line on pornography is hard or soft, if I may coin a phrase, the committee has brought forward a report of the greatest possible interest. It is beautifully written, as many Members of your Lordships' House have said. It is quite intriguing, by the way, to assign particular chapters to particular distinguished authors, which I think, to some extent, one can do.
The evidence has been submitted to the most rigorous intellectual tests. I was distressed to hear what my noble friend—if I may call him that—Lord Longford said about some sections there. It was not worthy of him to have said that. I have in mind particularly the testing to destruction of the material produced by Dr. Court of Flinders University on the relationship between pornography and crime. That argument will not hold water on the basis of the evidence which is at present available.
It would be a mistake to say, as some commentators have said and as has been said in this debate, certainly by implication, that the committee consisted of soft-hearted liberals and of slipshod thinkers. Professor Williams himself is a man of the highest intellectual distinction and, I should have thought, of very firm moral views. A committee could hardly be called soft which included a judge, a bishop, a chief constable, one of the most distinguished psychiatrists in the country

211
who is also a member of the Parole Board (which is usually criticised for not letting enough people out), and a number of people of equal distinction, including Miss Polly Toynbee, who has written two extremely brilliant books on her work in the army and in hospitals. It would seem to me that the last place to expect slipshod and emotional thinking would be a committee composed of people like that. I do not believe, either, that the committee does argue that the country ought, on liberal principles, to be submerged in a tide of hardcore pornography.
I would submit, however, that whether or not the committee did consist of softhearted liberals, and the report did advocate such a course, is not really the point. The point is whether or not the law can be enforced, whatever its content may be. If you take the strongest possible view against pornography that is all very well; you are perfectly entitled to that view. Indeed, the vast majority of the population probably hold that view publicly, but the question is if a law were devised and were passed by Parliament, could such a law he enforced?
The committee seems to me to have taken a tough line, in that it proposes a law which can be enforced. It can be done in this important way—and I think that this is something on which your Lordships will go along with me—in that it can be enforced without exposing the police, the law enforcing authorities, to the risk of corruption. When legislation which is based on high moral principles goes through this House, we often ignore the risk of corruption, and yet it surely is the nature of the case that there is widespread evidence that in all this area of enforcement of laws about betting, pornography, prostitution—all the morally dubious areas of life—there is always a risk. There is a substantial amount of evidence that there is a considerable degree of corruption in the law enforcement agencies, specifically in the case of the police.
It seems to me that the best example that we have of this is not drawn from this country but is from the prohibition of alcohol in the United States which followed the First World War, and which led to a breakdown of the authority of the police forces in the big cities of the United States, from which the police
212
forces in those cities have never since recovered. If we look at the proposed reform of the law in the Williams Report, the law is simple to interpret and it is relatively easy to enforce. It seems to me, again as a layman, that it is infinitely preferable to have a law which is drawn up on enforceable grounds rather than one which is drawn up on the highest conceivable moral principles.
During the debate a number of your Lordships have made the point about the recommendation about the written word. Unless I have totally misunderstood the argument which culminates in paragraph 6.10 of the report, that argument was principally concerned with whether or not such a law on the written word would actually be enforceable. The general opinion was that in fact a law which tried to redress the position which was held before the latest judgments of the courts would not be enforceable, and for a particular reason which I shall come to a little later.
Many attempts to outlaw pornography would lead to lack of enforcement. In the report it says that 4 million adult males—that is, one man in five between the ages of 16 and 65—is a regular reader of pornography. Any law which sought to outlaw material which is at present being read by that proportion of the population would, I submit, be quite plainly unenforceable. It certainly could not be enforced other than by selective prosecution. Unless I have totally misunderstood the way that these things work, if you have selective prosecution you are immediately back with the risk of corruption and unfairness.
I submit furthermore that any such tough law would run into repeated conflict with those who held that the particular items of pornography were either valuable in themselves or were of artistic merit, and the law would in fact he increasingly brought into disrepute by repeated conflicts with magazines which would draw upon that general reservoir of anti-governmental, pro-liberal feeling of which at the moment in this country is obviously reasonably full—some people might feel full to overflowing. Indeed, it would surely be open to question whether or not many juries could be found which would convict in a number of such cases. The recent letting-off of four anarchists

213
which led to Judge King-Hamilton's strictures on the jury should surely always he borne in mind by people debating the possibility of legislation in this sort of area.
I submit that those people who believe that the Williams Committee is too soft should ask themselves whether or not any tougher law would be more enforceable. My own judgment would be that if one could read a Bill drawn up along the lines that the committee recommends, one would see a Bill which was acceptable to virtually the whole community, and which was enforceable. That seems to me, if I am correct in the inference which I have drawn, to be a remarkable achievement and something on which we should congratulate Professor Williams and his committee.
7.48 p.m.
Lord ROBERTSON of OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for the opportunity to take part in this debate on this important report. It is a debate that has already been graced by one admirable maiden speech. I should like to join those noble Lords who have paid tribute to the work of the Williams Committee. Whatever one thinks of their recommendations it is quite clear what they recommend and why, and a great deal of work must have gone into the matter.
However, there is one point that I should like to take up on something that has been said as regards the committee, which in no way is intended to reflect any criticism on the members of the committee, or of course on their integrity. It has been drawn to our attention that the report was completely unanimous. This is indeed remarkable. Bearing in mind the variety of views expressed in your Lordships' debate today, and the general controversy that surrounds the subject, it is a remarkable feat that 13 people were assembled who could produce so completely unanimous a report. Sherlock Holmes wrote about the dog that did not bark in the night. One might think in terms of the committee that did not disagree.
I will begin with some general observations on the subject of pornography and, in the light of those points, say why I feel the report's recommendations are less than entirely satisfactory. In making these
214
general observations, I have, because it helps me always to get a subject into perspective, drawn on Christian teaching on the subject. My first point is perhaps almost too obvious to mention, but it has not been mentioned, or, if it has, it has not been emphasised before but is worth emphasising; namely, that we are not in the least trying to regulate private morals. What we are trying to do is to order and regulate a widespread and highly profitable industry with readers numbered in millions and profits likewise.
My second general point concerns the potential for evil in pornography, and I stress the word"evil"rather than"harm ". The industry with which we are concerned exists on account of its capacity to stimulate thoughts and fantasies largely concerned with the misuse of sex, violence and sadism. Christian teaching on these matters is quite clear; they are wrong in themselves. Furthermore, Christ was at pains to emphasise that even unnecessary thoughts on these subjects were evil and were the very things, in his words, that defile a person.
If one accepts that pornography is an expression of evil, then I maintain that the arguments and statistics to establish whether it causes harm become of secondary importance because evil gives rise to evil effects, and this we can sec in regard to pornography in a number of ways. First, pornography exploits the weakness of its readers or viewers. Any of us who has had to read this material must he only too conscious that it can stir up within us the latent nastiness that lies there and we can realise how easily it becomes addictive. Incidentally, one must query the report's conclusion on the connection between pornography and sex crimes which conclusion appears to be that it is not proven. I doubt whether a recent head of the San Francisco police department would agree. It is reported that, when he was asked to what he attributed the upswing in rape crimes, he pointed to his pin map which showed that attacks on women clustered around so-called dirty cinemas, and furthermore that such attacks were not only becoming more brutal but were reflecting the situations portrayed in those cinemas. If that is correct, I would be sorry for any community surrounding one of the cinemas designated to show such films
Secondly, pornography also often exploits and degrades those involved in its

215
protection, as we remember from our debates on the Protection of Children Act. Thirdly, it works against stable family life. Lawyers active in the divorce courts have asserted that it leads men to expect as of right an unrealistic level of sexual fulfilment which makes them feel disappointed when they do not get it and their wives feel guilty and inadequate, and it leads them to try out sexual practices in their marriages which are obnoxious to their partners.
Lastly, the effect of pornography is to attract criminal elements, and it has been stressed to me by those in the security business that the best answer to this is a police force, so far as possible above suspicion, achieved by well-exercised internal supervision and the maintenance of a high moral standard of officer, and I hope we will continue to give the utmost support to those at the head of our police force who are trying to attain and maintain those things. As I see it, the report shies away from the concept of pornography as involving evil, and in my view this means that it misses an essential point.
My third general point is that the control of pornography is something we must take very seriously indeed. In his teaching on the seriousness of evil thoughts, Christ, to emphasise the point, told us to pluck out our eye if it offended us; in other words, if it was the cause of our evil thoughts. However one interprets and applies that injunction, it must surely have a direct and urgent bearing on the subject of pornography. Therefore, those of us who wish to see an effective control of pornography need not be diffident or apologetic. It is something that every caring society should want for its citizens as a matter of high priority. The report states that, to justify legal provision, causation of harm must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. As The Times leader of 29th November indicated, that lays too heavy a burden of truth on those who wish to control pornography. It seems that because the committee did not recognise the potential for evil in pornography, they did not take a serious enough view of its control, and this colours their recommendations.
Now to apply those points to an assessment of the report. First, I feel that in general the committee is greatly to be commended on identifying the problem
216
of offensiveness, and one largely agrees with its recommendations. In passing, I would mention that, as was brought out by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, two years or so ago, there is a problem in broadcasting which was outside the terms of reference of this committee. I will not say anything on the question of written pornography, except to support noble Lords who have pressed for its inclusion in any law of offensiveness, and it might be worth pointing out that magistrates, despite what has been said today, are continually declaring written works obscene, leading to their destruction.
Offensiveness is just one problem. It is the weakness of the other controls recommended in other areas that concerns me most. Under the report's recommendations, the only items to be totally banned are photographs and films whose production involve children or physical harm or, on the stage, real sexual activity which is offensive. All other photographs, drawings and texts, however vile, would be available subject to restrictions which would have a limited effect but which to say the least would not be guaranteed to prevent such material getting into the hands of children. And we should remember that pornography on paper anyway is like any other matter on paper. There is no magic about it; it ends up as litter and not always in people's wastepaper baskets. A friend of mine two years ago had something pretty nasty thrown over the garden wall which obviously someone had been reading at the bus stop outside. Therefore, in my judgment, because the committee has not recognised the potential for evil in pornography and has not taken a serious enough view, the proposed area of prohibition is too narrow.
It will be said, then, how is it to be decided what is, and what is not, acceptable It seems to me that there are two requirements that need to be reconciled. In the first place, so that the industry, the public, the police and the courts know where they are, there is the need for the law to be as simple, clear and specific as possible. If possible it should not depend on the interpretation of phrases whose meaning may be debatable. On the other hand, as the report quite rightly points out, because of the difficulty of defining specific areas to be prohibited, and because of the need

