Sitting of 5 June 1980

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL (By Order)
STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL (By Order)
Orders for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time upon Tuesday 10 June.
TYNE AND WEAR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 June.
SOUTH YORKSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read. To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 10 June.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 June.
LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
Read a Second time and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Stockport Magistrates' Court
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with accommodation for the magistrates' court in Stockport.
    The Minister of State, Home Office, (Mr. Leon Brittan): Responsibility for magistrates' courts accommodation rests initially with the magistrates' courts committee and the providing authority, Stockport metropolitan district council, which was given approval in 1978 to resume forward planning on a scheme to provide a replacement courthouse.
    Mr. Bennett: Will not the Minister agree that, in the end, it is for his Department to give approval for a replacement courthouse? Does not he agree that the present courthouse in Stockport is one of the most squalid in the land?
    Mr. Brittan: I agree that the present courthouse in Stockport needs replacing. It is high on the list of projects. It has, unfortunately, not been possible to fix a date for commencement of work, but the fact that approval has been given to resume forward planning indicates that the Home Office shares the view expresed by the hon. Gentleman about the need for its replacement.

    Police Recruitment
    Mr. Rentonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the level of recruitment into the police force.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): At 31 March 1980, the strength of the police service in England and Wales was 114,543, an increase of 4,234 during 1979 plus 1,234 so far this year. Many forces are close to establishment and this is a cause for satisfaction, but there are still substantial deficiencies in some areas, especially London.
    Mr. Renton: Bearing in mind the comments made at the conference in Torquay yesterday, does my right hon. Friend think that hostile comment in the media

    1653
    is having, or is likely to have, an adverse effect on police recruitment? What does my right hon. Friend think of Mr. William Deedes' suggestion that a Select Committee should be urgently called to reexamine the Police Act and changes in police duties?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Adverse comment is clearly not having an adverse effect on recruitment. The police should be ready at all times to listen to, and to respond to, constructive criticism. At the same time, I do not think that there is any reason for the police to be subjected, as they sometimes are, to unfair criticism.
    I noted what Mr. William Deedes said. I would get into great trouble in certain quarters if, having established a Select Committee on Home Affairs in this House, I was to start saying that what it was doing could somehow be done by someone else.
    Mr. Tilley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the strain that recent recruiting is placing upon training facilities, especially in the Metropolitan Police area? Hendon college, which I visited recently, is vastly overstretched. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that more resources are needed? Is he aware that many London Members feel that the present level of training should be maintained, and possibly increased, particularly in areas such as community relations?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support which I very much welcome. I agree with him. I wish to expand training, particularly for the Metropolitan Police. I am very grateful to some other forces in the country which have spare training capacity and have been able to share it. That is the best way to proceed.
    Mr. Eggar: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his assurance concerning the absence of training facilities in the Metropolitan area, which is very worrying to London Members? Will he give the House an assurance that, when trained policemen are available, they will be allocated to outer London in the same ratio as to inner London, since there is a danger of their being allocated to the high risk areas which are generally regarded as being in inner London?
    Mr. Whitelaw: This must be a matter under the control of the Metropolitan
    1654
    Police Commissioner who will, no doubt, take note of what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Did the Home Secretary find the forecast of the chief constable of Sussex at this conference a little worrying, since it seems that in years to come recruitment will be not of policemen but of soldiers? Is not that a decision which ought to be taken by democratically-elected people rather than by chief constables?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Such decisions will be taken by democratically-elected people. I think that all the chief constables accept that our policing in this country, whether in respect of terrorist incidents or disorder, has been seen over recent years to be based on our traditional community policing methods. As long as I have any responsibility in the matter it will remain that way.

    Juvenile Crime and Vandalism
    Mr. Cadburyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider further measures to reverse the continuing rise in the level of juvenile crime and vandalism.
    Mr. Brittan: By strengthening the police and improving the sanctions available to the courts we are already seeking more effective ways of preventing and deterring juvenile crime. We are also considering what legislative changes are necessary further to strengthen the powers of the courts in dealing with juveniles. But any reduction in juvenile offending must greatly depend on the continuing efforts of parents, teachers, and others concerned with children in the community.
    Mr. Cadbury: I am grateful for that answer. Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in my constituency and in many urban areas the level of vandalism is approaching intolerable proportions? It seems that in many cases parents are reluctant to assume responsibility for the behaviour of their children. Will my hon. and learned Friend consider giving the courts extra powers to impose fines on the parents of children who misbehave?
    Mr. Brittan: I welcome the opportunity to describe the extensive powers that the courts already have. Under the 1933 Act the court must, when awarding fines, compensation or costs against a child, make the parents or guardians pay

    1655
    unless the parent or guardian cannot be found or the court is satisfied that he or she has not conduced to the commission of the offence by neglecting to exercise due care of the child or young person. In the case of older offenders between 14 and 17. the court has the discretion to exercise that power. I hope that the full extent of those powers will be appreciated. They have an important part to play in dealing with the problem that my hon. Friend identified.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Has the Minister studied the various reports of Dr. Belson about the connection between violence on television and juvenile crime and vandalism? Will the Home Office start to take this connection seriously and study what should be done about it?
    Mr. Brittan: The relationship between violence on television and what happens in the world at large is important, but I am not entirely clear what consequences for action the hon. Gentleman suggests should flow from that.
    Mr. Farr: In view of the level of juvenile vandalism involving air weapons, will my hon. and learned Friend look into the possibility of pioneering a national scheme of instruction whereby young persons who want to use weapons of that sort can be taught to do so safely, legally and properly?
    Mr. Brittan: I am glad to hear that idea. I should like to consider it. Perhaps I may write to my hon. Friend to see whether he has a further concept of how it might be worked out.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: What has happened since the general election? Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman recall all the promises that a Conservative victory would bring down the crime rate in this respect, since when they have gone up and up? What will the Government do about that?
    Mr. Brittan: I do not accept that the figures bear the interpretation that the right hon. Gentleman has placed upon them. I concentrated on the question of the powers of the courts, because that is a practical step that can be and has been taken. The Government have already introduced 15 new attendance centres. They have introduced changed regimes in two detention centres. We are at the advanced stage of preparing proposals to put to the
    1656
    country relating to young offenders more generally. If we add to that the action that has been taken over the police it can be seen that we have been following a policy of implementing what we promised during the general election.

    Parliamentary Candidacy (Age)
    5. Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has reached a decision about reducing the age at which people can stand for election to this House.
    Mr. Brittan: No, Sir. As soon as we have, we shall inform the House.
    Mr. Knox: Does not my hon. and learned Friend think that it is anomalous that people can vote at 18 but cannot stand for election to this House until they are 21? Does he realise that Mr. Speaker's Conference in the 1970–74 parliament recommended that the age at which people could stand for election should be reduced to 18? Is it not time that something was done about that?
    Mr. Brittan: There is considerable force in what my hon. Friend said. Whether the political parties would wish to choose candidates aged between 18 and 21 is another matter; whether the electorate would wish to elect them is yet another. It is a little difficult to understand whether there should be a legal barrier to them however.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that there is considerable difficulty, at the age of 24, in persuading a selection committee that one has reached a suitable age for election? Is he further aware that there is not the pressure from the people of this country that Members of Parliament should be of a younger age than those who always represent certain constituencies?
    Mr. Brittan: I have not found the pressure overwhelming, but the question whether there should be a legal barrier deserves serious consideration.

    Riot Control
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will advise chief constables to extend training in riot control to all officers, and to increase Special Patrol Group manpower and supplies of

    1657
    equipment for the control of riots and terrorist attacks.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I would prefer to await the outcome of the review of arrangements for handling spontaneous disorder which I announced on 28 April.
    Mr. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Government Benches very much support the Special Patrol Group? Does he agree that its work is vital for the maintenance of law and order? Does he further consider that it is significant that the vast majority of those bodies or individuals who seek to criticise the SPG also seek to undermine the institutions of our country, and that many of them, including the Anti-Nazi League, have been taken over by the Socialist Workers Party.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The only point I have ever made is that I believe that the SPG to be a most important mobile reserve of police which has done a considerable job in the Metropolitan area. I strongly support its continuance. Some changes have been made recently by the Commissioner. I think that they are right. The basic work of the SPG is of enormous importance.
    Mr. Bidwell: Does the Home Secretary agree that it is misleading to put a question in this bracket, so as to equate the policing requirement for dealing with civil disturbances arising from racist Fascist activity with that for dealing with terrorism and similar problems? Does he agree, that while the inquest on Blair Peach did not pinpoint any one officer as being guilty, it gave rise to questions about behaviour and about weaponry kept in police lockers? Will the right hon. Gentleman keep the use of the Special Patrol Group on occasions of civil disorder of that kind under continuous review? Does he agree that there is a certain contradiction in what he said earlier——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has taken long enough for two supplementary questions.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I think that it would be wrong to make comments which could be used later in judicial proceedings which may yet well arise as a result of that incident. I would not wish to do so. However, I believe that the verdict
    1658
    of the inquest is one on which everyone concerned should sensibly stand and I would not think it right to reopen the matter in any way. Of course, there is need in all these matters for community policing on the one hand, which is very important, and on the other hand there is the need to deal with spontaneous disorder, which requires a different form of policing at the time, which is something that we all have to accept.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State clarify what he meant when he referred to the possibility of future legal actions? Would he agree that this matter of recruitment to and training of the Special Patrol Group and any similar bodies is far too important to be treated in anything other than a very impartial and calm manner? Has the right hon. Gentleman any comments to make now, or can he tell the House when he will have comments to make, on the riders attached to the inquest verdict in the Blair Peach case—a rather surprising verdict in the view of many—because those riders made comments upon the SPG? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to have any statement to make to the House about consequential action in the light of those riders?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I merely referred to what I have read in the press about talk of judicial proceedings on both sides.
    The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that these matters were considered very calmly, because several months ago the Commissioner announced some changes in the organisation of the SPG which actually met completely the riders put by the jury at the inquest.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that a police officer, whether he be a member of the SPG or anything else, is entitled to just the same presumption of innocence as any other citizen, and that the morale of the police generally has been badly affected by the trial in the headlines and the aspersions on the SPG without evidence?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am bound to agree with what my hon. Friend says. I think that the right answer is to abide by what was said at the inquest, to realise that we have already taken the action that was necessary and to let the matter be closed there.

    Police Complaints Board
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the functioning of the Police Complaints Board.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have received a few representations from Members of Parliament and others commenting on the functioning of the Police Complaints Board. I shall take these into account in considering the board's triennial review report.
    Mr. Dormand: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that my question is not an implied criticism of the police in this matter? Is not the fact that police investigate police an inherent weakness in the scheme? The only evidence which the Police Complaints Board considers is submitted from the police themselves. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the concern felt by a number of hon. Members that it is not possible to get a straight answer to the question of how many complaints are submitted to the board and how many are sustained?
    Mr. Whitelaw: These are matters which properly arise when we consider the board's triennial review. I think that we must all remember, that after exhaustive discussions, the Labour Government decided to introduce the Police Complaints Act, on the basis that it was introduced. They went into all the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and decided that in all the circumstances this was the best way of proceeding. Whether it is the best way and whether we should change it we have every right to decide after the three-year report. But it was this House, under the Labour Government, which introduced the Act as it stands.
    Mr. James A. Dunn: At the time of the triennial review, will the right hon. Gentleman consider a different system for submitting complaints? Will he accept that there is a case to be made for the possibility of complaints being made direct to the Police Complaints Board and not necessarily to the constabulary of which complaint is being made? That would resolve some of the doubts and anxieties which naturally occur from time to time and are further stimulated from
    1660
    time to time by comment, particularly in the media.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that we would find in the procedure very considerable problems as far as police investigations are concerned.

    Voluntary Services Unit
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the Voluntary Services Unit of his Department
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Raison): The Voluntary Services Unit was set up in 1973 for the purpose of encouraging voluntary effort. It has three main functions: to make grants to certain voluntary organisations; to co-ordinate and develop Government policy towards the voluntary sector as a whole; and to take initiatives to encourage voluntary effort in the community. I believe that, since its inception, the VSU has played a significant role in achieving its objectives.
    Mr. Taylor: At a time when we are being told that a painful search for economy is being made in every area, has the Home Secretary's attention been drawn to the fact that the unit has committed itself to giving £42,000 of taxpayers' money to a body called " SCARP ", whose national newspaper, which I have here, records on the front page that 1980 should be the year of "Rock against Thatcher", explains that Tory policies are no good for anyone, and invites applications for lapel badges with the slogan " Rinse Out Blue Scum ". Does the Home Secretary feel that this is an appropriate use of public money? Will he be willing to discuss with the Charity Commission how many bodies supported by the VSU enjoy charitable status——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is also taking up enough time for two supplementary questions. That is two that we have lost altogether.
    Mr. Raison: I agree with my hon. Friend that the issue of the newspaper to which he referred is quite deplorable. The grant is currently under active review. The matter has, I understand, been drawn to the attention of the Charity

    1661
    Commission which has the responsibility for deciding what is charitable, and not the Home Secretary.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Gentleman resist attacks in general on the VSU in view of the very valuable work that it has done and is doing towards the development of voluntary services? Will he give an assurance that the funds given to the unit are, in real terms, just as great as when the present Government took office, and if possible even greater?
    Mr. Raison: I said in my reply that we attach importance to the role of the VSU. I believe that I am right in saying that we have maintained the level of funding in real terms.
    Mr. Alan Clark: It may or may not be desirable to attack the VSU in general, but can my hon. Friend at least assure the House that he is looking at all those organisations which receive grants from the unit because in a very large number of cases they are, to a greater or lesser degree, subversive, and that causes grave disquet among those who know about it?
    Mr. Raison: Actual complaints about objectionable political activity have been received in respect of only two projects financed by the VSU. Funding for one of these, the Tyne and Wear resource centre, has now ceased. The other matter, as I have said, is under review.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: One of the greatest things about our democracy is that central and local government departments very often fund voluntary organisations which are critical of the body funding them. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if we were to attack and criticise any voluntary group that criticised an organisation or a State body that funded it we would be destroying democracy?
    Mr. Raison: Clearly, we do not intend to control every detail of every activity of organisations funded by the VSU, but, as I have said, I believe that what occurred in the case of the newspaper referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was quite unacceptable.
    Sir William Clark: My hon Friend says that the matter is under review. When will the review be completed? Does not he agree that, while the review
    1662
    is going on, no further money should be given to this organisation?
    Mr. Raison: The matter will be concluded very rapidly indeed.
    Mr. Alton: Is the Minister seriously saying that any organisation which publishes in its newspaper the views of perhaps even another organisation—which I believe is what happened in this case—will have its grant reviewed and possibly withdrawn? Is he saying that he is introducing a form of State censorship of organisations like SCARP?
    Mr. Raison: I am not saying that I am introducing a form of State censorship, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should have a look at this newspaper and ask himself whether he thinks that the material was justified.

    Police Computer Network
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of the evidence supplied to him, he will investigate the security of the police computer network.
    Mr. Whitelaw: No information has come to light to bear out speculation in a newspaper report that safeguards in the system have been evaded.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that in recent years equipment has become available at the cost of a few hundred pounds which could be used to decode the coding system? If that is so, would it not be possible for criminal information to be extracted from the central bank or even for false information to be put into it?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate the expertise of the hon. Gentleman in this context and I am grateful to him for raising the matter. It is important that we should always be on the lookout for any security evasions of this kind. We are making certain procedural changes, which I believe is right but I think that it would be counter-productive to disclose them to the House.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Home Secretary agree that there is a general problem here and not just a particular one? Would it not now be a good idea if we were to discuss the Lindop committee report? It is not a matter of

    1663
    reaching decisions on it but the House, at times, should discuss the general issue before Governments proceed with legislation.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I can only say that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It would be helpful. However, it is not in his hands, or mine, to decide when that should be.

    Alcoholic Offenders
    Mr. Bestasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the treatment of alcoholic offenders.
    Mr. Brittan: Treatment facilities for alcoholic offenders not in custody are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. For those received in prison suffering from alcoholism, prison medical officers supervise treatment. In many prisons psychiatrically qualified medical officers and visiting consultant psychiatrists are available to offer psychotherapy if this is indicated. A few prisons have specialist units. Most others have an Alcoholics Anonymous group or a group offering counselling about drink-related problems.
    Mr. Best: My hon. and learned Friend knows that many prisoners are alcoholics and should not be in prison at all. It is now nine years since we had a Home Office report recommending the setting up of detoxification centres round the country. I know that there have been experiments in Leeds and Manchester. When will my hon. and learned Friend come forward to the House with recommendations? Is not the period of assessment of those two centres nearing completion? We must have an answer soon as to what will happen to these people.
    Mr. Brittan: As far as those two centres are concerned, the result of the assessments will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to consider. I understand that the outcome of the assessments is likely to be available next year.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, as his hon. Friend said, it is inappropriate to put drunken offenders in prison? Does he agree that the £30,000 that the Home
    1664
    Secretary has given to the wet shelters, though welcome, is too small for the needs that are evident, particularly as a large proportion of the deaths in police custody occur as a result of alcoholic poisoning? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman now answer his hon. Friend and say when the proposals and the recommendations of the 1971 report will be implemented by his Department?
    Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that imprisonment is an inappropriate penalty for drunkenness. Nobody doubts that. The people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers are, on the whole, fine defaulters. The measure referred to by the hon. Gentleman relating to wet shelters is designed to prevent alcoholics from going through the criminal justice system at all. The £30,000 is meant to start the project off. I hope that other money will be available. Consultations about that are taking place. This is only the beginning.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. and learned Friend able to say what the average sentence is for an alcoholic offender and what is the recidivism rate among such people?
    Mr. Brittan: It is impossible to give an average sentence for alcoholic offenders because the term " alcoholism " is not a specific one. There is a large number of people in prison who are there for ordinary offences but who also have alcoholic problems. But the specific problem of people going to prison because the have not paid fines imposed for drunkenness is one which we are approaching in the way that I have described.
    Mrs. Renée Short: If the Minister accepts that it is absolutely pointless to put alcoholics in our overcrowded old prisons, what proposals does he have to increase the facilities for treating alcoholics properly in places such as Grendon Underwood?
    Mr. Brittan: I mentioned the existence of facilities in my opening answer. In addition to Grendon there are Wormwood Scrubs, Holloway and Feltham borstal which provide facilities of this kind. We are now examining them to ascertain the extent to which they can be extended.
    Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible to have a wet shelter for No. 10 Downing Street?
    Mr. Speaker: That does not arise out of that question.

    Fall-out Shelters
    Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Secretary of State for he Home Department how many fall-out shelters are constructed under, in or adjoining public buildings; and how many new such shelters are under construction.
    Mr. Brittan: No central records are kept because it has not been general Government policy to provide fall-out shelters in public buildings.
    Mr. Roberts: May I congratulate the Minister on the added responsibilities that he has been given in this direction? That adequately illustrates the priorities of the Government. They have made this job more important after downgrading the job of the Minister with responsibilities for the disabled.
    Is the Minister aware that there is great anger on Merseyside that public money is being spent on fall-out shelters under such buildings as police stations, when there is no public money available for peace-time activities such as industrial investment? Does not the Minister accept that extra expenditure on these fall-out shelters is kidding the public into believing that there is a defence against nuclear weapons when there is not?
    Mr. Brittan: Since I have said that it is not general Government policy to provide fall-out shelters in public buildings I can only conclude that the hon. Gentleman, kind as his welcome to me was, devised his supplementary question before he had heard the main answer.
    Mr. Churchill: While accepting that Her Majesty's Government are quite right to put great emphasis on deterring rather than surviving a war, would my hon. and learned Friend, none the less, take steps to identify all existing buildings which may have basements and underground garages suitable as fall-out shelters?
    Mr. Brittan: Local authorities have been asked to carry out a survey of existing buildings to identify those capable of providing shelter. That survey is proceeding.

    Deportation Orders
    Mr. Freudasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders he has signed in respect of foreign nationals under 17 years of age.
    Mr. Raison: Information about the number of deportation orders signed in respect of persons under 17 years of age is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate expense. Such cases are, however, very unusual.
    Mr. Freud: In view of the ease with which foreign students can obtain entry permits to pursue educational courses in this country—which we welcome—will not the Minister reconsider the Government's current policy of deporting young people in full time education for the technical misdemeanours of their parents, as seems to be the case with my Wisbech constituent?
    Mr. Raison: Our belief is that where there is a strong case for deporting the parents—as there is in this case—it really does not make sense to allow an integral member of the family to stay behind. No decision has yet been made to deport Miss Yau, to whom I think the hon. Gentleman was referring. Her parents and her brother are to be deported for overstaying and Miss Yau is being given an opportunity to leave voluntarily with them. Only if she does not do so will deportation be considered.
    Mr. James A. Dunn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the answer that he has just given provides cause for concern and anxiety? I believe—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares this view—that the sins of the father should never be visited upon the children. Could not the hon. Gentleman's answer be interpreted in the opposite way?
    Mr. Raison: We are speaking of a 15-year-old girl and there is absolutely nothing unreasonable in believing that the family should remain together.

    Violence Against the Police
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Metropolitan Police have been victims of violence in each of the last three years;

    1667
    and how many so far during the current year.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The only figures readily available are those for officers assaulted on duty given in the annual reports of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The figures for 1977–79 were 4,030, 3,955 and 4,185 respectively. The equivalent figure for 1980 up to 21 April was 997.
    Mr. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures are disturbingly high? Is he convinced that the courts have sufficient penalties at their disposal for those who assault police officers on duty? Is new protective equipment part of the answer and what new action will the Home Office take in this context?
    Mr. Whitelaw: These are certainly worrying figures. They represent the high cost to police officers—and often the high cost in money terms—of coping with disorders and violence with our traditional community police methods. Nevertheless, I believe that these methods are absolutely right and we must persist with them. I hope that we can persuade—in our review of public order and in what action this House takes afterwards—those who wish to conduct demonstrations that it is in their interest and the interests of everybody, to do so without violence. That is something on which this House should give a strong lead.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Will the Secretary of State join with the whole House in sending good wishes to Stephen Hickling, the 19-year old policeman whose hand was blown off at Catford police station a few weeks ago? Does he agree that when policemen are injured in that way it should be possible for the Metropolitan Police to find ways of continuing to employ them.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I gladly respond to what the hon. Gentleman has so generously said. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in that. It is important to point out also that the response to that incident showed the high esteem in which the police are held in that area and throughout the country. There was a magnificent response in money and in many other ways to the plight of this unfortunate police officer. The Commissioner has made it clear that he hopes
    1668
    that it will be possible—as we all hope that it will be—for this police officer to continue in some employment. That must be a matter for the future. The response at the time showed significant support for the police.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if 4,000 or more Metropolitan Police officers are injured by violence every year inevitably they will insist upon more and more protective uniforms and devices? Does he accept that that would be most unfortunate since it would separate the police from the public? Would it not be much better to decry in every way assaults on the police, because otherwise we are bound to go in the direction of paramilitary policing?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have already made it clear that it would be a retrograde step for the country if we went down the road of paramilitary policing. After all, we have a system of community policing which is the envy of the world. We should keep it that way. We should be sad if we had to depart from it. However, the House must give a lead to all people who take part in marches and demonstration and tell them that violence can never be justified on such occasions.
    Mr. Skinner: In view of all the wonderful things that have been said about our police force, will the Home Secretary give a guarantee that in their next pay award they will be awarded not less than 22 per cent.—the current rate of inflation?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Police pay negotiations are conducted under the Edmund-Davies formula. They will be conducted under that formula in future.

    Irish Citizens
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the number of Irish citizens resident in the United Kingdom and entitled to vote in the United Kingdom elections.
    Mr. Brittan: I understand that the labour force survey taken in 1979 suggests that there may be close to half a million citizens of the Irish Republic aged 18 and over resident in the United Kingdom. Those whose names appear in an electoral register would be entitled to vote at all elections in Great Britain and

    1669
    at parliamentary and European Parliament elections in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful for that reply. In the light of those figures can my hon. and learned Friend give the House three convincing reasons—or even one or two—why his Department appears to be so reluctant to terminate this totally unreciprocated anomaly?
    Mr. Brittan: The anomaly to which my hon. Friend refers must be considered in the light of the history of relations between the two countries and of the efforts that the two Governments are making to improve co-operation on security matters affecting Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), the Government do not at present have proposals to change the position.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If the estimates are based in whole or in part upon the forms completed by electors for registration, is it possible for the Government to publish in the Official Report or elsewhere estimates for the respective constituencies in Great Britain?
    Mr. Brittan: The estimates are not derived from that source but from the labour force survey.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Approximately how many British citizens whose domicile is in the Irish Republic are not entitled to vote for the Dail Eireann? Is there any truth in the reports that the present Dublin Government intend to accord reciprocity?
    Mr. Brittan: I do not have the figures, but I shall see whether I can obtain them for my hon. Friend. We do not have the details of proposals made by the Prime Minister of the Republic, but obviously we shall consider any proposals that are made.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that Irish citizens in this country, many of whom have lived here for many years—including citizens from the North and the South and two Members of Parliament—play a most important part in the life of the country, in spite of murmurs from the Government side of the House?
    Mr. Brittan: There is no doubt that Irish citizens play an important part in the country, but whether they should have the right to vote is another question.

  EASTERN EUROPE
  Ql. Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Eastern Europe, in the light of her proposals to initiate a massive propaganda campaign, using powerful transmitters, to beam television programmes to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
  The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): Our policy is to use the resources at our disposal, consistent with our international obligations, to ensure that Britain's voice is heard by the peoples of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, as well as by the rest of the world.
  Mr. Dalyell: As a lawyer, was it prudent for the Prime Minister to float an idea that breaches international agreements? As a scientist would not it have been wise if she had checked her technical facts? Is this yet another case—to borrow the delicate phrase used yesterday by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—of " suck it and see? "
  The Prime Minister: I hardly think so, bearing in mind that I have been interested in this for some time. As a politician, I would do what I believe that the hon. Gentleman would do, bearing in mind the extent to which he practices freedom of speech. I would pursue the ideological struggle and try to put across the Western free world case to Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe as hard as I possibly can.
  Mr. Adley: Is not there a danger of lumping together the situations in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe? Does my right hon. Frend agree that there is ample evidence that the peoples enslaved by the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe are almost literally dying to make contact with the West? Will the Prime Minister do her utmost to increase our broadcasts to the people of the enslaved Eastern European countries in particular so that they know at least that we in

  1671
  the West occasionally think about then-plight?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know whether there is much difference between some of the enslaved peoples of Eastern Europe and the USSR. I make a point of seeing all the dissidents who come out so that I can hear precisely their experiences.
  Mr. Skinner: All of them?
  The Prime Minister: I see all the dissidents who ask to see me. Many of them do. We are particularly anxious that broadcasts to the Soviet Union and the East European States should have top priority in the external services.
  Mr. Hooley: Will the free world case include a detailed explanation about the deployment of vast numbers of nuclear missiles in Western Europe and, in particular, an explanation of why the majority are in the United Kingdom?
  The Prime Minister: The fact is that the Soviet Union has the latest nuclear missiles—the SS 20—and it is facing Europe. We must have an effective deterrent.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Whiteheadasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 June.
  The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I shall be giving a reception for the England football team before leaving for a visit to Cheshire.
  Mr. Whitehead: When preparing for her arduous round of duties, did the Prime Minister have time over breakfast this morning to discuss the newspaper allegation that one of the firms paying starvation wages in South Africa is Burmah Oil? Does she realise that she has a double personal obligation to the House to ensure that her Ministers insist on the publication of the list of 33 firms involved in this affair? Will she explain why, today of all days, we are to be told that the work of the labour attaché
  1672
  in Pretoria, who has been our personal monitor in these matters, is to be phased out?
  The Prime Minister: I shall take the latter question first. The report about the labour attaché in Pretoria is not correct. The present attaché is retiring. He will be 60 years old this year. He is being replaced, and the person replacing him will take over precisely the same functions that are performed by the present labour attaché.
  With regard to the hon. Gentleman's other question—he usually asks two—all facts are published in the reports of the companies, and under the voluntary code all reports are available in the Library of the House.
  Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Government have received the report of the European Commission of Human Rights relating to the closed shop and especially to the case of Young James and Webster? Will she also say whether the Government intend to fight that case under article 11(1) before the European Court, or whether they intend to accept the recommendations of the report?
  The Prime Minister: The Government have received the report of the commission. We do not believe that it is critical of the new provisions in the Employment Bill, which are very different from the law as it was when those people lost their jobs by virtue of the closed shop. As my hon. Friend will know, the report of the commission goes to the European Court. I understand that a court has been established, but the date for the hearing has not yet been announced. It is right that the Government should attend the court and put their views on the closed shop, which are very different from the views of the previous Labour Administration.
  Mr. Cook: Before the Prime Minister's reception this evening, will she find time to telephone the NEB and ask it to stop playing football with the future of Ferranti? Is she aware that the proposal to dispose of the NEB's interest in Ferranti in one go has been rejected by the united work force, and condemned even by management as being against the best interests of the company? Will she explain why, for the sake of a fast buck,

  1673
  she is taking such a gamble with the future of high technology industry in Britain, which we need if we are to survive as a manufacturing nation?
  The Prime Minister: The NEB helped Ferranti when it was in need. Ferranti no longer needs help through the NEB. It is for that board to dispose of the shares in the best way possible.
  Mr. Madelasked the Prime Miniser if she will list her official engagements for 5 June.
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given.
  Mr. Madel: In view of the increasing interest in reform of the House of Lords and our system of government, will my right hon. Friend discuss today with the Lord Chancellor the possibility of publishing a Green Paper in the autumn, which would give the House an opportunity to decide how best we might improve our vitally important system of dual-chamber government?
  The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in these matters. There are many conflicting views on whether the House of Lords should be reformed, and, if so, precisely how that could be achieved. Some hon. Members who have been in the House for a long time remember a number of efforts in this Chamber to reform the House of Lords, but they were not successful. There is no possibility of the Government producing a Green Paper in the autumn. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that, for the time being, we have more urgent matters on our plate.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity today to hear the BBC radio reports that the West German Government would like the opportunity to obtain North Sea oil more cheaply? In view of the communiqué from the summit conference of the EEC few weeks ago, when the whole question of oil supplies to the Community was discussed, will she say how the Government intend to respond to the request from the West German Government?
  The Prime Minister: Under existing law there would be no possibility of that happening. The oil that the Government can purchase under existing contracts
  1674
  must be purchased at the world price. If that world price is not agreed with BNOC, it can go to arbitration. Those are the laws that we inherited from the previous Labour Administration, and those are the laws that are observed.
  Mr. Eggar: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains the intention of the Government to return ownership in nationalised industries directly to the people? Will she further consider whether shares in such corporations as BNOC and BGC could be given directly to all citizens, taxpayers and pensioners? Does she recognise that such a proposal would encourage share ownership, lead to a recognition of the need for profit, and ensure that no further nationalisation could be introduced by any future Labour Government?
  The Prime Minister: Where a large proportion of shares in nationalised industries is being sold to the public we believe that those who work in the industry should have preference in purchasing those shares. That would be to the advantage both of the industry and the British people. With regard to a scheme to give shares in all nationalised industries to the British people, I know that it was partly done in Vancouver. However, we have a rather larger number of people in Britain. But we would not rule out that suggestion.
  Mr. Alton: Will the Prime Minister take time today to discuss with the Minister of Transport the publication of the Government's White Paper on roads? Will she specifically consider the announcement made yesterday by the Merseyside county council to the effect that the Liverpool inner ring road will cost an additional £1 million? Will she consider scrapping that scheme, which has more to do with vested interest than with need, and redeploying the money into the local Health Service to ensure that the local hospitals remain open?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may have a constituency point, but I think that he will recognise that the road programme has been reduced. There is not much scope for it being reduced further. If I were to accede to his request I should receive many complaints from other people.
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for Thursday 5 June.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon Member to the reply which I gave earlier.
  Mr. Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister take time today to read the speeches made by the Secretary of State for Industry in California and other parts of America? Is she aware that he is saying that we are making progress away from stagnation? Can she produce a single shred of evidence to show that that is happening? As the Secretary of State for Industry is in America primarily to find American silicon chip investment for Britain, would not he be better served by announcing now the £25 million for Inmos in Britain?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asked two questions. On the first question, my right hon. Friend is especially concerned to boost the microelectronics industry in Britain. It is a considerably expanding industry, and is taking on far more labour than other industries. I do not want the House to hold me to the precise figure, but I believe that I am right to say that the increase in exports of microelectronics this year over last year is of the order of 30 per cent. That is worth boosting and worth shouting about.
  On Inmos, the first £25 million given to it by the previous Labour Administration through the NEB was given to establish a factory in Colorado Springs, and has so far resulted only in about 37 jobs in Britain. We are considering carefully the conditions that we should attach to any money going in that direction.
  Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Prime Minister please answer the question about whether we are moving away from stagnation? Is it not the case that we are facing a year by year decline in our industrial progression? Because of the daily announcement of redundancies, will she please take the matter seriously? What direct responsibility will the Government take for handling the growing level of unemployment which, over the coming months, will become worse?
  The Prime Minister: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's latter point,
  1676
  I agree that there is a substantial number of redundancies being announced. But I must say what he frequently said from this Dispatch Box—albeit in a slightly different way—that one man's wage increase can cost another man his job. That is frequently happening. Some of the wage increases that are totally unrelated to productivity are pricing whole firms out of the market, and people are choosing to buy more competitive products from overseas.
  Mr. Callaghan: Whatever may be the impact of wages on the level of employment, is it not the case that the level of interest rates—on which a false start was made last Tuesday—and the Government's monetary policy are having a more direct impact on the number of jobs? Will she take into account what was said by the Manpower Services Commission yesterday, namely, that it cannot fulfil its responsibilities with the present level of revenue that it receives? The right hon. Lady must take responsibility for the level of unemployment. In addition to blaming the trade unions, she has a responsibility and she must assume it.
  The Prime Minister: No one can create genuine jobs by printing money. That only creates more inflation, which leads to more unemployment. I, too, read the report of the Manpower Services Commission. I think that it is worth reading in its entirety. I noticed one very telling comment:
  " The generation of permanent new jobs is outside the Commission's powers."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. James Callaghan: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. St. John-Stevas): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Health Services Bill.
TUESDAY 10 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill.
Debate on the report of the Committee of Three on Community institutions.