217
to keep the law in line with public opinion and standards which do not remain static, there must be an area of discretion where the courts, as representatives of the public, can act as arbiters; and I would emphasise"the courts ", not the officials in the DPPs' office, for the reasons so clearly stated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
I believe that legislation to ban the worst forms of pornography should have two aspects. First, if there has to be a test of obscenity, of the word"obscene "—and perhaps "pornographical" might be a better word—it should be that
" its effect, or the effect of any part of it, is to outrage contemporary standards of decency or humanity accepted by the public at large ".
Secondly, within this general area, consideration should be given to an absolute prohibition on any visual representation of the worst specific forms of sexual misuse and cruelty: for example, sexual practices with children, bestiality and sadism. In addition to that, one would have the law on offensive or indecent displays.
In conclusion, the report is valuable in that it stimulates discussion on a situation that is manifestly unsatisfactory at present. However, because in my view the committee did not recognise fully the potential for evil in pornography, they did not regard its control seriously enough, and as a result I do not believe that it would be wise to scrap existing legislation and to proceed entirely on the basis of their recommendations.
8.2 p.m.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. At this time of the evening I do not think that I should be expected to say very much and I shall say very little, which I think will not disappoint your Lordships. I must say three things to begin with. First, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for introducing what I think he described as this unattractive but not unimportant subject. I think that the country is divided into those who think it is important and those who think it is unimportant. No one who has spoken in the debate thought that it was unimportant, and I think that most of us would agree that the subject itself is unattractive.
218
Next, I want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, whose maiden speech I listened to with great interest. There was only one sentence of it that I failed to understand, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, did the same, but I will not go into that now. I shall read the speech with great interest tomorrow, bearing in mind that there was a part that I was not able to follow; the rest of it was a great contribution to the debate.
Thirdly, in his absence I ought to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for speaking from the Liberal Benches. At the risk of being accused of being a soft-hearted Liberal—or more likely a hard-hearted reactionary—I shall not be disagreeing with anything he said, though drawing a differing conclusion. I agree very strongly with one thing he said, and which so many of your Lordships supported that I need not go into it. That is the question of the printed or written word being left out. That is important to me because the times in my life when I was most tempted by pornography, before I had ever heard the word or knew anything about sex, arose entirely from written words rather than pictures. That may be a personal peculiarity—I don't know—but, provided people can read, I do not think that it can seriously be denied that written or printed words can have an effect. The noble Lord also raised the point of gramophone records, to which I may return in a minute or two, after I have said the only other thing that I want to say.
On the subject of words we have all been told, and know, that pornography is a very old thing. Some people say that it is no good trying to prevent it, that we will never get rid of it. That may be so. It may or may not be that the right way to proceed is not to try to get rid of it but, as the report so admirably tries to do, to restrict it. But although pornography is an old phenomenon it is not an old word. In fact, speaking without knowledge, I do not think that it was used before the last century, although pornography certainly took place on a very large scale all over Europe, and the rest of the world. I sometimes wonder why that is. I took the precaution of looking up in some admirably small Collins dictionaries to see what word other countries have for it. I could not find

219
such a word in any of them. With two exceptions they all went straight from"pork" to "porridge", which might be some indication that it is not yet a respectable word. I think that the Latin and the French dictionaries interpose the word "porous", which I take to mean "having holes in it".
Although a great many words which are pornographic are now in print there is still a great tendency to try to make pornography respectable. That may be right for those who think it has curative properties. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, thinks that it ought to remain unrespectable—and I must say that I agree with him—without imagining that one can easily destroy it altogether. There are at least three ways of making something respectable, or making it appear respectable, when it is not. One of them can be seen by quoting Sir John Harington, who said:
"Treason can never prosper; for what reason? That when it prospers, none dare call it treason".
I suppose one could say on the same lines:
"Pornography cannot be legal traffic. Once make it legal, it's not pornographic".
That is one way of doing it. Another way of course is to alter the name. If we ever have a Pornographer Royal or someone of that kind, he would not be called that, but might be called "Pornonomer Royal", or possibly the "Minister of Pornometry".
The third way is concerned with altering the climate of opinion and it is on that subject that I wish to say a few words. The last time I spoke on this subject, which was a very long time ago, I tried to reduce not my ideas but what I thought were the ideas of the ordinary reasonable man, as briefly as possible to a clerihew, which so far as I can remember, ran:
"Pornography
Has something in common with geography,
Each of them is fine,
If you know where to draw the line".
Since those days a good deal of water has passed under bridges. We know the difficulty of having vague boundaries, of not drawing lines; but we also know the great difficulty of drawing a line too quickly, and rushing into trouble.
One of the headings in to-day's evening paper stated:
"Rush hour train runs into buffers".
220
Well, the buffers were not strong enough. I noted the amazing rapidity with which the climate of opinion alters when I also saw in the same paper the headline:
"Boy killed by giant snowball".
One would have thought that impossible some years ago, but it now has happened.
I fear that pornography is like a giant snowball. It has been growing at an alarming rate, and my suggestion is that the word is new only because it is fairly lately that it has become what I think can be called a new religion. I think that we would be fooling ourselves if we said that the national religion of this country is Christianity. Some of us would like to keep it so as far as possible, and I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said. But I think that if one had to ask: what is the religion that is gradually endangering or, if you like it, saving the country?, one would say it is the worship of sex. Sex is an excellent thing, a necessary thing. So is food; so, indeed, is money. The Victorians were accused of worshipping mammon: I think we may be accused of worshipping Venus. But if we worship both mammon and Venus at the same time, that seems to me to give a definition of pornography, which could be,
"Exploitation of eroticism for commercial purposes".
Whoever may support this, I would personally be against it, and I should like to go on record as still being against it despite the admirable and excellent work put in by this committee, because I believe that much that they say is perfectly true and clear, but needs to be looked at very carefully before one legislates on it.
The other thing we have to remember is that the climate of opinion (which is an expression I do not like) consists of a number of individual opinions. King Canute has rather unfairly been accused of trying to stop the tide when he was not a drop of water or a wave. In fact, he was doing nothing of the kind: he was demonstrating that it could not be stopped. To try to demonstrate that the climate of opinion cannot be stopped by enough people with opinions expressing them is, I think, a fallacy. There is a difference between trying to stop a natural thing like a thunderstorm and altering an opinion. I can speak from the very little

221
experience I have had in this House on the abortion matter, as I was one of, I think, seven Peers, and perhaps the only non-Roman Catholic, who voted against the present Abortion Act. We were quite unsuccessful, but since then I think a great many things that we said have been proved right: so one never knows whether what Lord Wigoder described as "the textbooks of tomorrow" may not again be altered by the textbooks of the day after tomorrow. This is a very long-term subject, and a very important one.
My Lords, I have already spoken for nine minutes, which is too long, and I would conclude by saying that, although "pornography" is, I believe I am right in saying, a new word, I was interested to see in a dictionary that, although I could not find "porny" or "pornometry", there is a word "pornocracy", which was described as being:
"especially applicable to Rome in the 10th century".
That is no indictment of the Roman Church, and I am not trying to show off my knowledge of history; but if, in the 20th century, instead of plutocracy or democracy, or even hereditary aristocracy (which heaven forbid!), pornocracy becomes the accepted government, I very much hope I shall not be alive to see it.
8.13 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for having initiated this debate and for having explained the report so lucidly and concisely. In a report of this character so very many different points are raised that in a short speech it is possible to deal with only one or two of them. No one, I suppose, can approach this subject with a wholly open mind. It is not our function in your Lordships' House to attempt to legislate to make then moral; but it is possible, nevertheless, to abstract certain common principles which your Lordships' House is accustomed to follow. I could not help reflecting during the Christmas festival, when, in our home, we had greetings cards from Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Moslems, as well as from fellow Christians, how many fundamentals we all have in common. All agree in having positive attitudes towards marriage and the family. All, taken together, comprise
222
the great majority of our nation. It might have been expected that the committee responsible for this report could have started from some position of this kind, where there is common ground.
I find it extraordinary that a member of the committee, the Bishop of Bristol, has said, as reported in the Church Times of 30th November 1979:
" I cannot think that addiction to porn is a serious problem ".
In the Church Times of 14th December 1979, there was a very remarkable letter by an ex-police officer of 25 years' experience, spent chiefly in the CID, who subsequently became a clergyman—a Mr. Ward. He said that he could not disagree with the bishop more, and that many of the hard porn men and youths are perverts; and, as he said, the girls on the streets could have told the bishop this. Mr. Ward asked where they learned to beat and mutilate. Could this be self-taught? One would not think so. It may he true that some of the addicts of porn are frustrated people, but others are violent perverts. Mr. Ward continued, and I fully agree with him:
" …that perhaps the committee should have visited a mortuary and seen the body of a girl after such a man has finished with her."
Looking through the report, I can find no trace that the committee ever visited a police mortuary actually to see for themselves.
Mr. Ward said to me when l had the privilege of a conversation on the telephone with him that he believed there was not a single member of any crime squad who would believe that there was no connection between porn and many sexual crimes. He said that the forms of mutilation practised on women could be derived only from pornographic books. No one could have informed himself by reading ordinary medical works. The report also denies any connection between the written word and incitement to what I shall describe as unnatural and perverse behaviour. How powerful the written word may be has been described by a novelist, the late Stuart Cloete, whose The Abductors, with the sub-title"A disquieting novel about white slavery in Victorian England ", was published in 1966. There is one passage which is particularly relevant here. It describes how a governess, a young girl, was kept naked alone in a room in a Paris

223
brothel. She was allowed nothing to do but to read pornographic books that had been given her. Completely shocked, at first revolted, she came slowly back to them, aware of danger but drawn by boredom. These were well and subtly written, their poison cumulative. What she had thought of as vice was presented as a pleasure until she came to accept it.
This, in a nutshell, is what pornographic literature, with its gradations from soft to hard porn, is about: the perversion of the natural decent instincts of human beings into vicious and eventually unnatural behaviour. The problem is how to prevent this. The report shows that the present state of the law is inconsistent as between what the Customs may let in from abroad and what the law prevents being published in this country. Plainly, this is a matter which must be cleared up. I do not see that the report has very helpful suggestions, and, as The Times of 29th November, 1979, pointed out, it is inconsistent to make film censorship much stricter and to do away with censorship of the written word. I hope that the free and open discussion and debate which has taken place today may assist the Government to produce proposals that in due course we shall be able to enact.
We should congratulate Her Majesty's Customs and Excise officers, and the police force, that they have been able to diminish the flow of porn. It is clear that we need to strengthen the hands of the police in their efforts to prevent the degradation of men and women, and of the family. I would not suggest censorship before publication, because this would be an almost impossible task; but a law against the dissemination of obscene and perverse literature—and by that I mean pornographic literature—should be made most unprofitable to the publishers and distributors. If I understand it correctly, it does not include either the printers or the authors. Surely, my Lords, no one should be permitted to become rich by degrading other human beings.
8.20 p.m.
Lord MILVERTON: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, on his maiden speech and, as many other have done, to thank my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford
224
for giving us the opportunity to talk about this subject. As will be evident from what I say, there are those who have some anxiety about this subject and are disturbed about it, they are not happy about the Williams Report. Then there are those who are more happy and relaxed about it. I respect their views, but cannot feel in agreement with them. We are giving consideration to a subject which is delicate because the subject matter concerns the feelings and senses of human beings, physically, spiritually and mentally, in a particularly deep way. Therefore, we have a sense of awe because of the potential beauty that can come from the way the feelings and senses are handled. We are pleased that the Williams Report is aware of the distastefulness, viciousness and ugliness of pornography. But is it an awareness that brings about a desire really to tackle this nasty subject?—a dull, boring matter in many eyes, including young eyes. Those of us who would like to see every person given dignity cannot be satisfied or happy with the report. Surely, all that it is doing is trying to keep this business of pornography under control rather than wiping it out by bold and vigorous action.
Pornography has been with humanity always but does that give it a pass mark, a yes? No, not necessarily so; especially for those who believe that man and woman are created for something richer and fuller. This pornography is a moneymaker—a maker of filthy lucre which involves not only the producers of pornography and its users but the people who are in between, the sellers.
I mentioned a short time ago bold and vigorous action. Could not a way be found to make the business extremely difficult to carry out, to make it unprofitable so that it is awkward to propagate and not easy to come across? It has been suggested in the report that if good does not come from an action, it need not necessarily be harmful. Is that so? Surely any action must bring in various degrees of good or bad. This is how people who believe in good and light direct their eyes in assessing any subject; and this applies to pornography as to anything else.
I am going to quote from one paragraph and merely mention others. I am going to quote from paragraph 81.4 on page 107. The word I would like to bring out is