1677
WEDNESDAY 11 JUNE—Completion of remaining stages of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill.
THURSDAY 12 JUNE—Supply [18th Alloted Day]: Until about Seven o'clock there will be a debate on disablement, and afterwards on the construction industry. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion on the Diocese in Europe Church Measure.
FRIDAY 13 JUNE—Debate on the report of the committee of inquiry into the engineering profession under the chairmanship of Sir Montague Finniston (Cmnd 7794.)
MONDAY 16 JUNE—Debate on the report of the Brandt Commission, on a motion for the Adjournment.
[Debate on report from Committee of Three on Europe:
Relevant published report of the European Legislation etc. Committee—18th Report para, 2 H/C 159—xviii 1979–80.]
Mr. Callaghan: Will the Leader of the of the House take note that our debate on disablement will be about the adverse effects of the Government's policies on the disabled? The short debate on the construction industry will be to press the Government for a higher level of activity in that industry because of the serious unemployment that is occurring in it.
Finally, I should like to ask the Leader of the House about the EEC budget announcement. Now that we begin to examine the small print, we see that the arrangements are not quite as favourable as they seemed at first sight. May we assume that the Government, on an important matter such as this, will now arrange a debate, for which we will certainly wish to ask?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the information on the Opposition's motions. If I had had that information earlier, I should have been happy to announce it on his behalf.
I think that there is a case for a debate on the EEC budget, but it should be taken up and discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of the Venice summit, which is about to take place, if there is not time for a debate could my right hon. Friend arrange for a Foreign Office Minister to make a statement describing the exact nature of the Western-Middle Eastern peace initiative, which has received scant praise from either the President of Egypt or the President of the United States? Otherwise, we may be faced with one of those unfortunate situations in which what is undertaken by a British Foreign Secretary is later destroyed by the House of Commons.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly pass on that request to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. I have had no request for a statement by my right hon. Friend till now.
Mr. Dubs: Does the Leader of the House agree that there is an urgent need for a debate on jury vetting, given that the practice, which has been called unconstitutional by at least one judge, is now taking place in courts all over the country and that undertakings given by the Attorney-General to the House are being ignored?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: There has been a further development in this matter, with another decision by, I think, the House of Lords. Therefore, we have to consider this matter in regard to the situation in the courts. However, as soon as it is disposed of in that manner I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: My right hon. Friend has given undertakings in the past that before we rise for the Summer Recess there will be an opportunity to discuss the outstanding recommendations of the Procedure Committee, in particular the proposal about the Public Bill procedure whereby Standing Committees will be allowed to take evidence for two, three or four sittings before proceeding to the discussion of a Bill. May I have his added reassurance that the House will be able to come to a decision on this matter before we rise for the Summer Recess?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have given that assurance to the House. If the House does not accept that assurance, I do not know that reassurance adds very much to it, because presumably all the currency is invalidated together. It is the Government's clear intention, as stated in the

1679
manifesto that the House will have an early opportunity to come to a decision on all the proposals in that report. We shall be placing proposals before the House before the Summer Recess.
Mr. Douglas: Will the Leader of the House consider asking his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to place in the Library or the Vote Office a precis of the information submitted to him by the various institutions regarding the Finneston report, to aid us in the debate on Friday?
Secondly, we welcome these debates on the Finneston and Brandt reports, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider arranging an early debate on the Burgoyne committee report on offshore safety, as this is very important? While we might delay the matter, awaiting the Norwegian result, we should not delay too long in debating that important matter.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry that interesting suggestion about putting documents and precis in the Library.
I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future on the Burgoyne report. We have made a good advance in this Business Statement, with debates on two extremely important reports.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on interest rates? If he cannot do that, will he get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on interest rates, particularly as they affect small businesses? Is he aware that unless interest rates fall, small businesses, which are the seedcorn of future employment, will not exist for much longer to provide that employment?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: As my hon. Friend knows, it is not the Government's policy to maintain high interest rates a moment longer than is economically necessary. I shall pass on his urgings to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am sure that he will reflect upon them.
Mr. Cryer: Will the Leader of the House consider arranging an urgent and early debate on the textile industry, which is deeply affected by the high interest rates complained about by his hon. Friend
1680
the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winter-ton)? Does he realise that in the first four months of this year there was a deficit of £200 million on textile goods in this country, and that over 500 jobs a week are being lost in the West Yorkshire industry? When will the Government initiate a debate so that we can check their performance and see what they are doing about it?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am aware of the grave situation facing the British textile industry. The Government have made it quite plain that when the multi-fibre arrangement, restricting imports into this country, expires in 1981 they are determined that it will be replaced by new measures to assist the industry. I cannot promise an early debate.
Mr. Nelson: In view of the widespread interest in the possibility of a European initiative in the Middle East and the threat to world peace from the impasse that has been reached in the Camp David talks, will my right hon. Friend consider providing time for a major debate on the Middle East?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: We should all like more debates on foreign affairs about——
Mr. Russell Kerr: The Middle East.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Middle East is part of foreign affairs. I am afraid that we cannot have a debate of that nature on the Middle East in the immediate future.
Mr. Sheerman: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress on his colleague the Secretary of State for Trade the importance of making an oral statement on the Tenerife air disaster—a disaster in which many of my constituents and constituents of a number of hon. Members lost their lives—at a time when holiday travel to areas such as the Spanish islands is reaching a peak? Many people are gravely concerned about the delay in the report of the investigation into the causes of that disaster.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not possible to make a definitive statement on the disaster until the inquiries have been completed. My right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade will consider making a further interim statement in the light of the outcome of meetings between an accident

1681
investigation team from his Department and the Spanish mission of investigation in Madrid, which commenced on 3 June.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decision to allocate time for a debate on the Brandt and Finniston reports. Does this show a slight chink of light, in that there may now be a possibility of a debate on information technology, which embraces such subjects as Inmos and Ferranti, and the whole strategy of support for the semiconductor industry of the United Kingdom—possibly the most important series of single industrial decisions that we face?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot give my hon. Friend a categoric assurance, but by disposing of debates on these two important reports we increase the statistical likelihood—whatever that may be—of a debate on the matter about which my hon. Friend is so keen.
Mr. Canavan: When will the Secretary of State for Scotland make a statement about the continuing Scottish teachers' pay dispute? Instead of hiding in Whitehall, why does not the Secretary of State for Scotland tell the House that he will give local authorities the money to give teachers a big enough increase to keep up with the high rate of inflation created by this rotten Government?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The pay of Scottish teachers is primarily for the relevant teachers' body, and discussions are continuing.
Mr. Bill Walker: In view of the considerable interest in Scotland in the proposals for the new Hampden Park, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the possibility of the Government's investing £8 million, which could be an open-ended investment, because that amount will be inadequate to supply the new Hampden? An early debate is needed.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have noted what my hon. Friend said. I cannot promise an early debate, but I shall raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House encourage the Secretary of State for Trade to make a statement on the question of the 33 United Kingdom companies paying starvation
1682
wages to black South African workers? In order to clear up any charge of hypocrisy, will he arrange for an early debate on this issue, especially as it has been revealed in The Guardian that those companies include Quinton Hazell, an offshoot of Burmah Oil, of which the husband of the Prime Minister is a director.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that that kind of personal reference, which is constantly made by the hon. Gentleman, does anything to advance the serious cause that he no doubt—[Interruption.] The fact that it was mentioned in The Guardian is no reason to repeat it in the House—possibly quite the reverse. The question is clearly a matter of considerable social importance, but I cannot promise an early debate on the subject.
Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the continuing military occupation of the West Bank elevates the need for an urgent debate on the Middle East above that of simply a general debate on foreign affairs? Is he further aware that there would be widespread support in the House for the Government's view that we are not prepared to tolerate an American veto on any British or European initiative? Will he please take note that we need an urgent debate on this sensitive and dangerous situation?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have noted the view expressed by my hon. Friend, and I shall give it due weight, but a number of important subjects are competing for debates.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider inviting the Secretary of State for Trade to explain to the House and to the country why essential information about the payment by British companies of wages below starvation level to black workers in South Africa is not being published? As the Prime Minister made it clear that that information is available in the Library, what possible reason is there for hiding the information and putting the Government in the dock, along with the South African Government?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The point raised by the hon. Gentleman has been fully answered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Her answer may not

1683
have satisfied the hon. Gentleman, but she went a long way in her constructive reply, and I do not think that I can add to it.
Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on a system of tax allowances for taxidermists, in order to encourage the Labour Party to have the Leader of the Opposition stuffed, so that he may be kept around for a little longer, in view of the fact that there are no plausible alternatives? If there is no time for such a debate, in view of the strong feelings expressed by hon. Members on the Government Benches about Irish Republican citizens being allowed to vote in our general elections, will he arrange a debate on that issue?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that I shall venture into the interesting territory that has been opened up before me by my hon. Friend. On the whole, Business Question Time is a time for a a peaceable exchange of views, and I do not wish to put that at risk.
Mr. Whitehead: On the question of the list of British firms that has been compiled by Mr. Vose, our labour attaché in Pretoria, cannot the Leader of the House see the inconsistency between the Prime Minister's reply to me this afternoon—that this list is available to hon. Members—and the refusal to publish the list for public examination? Is this not a complete violation of the principle of open government, to which the Government are supposedly committed? Surely, there should be a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. But if those figures are made available in the Library, that makes them available to many articulate hon. Members, who can make good use of them.
Mr. Hill: May I re-emphasise the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd)? The Secretary of State for Industry is at present in America discussing ways of obtaining further finance and experience from Silicon Valley for this country. Surely when he returns he will make a
1684
statement. Would that not be a suitable time at which to have a three-hour debate on this important export market, which is growing at the moment?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree that this is a most important subject for our trade. If there are significant developments, of course my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will make a statement on them.
Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise from the questions that have been put by my hon. Friends that they are asking for a statement on the matter of the wages paid to black South African workers? Although a document has been placed in the Library, we are asking for a statement in the House. In the light of what has occurred and of questions today, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter and ask the Secretary of State for Trade to make a statement next week, giving an answer to the House of Commons on the subject?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, there is no need for me to reconsider what I said. We have had an answer from the Prime Minister this afternoon and I have said that I shall draw the exchanges in the House this afternoon to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.
Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend please reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) said, and as actions taken by the Government in the next month or so will be critical to the lives of every man, woman and child in this country in terms of Middle East policy? Surely that deserves a debate, over and above a normal, global foreign affairs debate.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have not promised a general debate on foreign affairs. What I am saying is that there is a great pressure on time for the remainder of this Session, and I cannot promise an early debate either on foreign affairs in general or on the Middle East in particular.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am prepared to call all the hon. Gentlemen who have risen—
Mrs. Renée Short Mrs. Renée Short rose——
Mr. Speaker: Well, hon. Members. I beg the hon. Lady's pardon.
I am prepared to call the hon. Members who have risen, but I hope that it will be borne in mind that if they cannot get in on the first short debate there will be no point in their complaining about not being called then.
Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Leader of the House recognise that one day for the Health Services Bill is wholly inadequate, in view of the fact that it is a United Kingdom Bill and that in Committee there has been no opportunity to debate the structure or anything else concerned with the Health Service in Scotland? As the Government have a considerable number of new clauses and amendments to move on Report, will the right hon. Gentleman consider either suspending the rule on Monday or giving extra time on another day?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: We have already had half a day's debate on this subject and we have a second opportunity on Monday of dealing with it. One has to balance, by discussions through the usual channels, the need for thorough debate and the need not to go on beyond a reasonable hour.
Mr. Stoddart: Reverting to the question of the EEC agreement on the budget, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this matter has some urgency, as many hon. Members are very concerned about the agreement reached, particularly in relation to higher food prices and the failure to reach a broad balance? I appreciate that this matter is to be discussed through the usual channels, but the matter is much more urgent than that. Hon. Members want a debate, and I believe that they should have that debate next week. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a debate urgently, but we have not received urgent representations—[Interruption.] Had there been urgent representations from the Opposition Front Bench they would have been taken fully into account. But I
1686
have heard what has been said today and I shall consider what can be done.
Mr. Stallard: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet been able to see early-day motion 620, standing in my name and the names of over 100 hon. Members, representing all parties in the House? [That this House appeals to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to exercise the power of discretion available to him under the Immigration Act and withdraw the proposal to remove Verghese (Juno) and Meena Varki from the United Kingdom, in view of the fact that though technically in breach of Home Office procedure, the couple have, over the seven years they have lived in the United Kingdom, made an outstanding contribution to better the life of their neighbours, and worked effectively full" time and unpaid to promote and maintain good community relations in the Greater London area.]
The motion calls on the Home Secretary to exercise his discretion in the case of Juno and Meena Varki, two Camden residents, and in view of the widespread outside interests in this case, as well as interests inside the House and the interest in the broader principles of the Home Secretary's discretion, will the Leader of the House urgently arrange for a debate on this question?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am aware of this case, which has aroused anxiety and concern among hon. Members for some time, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, after considering all the representations submitted to him by hon. Members, came to the conclusion that the deportation should proceed, and signed the order in December. Since then my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office—the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—has had two meetings with hon. Members to consider further representations—I think that the last meeting was as recently as 7 May—but he also, having examined the situation, has concluded that there are no grounds for revising the decision.
Mr. Soley: May I remind the Leader of the House of his undertaking some weeks ago on the crisis in our prisons? May I ask for a date for that debate? Also, will he draw to the attention of the Attorney-General or the relevant Minister the desirability of his presence at that

1687
debate, as a number of hon Members on both sides of the House are likely to make recommendations that will affect sentencing policy, which is outside the control of the Home Secretary alone?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The May report is an extremely important one. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is still receiving evidence and reactions to it, and until that evidence has been received and reflected upon it would not be right to have a debate, but it is certainly my wish to have a debate on this important report as soon as possible.
The attendance of Ministers at the debate is a matter for them. I shall pass on the hon. Member's request to them.
Mrs. Renée Short: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the unemployment position in the West Midlands? Is he aware that since I last raised this matter with the Prime Minister just before the Whitsun Recess, a further blow has fallen, with the loss of 3,000 jobs at Lucas? This matter is urgent.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I saw the report of the Lucas redundancies today. The question of unemployment is of considerable and continuing concern to the Government. Its solution depends on the working out of our economic policies in due course. I cannot promise an early debate.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) after I have called those who had risen when I made my statement.
Mr. Coleman: Is the Leader of the House aware of the worsening unemployment situation, which is affecting every constituency in Wales, arising as a result of problems of the steel industry and the coalmining industry, and the decline of the Welsh economy? When can we have a debate on the Floor of the House, in which the Secretary of State for Wales, the Minister responsible for unemployment in Wales, can answer hon. Members?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am aware of the extremely grave unemployment situation in Wales, but I cannot promise an early debate on the Floor of the House—although
1688
we may be able to have a debate by another means.
Mr. Spearing: The Leader of the House said that on Tuesday there is to be a debate on EEC institutions and on a paper that has been produced. Does that indicate that the matter will be discussed at the Venice summit? What will the motion be, and how long shall we have for the debate?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The conclusions of this important document would be relevant to any discussions that take place at the Venice summit. The debate will probably be for one and a half hours, and it is likely to arise on either a " take note " motion or a motion for the Adjournment. That is a matter for discussion through the usual channels.
Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the Leader of the House provide time to discuss the dire plight of the people of Uganda? There is an early-day motion on the Order Paper of which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware.
[That this House, concerned with the grievous problems of the people of Uganda, aware of the effect of the drought and acknowledging the food supply shortages, with the consequential tragic deaths from starvation and deprivation, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to give immediate aid and to rally the fellow members of the United Nations to give support, sustenance, and supplies, to ease the emergency within the regions which are suffering this devastation; and further calls upon the world to come to the aid of this sadly stricken nation and to rescue its people from almost certain death.]
Will he also take an opportunity to discuss with the appropriate Ministers the behaviour of the BBC when it interviewed the former Prime Minister of Uganda—an interview that caused offence to many people?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's motion on the subject of Uganda and the desperate situation there. I am afraid that I cannot promise an early debate, although the Government are watching the situation and action is being taken through the United Nations to accord relief.
I shall bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary

1689
the hon. Member's point about the broadcast.
Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the report "Policy for Roads, 1980" which has just been issued? I am sure that many hon. Members besides myself will be disappointed after reading that their project is being reserved. This applies particularly to the Penistone constituency, which lies between the Sheffield and Barnsley areas and has inadequate transport facilities, especially as the Penistone railway link is to be cut. On 21 May, as reported in column 490 of Hansard, the Minister said that he had not received the proposals, and yet the newspapers referred to British Rail speaking to the Department on the closure. Is it not time that we had this matter cleared up?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in inserting that constituency point into a business question. I am sure that that will be noted elsewhere in due course.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I received the paper on roads, in published form, only today. We must wait for reactions and discussions in general before we have a full debate on the matter.
Mr. Dalyell: Speaking in a peaceable spirit, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he has received reports on yesterday's debate on enterprise zones? Hon. Members from both sides asked the Financial Secretary a number of legitimate questions. Ultimately, we received the answer " Suck it and see." Doubtless the Leader of the House would use more felicitous language. Does he think that enterprise zones should be
1690
debated during the discussion of the Finance Bill or during debates that involve the Departments of Industry and Trade, outside the context of the Finance Bill?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: We must all use our own language. We all have our own styles of reference. The phrase referred to by the hon. Member is not constantly on my lips. I followed the debate on enterprise zones. They are an extremely important part of the Finance Bill. They are a positive step——
Mr. Dalyell: They are not part of the Finance Bill.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Enterprise zones are part of the Finance Bill. They will make an important contribution to the recovery of the economy. I support them fully. It was important to bring forward the proposals and to debate them.
Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to announce the dates of the Summer Recess? Will he bear in mind that hon. Members with families would prefer to come back early in October than to sit into August?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not wish to be too discouraging, but those options are not necessarily alternatives. It is possible that the House will sit into August and come back in early October. I cannot make a statement about the dates of the Summer Recess now, because they will depend on the progress made on business in the House. With the Opposition's co-operation, I hope that we shall rise early and come back late. All hon. Members will then be satisfied.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [17th ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

  OVERSEAS STUDENTS (FEES)
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I have received far more names from hon. Members who would like to participate in the debate than I can call. That also applies to the debate that will follow at 7 o'clock.
  4.2 pm
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores this year's increases in overseas students' fees to the highest level in the world, which penalise poorer students and poorer countries, including those of the Commonwealth, damage British institutions of further and higher education and threaten Britain's long-term economic and cultural relations with other countries.
  The Opposition have the enormous asset of having received a great deal of information from every conceivable source, institution and interest group. They are concerned about the Government's decision to raise the fees of overseas students to full-cost levels. We have at our disposal two excellent Select Committee reports. The Sub-Committees were chaired by my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) and Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). I hope that the House will recognise that this short debate is not a replacement or an acceptable alternative to thorough discussion. An issue such as this, which has been reported in Select Committee reports, fully deserves thorough debate.
  It is apparent that the policy has not a single friend. We hear nothing but continual criticisms—some extremely bitter and loud—of the Government's policy from the Royal Commonwealth Society and the British Council to the Association of Navigation Schools, from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the United Kingdom Universities and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics to every university, polytechnic and college of higher or further education, every educaton trade union and every students' union. Disagreement with the Government's policy is not limited to
  1692
  those sources. We have also heard criticisms from Conservative students, just as we have heard them, in a courageous and direct form, from Conservative Back Benchers.
  A few months ago the Secretary of State described this protest—despite the fact that it is universal, erudite, insistent and well argued—as unnecessarily shrill. Perhaps he would extend that description to the grave and decorous tones adopted by high commissioners, ambassadors and others who speak for their nations, including those of the Commonwealth. Whether those criticisms come from the students' unions of colleges of education, foreign embassies or high commissions, they have received the same treatment from the Secretary of State and other Ministers. Their arguments and needs have been rejected.
  The reason for the barrage of complaint and criticism is obvious. The Government are wrong to raise fees. The amount by which they have raised them is too great. The pace at which the Government propose to carry out the increases is too quick. As the Select Committee and everyone else have observed, the decision was taken in panic, confusion and ignorance. It shows a lack of consultation and communication with the bodies involved that would make the average dictator blush. Some of those in responsible positions who are not given to exaggeration have accused the Government of barbarism and of the " taint " of racialism. I acquit the Government of such motivations. I do not believe that there was malice aforethought. I do not think that there was aforethought of any description. As the Select Committee stated, the Government have carried out an emergency cost-cutting exercise. It is a blind, arbitrary, wasteful, clumsy, destructive action which shows—to borrow a phrase from the Brandt report—a " bloodless abstraction " in the Government's approach.
  The policy is not only bloodless; it is also heartless and brainless. It is brainless because no account has been taken of the immediate consequences for British students, British institutions of higher education or trade, political and cultural relations between Britain and the rest of the world. It is heartless because it discriminates harshly against the

  1693
  poorest in our world. It imposes huge increases on students who are already in Britain on non-advanced courses. Such students may be hoping to go on to higher education. It is a cynical and careless breach of faith with those throughout the world, especially in the Commonwealth, who look to Britain for educational succour and opportunity. However, that is not surprising. The Government's international posture is characterised by imperial measures of generosity to the rich and powerful—whether the United States of America, the EEC or the OPEC nations—and by mean-minded parsimony towards the weak and poor. That mean-minded parsimony may take the form of cuts in overseas aid or full-cost fees for students from overseas.
  When the Select Committee was chaired by the Minister for Overseas Development in 1973, he warned that Governments were in great danger of getting their figures wrong and of coming to the wrong conclusions. That view has been reaffirmed by more recent Select Committees. The difference is that the Government have taken important and dramatic action that is based on inaccurate figures in respect of the total net expenditure that we make on overseas students. The cash value of research undertaken by overseas students in British institutions has been entirely ignored. The argument that students bring in foreign exchange—in the form of their own or other currencies—to the value of scores of millions of pounds has been rejected.
  There is another miscalculation that is more important. The Government are using the wrong figures as regards the individual cost of overseas students. The Government have calculated their so-called savings on the basis of average costs. As repeated testimony has made clear, that consists of dividing the total cost of higher education by the number of overseas students here and coming up, in the most clumsy and arbitrary form, with a figure that bears little relationship to reality.
  Any calculation of what overseas students cost this country should at least be on marginal costs. Those students are, as the Government themselves argue, marginal to the general provision. Marginal costs are a much more adequate
  1694
  means of accounting in these matters and they are between one-half and two-thirds of average costs. If the calculation had been done on that basis, we should have come up with a much lower bill. That might not have suited the Government's purposes, but it would have served the cause of honesty and accuracy in public accounting.
  The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), has described the campaign to change the basis of cost calculation from average costs to marginal costs as special pleading and he has refused to acknowledge that a change needs to be made. The hon. Gentleman has commented in his usual elegant and erudite fashion on whether such changes should be made and whether the Government's policy should be halted and a different attitude adopted and different stratagems undertaken. In January, he told The Times Educational Supplement: c. 1695.
  " We shan't make the savings we planned if we start mucking about."
  The trouble is that there has been too much mucking about already.
  The Government's policy shows a fearsome combination of innumeracy, insularity and insensitivity to the needs of this country and our higher education and the needs of students from many other parts of the world. The consequence of the Government's incompetence and arbitrariness is shocking. We live in a country where from September the highest higher education fees in the world will be payable.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): That is not true.
  Mr. Kinnock: The figures that I have come from the Secretary of State's Department. They were prepared in readiness for questions in the Select Committees. If they are not true from me, they are not true from his Department.
  Annual university fees in this country will be £2,000 for an arts course, £3,000 for a science course and £5,000 for a medical course. In many cases, the fees in polytechnics will be even higher. The House should compare those figures with the fact that no European country except Belgium will charge higher fees than us and no other European country

  1695
  charges more than nominal amounts. Some charge nothing to higher education students.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kinnock: No, I am sorry; we are short of time. I shall be interested to hear the hon. Lady's contribution if she is able to take part in the debate.
  We ought also to make a comparison between our student fees and the Ivy League fees chargeable in American universities, where the highest fee payable is £2,400 a year for any course.
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: For how many years?
  Mr. Kinnock: Whether it is two, three or four years, the fact remains that at that rate the total cost will still be less than a three-year course at £3,000 a year in this country. It will still be less even if the student has had to take foundation courses in America or in this country or has taken preparatory courses, GCE A-level, the Ordinary National Diploma or any comparable qualification in order to prepare himself for his higher education course. If the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) is worried about the comparisons, I hope that he will refer to the Department of Education and Science and, in the time for reflection that he has before 7 o'clock, will change his mind and vote with us. In Canada and Australia, the figures are £1,000 a year for three-year courses in comparable institutions. Our fees are double, treble or five times those amounts.
  The irony of the higher cost fees stratagem is that, while the Prime Minister is rattling her sword against the Red menace that allegedly threatens us in every continent, the Secretary of State for Education and Science is acting as the registrar for the Patrice Lumumba university in Moscow. Overseas students, repelled by higher fees and by the attitude behind them, will be looking elsewhere. They may go to the United States or to France because of the inducements there, but they are more likely than ever before to be attracted by the inducements offered by Iron Curtain countries and by China.
  There is a major desertion of our interests, strategically, culturally and morally,
  1696
  in the Government's policy. The effect on institutions in this country will be extremely serious. I have received a letter from the secretary general of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, Mr. Geoffrey Caston.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: What date?
  Mr., Kinnock: The letter is dated 30 May 1980 and says:
  "The financial effects of this policy threaten to be devastating for some institutions: for example, over the next three years the University of London will have to replace 18 per cent of its income, the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology 33 per cent. and Birmingham 15 per cent.".
  As UMIST relies for 33 per cent. of its income on the provision that it makes for overseas students, only a marginal adjustment is needed in the demand for those places to set the whole of UMIST's finances awry and to ruin the possibilities and provision for British students who will be seeking to take advantage of the high standard of education available there.
  There are several such instances. We have had shoals of letters for every university, polytechnic and comparable institution in this country, as well as from organisations representing the heads of those institutions and the teachers in them. The evidence is unanimous and is always the same. The Government's policy, in combination with the cuts that are being inflicted on universities, is causing the strong possibility that courses will be jeopardised, whole departments menaced and the opportunities of British students cancelled and ruined because of the stupidity and blindness of the policy.
  The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has said:
  " any reduction of income on this scale "—
  that is, the scale anticipated as a result of the Government's policy—
  " must adversely affect the provision for home students."
  It is ironic that the shortage subjects—sciences, technology and mathematics—where overseas students constitute a high proportion of the total are the very courses that are in jeopardy. Those are the courses that we need to provide for our own students for the general purposes of industry, technology and education. The Government weep at the shortage of teachers in those subjects, but they are

  1697
  conniving at a policy which will exacerbate that shortage.
  A total of 49 per cent. of all postgraduates in medicine, dentistry and health in this country are overseas students. Of postgraduate students in engineering and technology, 57 per cent. are from overseas. In agriculture, forestry and veterinary science the figure is 54·4 per cent. and in science it is 34·5 per cent. We cannot have a policy that so directly jeopardises the continuity of education for those people and their opportunity for education at postgraduate level. We cannot tolerate a situation in which a substantial part of postgraduate study in this country, which is of immense value to us and to the world, can be ruined by the consequences of the full-cost fees policy.
  I acquit the Secretary of State on some grounds, because I do not think that he understands the problem. In January he said at the Millbank Club in Leicester:
  " Apart from the running costs "—
  of the universities—
  " I invite you to consider the capital costs involved. These costs are not covered in the full-cost fee and to this extent overseas students will still be handsomely subsidised."
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave much the same opinion to the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West. The Secretary of State does not seem to understand that that is what the argument is about.
  There will be a reduction in revenue resulting from the decrease in intake of overseas students and a need to replace that revenue, in addition to the effects of university cuts, yet the universities and other institutions still have to meet the same capital and recurrent costs. That is why they are making a fuss. They still have to pay their bills. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is ensuring that they will have fewer resources to meet those bills. That is the economic case.
  In addition to loss of foreign exchange, there is the question of loss of economic contacts. It is difficult to prove, but many companies will testify that they earnestly believe that the contacts developed through education and training in this country are of value to trade. Specific evidence is available from Leicester polytechnic which was presented to the
  1698
  Select Committee, Sunderland polytechnic, the University of London and other comparable institutions which demonstrates that the links of language, custom and relationships forged through education and training are of value to this country. The Government have given the Chinese Government undertakings with regard to education. What is the point of those if no trade benefit will result? Even if we could not demonstrate tangible benefits, there is certainly no loss in having large numbers of overseas students studying in this country.
  If the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others do not believe the benefits to trade, let them watch what the French do to promote opportunities in their institutions. The Czechs, Bulgarians. Poles and other nationalities will have the common sense to know that short-term cuts to save a peanut of finance should not stand in the way of their relations with the remainder of the world.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: A peanut?
  Mr. Kinnock: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes appropriate reductions in terms of foreign exchange earnings and the value of research to our economy, he will find that the figure is considerably less than the £102 million which I believe he is now prepared to admit.
  The Secretary of State has partially recognised such arguments. He has provided £5 million extra for postgraduate students. That sum will help about 1,500 out of the 9,000 postgraduate overseas students in this country and is left to the University Grants Committee to administer. Interesting comments, some of which are printable, have been made by the UGC and vice-chancellors and principals. One from the CVCP is:
  " we do not believe that this can ever fully alleviate the effects of the new policy and we foresee a number of complications over its administration."
  If the UGC is to play Red Cross to the universities, who will play St. John's Ambulance to the polytechnics and other institutions of higher education? The answer is " No one ".
  The Under-Secretary of State should understand the problems. He said last week that the polytechnics should have a distinctive role. He is right. However,

  1699
  distinctiveness when it means dependence on the provision of courses in science, technology and related subjects is becoming a source of insecurity. The result of the Government's policy is to reduce scope and distinctiveness. Such institutions cannot act like merchant adventurers and sell their wares throughout the world. The possibility of increasing distinctiveness is remote and has been reduced by this Government's policies, because such institutions will be reluctant to take the risks that will now arise from specialisation.
  The Government have been educationally destructive and economically ignorant and incoherent, and their morals with regard to this policy are those of a scorpion. They are betraying those who have no resources of their own. For example, Cyprus has been discouraged over the years from developing a higher education capacity, but Cyprus is not exempt from full-cost fees. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told me this week that, if Cypriot and Maltese students were given home student status, by 1983 the cost in a full year of operation would be £2 million. However, the Government are prepared to spend £3·6 million on EEC students.
  I am not against those students, nor are the Commonwealth high commissioners, who rightly feel a sense of outrage. We object to the fact that students from rich countries are being protected from full-cost fees and those from poor countries and countries which have been actively discouraged from developing their own higher education facilities are being penalised. The Commonwealth relationship is in shreds because of Government policies, including this salutary and cynical action. It is a betrayal of our interests to discriminate against Commonwealth students and in favour of EEC students
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: What provision did the Labour Government make for Cypriot students when they brought in the policy of differential fees?
  Mr. Kinnock: The policies of differential fees and full-cost fees are entirely different. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand that, he does not understand his policy. There is a different motivation, pace, incidence and system of alleviation. I hope that
  1700
  proper attention will be given to the differences when we debate the Select Committee reports. I offer no excuses or alibis. Our policy did not provoke the vehement outrage that this Government's policy has provoked.
  We should leave the last word on the policy of raising fees for students to the man who said that the increases were mean-minded and selfish, and who went on to say:
  " it is right that at a time of economic crisis, when all in Britain are having to make sacrifices, overseas students should carry their part of the burden. But it must be a fair part and not a discriminatory one.
  That was said in 1977 by the Leader of the House.
  The Government's policy is also a betrayal of the 20,000 non-advanced students who came to this country in 1978 and who will experience a 500 per cent. increase in their higher education fees.
  There will be a change in the student profile. We will be a higher educational Hilton. Middle East students will come to the country without difficulty, but the take-up of places by poorer students will continue to drop. Since 1975 there has been a 32 per cent. increase in the number of students coming from the Middle East and a decrease of 23 per cent. in the number of students coming from the poorest countries. The process is now worsened. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned about those figures, he can reverse the trend by changing his policy.
  In the manner of the decision and the defence of it, there is no remaining vestige of the avuncular traditions of colonialism in the Conservative Party, with a few honourable exceptions. There is not even the cynical economic self-interest for which the Conservative Party is well known or the devious diplomatic cunning for which certain eminent and prestigious individuals in the Government are also well known.
  I plead with the right hon. and learned Gentleman to abandon this clumsy, arbitrary, ill-advised and misinformed policy, freeze it, review it and rationalise it in favour of poor students from poor countries and poor students from rich countries in descending order, to the point where he can acknowledge that, on the basis of merit, students from anywhere