225
"involvement". Are we saying that a balanced judgment can only come by physical involvement? Have we not been given a spiritual power of perception, a conscience or morals, so that we can see what is harmful or not? I quote:
" There is another kind of work which may be experienced as offensive, and also be experienced as having aesthetic interest, but in the case of which these two experiences do not occur at the same time. These will be works which are found offensive at first or by a spectator who remains distanced from them, but which lose that character for someone who is involved in them. The question of how one can combine at the same time aesthetic interest in the work and a sense that it is offensive will not then arise, though these works will still be offensive works ' in the sense of works which could prove offensive to a casual viewer or to someone who came across them and was unwilling or unable to involve himself in them."
I would consider myself a sorry person if I felt that before I could make a decision about pornography and suchlike things I had to involve myself in them. As regards paragraphs 11.3, 11.7 and 11.9 on pages 137, 138 and 139, yes; perhaps a good basis to agree, but some of us would soon depart. This would be because some of us would say, as I suggested earlier, that whatever the form presented to people, harm must in some way result, even just through the suggestion being put into the mind. I mention paragraph 10.3 on page 130. I shall not quote part of it as it is late. Restriction rather than prohibition is better than nothing. Perhaps there is sense and correctness in having the same law in respect of acts of buggery, as mentioned in this paragraph.
There are those who are happy with these arrangements while others are unhappy. The reason is that they are all unwholesome, rather degrading and lowering of the stature of a person. We are caught up in the work of creative tension, as was said to his diocese by the Bishop of Bristol—whose diocese I am in. In our actions we show something of our idea of creativity. What is the body for? What is the spirit for? What is the mind for? What is holy and natural in this pornography business? Are we not making the natural unnatural, and the unnatural natural, the good bad, and the bad good? The human being may think that freedom is being found with the chains of inhibition being thrown off—with no more stifling of the personality. The suggestion can be put forward that the opposite is happening. We are in these
226
ways putting chains round ourselves so that we become slaves to unhealthy elements. Humanity loses freedom and liberty in every way rather than gaining the former in mind, soul and body.
There are these other points where the report is weak and open to question. Paragraph 5.31 on page 59—and others have already mentioned this—says that harm shall be established beyond reasonable doubt. How can this be, when each person's reaction will vary? Is there a measured norm for harm? In paragraph 12.10 they express caution since the evidence for belief in the harmlessness of sadistic material is not conclusive. In paragraph 12.9, on page 144, they make the point that experimental research is a weak means of deciding the issue. Paragraph 4.23 deals with the question of the effectiveness of the law. We know of one place at least—Manchester—where it happens that the police have had some success; but I believe I am right in saying that on the whole that is not so in the rest of the country. Does that mean that for some reason or other Manchester has some particular conditional situation whereby the police have been able to be more effective?
Paragraph 6.66, page 89, may lead one to wonder whether there was a deep and broad enough field of the fullest scope among those listened to by the committee for evidence? Did they give a reasonable hearing to all? The field from the traditional to the modern and radical is large.
My Lords, I have given a few thoughts on the Williams Report with the suggestion that much more is needed to make pornography a weak and lame commodity. That is the emphasis—to make it a weak and lame commodity. I suggest that Mr. Johnston, the Director of the Festival of Light, brought out very clearly the weak points of the report. I agree, as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, also said, with the report in the Church Times of 14th December. Two letters expressed concern about this report as well as a letter from Mr. Johnston. The first letter was from Philip Crome. He makes four points:
"1. It makes legal 'hard' pornography. 2. It allows 'soft' pornography fully to continue (although maybe in a different retail outlet). 3. It removes all legal control over written pornography. Not only does this give 'soft' porn-

227
ography total licence; it must eventually adversely affect children. 4. It removes from the public, via their elected representatives, any control over obscene films. Whereas in the past local authorities could exercise some control over undesirable developments in the film industry, the proposed Film Examining Board will be able to permit virtually anything".
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, mentioned the article on the Bishop of Bristol in the Church Times of 30th November which resulted in those letters, particularly one from a policeman who is now a clergyman. I cannot quite agree with my bishop when this was on the headlines of the Church Times:"Obscenity report is Christian With all due respect to the Bishop of Bristol—and he is a learned man—I cannot quite fully go with him.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt? Surely the noble Lord is completely free in this House to disregard his bishop totally. Is not that the position?
Lord MILVERTON: Yes. My Lords, the leading article of The Times on 29th November last year, which the noble Prelate, the Lord Bishop of London, mentioned, is very clear in its analysis of the weak points of the Williams Report; particularly, it seems to me, where it argues cogently that the report is wrong to say that"the causation of harm"should lie beyond all reasonable doubt before legal intervention is justified in cases of pornography. The writer of the article sees clearly the danger of the reductionism which colours so much of our thinking in modern society. Human behaviour cannot be reduced to or fully understood in terms of reactions which can be explained or proved in a narrow, scientific or clinical sense. If there is a significant risk of harm occurring, then I agree with the writer that this would justify legal intervention.
Finally, does prohibition for pictorial pornography alone make sense? There is some control but once a person is outside a shop which has been licensed for that, there is no control. Is this sense? Trial by jury is suggested only in a case of prohibition. Is this sense? Why not for any case of the breaking of the restriction code? Only the police can prosecute, not the public. Therefore a private individual cannot. Is this
228
sense? I hope that your Lordships will give my noble friend Lord Nugent your fullest support with his Motion and that the Government will give due consideration to him as well.
8.36 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, speaking nearly last—unless somebody makes an intervention when I sit down—I will try to be brief. I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on his sustained initiative in bringing this matter once more before your Lordships' House. He has recruited to the team that he has fielded on this occasion the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson. I was very glad to find myself batting on the same side and to be able to record the great pleasure that I had in listening to his speech, as to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strauss. He cut some skilful figures over some thin ice but his skates bore him safely to an elegant conclusion. I am sure that your Lordships will look forward to similar performances on a future suitable occasion.
My Lords, dog does not eat dog. As the chairman of committees of inquiry whose findings have been debated in your Lordships' House from time to time, it would ill-behove me to be ungracious in regard to the hard work put in by the team that wrote this report, even if I cannot go quite as far as my noble friend Lord Annan in supposing that professors of moral philosophy necessarily hold views with which I would agree. An academic post is filled by somebody who has achieved distinction in the teaching of students in their education across the field of his subject matter; it does not follow that he himself believes everything that he has to teach. He may teach a great many things in which he does not believe. A professor of moral philosophy might well have been a liberal humanist who thought that there was no such thing as absolute right or absolute wrong. It would be no criticism of his academic distinction to draw attention to that.
Our debate, in the vernacular, is about dirty talk, dirty books, dirty pictures, dirty jokes. dirty films, dirty plays and, quite possibly, dirty old men as well. In the vernacular, we know what we are talking about. It is only when we desert the

229
vernacular and go to words which once upon a time meant something but which have now lost their original meaning without acquiring anything defined by way of alternative that we find ourselves in the difficulties to which my noble friend Lord Tranmire referred. "Obscene" meant literally etymologically "unsuitable for the stage". The noble Lord said it had dramatic contexts. "Porné" in Greek meant "prostitute". Pornography is the literature of the brothel and the stews. Their meanings are no longer confined to their etymological derivation. I thought that the treatment of this aspect of the subject in the report was rather disappointing. I should have liked to see something more detailed and scholarly than anything suitable for me to lay before your Lordships' House at this late hour.
In the course of the debate four years ago I made two suggestions, half of which have been acted upon in the report and the other half of which are dismissed. One of my ideas was that one would treat pornography as one treated the betting shop or the liquor shop, and license it so that one had the formidable sanction of the withdrawal of licence as a means of enforcing obedience to the precepts enjoined under whatever Act, code, or regulation, whatever it may be. This can be criticised as being illogical, to condone what one condemns by licensing it, but only if it is thought that there is a necessary connection between condonation and control. I do not think there is, and therefore there is no necessary logical anomaly as to proposing the licensing.
The objection to that proposal of mine is simply that it is liable to be misunderstood: that has nothing to do with logic—misunderstanding is"politics". The report has not followed the suggestion of licensing, but at a price—all you have got recommended in the report is six months in "stir" or £1,000. To a wealthy industry like this, a thousand pounds is chicken feed and the chap who will go to jug is the "fall guy" employed for that purpose. So do not let us be under any misapprehension as to the very powerful sanction that you abandon if in the interests of what I would call a "pseudo logic" you refrain from utilising the loss of licence by its grant in the first place. I am not interested in the intellectualist perfectionism that likes to clothe ineffectiveness in logical filigree. I want to be effective and get
230
things done, and if I can get only 90 per cent. of them done I will settle for that.
I then come to the next matter which is dealt with in the report. I asked: "Why bother about these definitions? Why not treat what you want to abolish ostensibly by saying that we abolish, this, this, this and this?" I suggested: "You had better go through the index from Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathgia Sexualis, and pick out the proper names of all the sexual perversions listed in that book and simply say, 'We ban these'."
The committee looked at that, and what they say at line 27 on page 121 is this:
"Another problem is that to base a law on an explicit statement of what is prohibited requires that the statement should also be exhaustive. We found, however, that it was far from easy to be satisfied that any definition covered all the ground that it should".
Why should it be exhaustive? If it catches 90 per cent. of what you want to catch, is that not better than catching nothing at all? On the next page they proceed to go into reverse. To deal with the matter of restriction, they then proceed to do what they said cannot he done, which is to recite it—
"violence, cruelty, horror, sexual, faecal or urinary functions or genital organs".
This is their conscience working now—all of a sudden, you see, the logical filigree starts clothing the elegant nude!
"The introduction of this specification does not mean a reversion to the list approach".
But, my Lords, that is exactly what it does. They have listed what is to be restricted, and if you can list what is to be restricted why cannot you list what is to be prohibited? In fact, and I must be blunt, it is not a very long list. I do not wish to give offence but there are only two orifices on the male and three on the female body. There are very few organs of penetration and the number of permutations and combinations of those only adds up to a round dozen or so. You can perfectly easily list them—and here I come to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Nugent, if I may so refer to him, on sticking to the old common law of obscenity and indecency. But why not couple the two together and talk of—and here I put it in the nominal rather than the adjectival form:
"obscenity, including any representation or description of "—

231
here follow the ten sexual perversions which cover 99 per cent. of what one wants to prohibit—
"or other comparable matters similarly calculated to coarsen sensitivity to higher values",
or words to that effect. I think that is a perfectly feasible and possible thing to do.
It can be applied to the written word. I see absolutely no reason to exempt the written word from the sanctions one is trying to impose on the photograph, the moving picture, the television display, the obscene theatrical performance and so on. The written word should be subject to it, and I agree with every single word that has been said, starting with those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, when he said that the written word enables you to clothe a skeleton with your own imaginative detail. I believe that is very true, and it is a danger which should be safeguarded against. I was also deeply impressed by what my noble friend Lady Kinloss said about the necessity of coming down to earth and seeing the horrors that are perpetrated following upon people's fantasies with sadistic literature and such matters.
I see that I have not yet reached ten minutes but I am sure your Lordships will be grateful if I economise on one and conclude what I want to say once more by expressing my thanks to my noble friend Lord Nugent.
8.45 p.m.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, at this hour and following a long and informed debate I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I make just three points. As my noble friends Lord Wigoder and Lord Barrington have done, I am putting my personal views and not speaking for my colleagues. As a Liberal I should like to dissociate myself from that horrible word,"liberalisation"—an ugly word, I submit, as used in this context for an ugly process.
Secondly, after my study of this report by a very distinguished committee it came as a breath of fresh air to read on page 244 in that quotation from Professor Clor in 1974 the following words:
"People are influenced by what they think others believe and particularly by what they think are the common standards of the community. There are few individuals among us whose basic beliefs are the result of their own reasoning and whose moral opinions do not require the support of some stable public opinions".
232
It goes on:
"The free circulation of obscenity can, in time, lead many to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the values implicit in it—since their open promulgation is tolerated by the public. They will come to the conclusion that public standards have changed—or that there are no public standards. Private standards are hard put to withstand the effects of such an opinion".
Thirdly, and lastly, I must say that I wholeheartedly agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in his reference to Saint Paul's words, and that rather than having pornography we should try to encourage people to think on things which are,
"true, honest, just, pure, lovely and of good report ".
8.47 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, may I begin by putting at ease the worry of my noble friend Lord Longford, which is that though I speak from the Front Bench I speak without consultation with any member of my party and I do not give an official view. I am surprised that in a non-political debate, the noble Earl ever thought such a thing was possible; but, anyway, that is not what I am doing.
I am filled with depression and astonishment. It seems to me that there is a distinct feeling in this evening's debate that anybody who supports the conclusion of the Williams Committee approves in some way of pornography. This may be quite unfair, but certain things have been said. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said that it was not the report of a Christian, despite the fact that his bishop was a member of the committee. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, attacked the good faith of the report and described it as"hypocritical" and "snide".
So far as I am concerned, I am very much nearer to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, than to either of those noble Lords, because although he and I have crossed swords on this sort of matter several times we have never been all that far apart in our views, and tonight I do not think we are really very far apart at all. I think the noble Lord feels as I do—that one of the worst harms that pornography does is to spread it out before the public in Soho and in public places, and at least if we can stop that we shall have done something useful. This report, I

233
think, gives a perfectly workable way of stopping this practice. I, for one, am delighted that it should do so, and I was hoping and expecting that people in general would say: "We think it ought to go further, but as far as it has gone it is good".
This to me is a frightfully depressing situation, that noble Lords who feel so strongly about this matter can give no credit. I speak as a Churchman, not as a humanist, and as a Churchman who follows Mill rather than Lord Mansfield, and Hart rather than Lord Devlin. I resent bitterly the attitude that has been shown throughout—not from all members but from many—that those of us who think the proposals of this committee are useful and sound as far as they go, are in some way supporting pornography. Having said that, I had better try to recover from my irritation.
If you grant that something is bad in itself—and, of course, we grant that pornography is bad in itself—the real question here is: Does this give yor the right to interfere with somebody who wishes to indulge in it without doing any harm to anyone else? This is not a very unreasonable proposition to put, and the answer to which the committee came is the same answer to which I shall come and the same answer as that to which Mill came. It is not an answer with which we agree in the whole of the Mill theory, but it is here and there.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? I am sure that the noble Lord is not seeking to mislead the House by suggesting that John Stuart Mill dealt with this problem. He dealt with a much more abstract and generalised question. Pornography did not come under his review, but it may have occurred to him that someone who is corrupted by pornography does corrupt others. Therefore, Mill would have been very upset by that.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl agrees that Mill would be on my side over pornography and not wishing to upset——
The Earl of LONGFORD: I am sorry, my Lords, but I said exactly the opposite.
Lord DONALDSON of K INGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am not giving way.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, if the noble Lord is frightened he need not give way.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, in the days of the Spanish Inquisition, for example, the State punished people who admitted not believing in God. No one outside Iran would think that right today. Times change and so does society. In South Africa there is legislation against mixed marriages, which racists think are bad in themselves and they allege harm to the racial purity of the nation. This is really agreeing with the report's adoption of the harm theory, but differing over what is harm.
The point—and I do not want to go on stressing this—is that this is a moral point. It is a moral judgment on the part of, for example, Professor Hart, the Williams Committee, myself and those like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who agree with me that it is not right for a State to interfere with the free action of an individual, unless that action can be shown to do harm. This leaves plenty of room for argument over what does harm and what does not, and we have had an extensive argument over this. I do not think that the report's conclusions are necessarily the last word on it, but they are at least intelligible.
The point about the report which I think is important is that it comes to quite definite conclusions, after a ruthless examination of evidence, and then it states quite clearly why it does and, finally, it makes precise and workable recommendations. This is surely a long way towards what we all want to do. It is perfectly possible to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said, that you must try to suppress pornography altogether. I do not think I know anybody who would not he very glad if you could, but it is an entirely different operation and a much more difficult one from what is suggested here. At least, this is a reasonably practical step and it would do what the Wolfenden Report did for prostitution. It certainly did not cure prostitution, and nobody ever thought it would,

235
but it has made the streets less objectionable to the public.
The various prohibitions which the report has recommended are comprehensive and firm. First, there is restriction. There is no doubt, as my noble friend Lord Ardwick said, that one of the things, above everything, that helps this foully gained money—and I agree with the critics of pornographers that, of course, money is foully gained—is advertising. At least, that is legally banned if this recommendation is adopted. Surely that is good. I cannot understand why we cannot get a more reasonable approach to this report from Members here.
I must make one point here. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent—and, of course, I am grateful to him for starting the debate which has been extraordinarily interesting, though terribly depressing—spoke of wholesale liberalisation. Over literature, for example, there is no change of the faintest importance; over pictorial pornography, there is a very strict tightening-up indeed, and over two kinds of particularly vicious pictorial or live pornography there is a total ban. Surely this is not the same as liberalisation.
Over the question of the written word, this is of course a difficulty. I think that there were two things in the minds of the committee members. The first is that children normally do not read in the way that grown-ups do. Secondly, I think they felt that one should not stop grown-up people from reading anything they want to. I was very surprised at the comments of the right reverend Prelate, which seemed to me to suggest that Das Kapital and Mein Kampf—which I agree, between them, have probably done more harm than any other books in our time—ought to have been banned. I cannot believe he meant that, but it was clearly implied. I do not think that it is the business of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, or of the Government, to tell me what to read and I am not going to accept it at all.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way and I know that he did not want to be snide. But, surely, we all have a right to say that what ends up by cor-
236
rupting the family is something that we all have an interest in getting rid of. Would he not agree that that is a fair formula, and that perhaps we are not so far apart as he has suggested we are?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I would not agree with the first sentence, but I would agree with the second. Of course, we want to get rid of pornography. What I would not agree is that there is very much evidence that it corrupts the family—it may—but, in any case, I am for getting rid of it which is what matters. The third point about the written word is that it is historically, and has always been, the way of spreading ideas. Clearly, if somebody is writing something which is pure filth, there are no ideas in it. But how do you distinguish? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said that the weakness of all this was that it destroyed institutions and, among other things, the institution of marriage. Does this mean that Bertrand Russell's articles would have been suppressed? What else can it mean? I am not at all with this point of view. I must not keep your Lordships too long, but I have one further point which I simply must make.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], said that ordinary people do not want their families to read pornography. Of course, they do not. That is the point of restricting it. Surely, we are on the same side about that. Maybe it would be better if it were abolished, but at least it is a step in the direction that you are asking for.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. What I was referring to was the fact that the written word is completely free and unrestricted, and that, if it is going to be in shops and anyone can buy it, it will be bought and circulated and everybody will see it.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that everybody will see it, but today everybody can see it. You can buy it anywhere without the slightest difficulty. I have never seen it, and I do not suppose that the noble Baroness has ever seen it, because it is not what we want. But people who want it have always been able

237
to get it, and still will. That is inherent in the theory. I shall not say anything about the cinema, because the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, dealt with that very well. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, made a very important point, which is that the figures show that one in five individuals between 16 and 65 indulge in this kind of thing from time to time. Incidentally, I think one in eight go to prison, so it is not so very different from other things. All it means is that this is a very serious problem, not that the right thing to do is to suppress it. The right thing to do is to control it at this stage.
I have two particular points on the side of the critics which I should like to make. In the first place, I think that it would have been quite possible for them to go further than they have, but I do not feel that this was terribly wrong. I think that there are great risks in going far. I want to quote a sentence, which I think is rather revealing, which was written by Dr. Peter Scott who died two years ago and who was a member of the Longford Committee. It was written as a separate contribution to the Longford Report. Dr. Scott was by far the best psychiatrist in relation to delinquency whom I have ever met. He understood the sinner's mind, if I may so put it, in a way that few clergy understood it. He said:
"We mustn't fall into St. Paul's mistake of supposing that sex is only to beget children. You may discuss whether this is morally desirable but not whether it is biologically true, because it manifestly isn't".
This means that you have to be very careful before you start to interfere with the private behaviour of people who are different from yourself.
I say no more than that. We must not make criminals out of people who are harming no one but themselves, and perhaps not even themselves. I have to confess that I think that making and distributing pornography is evil, though I am not certain that consuming it is.
There is one other point which I must raise, having been Minister for the Arts. Whenever the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and I have had discussions we have always discussed artistic problems. There is no doubt that the present arrangement by which the public good argument is ruled out leaves some very awkward holes. For example, there are certain
238
works of art to be considered. I give as an example the Verlaine series of Michael Ayrton which is owned by the Fitzwilliam. It is quite definitely obscene; nobody would suggest that it is not. Artistically it is very beautiful and I think that it should be available to people. But if one restricted its availability, as it would have to be under these terms, one would simply have a separate room in the Fitzwilliam and then one would get a long queue of people who wanted to see the sex but who were not interested in the art. This is exactly the opposite of what we are trying to effect, so it has probably got to be re-thought. Works which the directors of galleries regard as potentially offensive should perhaps be kept in private and shown on demand to anybody who wants to see them.
I have spoken long enough and I think that I have made my point of view clear, even though I have not had time to work out the argument. It has been a very useful debate. It is very sad that there is so little agreement among people who all dislike the same thing, but that is what life is like and we have to do the best we can with it. Before I sit down, may I say how much I enjoyed the noble Lord's maiden speech—I jolly nearly forgot to say so! He will have to live a very long time if he is to be the Father of this House! It is much more difficult to become Father of this House than Father of the other place.
9.4 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, this is the first occasion that the House has had the advantage of a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Strauss. With his great parliamentary knowledge and, added to that, his knowledge in this area of theatre censorship, the noble Lord made a speech of such quality that I know your Lordships would wish me to add my voice in saying that we hope the noble Lord is going to be with us for many years and that it will not be very long before he will be speaking to us again.
This is the second occasion within the space of four years that my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has enabled your Lordships to debate this subject. Again my noble friend has expressed his