  1701
  in the world can be admitted to this country. Let us have a policy which meets needs and rewards talents and which fulfils our national duty to the world and our duty to our own interests.
  4.30 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move, to leave out from " House " to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  " welcomes the presence of overseas students, including those financed from the aid programme, at British institutions of further and higher education but agrees that as a general rule courses should be paid for on an economic cost basis."
  I welcome the opportunity of the debate, and I welcome also the opportunity to place on record the reasons for the Government's decision. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) began by saying that many in the university world have criticised the Government's decision. I accept that they have. The hon. Gentleman quoted me as saying that I considered their criticism to have been unnecessarily shrill. I do not withdraw from that. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman today, I believe that his criticisms have been unnecessarily shrill. I hope to prove why that is so. When listening to some of the adjectives that rolled off the hon. Gentleman's tongue, it occurred to me that, as ever, his rhetoric is never inhibited by any regard for the facts or the history of the matter under debate.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, we have recently received two reports from Select Committees. The Committees were chaired by Labour Members. We are studying the recommendations in both reports. The Government will respond to the reports as soon as possible. This is not the day on which to go into the contents of the reports, as the hon. Gentleman said. I wish, like him, to limit my remarks to the motion and the amendment.
  I shall start by reiterating certain facts. The hon. Gentleman agreed that there was nothing especially new in the proposal of full-cost fees for overseas students. As he said, it was one of the proposals advanced by the Expenditure Committee as long ago as 1973.
  Mr. Christopher Price: Be fair. Get the facts right.
  Mr. Carlisle: I am fully aware of the Expenditure Committee's proposals, and I shall deal with them.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carlisle: Not at this moment, no.
  Differential fees have been a fact of life since their introduction by a Labour Government as long ago as 1966.
  Mr. William van Straubenzee: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Carlisle: The growing number of overseas students in this country and the cost implications for the British taxpayer have been matters of concern during the intervening years for spokesmen of Governments of both political parties. I shall remind the House how the numbers have increased.
  At the end of 1966 the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, the late Mr. Crosland, announced the introduction of differential fees. In 1967–68 there were 31,000 students from overseas in all forms of further and higher education in Britain. That figure grew slowly over the next four years until in 1971–72 it had arrived at 39,000. Five years later it had risen to 75,000. By 1978–79 it had increased to 86,000. In our universities alone we have about 36,500 overseas students—about 12 per cent. of the student population, compared with 5 per cent. of that population when differential fees were introduced.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: A bad fact.
  Mr. Carlisle: It is considered to be a bad fact by the Government.
  Mr. Hooley Mr. Hooley rose——
  Mr. Carlisle: Like the hon. Member for Bedwellty, I do not propose to give way, because of pressure of time. The previous Labour Government imposed a diminishing quota from 1976 onwards.
  The increase in the number of students coming from overseas to Britain is acceptable and welcome. It would be acceptable to Britain generally, save for one fact—the increasing cost to the British taxpayer.

  1703
  I remind the House of the cost involved. As a result of the totally arbitrary and open-ended nature of the subsidy, that was being provided, the cost of the policy to the taxpayer through the education budget was £127 million in 1978–79, about £102 million of which was in advanced education. That was a totally arbitrary and totally open-ended subsidy that was provided irrespective of a student's country of origin. It was given to about 86,000 students, about one-quarter of whom came from countries that had a higher per capita income than our own. Many of the remaining overseas students came from rich families within poorer countries.
  The hon. Member for Bedwellty said that my proposals were arbitrary and unfair. They are nothing in comparison with the way in which the picture has changed over the past 10 years. The way in which the subsidy has grown has had no relationship to the needs of the students or the countries from which they come. That is unfair.
  Mr. Hooley Mr. Hooley rose——
  Mr. Carlisle: I am dealing with the present system, which the hon. Member for Bedwellty has commended. It is a system that has imposed an unfair burden on the British taxpayer. As I have reminded the House, the previous Government attempted to deal with the problem by imposing a diminishing quota on the number of students allowed to come to Britain from other parts of the world. In 1976 they announced their intention by 1981–82 to return to the number of overseas students in Britain in 1975–76—in other words a reduction from 83,000 to 66,000.
  It appears that the previous Labour Government, of which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) was a member, considered the growth of the overseas student population to that level to be unacceptable. The previous Government's policy has not worked. Instead of a reduction from 83,000 to 66,000, the figures have continued to increase. In our universities there are now 5,000 more students than the target set by the previous Labour Government for overseas students or the number that they provided for in the recurrent grant. They are in our universities and are paid
  1704
  for at the cost of 5,000 fewer home students.
  Mr. Hooley: Nonsense.
  Mr. Carlisle: There are 5,000 fewer home students——
  Mr. Hooley Mr. Hooley rose——
  Mr. Barry Sheerman Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield, East) rose——
  Mr. McNamara Mr. McNamara rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Order. Only one hon. Member can occupy the Floor at any one time.
  Mr. Carlisle: There are 5,000 more overseas students in our universities than the target set by the previous Labour Government and for which provision was made. There are 5,000 fewer home students than the target for which that Gov-ment had made provision. Faced with that situation, faced with the need to reduce public expenditure and faced also with the need to provide a situation in which we begin to live within our means, I believe that we were right, like previous Labour Governments, to look at the whole issue of overseas students.
  I have set out the background to the situation that faced us on taking office. We announced our policy of moving to full-cost fees. The hon. Member for Bedwellty, in his motion, deplores the increase. I wish to make it clear that we are looking for savings in the cost of overseas students' fees over the next three years amounting to nearly £100 million. It is about £90 million a year in the third year. Those, like the Opposition, who criticise the decision should say where they would make similar savings instead.
  Accepting the need to make savings, I believe that they are achieved better by this means than by pursuing the alternative of a 10 per cent. cut in the recurrent grant to universities. That would have reduced the opportunities for students in universities by 10 per cent., without any chance of the universities recovering the money. An indiscriminate subsidy of students from overseas not only helps, as the hon. Gentleman wishes, poor students from poorer countries but helps, to the same extent, students from rich

  1705
  countries, or students from rich families in poorer countries.
  I accept that there are advantages—cultural, trade and economic—to this country in having students from abroad in our universities. That is why I have stated that I welcome the fact that we have them in our universities. But the attempt by the hon. Gentleman to quantify such advantage is extremely difficult and unconvincing. The cost of our present system to the education budget is both quantifiable and indisputable in its effect.
  The motion refers to the high cost of fees in world terms and the damage that the hon. Gentleman believes these fees will do to our universities and other institutions—presumably on the basis that the Government's action will price this country out of the market and that the numbers will drop dramatically. I cannot accept that. I believe that the three-year undergraduate degree in an English university will remain an extremely good buy and extremely good value for anyone coming from overseas.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to fees in other universities. He referred, for example, to fees in the United States, it must be remembered that the cost of an overseas student is not represented only by the cost of the fees. It is the cost of the whole period of his university education that matters. Our undergraduate courses are for three years, compared to four years, usually, in America and to five, six or seven years on the Continent. The rate of success is far higher in our universities than in equivalent universities in other parts of the world. Our student-lecturer ratio is far lower in this country than it is throughout the universities of Europe. Such factors, I believe, mean that those coming from abroad will continue to recognise the value of a degree in this country.
  I accept that it is too early to state with certainty the number of students who will come to this country in October. We cannot know the figure with certainty until October. That is why I have repeatedly said that we shall watch the situation carefully and monitor the effects of the announcement. By introducing the policy in stages over a three-year period, we shall spread its impact. To the extent
  1706
  that the hon. Gentleman is proved right, in that a need arises to adjust the policy as a result of falling numbers, we shall have a longer period in which to act.
  Despite the comments of the hon. Gentleman and the shrill allegations that have been made, I can tell the House that the signs at. this moment—I can put it no higher—are that the numbers are standing up very much better than our critics forecast. The hon. Gentleman makes snide remarks from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Kinnock: They are not snide.
  Mr. Carlisle: I say to the hon. Gentleman that there was nothing in the policy that we inherited that discriminated in favour of poor countries, poor families or poor students.
  Dame Judith Hart: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted 1976. He was, apparently, by convention, precluded from the discussions within the Labour Government in 1978 and 1979. He is therefore not aware that we were embarking on a consultative document, to be produced this year or next year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not allowed to quote 1976 policy. We were aiming at a fair system, to be administered by the British Council, to cover many of the points that he has outlined.
  Mr. Carlisle: I am sorry that the electorate lost us the opportunity of seeing that great document. We are aware only of the published expenditure proposals, which assumed a reduction to 66,000 from a figure of 83,000 when introduced. Nowhere does there appear any published document that justifies Opposition Members implying that their proposals, under a diminishing quota, would somehow identify the poorer child from the poorer country as the hon. Member for Bedwellty continually tried to suggest.
  Dame Judith Hart Dame Judith Hart rose——
  Mr. Carlisle: I am sorry I am not trying to be discourteous to the right hon. Lady. She knows that I give way a great deal, and she will have an opportunity to wind up the debate. Many hon. Members wish to speak.

  1707
  I was saying that numbers were standing up better than our critics had forecast. The latest UCCA returns for undergraduates show that the number of applications by the end of March was 12 per cent. down on last year, when, it should be remembered, there were four applications for every place achieved. What may be even more relevant is that the number of applications to March this year is over 4,000 greater than the total number of applications for 1975–76, to which level the previous Labour Government were hoping the figures would return for the current year. The article in The Times of the day before yesterday shows that the numbers coming for postgraduate courses appear to be standing up very well. I realise that we can make only predictions and that we shall not know for certain until October. That is why we shall monitor the situation.
  I realise that this has created an air of uncertainty for those involved in universities and other institutions. It is because of that uncertainty and the different effects that our decision may have on different courses at different universities, particularly at postgraduate level, as the hon. Member for Bedwellty mentioned, that we have specifically provided an additional £5 million through the University Grants Comittee for it to distribute as it sees fit. The aim is to ensure that institutions with programmes of postgraduate work of particular importance to home students do not suffer.
  The motion refers, secondly, to the policy of providing for poorer students from poorer countries. I ask the House to reflect seriously on that. The fact is that we never were getting the poorer students from the poorer countries. The fee is only one element in the cost incurred by a student on his visit here, which include as a much greater part the cost of maintenance and the cost of travel.
  Therefore, we must keep in perspective the effect on students from the poorer countries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We must bear in mind the real effects of the alteration that we are proposing on those who come either as individuals or under schemes of sponsorship by their own Governments or otherwise. Doubling, or, in certain cases, considerably more than doubling, the fee element of that student's costs is totally
  1708
  different from doubling the cost of that student coming to this country.
  Mr. Kinnock: Is the Secretary of State aware that the British Council has recently produced figures to show that the average cost of studying in Britain will rise for higher education students from £3,250 in 1980 to £4,800 in 1981 and that half of that is accounted for by the increase in full-cost fees? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman shares my concern that we are getting an unfortunate and regrettable profile of foreign students, will he take the opportunity to review his policy and see that it is used to favour poor students from the poor countries?
  Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman confirms what I have said. Obviously there is some impact, but, doing a quick calculation, I think that he was saying that about one-sixth of the cost will be affected by the decision that we have made. It is therefore wrong to say, as some people do, that because we are doubling the fee we are doubling the cost and making it doubly difficult for students to come to this country.
  For the reasons which both the hon. Gentleman and I have expressed, not only do we wish to see students coming to this country but we wish to do what we feel we can reasonably afford to assist them in coming. We want to give the assistance where we can to those indentified individually rather than on an indiscriminate basis. That is why, as well as announcing our decision on high full-cost fees, we announced for postgraduate research students a bursary system to cover some 500 such students a year—research students of high calibre—and when that is fully operational by 1982–83 we shall be giving support to about 17 per cent. of the present number of postgraduate research students.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the EEC. We have agreed that EEC students should be charged home fees. The reasons are simple and threefold: first, we are demonstrating our acceptance of the principle of student mobility within the EEC. Secondly, a draft resolution has already been tabled which will require individual countries to agree to similar fees being charged throughout Europe. Thirdly, as the hon. Gentleman

  1709
  fails to realise, we are operating on a reciprocal basis with Europe. It is the one area of the world that has more of our students than we have of theirs.
  The motion refers specifically to the Commonwealth. I realise that representations have been made from other countries and that one is under pressure to make further exceptions, but there is a difficulty about the number of exceptions that one can make. To exempt, as the motion suggests, the whole of the Commonwealth would mean exempting immediately 40,000 of the students who are here and reducing by over 50 per cent. the sorts of savings that can be made. One cannot seriously contemplate that as being consistent with a policy of charging overseas students full-cost fees. One cannot immediately cut the savings by half before even beginning to consider the position of poorer students from countries other than those in the Commonwealth. We shall continue to support, through the aid programme, a number of students from developing countries.
  As a country, we surely wish to welcome those who will come. I believe strongly that the universities still have an attractive asset. I welcome the approach of those universities which, in recent days, have seen this as an opportunity to encourage more students from overseas to come here, freed from the shackles of the diminishing quota with which they were faced.
  Mr. Paul Dean: My right hon. and learned Friend referred to a problem with the Commonwealth. I do not find it easy to support the Government on this matter. Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore give an assurance that he will pay special attention to countries, such as Cyprus, which have particular internal difficulties and a long tradition of sending students here for higher education?
  Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Cyprus has made representations to us, and they are being considered. The difficulty is the one that I tried to explain. It is difficult to know where to draw the line in establishing differentials. We have helped individual students more through overseas aid than by indiscriminate subsidy across the board.
  1710
  I believe that the motion is, frankly, bogus. To judge from the speech of the hon. Member for Bedwellty and from his sedentary comments during my speech, he appears to be arguing the principle of free entry by all to our institutions irrespective of their background and regardless of the cost to the British taxpayer. The House might be forgiven if, while listening to the hon. Gentleman, it forgot for a moment the history of his party when in Government. It was his Government who were responsible for the introduction of the principle of differential fees which discriminated against students from overseas. It was they who, in 1976, announced steps aimed at limiting the number coming here.
  Let me remind the hon. Member for Bedwellty of the words of the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley):
  " we cannot accept the continued rapid growth in the number of overseas students coming to our institutions ".
  In the following year, having announced the reducing quota, he sent a strengthened request to the universities, saying that it was justified in the interests of containing public expenditure and working within the limited educational resources. I believe that that argument is justified. I believe also that the motion put down by the hon. Gentleman is bogus, and I ask the House to reject it and to support the amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should tell the House that 15 right hon. and hon. Members wish to be accommodated between now and 7 pm, when, I understand, it is hoped that this debate will be brought to a conclusion. Brevity, therefore, will be appreciated.
  5 pm
  Mr. David Ennals: I shall attempt to be brief. I think that we have just heard a pathetically thin and unconvincing reply by the Secretary of State for Education and Science largely, I think, because he does not believe in his own case. That is the kindest interpretation that I can put on his speech.
  The Secretary of State failed absolutely to answer, or respond to, the reports of the two Select Committees. He spoke as if neither of those reports had been