239
concern with the damage which, my noble friend warns, is inherent in obscene and violent material. If I may, I should like to add a further dimension to the argument of my noble friend.
I believe that the concern of many people over this subject is very often increased by a feeling that any criticism is liable to be dismissed as no more than the personal view of people who are out of touch with modern ideas. Not only has my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, with his usual skill, made a speech which exposes the hollowness of that criticism but the report of the Williams Committee also dispels any such notion. Based upon the careful weighing of its evidence, the committee's report none the less shows that no-one who studies this subject and cares about its consequences can escape the responsibility of having to reach some personal judgments.
I was particularly interested to read in paragraph 1.9 that research has concluded that it is not possible to find out whether or not the mass media—television or films—exercise a socially harmful effect. None the less, when we come to Chapter 12 we find the committee concluding that the pre-censorship of films should continue, not least because members of the committee were obviously shaken by some of the films which they had felt that it was their responsibility to see. So let no-one dismiss personal views which are expressed upon the subject and say that they are of no account. Indeed, it is because my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already made clear in another place that the Government are anxious to hear the views of Parliament and the public concerning this report that we are particularly indebted to my noble friend for giving us this first opportunity for a debate today in your Lordships' House. Obviously the debate is going to be enormously valuable to the Government when they have such an enormous range of experience contributed to them, ending up most appropriately with a speech by a former Minister for the Arts.
I join with other noble Lords in expressing particularly warm appreciation of the work of Professor Williams and his committee. I suppose it would be predictable if I were to say that the views of the committee were widely representative.
240
But I must confess that ever since some years ago I discovered from the census that, whereas the Registrar-General placed bishops, judges and university teachers in social class one, he relegated ministers of the Crown to social class two, where they have been proud to share that status with housekeepers, sculptors and self-employed agricultural machinery drivers. But I have rather begun to lose faith in the concept that one can put people into different categories.
So may I content myself with saying that, whatever reservations there may be about this report, I am certain that there is a widespread understanding that the committee has done a great service by the lucid manner in which it exposed the issues and the incisive way in which it has presented its conclusions. We would have expected nothing less from a very shrewd and hard-working committee with an obviously outstanding chairman.
As your Lordships are well aware, the committee's first conclusion is that the present laws on obscenity and indecency are, to use their term,"a mess ". They reject the idea that matters can be improved by amending the definitions of"obscenity"or"indecency"and, instead, the committee has suggested that the whole of the present law should be abandoned and replaced by new comprehensive legislation. I speak only as a non-lawyer, but I must say that when the reader learns in paragraph 4.4 of the report that the Director of Public Prosecutions has expressed to the committee the view that it is now quite impossible to be certain of securing a conviction by a jury of even what the director has considered to be a grossly obscene article, one can be forgiven the thought that law reform is overdue. I think that my noble friend Lord Vaizey and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said very much the same thing; that those noble Lords in essence were justified in saying that a criterion which the Williams Committee satisfies is the enforceability, the workability, of its proposals. None the less, the proposal for wholesale law reform in this area is a critical question, and even if there is a widespread view that a complete revision of the present laws is required, your Lordships' debate today has shown that it is not going to be an entirely easy task to reach agreement on what should be put in their place.

241
Having concluded that the present law was"a mess ", the committee went on in Chapter 5 to discuss the principles upon which they believed any involvement of the criminal law should be grounded. The committee say they accept that the critical test is whether pornography causes harm; that the test of whether something should be suppressed altogether should be whether it could be shown to harm someone. It is clear that this is an important point of principle. In practice, as the Williams Committee implies it may be that almost everyone would accept the harm condition for the purposes of drafting legislation, but their views on what constitutes harm and on what the onus of proof of harm should be will vary very markedly indeed.
For example, the committee noted, on the one hand, that there was concern, which should be taken seriously, with the pervasive effect that pornography may have on society. When, among the many speeches which have been made on that point, the two noble Ladies who have spoken have joined together from their different positions in the House to agree that this is a matter of particular concern, I think that viewpoint had to be taken very seriously indeed.
On the other hand, as the committee noted there was evidence extolling the virtues of certain kinds of pornography. As to that, the Williams Committee had this comment to make in paragraph 5.12:
"Any committee enquiring into this kind of subject is likely to encounter a certain amount of humbug. Perhaps the most striking example of it that came our way was the pretence that present day commercial pornography represents some fulfilment of liberal and progressive hopes ".
May I quickly say that the splendid speeches that we have heard from the Liberal Benches, and not least from the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, refute any idea that the committee was in any way making a political reference.
But, having said that, the committee went on to conclude, in Chapter 6, that the only clear harms which they can identify are those involving the exploitation of children or actual physical harm. Accordingly, when the committee came to formulate their detailed proposals it was only material involving either of those two harms which was thought to warrant total prohibition. I think I have
242
heard enough of the speeches which have been made in the debate today to realise the concern which many of your Lordships hold with the idea that really any extensive discussion is needed on this point, on the ground that the harm deriving from pornography is self-evident. I would accept the point that because explicit evidence of harm cannot always be proved that does not deny the possibility of the damage done by pornography. However, from the committee's analysis of harms, which involve lengthy examination of evidence, research and statistics, they confine prohibition to just those two areas which so many speeches today have mentioned. But that is only part of the story, which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was at very great pains to point out in his speech.
I ventured to suggest earlier on in my remarks that any assessment of the consequences of pornography is bound to involve personal judgment. I would guess that many people would have been most uneasy if the committee had left matters there, but they did not. In essence, they recognised the erosion of freedom which the intrusion of obscene material represents. They recognised that many people who feel that pornography is thrust upon them in public find it not only offensive but deeply offensive, and they added this in paragraph 9.7:
"We conclude, therefore, that the law should primarily aim to restrict pornography so that it will not be offensive to the public, and to satisfy the widespread feeling that young people should not be exposed to material of this kind".
So the committee's second approach is what they call restriction, and the test of what matter or performances would be restricted, other than live performances and the printed word, is set out in paragraph 9.36. I do not want to try to add anything to what has been said about that test. Reservations have been expressed today in the debate, both by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, and from a rather different angle by my noble friend Lord Nugent and noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I think that their speeches and other speeches on this particular point of the test in paragraph 9.36 will repay reading.
The scope of restriction is fairly wide. I would like to point that out. I have the impression from many speeches which noble Lords made that the test is whether

243
the material is offensive to reasonable people. But I do not think that is the case. The scope of the test is whether the unrestricted availability of material is offensive, and that is by no means, I would have thought, the same thing. The committee envisage that restriction is to consist of a ban on the display, sale or hire of restricted material, other than by way of post or other delivery, except in premises which from the exterior I rather think are going to resemble Fort Knox. Some commentators have referred to these places, if they were to be set up, as licensed pornography shops, but, again with respect to the views put forward, I do not think that is the case. The committee did not envisage a licensing system. Whether this is the right solution is now a matter for Parliament and for the public to give their views on, but it is worth noting that there is a genuine dilemma here.
We can either seek the full structure of a licensing system which would control the number and location of shops in which restricted material would be available and those who run such places, or we can deny pornography the recognition implicit in such a licensing system, but we cannot have both. The committee thought that the right approach was not to license, and this again is one of the matters on which the Government have certainly not yet formed a view.
I think we have got to face the fact that this debate has shown a fundamental difference of emphasis regarding the balance between prohibition and restriction on the sale of obscene material. As I understand it, my noble friend's and many other noble Lords' case, at any rate the main plank of the case, is that restriction does not necessarily prevent subsequent circulation. On the other hand, the Williams proposals, which envisage an important shift of emphasis in the law, involve less prohibition but tougher restriction. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, asked me to do, I will certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary the particular areas of concern which the commiteee mention at the beginning of Chapter 9 and which they then go on to try to meet. So when the Government come to decide this principal issue which has got to be resolved—namely, whether the committee's proposals achieve broadly the
244
right balance between prohibition and restriction—the Government will have the noble and learned Lord's point in mind.
There are just three brief points to add on the general area of prohibition and restriction. As your Lordships know, or may well remember, my right honourable friend Lord Carr of Hadley, when he was Home Secretary, introduced a Bill to try to curb indecent displays. There have been a number of further attempts to introduce fresh legislation to modernise existing law against indecent displays. Indeed the latest Bill on this subject has recently been given a Second Reading in another place. The Williams Committee considered the effectiveness of an approach on these lines, but concluded that the problem lies not with indecent displays but with displays of the indecent, and to control these one needs to go beyond the content of the mere display itself to the character of the item being displayed. I should like to make clear that the Government are sympathetic towards the present Bill in another place but, as a means of preventing public offence I join with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, in thinking that the Williams approach would be effective, and I think more effective, than legislation which is confined only to the control of indecent displays.
The second point that I should like to make is, as your Lordships know, that the committee excepted the written word from its proposals, and many powerful speeches have been made in the debate criticising that. All I would say is that if that recommendation were to be rejected it would not be fatal to the broad scheme which the Williams Committee proposes. The written word could, for example, be made subject to restriction when it was such that its unrestricted availability was offensive to reasonable people in the same way as the Williams Committee envisages restriction of pictorial matter.
Thirdly, although the committee has taken the view that a two-tier scheme of prohibition and restriction is appropriate for live shows, it also took the view that the application of the"harm"test would permit the presentation of sexual activity on stage in a way which now happens rarely. Consequently, the committee argued in favour of a test as to whether the sexual activity in a live show is real as

245
opposed to simulated and whether it is offensive. The committee would also prohibit any live performance involving the sexual exploitation of anyone under the age of 16. Because there is no"harm"condition which has to be satisfied here, in that sense as I understand it the test for the prohibition of live shows will be a tougher one than for publications. In any event the Government will continue to listen very carefully as to whether opinion, including opinion in the theatre, supports the distinction which the Williams Committee makes between live performances and publications so far as prohibition is concerned.
Finally, I turn briefly to film censorship, an important subject in its own right and no less than 23 of the committee's 56 recommendations were devoted to it. Of course, the control of films is unique in that it is the only medium in this country in which there is pre-censorship for both adults and children. The committee admitted that it had been, as it put it, totally unprepared for the sadistic material which some film makers are prepared to produce. In a uniquely powerful medium the committee concluded that it would be right, and probably more effective, to continue with censorship rather than to devise legal restrictions. If I may say so, I suspect that few, with the exception of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, would dissent from that conclusion.
I am not so sure about the committee's conclusion that local authorities should lose their licensing powers, and the functions of the British Board of Film Censors should be vested in a new statutory film examining board. It was with a sinking heart that when I reached paragraph 12.21 I recognised yet again the establishment of another Quango, but I confess that I brightened up when I realised that the committee's creation of a statutory film examining board is designed to carry on the functions which the British Board of Film Censors now discharges, and that such a board could be largely self-financing. Of course, the Government realise that the self-perpetuating oligarchy of the board—and it is none the worse for that—could hardly be given statutory powers. None the less, the abolition of local discretion on the showing of films and the termination of the board, to whose work the Williams Committee pays testimony, are steps not to be taken
246
lightly, and the creation of a new board raises questions about appointments, qualifications, appeals and immunities from prosecution, which will require careful consideration.
One recommendation which, I am sure, will be widely welcomed is the committee's proposal to control bogus film clubs, excepting only films not shown for private gain. There is a corollary, however, which may be more contentious; namely, the creation of a new category of films to be called Category"18R"which could be shown only in specially designated cinemas approved by local authorities.
At first sight it appears contradictory that a committee which expressly rejected both pre-censorship for publications and a licensing approach for shops selling restricted publications, can then turn round and endorse pre-censorship for films and licensing of restricted films. But I would not suggest that the committee is being inconsistent. I can appreciate the Williams Committee's judgment that a distinct, but not necessarily inconsistent, approach to films is needed. That is not to say, however, that the committee's recommendations are universally acceptable to your Lordships' House. I am not saying that I am leaving this debate with that impression.
I have not mentioned at all such questions as the right to initiate prosecutions, but my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, spoke with authority on that subject. I know that I have not mentioned the scale of penalties or the recommendation for the abolition of forfeiture proceedings. However, on behalf of the Government, I hope that I have made clear that a good deal of thought needs to be given to whether the balance which the committee recommends between prohibition and restriction is generally acceptable.
In making up our minds, let us recognise that it is easier to make general statements about the scope of the law on obscenity than to suggest how new laws might be framed. The debate of my noble friend Lord Nugent today provides a valuable start to the discussion which the report requires, and enables us to hear views on whether the report provides a