  1711
  published and concentrated almost entirely on cost, without looking at the balancing benefit which this country gets. I speak largely from experience as a Foreign Office Minister and as a Secretary of State for Social Services. I have also had a great many representations from my constituents at the University of East Anglia and Norwich city college.
  I believe that the Secretary of State's decision was taken without proper consultation with other Government Departments. It is perfectly clear from the Select Committee report that there was no proper consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the ODA. The decision was taken without consultation with the Commonwealth countries themselves and there was no effective consultation with the UGC or the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I believe that this will have a profound effect—perhaps an irreversible effect—on our relations with Third world countries and especially with Commonwealth countries.
  In many cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said, overseas students may be able to go elsewhere. Some will go to the United States, some to the Soviet Union, some to France and Germany, but some may lose the opportunity of going overseas for travel and language studies. The real problem for us is that for most of them the link with Britain will be lost. I believe that that will be of profound cultural and political as well as economic significance to our country.
  My experience suggests that the effect of the Government's decision on exports and the balance of payments over the years could be very serious. For example, there are doctors in the Middle East, Africa and Asia who received their medical training in Britain. They are well acquainted with British equipment and the British Health Service. That has stood us in good stead in the work of promoting exports of medical equipment. That will be lost if we have a restricted flow of people. I do not mean simply medical students. I include engineers as well, because the restriction will probably apply even more acutely to engineering students.
  The facilities provided for students from overseas to receive their training here are quite the most effective form of overseas aid that exists. I note that the Minister for
  1712
  Overseas Development will be speaking in the debate. I should like to hear his comments, because my experience suggests that of all the forms of overseas aid nothing is more important than the assistance that we give to enable students from all over the world, but especially from the Third world, to come to Britain.
  I quote from paragraph 21 of the report of the Select Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) was Chairman. It said that
  " In eighty countries—in Asia and Latin America (both commercially significant areas) and in the Caribbean (of crucial geo-political importance)—the number of students coming to the UK on ODA financed scholarships is to be sharply curtailed. Given a concurrence of British interest and acceptability amongst recipients it seems to us wrong that even within the context of a contracting aid budget the Government should be planning to reduce the number of overseas students that it finances by such a disproportionately large number. We believe that this is one of the most cost-effective and politically constructive forms of aid that this country can offer the developing countries."
  The report went on to say:
  " We find it hard to interpret a policy that emphasises in its aid programme the need to build up the productive structure of the developing countries through the sale of British capital goods; and yet in its educational arrangements makes it increasingly difficult for nationals of potential importing countries to become acquainted with the capital goods concerned or able to operate them efficiently."
  I believe that those arguments are overwhelming. I also believe that the loss which will result from the decision taken by the Secretary of State—unless he is prepared to modify or review it—will be a loss for this country not just for next year but for the next generation, because we shall not have that generation of students coming to Britain.
  Of course, it is true that there will be no problem with the EEC. Students from Europe will be treated as home students for the purpose of determining the level of fees to be paid. Once again, the Select Committee drew attention to that. It said:
  " Her Majesty's Government will continue to subsidise EEC students, among the richest in the world, yet refuses to modify its fees policy in favour of the poorest and least privileged. The House may well ask whether such a situation will make it any easier to convince the developing countries in general and those of the Commonwealth in particular of British good faith in the various fora of the North-South dialogue."

  1713
  That is a question put by the Select Committee to this House. The Secretary of State did not touch on it at all. It was as if he had not bothered to read the report of the all-party Select Committee.
  I wish to raise a specific question with the Secretary of State and I hope that it will be answered later in the debate. The question is concerned particularly with refugees. Admittedly, only a small proportion of the overseas students who come here are refugees, but I believe that we have a special responsibility for them. The Secretary of State will know that there have been strong representations from the National Union of Students and World University Service on this matter. This was an issue on which the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee made recommendations. It said at paragraph 47:
  " Particular attention should be paid to the special problems of refugee students."
  The Select Committee added:
  " There is a need to relieve acute financial distress, particularly of refugee students admitted to Britain."
  They are, after all, only 1 per cent. of total overseas students.
  The Secretary of State will also know that the Standing Conference on Refugees, of which I am a member, has put forward four proposals and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House who are involved in the all-party refugee group will support them. I summarise those proposals in four sentences from a letter to me from the conference.
  First,
  "Those who have been given asylum in the UK should have the same right to pay the ' home ' fees as any British student."
  It seems to me absolutely monstrous that we should have a different rate of fees, for instance, for the Vietnamese refugees whom we have totally accepted as having a full right to come to this country and whom we wish to see settle down as British citizens. Somehow or other, we discriminate against them as if they were " foreigners ".
  Secondly, the letter goes on:
  " Refugee students should be allowed maintenance grants immediately on arrival in the UK. They have no place of ' ordinary residence ' "——
  except where they are, here in Britain——
  1714
  " so the three year residence qualification cannot apply."
  Thirdly, it says:
  " There should be a special bursary fund for overseas students in financial need—particularly of refugee students admitted to Britain for study."
  Fourthly, the letter says:
  " The Government should establish a consistent policy for educational support for all refugees whatever their national origin."
  I hope that the Minister of State will reply to this question of refugees and I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of all the pressures. After all, he must recognise that in speaking today he has spoken with very little support. He may have some support in the Lobby tonight, but I believe that there will be many Conservative Members who will go into the Lobby with very heavy hearts. People throughout the country feel that this is a pretty despicable act which goes against the long-term interests of our country, our Commonwealth and our standing in the world.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Tim Brinton: I am a member of the Select Committee and I put my name to the interim report on overseas students' fees. We are not discussing that in detail today, but my name is on the report because I believe that there is not enough consultation to quell the disquiet in academic institutions. It is an anomaly to give EEC students an advantage over poorer students from other countries.
  There is a need for a more definitive statement on policy on overseas students. I should like to know how many students in the various tiers of education, including postgraduate and undergraduate, the Minister thinks should be let into the country. What areas does he believe that they should be in?
  My right hon. and learned Friend has encouraged the entrepreneurial approach, with institutions going out and finding their customers or consumers. Let that be clear. Having put my name to the interim report on overseas students' fees, I must make it clear that I welcomed cordially the advent of full-cost fees. It was a right decision. It was a courageous decision which was missed by Governments for the past 10 years while they talked about it and slowly put up fees. I am in good company. British taxpayers will

  1715
  at last begin to feel that the Government are doing what they want and getting to grips with how their money is spent. Under the old system, with 12 per cent. of all students being subsidised, nobody knew how much was being spent, why it was being spent or what was the advantage to the British people,
  We have heard about advantages in trade, commerce and culture. Let us find out how much we are paying for that and whether it is really worth it. M we can transfer help in the form of bursaries, for example, to the right administering Departments and away from the Department of Education and Science we shall resolve the problem and we shall be able to see exactly what we are doing with taxpayers' money.
  The Opposition motion refers to damage to
  " British institutions of further and higher education ".
  The decision to move to full-cost fees and the immense rethink by all those involved in higher education will produce tangible advantages. It will make people ask questions. They will ask whether the courses that they offer to students are cost-effective. More important, they will ask whether they are actually needed. They will ask: how many courses are being run for the benefit of professors and teachers rather than to satisfy student demand? Do we have too many universities? Are we offering the best quality and satisfying the further and higher education needs of our home students?
  The Opposition motion refers to threats to economic and cultural relations with other countries. Our economy is threatened by too much internal, often wasteful spending by previous Governments. Blanket subsidies for all overseas students are a prime example. Of course, we welcome overseas students. I am glad to hear that applications have fallen off only little. What proportion of students do we need to sustain cultural relations with other countries? Is 12 per cent. really necessary? Do we really need 12,679 students from Malaysia to preserve cultural relations with that country? Do we need 9,151 students from Iran out of a total of 40,800 from the rest of the world outside the Commonwealth to preserve a cultural link with a country whose culture has descended to pre-Spanish Inquisition levels?
  1716
  The Opposition motion was conceived in haste by a party in disarray which had to find something to unite it. The motion is born of the inability of Socialism to think in any terms other than the profligate spending of other people's money regardless of the means and needs of the recipients. The motion will perish as we vote with the hearfelt thanks of the British people.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: One of the most depressing features of this debate was the Secretary of State's observation to the effect that the Labour Party had not succeeded in directing aid towards students from poor countries and he did not see why he should do so either. The failure to grasp that objective is manifest.
  Because time is restricted, I shall summarise the key arguments. Overseas students make a major contribution to our aid for world development. Their presence and learning of skills here is one of the best ways in which we can assist their countries to help themselves. They make a major contribution to promoting future economic links between Britain and the developing world. Upon those links our future, trade depends.
  Overseas students make a major contribution to the maintenance of British friendship with the leaders of the developing world. We might in future be more dependent on that than we realise. They are a major factor in the quality and success of existing institutions. Many institutions, particularly those specialising in tropical medicine and Oriental studies, depend for their quality on the presence of substantial numbers of students from the countries specialising in those studies. In any university or institute of higher education a good education depends on a diverse student community. It is important that institutions should contain students from a variety of backgrounds and countries.
  I reject the argument that overseas students in British universities keep out home students. Heads of university departments, if unable to admit overseas students, do not take unqualified, inadequate British students to replace them. That is my experience of the universities in which I have taught and studied.

  1717
  Students are admitted to universities on the basis of their suitability for courses. There is an element of bias in many university departments in that a good home student is often admitted first. However, if there is no good home student and there is a good overseas student, the admission of that overseas student does not keep out a home student.
  What worries me most about the Government's policy is that it closes the door on the poor countries but keeps it open for the rich. Some students can afford to pay the fees and could afford even higher fees. Between 1975 and 1978 the number of students from OPEC and Middle East countries increased by 36 per cent. I expect that trend to continue. People from such countries can afford to pay high fees, just as they can afford expensive flats and houses in London. I do not mind their paying full-cost fees, but I resent the way in which Government policy will keep the door open only for them and for students from EEC countries.
  The Secretary of State, quite rightly, criticised the fact that previous policy was an open-ended subsidy, not directed towards any group. What is he doing about that? In the absence of any clear reciprocal arrangement with many European countries or any firm EEC commitment, he is making precisely the same open-ended subsidy towards the EEC students who wish to study in Britain. He is ensuring that, whatever their numbers, they will be able to study at the home students' level of fees. Those changes of policy have been carried out without adequate discussion with the Government Departments concerned with overseas and trade affairs. That is one of the messages that have come so clearly from the Select Committee reports.
  The Labour Party started the game in 1966, when it introduced differential fees for overseas students. It is the same as prescription charges. If one installs a weapon of that kind, a subsequent Government can use it in ways, and to an extent, that had not been envisaged. It is a great danger. If the previous Government had changed to a system that concentrated heavily upon the groups to which I have referred as most in need, the Tory Government would not have
  1718
  been able to achieve such drastic changes, because they would have been doing so exclusively at the expense of the people whom it should be British policy to benefit. It would have been a more prudent measure.
  Throughout the period of the previous Labour Administration, when the increases were taking place, I argued very strongly that we should switch to a bursary-based system of far wider application. That does not now relieve the Government of the need to devise a wider bursary scheme and transfer at least some of the resources into its operation. What can we do now that the Government have reached this stage? Clearly, they will not return to non-discriminatory fees. The full-cost fees for some students is something that they want to preserve. I do not object to the Government charging full fees to students from certain countries and backgrounds who can afford to pay them.
  There are two possible directions in which the Government could change then-disastrous policy. The first would be to charge home-level fees for students from a Lomé convention country. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider that possibility. After all, let us consider what happens when we allow in EEC students at home-level fees. We allow in students from the French dependencies, which are treated as part of metropolitan France. We let them in from Réunion, Guadeloupe and Djibouti. But we do not allow them in from comparable British Commonwealth countries with exactly the same circumstances and problems but which we do not treat as part of Britain. Through the Lomé convention and its pattern of arrangements, the EEC has tried to devise a means to give the benefits of EEC membership and access to EEC opportunities to poor countries that were previously associated with members of the EEC. I hope that the Government will look at the Lomé grouping as the basis for an alleviation of fees. That is one change that could be made.
  Another change is one that I mentioned previously, namely, to widen by a large degree the concept of the bursary, especially to help students from poor countries and, to some extent, poor students and refugee students from a wider range of countries who are denied access to higher education.

  1719
  All that I have suggested is a vital investment in Britain's future relations with the developing world. I appeal to Conservative Members to understand that, if we do not do that, there are many other countries that will do it—and the Soviet Union is foremost among them. The Prime Minister is quick to remind us, quite rightly, of the existing Soviet threat and the extent to which the Soviet Union has ambitions and adventures throughout the world. We present it with an easy way to undercut Britain and make friends for the future if we do not ensure that those whom it is in our interest to help have access to higher education in Britain. We make a great mistake if we confine that access to those who can afford the fees now proposed.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. David Madel: I welcome this opportunity for a short debate. With my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton), I am a member of the Select Committee on Education and Science, which produced an interim report on this subject. I wish to direct my few words towards what we said about this problem.
  The investigation that we were able to conduct shows the usefulness of the Select Committee procedure in the House. By calling a number of witnesses, including the Secretary of State—who made a useful and helpful contribution and enhanced our discussions—we perform a useful job for Parliament. Although we are at an early stage in the Select Committee process, one thing that we have noted—and which we mention in paragraph 25 of the report—is the question of information and interdepartmental discussions. We said in that paragraph:
  " We do not consider that we can fully discharge our responsibilities to Parliament until we have access to more of the information that is available to the DES in formulating its decisions."
  I realise that there are difficulties regarding the amount of information that Government Departments can give if they use the argument that national security might be jeopardised, but on this issue it would have helped us if we could have had information about some of the discussions that must have taken place between the various Departments before the decision was made.
  I wish to concentrate my remarks on the question how the decision will affect
  1720
  the science and research courses in Britain. We made mention of that in paragraph 36 of the report, where we drew attention to the fact that
  " Since overseas students are strongly clustered in courses in engineering and technology the three institutions especially selected in the 1960s for a high level of funding in science and technology, Imperial College, London, UMIST and Strathclyde University, were said to be at some risk."
  During our discussions we were told that the Government were considering an extension of the bursary scheme. As we said later in the report, we hoped that, if any course was at risk, the bursary scheme might be used to ensure that that course did not cease, Mention has already been made of the evidence that we heard from the Leicester polytechnic about the engineering course on knitting, which is of use not only to that town but to the surrounding industries. We hope that when the bursary scheme gets under way, should there be special difficulties in certain courses, it would be used flexibly so that the course might continue. Because of the effort, work and amount of money that Britain must continue to invest in research and development, it is vital that, when the Government are considering how the cost for overseas students and the bursary scheme should continue, this matter should receive the highest priority.
  In paragraph 50 we made four points. We referred to a number of non-sponsored overseas students who deserved the possibility of access to a wider bursary fund. In the four points we stressed the need to pursue research in the United Kingdom, the need to maintain courses vital to British industry and commerce, especially in relation to export potential, and the need to relieve acute financial distress, especially of refugee students. Our recommendation states:
  "We recommend that such a scheme be set up as a matter of urgency and that it be adminstered by a body representing, among others, academic, research, industrial and commercial, overseas development and local government interests, as well as those of the relevant central government departments."
  Because of the scientific and research needs of Britain, it should be possible for the Govenrment and industry to get together to create a wider bursary fund, which could be used to ensure that certain vital courses do not suffer as a result of this alteration.

  1721
  We have been asked to be brief. Those are the only two points that I wish to make. I regret that the Opposition Front Bench did not concentrate more on some of the constructive suggestions in the report, especially our remarks on science and technical courses. The trouble with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock)—who has a look of injured guilt about him when he talks about the Labour Administration—is that he forgets the way that the previous Labour Administration proceeded.
  I hope that we shall have a debate on the report, but debates on Select Committee reports are few and far between. I wish to confine my remarks to the interim report. I draw special attention to the fact that the wider bursary should be used to help refugee students and also to help the research and development of industry in Britain, which is so vital for our economic future.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Christopher Price: I should like to mention two remarks made by the Secretary of State which, on reflection, he might want to modify. First, he said that the 1972 Expenditure Committee recommended full-cost fees. That Committee was concerned with postgraduate education, whereas these fees apply right across the board into further as well as higher education. On top of that, the Committee recommended a compensating scholarship scheme. Therefore, it recommended not a diminution of expenditure but a different pattern.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: I do not dispute that the Committee recommended that funding for those who needed funding should be given in another way. I said that it supported the principle of full-cost fees and that that was nothing new.
  Mr. Price: I felt that the full recommendations of the Expenditure Committee should be put on record. It is important to get them in balance.
  The second point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already been alluded to. He indicated that in some way, for every extra overseas student that we have in our institutions, we have one fewer home student. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed
  1722
  (Mr. Beith) put that point in context. Having taken pages and pages of evidence, we received no evidence of that fact. If the Secretary of State believes it, he must be the only person who does.
  There must be another occasion to discuss these reports in detail. The education report would have been more scathing had we been able to get at the information which the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) told the House we had not been able to obtain. The Select Committee has made a special report to the House about this matter. I quite understand the gagging writ with which the Secretary of State was issued by the Cabinet Office, thereby preventing his telling the Select Committee anything about the interdepartmental consultations. This is a matter of dispute between the Procedure Committee, which has made a recommendation, and the Government. The Select Committee hoped that this matter could be brought to the Floor of the House on a nonparty vote in the way that this kind of thing is normally decided so that it could be resolved, because the Secretary of State said that this was a matter for the House, as opposed to the Government, to decide.
  I should like to mention one matter about the foreign affairs aspects of this matter before turning to the Select Committee's recommendations. Cyprus has been mentioned. I fully support the argument put forward by Cyprus. However, I should like to put another aspect to the House. Much has been said about the menace of the Russians in the Indian Ocean. Until recently, almost all students in the island of Mauritius wanting education came to this country. As a result of this decision, the majority of students from the island of Mauritius will now be trained in the Soviet Union.
  The Government talk about the military expenditure that is necessary to prevent the Russian threat in the Indian Ocean. No decision could have been more effective in promoting the Soviet cause in the Indian Ocean than this decision on overseas students' fees. If, in five years, Mauritius goes the same way as the Seychelles or starts to move in a direction which makes people frightened of a Soviet takeover, only one Government will be responsible, and that will be this Government.

  1723
  The Secretary of State appeared to imply that the Government's decision on this occasion was, as it were, not terribly different from the decisions of previous Governments who first created the differential and then increased, or on occasions decreased, that differential over the years. I think that I could take all the members of the Select Committee with me on this point. But the suddenness—that is, the lack of consultation—and the size of this increase puts it in a different category from any previous decision about overseas students' fees.
  The Select Committee made a great deal of saying that applications were not all that much down. Again, I think that the Select Committee would agree that the numbers of overseas students in this country are holding up. However, we were distressed to find a paucity of information within the Department of Education and Science on the profile of those overseas students. There is no doubt that if, like Ralph Dahrendorf of the London School of Economics, we went out recruiting United States students of a not very high intellectual calibre for very short courses in this country, we could fill many courses. We might fill all our universities. But that is not the object of the exercise, as far as some of us are concerned, in running a higher education system.
  One of the Select Committee's final conclusions was that the Government must come out with a policy and tell the country, the universities and the polytechnics in particular how they think the balance should be drawn between American and oil-rich students who are increasing in numbers in this country and our proper responsibility to help Third world students who are not sponsored by their Governments.
  It is all very well to say that the aid budget for sponsored students should cope with part of the problem. We agree that ii should. But there is a case for holding fees for Third world students down to a reasonable level. Many leaders of Third world countries who received their education in Britain received it not as favourite students of the Government of the day but as opponents of the Government of the day. They learnt their policies in this country and are now providing a great contribution
  1724
  to the Third world by what they are doing.
  Although the report was substantially unanimous, there was one issue on which we were divided. It can be read in the report. The majority of the Committee felt that the policy of full-cost fees should stand and be mitigated by a bursary scheme. However, the minority of the Committee felt that it should stick to the Robbins report, which (recommended that fees, with no differential between overseas and home students—the possibility of a differential was never conceived—should be held at about 20 per cent. of full cost. That difference in the Committee is brought out in the report. The assumption was that fees would be held at about 20 per cent. of full cost. One side of the Committee—not the majority—felt that that was right.
  We made a number of positive recommendations. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South talked about our bursary scheme. I say no more about that, except that we used the expression " very urgent ". I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in responding to the Select Committee's report, will at least say something positive about the scope of the bursary scheme. I do not think that, after this debate, he will refuse the refugee point. It involves a tiny amount of money and is the kind of thing on which any Government would give way. However, I hope that he will be as generous as possible on the bursary scheme.
  I should like to mention two other points in the report. The first concerns the Government's decision—a decision by administrative fiat which has received very little publicity—to change the residence qualification to " ordinarily resident " as the qualification for an overseas student. We received evidence that that decision would have a far greater effect on overseas students than anybody realised, particularly in London further education institutions, where there is a very high proportion of overseas students.
  We felt that it was unsatisfactory for the Secretary of State simply to tell the Committee that the meaning of the words " ordinarily resident " was for the courts to decide. Perhaps it will be litigated before the courts. It could be two

  1725
  to three years before the final decision on the meaning of the words is given by the House of Lords. In the past, that has always applied to tax exiles, of whom the Government wanted to make as many as possible ordinarily resident. In the case of overseas students, the Government are trying to make as few people as possible ordinarily resident. In this case, it is incumbent upon the Secretary of State, in responding to our report, to make a clear statement about what he considers to be the meaning of the words " ordinarily resident ", otherwise, people such as admission officers in further education establishments, polytechnics and universities will be put in the position of acting as immigration officers, and that is utterly unreasonable. They need more guidance, and they should be given it.
  My final point relates to the words " as a general rule " in the amendment. The final wording of the Government amendment agrees that " as a general rule " courses should be paid on an economic cost basis. The Government had to include those words because they had given in to the EEC. For what it is worth, I believe—other hon. Members may disagree with me—that the EEC decision was perfectly reasonable. I suspect that it involved the package that has recently been announced and getting German support for it. I do not blame the Government for that. Having been a Member of the European Parliament for a year, I know that we have to take such decisions and that we have to give and take a little. It is a perfectly reasonable decision to make if we are wheeling and dealing in that sort of area.
  At present, the EEC is making a mass of complicated trading agreements with other countries in which non-discrimination between the EEC and those other countries figures increasingly. The Lomé convention has been mentioned. It includes a non-discrimination agreement covering workers and their families in this country. That may have to be litigated in order to find out whether sandwich course students are entitled to home fees. I am simply asking the Secretary of State to realise that we cannot open the door a little without its being forced open wider and wider.
  As other countries which have associations
  1726
  with the EEC—the ASEAN countries, Cyprus and other countries which send many students to Britain—negotiate their agreements year by year, they will say increasingly that they want non-discrimination on student fees. In the end they will get it, and it would be more graceful and politically intelligent for the Government to make this proposal now than to be forced to give way in a year or two.
  I welcome the Government's promise that they will monitor their policy and make a review. I beg them not to let this review drag on and on. Even the Secretary of State would agree that the decision was made in an absurdly hurried way. It was not an education decision. It was a Treasury decision. There seems to have been virtually no consultation, even with the Secretary of State, before it was announced. I hope that the Secretary of State will make an intelligent review of this decision quickly.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: The question of the number of overseas students who can properly be accommodated on any course of study has been an issue in education for as long as I can remember—and that is a long time. It is a most important issue. It is obvious that home students will profit in many ways from the presence on courses of overseas students throughout the further and higher education sectors, bearing in mind their different cultures, languages and background. The same is true for overseas students, who gain similarly from their association with home students. But this important argument falls to the ground when there is an unduly high ratio of overseas students to home students on courses. The whole process of education is different in such circumstances, and its effect upon those participating will be quite different. That is obvious.
  I am not advocating a reduction in the number of overseas students on the basis of that argument, but the matter should be faced. When, however, lecturers and professors complain—as many have—that to put up fees to overseas students in the way that is now envisaged will damage their institutions, one presumes that, as educationists, they are involved in the educational argument, to which I

  1727
  am sympathetic. Again and again, one hears from them the argument that to raise overseas students' fees will mean that fewer will come to this country to study and that courses, and, therefore, the jobs of professors and lecturers, will be at risk. That is an understandable argument, but it is not altruistic.
  We have yet to see whether the Government's actions on overseas students' fees will lead to a lower enrolment in our institutions. In any case, we should take a long, hard look at some courses that are run 90 per cent. for overseas students. We should accept the fact that the subsidy that has been allowed for such students for so many years has been a direct form of overseas aid. In future it should be drawn from the overseas aid budget.
  This morning I received a letter—perhaps other hon. Members also received one—from the president of the Leeds university union. He draws attention, amongst other things, to one sentence in the Select Committee report, which states:
  " It is essential that if the full economic cost argument is to be accepted, then subsidies for overseas students should be accepted as necessary and should be carried on the ODA budget."
  That is a wise and sensible point, and it would take a good deal of the heat out of this question if it could be achieved.
  Paragraph 50 of the recent interim report of the Education, Science and Arts Committee, of which I am, incidentally, a member, deals with that point explicitly. There was also some discussion of the matter during a recent debate on the Brandt report. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and a number of other hon. Members were not present for that excellent debate.
  It is clear that many countries, especially the oil-rich ones, can afford to pay the full cost of fees for their students studying in this country, and they should be asked to do so. One has only to look at the large number of establishments that have accepted overseas students on a full-cost basis for years—for example, the Bell school of languages—to realise that there is a stronger case for charging the full fees to many more overseas students than previously.
  I hope, nevertheless, that the Government will do everything possible to help students from Third world countries to
  1728
  come to Britain to study. It is important not to interfere with the admission procedures of universities as other educational institutions for these students, but there must be some device, via the ODA budget, to give this help.
  With regard to the percentage of overseas students that it is desirable to have on any course for the mutual benefit of both overseas and home students, it is interesting to note that four years ago London colleges were given five years to reduce the percentage of overseas students on any one course to 33⅓ per cent., and colleges overall were asked to reduce the percentage to 20 per cent.
  I give two examples. On 1 November 1979, full-time and sandwich courses in one institution had 1,635 students, of whom 366—22·4 per cent.—were from overseas. In another institution, the full-time and sandwich courses had 1,115 students, of whom 202—18·1 per cent.—were from overseas. That had been achieved two years in advance of the target date. That is the situation in London, which is an interesting and special case by any standard.
  Finally, there is the question of the qualification "ordinarily resident". This is an important question, and some help on it would be valuable. What is "ordinarily resident"? Surely it must be made to mean " properly and genuinely resident", because it is, I regret to say, common knowledge that in the past some students deliberately contrived to postpone the beginning of their higher-level course until they had managed to accumulate three years' residence in this country. I mention that fact not meanly but because I think that by that device they got in at the expense of some others who might have been more deserving. They had achieved previous residence in the country by almost any device, including, one suspects—speaking professionally—deliberately failing examinations in order to have to repeat a year in a qualifying examination such as A-level and so gain the residential qualification needed for full grant. This has been a serious matter and it needs to be looked at very carefully.
  I support the call by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) for particularly sympathetic treatment for

  1729
  refugee students, especially those from Vietnam. That is very important as a compassionate attitude is called for.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate, because we are dealing with a very important subject. That is why I am so disappointed by the Secretary of State's speech. As has been said, that speech could have been written by the Treasury, but it was more like one written by the treasurer of the local ratepayers' association. I say that in sadness, because I am still an idealist about education. Both at home and overseas it has a key role in preparing people for the complex world in which we live.
  Perhaps my greatest experience as an hon. Member was to go to the conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers as the representative of the United Kingdom. Many things impressed me, but two things in particular have lived with me since.
  The first was the tremendous note that Britain has played, particularly in higher and technical education, in the preparation of men and women throughout the world, particularly in the Commonwealth, for leadership in their own communities. Secondly, that experience put into perspective for me our position in the world.
  I come from Durham, in the North-East of England. People there have tended to look inward. I can well understand that and explain it. For example, unemployment in the Northern region has always been almost double the national average. There is plenty of excuse for being inward-looking.
  But, when I talked to other Commonwealth Education Ministers, saw their problems and had the pleasure of visiting their countries, I recognised how necessary it was for our Secretary of State for Education and Science to lift his horizons and not talk as though he merely had a job to defend the ratepayers and the economic position of our country.
  In world terms, we are not a poor country. If we get our priorities right, we can honour our continuing obligations and duties particularly to the Third world and the Commonwealth. It is
  1730
  in that context that I want to speak briefly.
  British education, particularly higher education, has a unique role. It is a remarkable institution. The benefit to students here and to our own community from the influx of overseas students can never be quantified. Figures have been bandied about in the debate, and the Secretary of State will have been bombarded by people who can prove figures wrong, and so on. I do not want to go into the figures now, but I say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that he has not underestimated the bitter resentment, particularly in the Commonwealth, at what we have done.
  I have just been to Cyprus. I did not find bitterness there, but I certainly found resentment and bewilderment. The argument of the people there is that we have been responsible directly for Cyprus for a long time. We did not build a university there, nor did we encourage one. I do not complain about that. Cypriot students came here freely. English is a compulsory language in the primary schools, as well as in secondary education. Wherever I went in Cyprus I spoke to people from this country who are doing important work in that very beautiful but tragic island. I spoke also to Members of Parliament, educationists and others, and without exception one of the first matters that they raised was the decision that we are now debating.
  What such people believe is important. I do not accuse the Secretary of State of positive discrimination or malice aforethought, but those people sincerely believe that they are getting less favourable treatment than, for example, people from the EEC countries—countries which have many more resources. I believe that to be true. They also believe that this is a piece of discrimination that is contrary to the kind of thing accepted in Britain and throughout the Commonwealth in the past.
  It is not only a question of the decision about university students. When one allies the decision with the withdrawal of resources from the British Council and the cuts in overseas aid, it sounds like hypocrisy to talk about concentrating resources and making sure that instead of spreading the margarine thinly we are going to direct the resources to where they are needed.

  1731
  The trouble is that we are dealing with a Government who have an obsession about public expenditure and are cutting across the board. In the dangerous world in which we live, we should spend any money that we can spend and allocate any resources that we can allocate that will give people the feeling that we care about the world—that although we spend a lot of money on defence, and so on, and regard that as necessary, we want to promote those things that will bring understanding and co-operation and achieve development.
  Our education system, with its preparation of people who do valuable work throughout the Commonwealth and the world, including the universities, brings together young people—and the majority of people throughout the world are young and poor. Therefore, this decision looks like an act of discrimination by Britain against those who are young and poor.
  It is rare in this House to find in a debate that enlightened self-interest and moral obligations coincide, but they do on this occasion. It is impossible to quantify the benefits that we get from bringing overseas students to this country. I plead with the Secretary of State to ensure that no one in the world can say that by its actions Britain is positively discriminating against the poorest students from the countries that really need the kind of intercourse, education and development that we can give them in our higher education. We have that duty and obligation to the Third world.
  As I said, the second thing about the Commonwealth Education Ministers' conference that I found so impressive was that it showed how obsessed we had been with our own internal problems. We had convinced ourselves that we had such great problems here that the rest of the world must take second place. We are a rich country compared with most other countries. I am thinking now about those who have looked to Britain for higher education for a long time, and will continue to do so, but who are considering looking elsewhere also.
  If the Secretary of State cannot reverse the policy, I plead with him to ensure that we produce a scheme whereby those who are in most desperate need—the poorest from the poorest countries—are able to come to this country and
  1732
  strengthen our education service but then to go back to their countries and perform a useful role there.
  6 pm
  Mr. William van Srraubenzee: The House always recognises that the right hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) speaks with very great sincerity in these and other matters. I am certain that he struck a considerable echo in the minds of many hon. Members as he spoke. In my equally brief, or perhaps briefer, contribution, I want to suggest to him and others that out of the current situation could come considerable improvements for the very people that he most has in mind.
  I share the right hon. Gentleman's belief in the role of this country in terms of overseas students. A rich country—we all know that we are still a rich country in world terms—has a moral duty—I would not put it lower than that—to share some part of its riches in education with students from countries less fortunate. I believe that very deeply, and I welcome most warmly the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, in his admirable speech, making it perfectly clear that that is the Government's outlook also, even if we differ about ways in which it should be done.
  Let us be quite clear about one matter. If there is any one group of hon. Members who are not entitled to sit in white sheets in respect of this matter, it is the Opposition Front Bench. Have people forgotten what happened in 1966? I have refreshed my memory by reading the report of the debate on this matter on 23 February 1967. It so happens that I wound up for the then Opposition. The two principal speakers for the Government and Opposition Front Benches are, sadly, both dead, and the Minister winding up for the then Government is now reposing in another place. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and I are the only two survivors in the House today of that debate.
  Have people forgotten what happened? The then Government entered the field of discrimination against overseas students by way of an answer to a written question on the last day of term before Christmas. Those are the facts.