247
foundation for new laws in this area to be constructed.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, before the Minister sits down would he clarify the Government's attitude on the question of local authorities continuing to have responsibility for film censorship?—because that was the one part of the report of the Williams Committee which I welcomed, having experienced the problem in the past. Is the noble Lord suggesting that it is not a good thing that local authorities should be relieved of this terrible burden of having to decide whether or not films should be shown in their areas; of having to use, in fact, other laws and other powers in order to censor films in their areas? Does he not think that the suggestion that that should stop, and that there should be a straightforward board which carries out the censoring, would be a great improvement? I was a little disappointed in his comment on that particular point, because it sounded to me as though he was suggesting that things should stay as they are. I hope that is not so.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I appreciate that the powers of local authorities concerning film censorship raise certain concerns over anomalies and inconsistencies, of which the local authorities are very well aware. What I said to your Lordships in my speech was that the removal of those powers would be a step which should not be taken lightly. At this stage I do not wish to go further than that.
9.28 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to say a very few words in conclusion. First, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for his very helpful and informative reply to the debate and for the kind things he said about all of us. He very helpfully put the report into perspective. He said that there is a major issue for all of us to seek the right balance between what is to be prohibited and what is to be restricted. He took note of the many things that have been said during the debate, particularly about written material.
On films, I was very happy to hear what he said because it was very much
248
my own view. Despite what has just been said, I hope that the present system is looked at very carefully before it is dropped. There is a certain flexibility about it—a response to local opinion which I believe is a good thing.
To my mind, the major problem that emerges from listening to this interesting debate is whether one could have a two-tier system in conjunction with the restriction of premises for pictorial and written material, and whether it would still be possible to have a prohibited level of these aspects of pornography, which of course is similar to Lord Longford's report of nearly 10 years ago. That is what would appeal to me.
The analogy (which has been quoted several times) with the Wolfenden Report and prostitution is not really a good one. That was a perfectly adequte solution to that difficult problem. It goes on, but it does not trouble too much people who do not want to take part in it. The difficulty about pornography is that if hard pornography in pictorial and written form is to be legal and can be sold freely but in restricted shops, it is not like prostitution, where the customer can go in and be satisfied, and that is it. The customer comes out carrying the goods, which can then be circulated all over the place. This is what is frightening to my mind. I do not feel that I should like to see a free circulation of pictures of every kind of sadism and sexual perversion and bestiality. I really feel that this would be polluting the atmosphere of our country.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Macleod of Fuinary, thundering forth like a modern Savonarola about our permissive society. We have got a permissive society. Can we stop ourselves slipping down the slope? Well, not in one measure. On the other hand, there is of course validity in what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, so cogently said, that we cannot go back to 1960, that we are now in 1980; and one has to take some note of that.
I thank noble Lords and noble Baronesses who spoke so cogently, and so much to my way of feeling, for taking part in this interesting debate. The Williams Report is a valuable report, however little or however much one may agree with it. I think that this debate will

249
make a valuable supplement to it. Certainly I intend to read it carefully, to try to reach a judgment in my own mind on how I would advise my noble friend and the Home Secretary to proceed. I thank all noble Lords most warmly for helping me to make what I believe has been a useful contribution on this difficult subject. Not least I should thank the noble Lord, Lord Strauss—who is now no longer present—for his admirable maiden speech, which I enjoyed very much. I look forward to hearing him often again. With those warm words of thanks to all noble Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THEATRES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
9.34 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the Theatres (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th December 1979, be approved. This order consolidates Section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Intoxicating Liquor and Licensing Act (Northern Ireland) 1927 which provide for the licensing of premises for use as a theatre. It does not provide for the licensing of those premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor. It does not make any changes of substance in the existing law but brings it together in one order. I beg to move.
Moved. That the draft order laid before the House on 11th December, 1979 be approved.—(Lord Elton).
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for that brief explanation of the order and wish to indicate support for the proposed consolidating measure. As I understand it, the noble Lord has indicated that the order does not make any change in the scope of the existing law in Northern Ireland in respect of the type of premises for which a licence may be granted for use as a theatre. I take it therefore that the order does not place any additional legal or procedural impediment in the
250
way of those persons or organisations who may wish to encourage and promote the interests of the live theatre in Northern Ireland, and for those reasons the measure has my support.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am happy to tell the noble Lord that he is right; the order represents no change in the scope or effect of the law and introduces no new obstacles or constraints.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOSPITAL SERVICES IN OMAGH
9.36 p.m.
The Duke of ABERCORN The Duke of ABERCORN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the future of hospital services in the Omagh district. The noble Duke said: My Lords, in asking the Government to make a statement on the future of hospital services in the Omagh area, it is most reassuring to know that one has the entire support of the local community, since there is deep concern for the future health services in this area as a result of a recently published working party report for the Western Area of Northern Ireland. This concern is not based on sentiment or indeed on civic pride but on the future welfare of the patients, for in any remote rural area of high unemployment, health facilities are rightly regarded as of paramount importance and top priority. These factors are even more crucial and pertinent in the case of the Omagh area, since this catchment area is not only the most westerly part of the United Kingdom, where the population is subjected to a much lower standard of living than in most comparable parts of Great Britain, but it is also exposed to all the pressures and tensions of civil violence.
Therefore the current Omagh hospital services provided by a dedicted, hardworking and highly skilled medical and nursing staff represent an added dimension of importance. It is right and totally proper that the entire community should express its grave concern and anxiety that its one and most important plank of comparable service with other parts of the United Kingdom—its health services—should now be plunged into doubt and uncertainty. To sever this one focal

251
point of psychological and actual stability, the Tyrone County Hospital by downgrading its services as recommended in a recent report to the Western Health and Social Services Board, is rightly regarded as something which would result not only in a reduction of a current standard of patient care and in loss of employment but also in inconvenience and stress to patients, visitors and relations.
At this stage I should inform the House of the main recommendations of the working party for the future of the two Omagh hospitals. It has been recommended that the Tyrone County Hospital, which has been the main acute hospital for County Tyrone for over 100 years, should be downgraded to a community hospital and that, once established as such, the largely geriatric Omagh General Hospital should be closed. As a result, all patients requiring admission for skilled attention, including of course those who are chronically or seriously sick, would be subjected to a tortuous and bumpy journey by ambulance to an expanded Erne Hospital which would provide all necessary acute hospital facilities. Omagh is separated from Enniskillen by a 28-mile drive on a substandard and totally inadequate road. The working party recognised the current hazardous conditions of this road, and I quote from their detailed report as follows:
"The Board of the Department of Health and Social Services should enter into discussion with the appropriate road authority with a view to upgrading the main road between Omagh and Enniskillen as a matter of priority".
This recommendation (Chapter 6) of the working party is an essential prerequisite of their strategic plan. However, the cost of upgrading the road to single carriageway without hard shoulders would be in excess of £10 million at current costs. Therefore the probability of this happening is minimal, in view of the Government's current public expenditure policy. Surely implementation of the working party proposals and the improbability of the Omagh-Enniskillen road being upgraded would increase danger to life in emergency cases.
I am assured that there is already in existence close co-operation among consultants at the Tyrone County Hospital and the Erne Hospital, which must result in providing additional medical benefits to
252
the community. However, this welcome functional integration in no way necessitates structural centralisation. It must be accepted that the recommendation to merge the acute services of the Tyrone County Hospital and the Erne Hospital would simply be merging two small, acute hospitals into a larger hospital at very considerable cost and distress to the Omagh district community.
The Western Health Board, and indeed the Government, must decide whether the proposed hospital, serving as it would a population of approximately 120,000 people, would in fact permit sub-specialisation to any significant extent. In other words, a very considerable capital expenditure could he incurred without a significantly improved service for patients. Here I should like to quote a recent statement on centralisation by the Health Minister, Dr. Vaughan, who is reported to be an advocate for the retention of small hospitals:
"At the end of the day you haven't improved the service for patients at all—just moved them around".
A retired and distinguished Erne hospital surgeon underlined this prospect in a recent letter to the local paper, The Impartial Reporter. He said:
" The report shows that the present overall total of beds in both hospitals is 441, whereas the proposed complement of the single acute Erne hospital would be 268. These figures are not necessarily comparable due to probable redistribution, but general surgical bed totals fall from 138 to 85; general medical from 117 to 73; and obstetrical from 62 to 51.
" I find these figures difficult to credit and assume that only a hyper-rapid turnover of cases could cope with this reduction of beds. The result, I imagine, will be a constant stream of ambulances between Enniskillen and Omagh carrying only post-operative cases and others for convalesence.
" Can this be fair to surgeon or patient? ".
I can assure this House, and indeed the people of Fermanagh, that I want to see an improved Erne Hospital working in collaboration with an improved Tyrone County Hospital to provide an extensive, but not remote, service to the community. The desire of the patient to have hospital treatment provided locally and within easy access of his home is not disputed by the working party. However, the report maintains that this service is no longer possible. In particular, a member of the working party is quoted as having said at a public meeting:
" The main problem at Omagh is to sell jobs which are not attractive to the medical profession ".
Unfortunately, the report failed to mention the strong medical opinion that patients can be better taken care of and respond and recover more swiftly in their own environment. In fact, regular visits from family and friends are regarded as an essential ingredient in the recovery process. Of course, highly specialised treatment can he provided only centrally. However, in the case of Tyrone County Hospital, out of every 100 patients referred to this hospital 95 can be dealt with there perfectly adequately.
Again, we are assured that the argument for down-grading the county hospital is based on consultant staff shortage, and not on financial consideration. It is most doubtful that the recommendations, if agreed upon, can be implemented for at least 10 years, since money has already been allocated for all capital expenditure for that duration. It is common knowledge that there are more medical graduates now in the pipeline than ever before. In fact, I believe there is even talk of future medical unemployment, since opportunities for emigration have been mainly closed due to the attitude of the Canadian, Australian and American Governments. Therefore, can anyone realistically imagine or envisage a continuing shortage of consultants and doctors in the future? Again, there is a national nursing recruitment problem, but this is certainly not applicable, my Lords, to Tyrone County Hospital, since our district's tradition of nursing recruitment cannot be equalled in the Western Area of Northern Ireland. Is it therefore wise to downgrade a good hospital, situated right in the middle of its catchment area and with a plentiful supply of excellent, keen, young nurses?
No one can deny that there have been problems in maintaining acute hospital services in the Western Board Area, mainly as a result of consultant medical staff shortages. However, these staffing problems have not been unique to Tyrone County Hospital since many hospitals have experienced similar difficulties over the past decade. I welcome this report for highlighting this problem, for it should encourage a radical rethink of the current senior staff level of requirements, particularly since there are now so many doctors in training, which should surely not only ease the shortage problem but
254
also ease the pressures on consultants' I workload. If the number of consultants in these small hospitals were increased from 2 to 3 in the major specialities, surely the dual objectives and purpose of reducing the"on-call"commitment and the opportunities for consultants to develop more effectively their special interest would in fact be achieved. I am assured that this is not a new concept since it is widely applied in most areas of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, if these opportunities were offered at the Tyrone County Hospital then the centralisation argument—the main argument put forward by the working party—would become irrelevant, if not redundant.
It is most unfortunate that there is only a passing reference to the Tyrone and Fermanagh Psychiatric Hospital, which provides facilities for 900 patients with a nursing staff of 150, since the needs of a large psychiatric hospital for the services of an actute general hospital are totally relevant and recognised as such by the Royal Commission Report which states:
"It is evident now that both mental hospitals and District General Hospitals are essential to a well-balanced psychiatric clinic".
Yet the implementation of this report will result in a fragmentation of this service since the report totally fails to highlight the problem of moving psychiatric patients to Londonderry or the Erne Hospital for in-patient and out-patient care and the major implication for the ambulance service. I am informed that if the Tyrone County Hospital was to be down-graded, then increase in ambulance costs per annum would be £200,000 and in five years this cost would increase to half a million pounds per annum.
If the report is implemented, would the Tyrone and Fermanagh Hospital also be moved to Enniskillen? If so, is there an estimate available for the cost likely to be incurred? If not, what alternative arrangements for the patients' care will be provided in Omagh? Surely, there should have been more emphasis in the report on the profound effects of converting the Tyrone County Hospital to a community hospital on the excellent health centre in Omagh; for all the Omagh general practitioners are alarmed and concerned at losing consultant facilities for their patients. In conclusion, for the reasons already expressed, the Omagh community is appalled and alarmed at the thought of

255
their acute hospital becoming a community hospital—in particular as the Royal Commision has come out strongly against the concept of community hospitals. I quote:
"There is still dispute about the best use of many small hospitals. It is clear that the community hospital approach is not acceptable—and we would deplore too rigid an approach".
The Omagh community are rightly apprehensive that a bureaucratic, rigid approach will be applied to this complex but, above all else, human problem, which must be approached with an attitude of flexibility which is totally mindful of local opinion and requirements.
9.54 p.m.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, I shall speak only briefly; first, because the hour is late, and, secondly, because I am virtually uninfected by any knowledge about this problem. But if your Lordships permit, I should like to broaden the discussion a little because I think that many of the points the noble Duke has made are relevant not only to other parts of Northern Ireland but to other parts of the United Kingdom as well. I take many of the points that the noble Duke has made, but, having consulted my medical friends, I think that he would probably agree with me that it seems that we are moving further into the position whereby there will have to be two sorts of hospital: first, the ordinary hospital where you go if you have a broken wrist or an ingrowing toenail or something like that, and, secondly, the major hospital which has to be equipped with highly sophisticated and extremely expensive equipment. It also has to have a team of technicians who are able to operate that equipment. The results of the treatment that has been developed in recent years by that equipment is such that it is obviously necessary, but it cannot be put into every hospital.
At the same time, the noble Duke is quite right in drawing attention to considerations of accessibility and remoteness—and to that I would add movement of population as well; and the geographical considerations have to be thought about. Indeed, one of my medical friends said that the vast increases in population in the North Down area would justify a new hospital there; and perhaps indeed it
256
would, with hindsight, have been better to have spent some of the money that has been spent in expanding the city hospital in Belfast, where the population is declining, on a new hospital in North Down. All these considerations have to be taken into account.
I have been reading, are labouring to read, the consultative paper on the structure and management of health and personal social services in Northern Ireland. I would not presume to make any strong recommendations to the noble Lord about this because, quite honestly, I do not understand it; I have never sat on any of the boards. However, I am told that perhaps the areas are too big, whereas some of the districts could be amalgamated; and also that there might be an argument in favour of having advisory committees.
One thing I can speak about from personal experience is geriatrics. From time to time my constituents—and, unlike many noble Lords, I have constituents—ask me to try to get geriatrics placed into suitable care. It is a terrible job to try to do that. The advice that I have received is that we are now beginning to feel the effects of antibiotics and the highly sophisticated technical equipment to which I referred earlier. It used to be that if one contracted pneumonia—not only in one's seventies but in one's fifties—it was a fair chance that that would be fatal. That is no longer the case.
The percentage of elderly people in Northern Ireland who may or may not be geriatric but are at risk of being in need of treatment now, according to a recent report, is 13 per cent. As far as I can gather there is every reason to believe that that percentage will increase. Not just in Northern Ireland but nationwide the problem of placing geriatrics is going to become greater and greater. I am told that it is in the interests of the patients and of the staff that they should not be separated into different geriatric hospitals but that there should be geriatric wards in the general hospitals, otherwise staff who are going to be able to give the acute treatment that is desirable cannot be attracted. If geriatrics are on their own staff cannot be attracted and therefore the patients do not get the correct treatment.

257
Finally, may I make a quick reference to private medicine. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett—who was subjected to some unjustified criticism for his rationalisation proposals of the hospital service in Northern Ireland—possibly does not agree with private medical treatment. My own view is that even if you consider it to be a waste of money to have private treatment, at least anyone has freedom of choice. If they want private treatment and are prepared to spend the money, they should be entitled to it.
In this instance, in Northern Ireland an independent clinic has been started. It has been alleged by the trade unions—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Blease, will want to comment on this
258
when he speaks—that this will place a burden on the National Health Service. I have not a bad word to say for the National Health Service—they have stood me in good stead in my time—but I honestly think that rather than placing a burden on the National Health Service, the provision of additional beds will take pressure off them and make National Health Service beds available for those who cannot afford private treatment and who desperately need those beds. I would therefore urge Her Majesty's Government not to accept any doctrinaire attitudes towards this matter, but rather to say, when private enterprise is prepared to take an initiative and provide private medical treatment, that it should be encouraged rather than discouraged.
10.1 p.m.
Earl ERNE: My Lords, I shall also be brief. The hour is indeed late. I am deeply grateful to my noble friend and kinsman the Duke of Abercorn for initiating this debate and I should like to congratulate him on his excellent speech.
Unlike so many others in the Western area, I share his concern over the future of the Health Service in Omagh. My personal interest is in the neighbouring district of Fermanagh, and especially in the Erne Hospital, which is similar in many respects to the Tyrone County Hospital. It is much the same size and serves virtually the same number of people. It is held in equally high esteem by the local community. These two hospitals cover the scattered rural areas of West Ulster. However, great difficulties are experienced by both patients and visitors in reaching them owing to the very nature of their geographical situation, inadequate roads and poor public transport.
The Western Health and Social Services Board is at present studying a report which recommends rationalising these two hospitals by building up one acute unit to overcome the recurring staffing problems, which seem to have become worse in recent years. This board will have the unenviable task of deciding whether in fact this is justified or whether the alternative view should be accepted—that is, the increasing flow of doctors from our medical schools will enable small hospitals to remain viable in the future.
We in Fermanagh are most anxious for an early decision on this matter, not only to relieve the concern expressed by my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn but also because the present uncertainty is holding up a scheme of the Erne Hospital, which is causing considerable concern to me and my committee: that is, the replacement of Ward 7, which is long overdue.
This is where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, as it concerns geriatrics. Ward 7 is a geriatric ward, situated in a temporary building where the staff are doing a magnificent job under the most appalling and difficult conditions.
260
I do not wish to influence the board in any way in its deliberations, and while I wholeheartedly support what could be described as a"cry of mercy"by the Duke of Abercorn, on behalf of the hospital services in Omagh, I feel it my duty to emphasise the isolated position of Fermanagh, which is indeed the most western county in the United Kingdom, and to remind the board of the very considerable distances that exist between some of the outlying villages, such as Rosslea, Beleek and Derrylin, from the Erne Hospital in Enniskillen. It is for this reason that I feel it is of paramount importance that the full range of acute services are maintained in the Erne Hospital for the people of County Fermanagh, for which it was originally designed.
10.6 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, by leave of the House, I should first like to apologise for not having put my name down to speak. I went to the Whips' Office and discussed the number of speakers, but forgot to tell them that I was going to put my name down. Therefore, I apologise and I am grateful to the House for allowing me to speak.
I should like to start by welcoming this Question of my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn. I also welcome very much his noble kinsman, my noble friend Lord Erne. I was a little afraid when I saw that the two were speaking, one for Omagh and one for Fermanagh, that this new team which we have from the North of Ireland would end up fighting each other. But having heard the speeches, I am glad that they are both saying basically the same thing. I shall be saying the same thing and endeavouring not to repeat myself, because of this late and un-Christian hour.
This debate is taking place in this House now because we do not have a devolved Government to discuss these matters, which are not of great importance to the United Kingdom as a whole, but to us and to those in our area they are of great importance. So I am grateful to your Lordships' House for bearing with us even at this hour in discussing what to

261
us, and to the people around us, is a very important matter. I live on the border between Fermanagh and Tyrone and I have benefited from Tyrone Hospital and from the Erne Hospital, so perhaps I can hold the balance. But I am afraid that I am not that kind of person, because I always find that I come down on one side or another.
In this case, I say to the Government: whatever the outcome of the question about Tyrone, Fermanagh must remain an acute hospital. I shall go on to say that I believe that Omagh should also be an acute hospital. But, whatever the outcome, the case for Fermanagh remaining an acute hospital is absolutely overwhelming. I say that, first, because of its geographical position. We have one-third of the total land frontier of the United Kingdom and we are a very remote area divided by a very large lough. We have a very modern building, designed specifically for the purpose of serving the population of County Fermanagh. It is tailor-made for that purpose. The morale of its staff is absolutely excellent. Any solution which deprived Fermanagh of an acute hospital would be a real hardship to the people of Fermanagh, to the patients and to the visitors who make the recovery of the patients that much quicker. What we want is speed of turnround in the beds, with patients recovering quickly and getting out of hospital.
Because of the late hour I want only to say how much I endorse what my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn said in his speech, which people should read very carefully, about the problems of recruitment and treatment. The problem that has arisen is almost entirely due to recruitment and the retention of specialist staff in these smaller hospitals, and it is a very difficult one.
Immediately after the war, we in both Fermanagh and Tyrone benefited from the fact that the fishing was extremely good. We therefore got people who came out of the Forces and who were dedicated fishermen as well as being dedicated medical staff. For years we have had the most marvellous specialist staff, because
262
those people were interested in a way of life as well as in serving their calling. But a great issue has been raised by this report. The capital cost for enlarging the Erne Hospital is £5·8 million and it will cost £10 million to make the road viable. The view of the report is that it would be unthinkable for the Erne Hospital to be enlarged unless the road was improved; so we are speaking about £16 million which is not available and which cannot be made available for some time.
It has been recognised, in the case of agriculture, that there are certain areas of this country—and Northern Ireland is one of them—where there should be a remoteness grant. When one takes into account the interest on the amount of money we are speaking about, is there not a case for what I would describe as a "remoteness salary" in order to sweeten the life of the specialists and induce them to stay in County Fermanagh for a longer period, thus enabling both hospitals to be acute hospitals?
The argument which the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, raised—but which at this late hour we cannot go into—is how specialist should an acute hospital be and how great should the specialist services in the great central hospitals be? That is a matter of judgment and I do not want to go into it. However, despite the most marvellous equipment at hospitals in Londonderry and Craigavan for the people of Fermanagh and Tyrone—I know that I am speaking with certainty about this—when it comes to their wanting real specialist services they think of Belfast. This has been emphasised more and more because of what are called "The Troubles". Belfast now has a specialisation that is unrivalled in the medical world anywhere in the Free World, and this has to be recognised.
I believe that the whole strategy of our hospital development must be looked at again. This fact must be taken into consideration, for it will be difficult to get it out of the minds of the population. One will be unable to re-educate the population under a very long period.
Therefore, I say two things. The level of acute hospitals must be maintained in Fermanagh and Tyrone, and if necessary we must innovate. We must not say,

263
"Because we can't keep specialist staff, that's that. We must therefore spend £10 million on the road and £5.8 million on the building." We have got to find a method of paying sufficient specialist staff to enable us to have acute hospitals in those particular places. Secondly, we must look at the question of the tremendous specialisation in Belfast to which inevitably people are going to be drawn. Once more I should like to thank the House for its courtesy in allowing me to speak and to thank the noble Duke for raising this subject.
10.13 p.m.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I should like to compliment the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, on the reasoned and very comprehensive way in which he presented the various issues concerning the future of the health services in the Omagh district. The noble Duke has rightly and fairly drawn the attention of this House to the great wave of public concern and anxiety about the Western Health and Social Services Board's working party proposals to downgrade the Tyrone County Hospital and to close the Omagh General Hospital.
During the past few months these issues have given rise to some of the largest public demonstrations and meetings ever held in the Omagh area. In August, an estimated 6,000 took part in a protest march, and on 27th November there was a capacity crowd of 350 in the Omagh town hall at a meeting arranged by the Omagh Trades Council. There is total opposition to this part of the working party's report on A Strategic Plan for the Hospital Services. In the current Northern Ireland scene, this total opposition is unique. All the elected members of the Omagh District Council, representing six political parties—Left, Right and centre—signed a document on 13th December last expressing determination to oppose the recommendations in so far as these relate to the Omagh district. This opposition is based on a careful study of the working party report, in addition to the outcome of a specially commissioned independent report prepared by a group comprised of elected representatives and the representatives of trade unions, community and consumer interests, as well as medical and relevant professional specialists.
264
It is claimed that the recommendations of the Western Health Board's working party report, if implemented, will have very serious consequences for the people of that area and the noble Duke has already mentioned a few of those particular consequences. I may be repeating what he has said but I will be brief. The consequences include a significant reduction in the standards of patient medical care; serious avoidable inconvenience and distress to patients, relatives and visitors; a vital loss to the area of persons with important professional and specialist skills and their overall contribution to the life of the community; a critical loss of jobs in an area of chronic high unemployment and a considerable untoward effect on the community morale and the industrial potential of the Omagh district by the downgrading and the closure of valuable and vital public services.
However, it is my own opinion that the issues are much deeper than matters concerning the number of available hospital beds and the status of a particular hospital within the health and social services board management hierarchy. I will resist the very tempting bait offered by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, to go further on other matters but I should like to say that under the Labour Administration there was in Northern Ireland a progressive hospital programme based on a foundation of community care and an environmental approach to hospital and social services.
The good health of a community depends on much more than hospital beds and highly sophisticated medical technology, important as those are. There is a need for a development and expansion of local health centres. There is a need for improvements in preventive medicine and in health care through the provision of health visitors, social workers, home helps and other suitably trained ancillary health and social service personnel. Any curtailment of these services and the health provisions adds burdens to hospitals of whatever kind and specialisation. The need in Omagh is for more and better health and social services, not for curtailment, cuts or closures. Therefore concerning the report and the issues involved I hope that the further consultation promised on 13th December by the Minister of State, Mr. Michael Alison, will take place before decisions are made.

265
I support the noble Duke's approach to the question concerning the Omagh services and of course I shall await with interest the Minister's reply.
10.13 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn for raising in this House tonight the question of the future of hospital services in the Omagh district. These services are at present provided from the Tyrone County Hospital and the Omagh General Hospital, both of which are located in the town of Omagh. I welcome the opportunity to explain on behalf of the Minister responsible the Government's position in this matter and to clear up any misconceptions which may have arisen. These matters are, as my noble friend Lord Brookeborough rightly said, of very great local importance and this is recognised by Her Majesty's Government, who are not entirely taken up with matters of great estate for the whole of the United Kingdom.
First of all, I should like to say as firmly and clearly as possible that no decisions have been taken by the Western Health and Social Services Board or by my honourable friend the Member for Barkston Ash, who is the Minister responsible, on the future role of Tyrone County Hospital or on the closure of the Omagh General Hospital. The noble Duke referred at several points in his speech to a working party report which has also attracted considerable attention from other speakers, notably the noble Lord, Lord Blease. This working party investigated the future of the health services in the Western Area. While I am grateful to noble Lords for their penetrating critique of that report, I should like to make it quite clear that the recommendations of this working party carry the authority neither of the Western Board nor of the Government.
I think it would be helpful to inform noble Lords of the administrative structure of the health and social services in Northern Ireland and of the origins of the working party referred to by my noble friend. The Western Health and Social Services Board, in common with the other three boards which together serve the province, is the body charged with the delivery and planning not only of health but also of
266
personal social services in its area. It is answerable directly to the Department of Health and Social Services of the Government of Northern Ireland. There is no intervening regional tier as there is in England.
As part of its planning responsibilities, the Western Board established in 1976 a working party charged with making recommendations to the board on the best future pattern of hospital services for its area. Noble Lords should note that the working party was not a departmental working party and it did not report to my honourable friend's department. The noble Duke has recognised the medical staffing problems which have beset not only the Tyrone County Hospital in Omagh but other hospitals in the area from time to time. Concern at these continuing problems was one of the reasons for the establishment of the working party. The working party spent almost three years examining in detail the present hospital service in the Western Area, and I think it is worth noting that it did not go about its work behind closed doors, but consulted widely at all stages.
The working party made its report to the Western Board in June 1979, and the board has since undertaken wide-ranging consultations with interested organisations and individuals. It has in fact made a very considerable and time-consuming effort to reach as many people as possible. I am sure the board would like to complete its consultations as soon as possible and thus remove speculation on the future of individual hospitals; and this will I think be particularly of interest to the noble Earl, Lord Erne, who pointed out with specialist knowledge the difficulties in which uncertainty as to the future places planning bodies when it comes to the administration of hospitals. I am told that none the less the board has given an undertaking to Omagh District Council that it will not reach recommendations until that council has completed a report specially commissioned by it to counter the working party's report. This, I think, underlines the importance the Western Board attaches to the need to give every opportunity to local bodies to comment. This is entirely in line with the Government's view that local communities should be involved as far as possible in determining the future of their own local hospitals.

267
I should add that the report itself, and a popular summary thereof, are freely available to the public, and indeed to noble Lords, from the Western Area Health and Social Services Board. Obviously noble Lords who have spoken in this debate will have copies, but I believe that some may read this debate and interest will be lit in their breasts also. I am sure that in the circumstances which I have explained noble Lords will understand that it would be quite wrong for me to comment on the findings or recommendations of the working party's report, including those recommendations concerning hospital services in the Omagh district, until the Western Board has completed its consultations and made recommendations to my honourable friend. However, I want to emphasise that my honourable friend will not take any final decisions on the board's recommendations until he has also consulted local interests on his own behalf. Indeed, he stated this publicly himself when he visited Omagh and met members of the district council and senior hospital staff on 13th December last.
I do feel, however, that I can comment on some of the more general points raised by noble Lords during the course of this debate, and that I can do so without prejudging the decisions which have yet to be made. Firstly, I should like to underline my noble friend's comment on the close co-operation between the medical staff of the Erne Hospital in Enniskillen and the Tyrone County Hospital in Omagh, and to stress the need for such co-operation. Indeed, there has been a meeting between the two medical staffs within the last ten days. I also endorse entirely what he has said about the dedication of medical staff at these hospitals over the years; they have continued to provide a service, sometimes at the cost of great personal sacrifice and in the face of chronic staff shortage. It is therefore essential that these scarce skills are pooled to ensure the maintenance of stable services. Indeed, I note that the working party urged this as an essential item until such time as its recommendations could he implemented.
Even if the report's recommendations are accepted, I can say that there will not be any appreciable change in the role of Tyrone County Hospital for some years
268
to come since Northern Ireland's Capital Development Programme for Health and Social Services, as has been rightly pointed out, is fully committed for at least the next three or four years, and the development of the Erne Hospital at Enniskillen, suggested in the report, would have to be considered in relation to other priorities throughout the whole Province. For that reason also it is essential that the medical staff of the two hospitals should continue to work closely together.
I can also say that the Government and the Western Board will continue to give the fullest support to the staff of these hospitals in their efforts to maintain services to the public. At Tyrone County Hospital, for example, money in the region of half a million pounds has been spent since 1972 on improving facilities, and schemes currently in the pipeline for the hospital will cost at least a further £200,000. This bears witness to the Government's awareness of the need to maintain Tyrone County Hospital in the shorter and medium term, regardless of any decisions on its long-term role.
My noble friend also raised in his speech the role of the Tyrone and Fermanagh Hospital which is a large psychiatric hospital located outside Omagh. The future of that hospital was not dealt with by the working party report, but I can state quite clearly now on behalf of my honourable friend that there never was a question of moving it elsewhere. Its future in its present location is not in question although, of course, as my noble friend pointed out, the fact that an acute hospital is next to it, or is not next to it, is a matter which will concern him and those examining the report when it is finally considered by my honourable friend.
Whether the Erne Hospital will be expanded as proposed in the working party's report remains to be decided by the Western Board, and ultimately by the Minister responsible. However, I should like to make it absolutely clear that, regardless of these decisions, the Erne Hospital, like the Tyrone County Hospital, will continue to provide acute services for the people of Enniskillen district for some years to come.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, widened the debate beyond the limits set

269
by the Question; indeed, he loosed a hare and invited the noble Lord, Lord Blease, to hunt it, which the noble Lord, Lord Blease, prudently and most welcomely refused to do. So I shall also not be hallooed away on to a fresh scent. He also suggested that it would have been wiser perhaps to spend money on a new hospital in North Down than elsewhere. I am not certain whether he is aware of this, but a team from the Eastern Board is now reviewing hospital services in the Eastern area and I do not doubt that they will be taking into account the population pressure to which the noble Lord referred.
A number of noble Lords rightly referred to the staffing problem, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, in particular pinpointed that as central to the problem and wondered whether a remoteness allowance might, to use his words, sweeten life for those grades of staff who are in short supply. Attractive though the idea may seem, I regret to tell him that that scheme has been tried elsewhere in the United Kingdom without success, and for that reason it has not been tried in the Province.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, spoke with concentrated feeling of the concentrated public feeling existing in the Omagh district. Having correctly voiced his understanding and sympathy with that, he then went on to point out that one cannot look at one area of provision in isolation, and it is how one deploys the whole of one's resources that determines how one is free to deploy them in a particular area. He ended with a plea that my honourable friend in another place would honour his commitment to enter into full consultations before arriving at a conclusion. I have already assured him that that commitment will be
270
honoured, and I repeat that undertaking now on behalf of my honourable friend.
Finally, I should like to assure the noble Duke and other noble Lords that the detailed points which have been made during this debate will be brought to the attention of the Western Board, and I am confident that the board will take them fully into account when arriving at its recommendations. They will also be carefully considered by my honourable friend before he comes to a final decision. He will take account of the board's recommendation, but, as I have already said, he will undertake further consultation on his own behalf with local interests before taking final decisions.
As noble Lords know, it is this Government's view that small hospitals should continue to play an important role in providing services to local communities wherever sensible and practicable. The noble Duke and the people of Omagh can be assured that the continuing problem of maintaining high-quality hospital services not only for the Omagh district but, indeed, for the Western Area as a whole, is being approached by the board, and in due course will be approached by the Minister responsible, in the most sympathetic and flexible way possible.

BAIL ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before eleven o'clock.