  1733
  It is all on record in the Hansard of the day. I shall not delay the House by reading it. To say that there was not controversy about it, as the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said, to say that it was not a major breach of principle, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said—[HON. MEMBERS: " Where are they? "] They have both been good attenders throughout, and I make no point about that. I am sure that they will be back to listen to more important contributions. But to say these things is simply not in accordance with the facts.
  At the time, I warned that once that principle had been accepted—and it was the Labour Government who did it; of that there is no doubt, because it is all clear on the record—inevitably we would be moving into a field in which eventually there would be full cost, however one defines that, for overseas students.
  Therefore, while we can have our legitimate debates and legitimate differences of opinion, the one set of people who are not entitled to sit in white sheets are the Opposition Front Bench. On this subject the right hon. Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) cannot sit now in white—or in charming pink, as she is dressed at present. She and her hon. Friend are the two people in this House who are not entitled to do that.
  Subsequently, various Governments have worked at this problem. Obviously, I am not free to talk in detail, any more than the right hon. Lady is, but I must admit that when I was honoured to serve in junior rank at the Department of Education and Science—still the greatest Department of State; I say that to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—I worked at this matter. Frankly, I did not deliver. If and when the right hon. Lady replies, and when, as I suspect from the trailer that we heard earlier this evening, she unfolds to us the wonderful, marvellous and heartfelt scheme that she could have implemented if she had been able to do so, I am afraid that I shall have to apply to her what I apply to myself: she did not deliver.
  It is no good Ministers of previous Governments, myself included, stating the wonderful things that we would have
  1734
  done if we did not actually do them. Therefore, I hope very much that when the right hon. Lady reaches that section of her speech—it must be there, because obviously she has prepared it—she will reflect a little and wonder whether she ought to deliver it.
  Lastly, I can detect in the decision the hand of the Treasury. That is not a particularly profound thing to say. I do not think that it is necessarily bad. We must live with the realities of life. The Treasury will be in on this matter. But it is true that in an interim period we are left—I think that this was acknowledged, if not in words, by my right hon. and learned Friend—with a system that is indiscriminate. Incidentally, a very good representation to hon. Members on this matter was recently released by the National Union of Students. It is very timely, very restrained and very good. When the NUS talks of educational issues, it can often be extremely effective. I wish that it would stick to such matters—although increasingly, of course, it will be doing so. I recommend its representations to hon. Members. But the system is indiscriminate.
  I also put in a plug for consideration of the sub-degree work. We have concentrated our debate so far, understandably, on the university and polytechnic student. This country makes a very great contribution also in sub-degree level work. I merely give as an illustration the work that we do for the diploma in banking and its effects throughout the world. As we consider this subject, I hope that we shall remember the sub-degree work. I trust that we shall thereby be able to move increasingly to a system in which the appropriate Department for this matter, which is the Overseas Development Administration, is the funding body. I want to see it taken away from the Department of Education and Science. It would have the subsidiary advantage—I stress the word " subsidiary ", for this would never be a main reason for doing it—of becoming overseas aid in terms of the statistics, which it is not at present and which is one of the reasons why our position in the league table looks so bad compared with that of the French.
  I end on one doubt I wonder whether the hon. Member for Bedwellty is right. Could we ever effectively have a system that differentiated between students in an individual country? Let me illustrate

  1735
  what I mean. Do we honestly think that we could have a scheme that could, as it were, means-test parents in Bangladesh? We have only to reflect for a few minutes on the enormous administrative problem in both Bangladesh and this country to see that that would be beyond our competence, without a gross bureaucracy. But if we could discriminate on foreign policy, on links with the Commonwealth and on other grounds, that is something that I hope we would do.
  I have a feeling that when the history of this matter is written we shall look back and say that the inevitable result of the Labour Government's initial decision of 1966, which took more than 10 years to reach its final fruition, meant that this country could have a more sophisticated way of doing that which, on the whole, both sides of the House wish to achieve.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the Front Bench speakers wish to wind up the debate at 6.30 pm and that each spokesman wishes to speak for a quarter of an hour. There are 20 minutes left. It would help if hon. Members could confine their speeches to five minutes or less, in order to give other hon. Members an opportunity to speak.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I shall try to comply, Mr. Speaker, with your request. Whatever happens, I shall sit down at 6.15 pm. I was privileged to be Chairman of the Sub-Committee on overseas development, which considered this problem. It is important to recognise—as the Secretary of State did—that the recommendation of the Expenditure Committee in 1972 concerned postgraduate students. It did not concern the fees of students at all levels. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) pointed out, we have received no evidence to the effect that overseas students keep British students out of our universities. Such evidence was never brought before my Committee or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: I did not say that. I said that there were 5,000 more overseas students than provision had been made for, and 5,000 fewer home students than provision had intended.
  Mr. McNamara: That was not the impression that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave. He impled that foreign students were keeping British students out of universities. There is no evidence to that effect. I do not wish to go into the report in detail. I hope to have an opportunity to do that on another occasion.
  Both the Sub-Committee on overseas development and the Sub-Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West were prevented from being able to assess the value and quality of Government decisions. That is evident from the recommendations of the special report and from paragraph 16 of our report. If the House and its Committees are to make such assessments, they must be given access to the advice that is being given to the Government. That does not mean that access would impinge on a Government's political decision. All Governments have a right to make such decisions. The decision of this Government is horribly wrong. However, in the interests of the public, a Committee should be entitled to assess the evidence upon which a decision has been made.
  According to the evidence before our Committee, it appears that a diktat came from the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer picked the thing that was easiest to cut and that would cause the fewest problems at home. He decided on overseas students' fees No previous work had been done. No knowledge or figures were available to show the effects of that decision at home, abroad or in the developing countries. That cannot be good for Government, no matter which parties or issues are involved. Decisions should not be made until the consequences have been carefully thought out. That has not been done. An educational adviser from the Overseas Development Administration said that it did not know about the decision until it had been made. It had no opportunity to consider it. In the interests of our constituents, we must look at such activities carefully and ensure that decisions are properly considered.
  Many students have come to Britain to pursue courses at universities but have had first to obtain qualifications from our technical schools. They will not now be able to get those qualifications as a

  1737
  result of the great increase in fees. The Secretary of State should consider continuing courses for those taking A-levels and for those who intend to go on to degree courses. Courses of a special developmental nature, such as those involving the natural sciences, education, veterinary surgery, medicine and agriculture, have been hit hardest and have been hurt the most. There has been a whacking increase in those fees, and that is disastrous.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) spoke glibly about putting this cost on to the budget of the ODA. That would be fine if there were extra money available. However, the Government have plucked a figure of £106 million out of the air. If that is added to the amount that will be lost, we shall be faced with a figure of £221 million. We would be talking not of a cut of 15 per cent. but of 30 to 35 per cent.
  Mrs. Kellet-Bowman: Time.
  Mr. McNamara: It is indeed time. I shall sit down. At least, I gave way to the Secretary of State, despite the fact that he was not prepared to do so when I wished to intervene.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Christopher Brocklebank Fowler: I am also a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. I voted in favour of the Committee's report. We all know that sudden cuts in public expenditure, however necessary, can lead to hasty and ill-considered judgments. One can argue indefinitely about the extent to which the decision to increase fees may have affected universities, Third world students and Britain's economic prospects.
  I shall concentrate my brief remarks on the need for a coherent policy. From our investigations, we know that there has never been a coherent policy. There is one policy for education and overseas development, and another for domestic education. Apparently, there is no system for determining a policy that takes account of the views of all the Departments in Whitehall. If we are to have a proper policy for the education of overseas students that ties in with our interests, those views must be considered.
  1738
  The Committee noted the absence of a coherent interdepartmental policy for overseas students or in respect of Britain's political, economic, trade, development and immigration objectives in her relationships with the Third world. The strength of those relationships is more important to the maintenance of peace in the Third world than almost any military support that could be given.
  The best answer to Soviet influence in the developing world, particularly in Africa, is training, trade and development, not tanks. Non-military support to developing countries is essential if we are to protect and develop our commercial interests. I therefore agree with the right hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong). Paragraph 36 of the report spells out all the arguments. I shall not detain the House by quoting from that report. Our recommendations suggest how our policies could be improved.
  I hope that the relevant Ministries will consider the issues carefully and that the relevant Ministers will reply to our recommendations with the minimum amount of delay. In the meantime, I regret that I shall not be able to support the Government's amendment.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: There are no public expenditure decisions that do not inherently contain political decisions or decisions about what Governments can get away with. This decision fallls into that category. The Government have assumed that they could get away with such a decision. The decision results from the most narrow-minded form of nationalism and chauvinism that I have experienced during the six years that I have been a Member of Parliament. I think that I can speak with some authority, because I recognise British nationalism when I see it.
  The decision has racialist and deeply ideological overtones. We must consider the educational implications of those decisions in the context of the historic relations between the United Kingdom—as a former imperial Power—and the former colonial dependencies.
  My main objection to the decision is that it is an example of falling back on the whole transition from Empire to Commonwealth which has been part of

  1739
  the consensus policy of successive British Governments. If the dependency created by the imperial system on the imperial centre for services that are not made available on the periphery, particularly services of specialist postgraduate higher education, is to be transformed into a system of Commonwealth participation, it must include the maintenance of the cultural and political links, particularly in the education service. The Government's decision is an attempt to renege on their post-imperial obligations.
  Hon. Members have already advanced the arguments on the indirect trade benefits brought by the education of overseas students in this country. I wish to refer to only one education argument, namely, the benefit to students who are domiciled in the United Kingdom of being on courses with overseas students.
  Too often, our courses and our system of higher education are ethnocentric, with a Western bias, as though our white culture were somehow universal. The presence of overseas students on courses, whether social sciences, humanities or, particularly, those that are development-ally oriented, can result in their being determined towards the needs of Southern and Third world countries. The presence of overseas students on those courses brings to them a genuine internationalism in the education system, and it is that internationalism that is so sadly missing in the Government's decision.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The Labour Party should not stir up too much sound and fury over this admittedly unfortunate necessity. Labour Members should bear in mind that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, the previous Labour Government doubled fees for overseas students. So there is no matter of principle between us, and no hon. Member doubts that there is some limit to the numbers of overseas students who can properly be looked after in this country. We are divided on how that should be done.
  What worries me about the Government's policy is that it is not a carefully thought out policy for the whole question. We ought to ask ourselves what overseas students are here for, from which countries they should come, what skills they should have and what is our purpose
  1740
  in having them here. Are they part of our aid programme, part of our cultural diplomacy or a help to British industry, or is their purpose to shore up some of our higher education establishments?
  Each of those purposes is respectable, but each is dealt with by a different Ministry, and the Departments have not been talking to each other about the matter. Even (he facts are not known. We do not know how many overseas students are here or what financial benefits, if any, they bring to this country. There is great dispute about that. The Government say that every overseas student costs us something and that the total bill is £102 million, but that is denied, by many good judges and by the universities. We ought to find out the facts.
  Whatever the cost, it falls on the DES, and its budget is hit by overseas students, whatever other benefits the country may get from them. We must therefore sympathise with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in his efforts to economise when he spots that expenditure by his Department in respect of which he is not entitled to take into consideration the fact that other areas may gain an advantage from that spending.
  There can be no doubt about the effect on some overseas countries. I have just returned from Malaysia, which has 17,000 students over here. The Ministers in Kuala Lumpur gave me a proper roasting. Shock and disappointment were the reaction of one, and another said that it was the end of an era. Applications from Malaysia are drastically down. There used to be 100 students at the British Council in Kuala Lumpur every morning trying to find out about courses in this country. On the day that I visited the British Council last week, there were only 10 students.
  As soon as the Government made their announcement, ambassadors from other countries were anxious to speak to the Ministry of Education in Kuala Lumpur as soon as possible. Germany has offered 50 scholarships and the United States has offered 1,000 scholarships. Canada, which has apparently expanded its higher education provision much too fast, is longing to get students to keep the programme going, and even India is anxious to have more students. In so far as

  1741
  overseas students are part of our cultural diplomacy, we are doing ourselves a certain amount of harm.
  Of course, these are early days. The numbers may not fall. Our institutions are of a high standard and will be sought after. Nevertheless, until we know exactly what are our purposes and policy, I hope that the Government will establish machinery to enable proper consultation to take place between all the Departments involved.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I shall confine my remarks to the effect of the Government's policy on the postgraduate medical institutes and their associated hospitals. I take as an example the Great Ormond Street hospital for sick children and the Institute of Child Health, which, like many other institutes, is dedicated entirely to the relief of human suffering and carries out practical research and teaching. Such institutes have become centres of renown and excellence throughout the world and, therefore, have a high proportion of foreign students.
  That high proportion is accentuated by the fact that the institutes are closely connected with their associated hospitals. Because of that, a substantial number of the British medics who go to the hospitals and gain a great deal from attending the associated institutes do not bother to register as students at the institutes.
  Consequently, there is a gross overcounting of the overseas students. As a result, the Government-imposed cuts will reduce the income of some world-famous and worthwhile institutes by as much as 40 per cent. or 60 per cent. If that policy is carried out, the fees for those important institutes will be not the sums of £3,000 or £5,000 a year that have been quoted but as much as £30,000 per student. Those are the fees that will be required if the sums that the Government are cutting are to be made up.
  Of course, there is no possibility of anyone coming from abroad paying £30,000. The cuts will therefore damage not only the institutes but—because substantial numbers of the academic staff who teach in them also work in the hospitals—hospitals such as Great Ormond Street, the Maudsley and others.
  1742
  They will suffer and there will be empty beds if the policy is pursued.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I do not criticise the logic of the decision or the Government's desire to protect taxpayers' money. Both are understandable and defensible objectives. However, I am unhappy about the lack of consultation. I wish to make three points for consideration by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
  First, I hope that the policy will be carefully monitored. Cyprus and Mauritius have already been mentioned, and to those I would add Greece. As that country is to join the Common Market in January, it seems rather illogical that it should not be given the benefit in the next academic year of the facilities of its neighbour countries. If that were done, it would create great good will for little cost.
  I also wish to stress that refugee students should be given preferential consideration. We have a long and noble tradition of helping refugees and I hope that that will continue.
  Finally, we have in this country, and particularly in the University of London, some of the finest specialised institutions in the world. Reference has been made to the School of Oriental and African Studies and the School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It would be a crime and a tragedy if they were allowed to go to the wall. I hope that the monitoring will be so effective as to mitigate the worst effects that have been predicted.
  6.29 pm
  Dame Judith Hart: There cannot often have been debate in which a Minister has found himself with comparatively little support from his own Benches. One or two of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's hon. Friends liked his speech, but not his policy. Only one liked his speech and his policy.
  There is a problem here, and we need to find the right solution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not found the right solution, and he is doing great damage in many ways. We must consider the students themselves, the Commonwealth, non-Commonwealth developing countries and our own universities,

  1743
  colleges and institutes of higher education. There are also, in a vague and indefinable phrase, our own longer-term interests. Foreshadowing our debate on Brandt, we should also consider the mutuality of interests, which the Government appear to forget.
  The kernel of the problem lies with the students. There are rich students from rich countries, rich students from poor countries, poor students from poor countries and poor students from rich countries. We have to find a way to protect poor students from wherever they come and students from poor countries. They should be our priority. There is also the question of refugee students, and I am glad that their problem was underlined in the debate. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary will respond to the pleas and that a change will be made. The students who come to this country are not studying medieval Italian. They are studying agriculture, science, medicine, engineering, economics, law, administration, pharmacy and so on.
  A month or two ago I was in Sri Lanka, at the same time as the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He stated that developing countries must help each other. How can they if they do not have the fund of training and education which, even on his terms, will allow them to do so? Education is the key. The increase in fees abandons overseas students and the poorest countries and kicks the concept of development in the teeth. The reactions from overseas have been devastating, and that alone should make the Government think again.
  EEC countries should be happy that we are discriminating in favour of their students. However, at a meeting in the other place, chaired by Lord Gladwyn, an ambassador from an EEC country spoke of disquiet in educational circles in his country at the British policy towards students from the EEC. That remark was referred to in a report by the Council for Education in the Commonwealth. Does anyone for one second suppose that the French or the Germans, in their own interest, would behave as we have done?
  The same report states that a representative from a North American country expressed amazement at the crudity of the
  1744
  Government's calculations of " full cost " in working out fees. Based on his own calculations, that representative thought that students from overseas brought a net benefit to the United Kingdom. As the phrase
  " a representative from a North American country "
  is taken from the report, it can only be a representative of Canada or the United States.
  I do not know whether the Secretary of State has read the evidence given to the Select Committee dealing with overseas development. It is not a matter that his officials would normally draw to his attention. The High Commissioner for Sierra Leone said:
  " Finally, may I ask what the savings achieved from this exercise will amount to? Even if it were a few million pounds would Great Britain prefer to mortgage the reservoir of goodwill and steadfast friendship of our Commonwealth colleagues against money of this magnitude? I hope not."
  What monetary value would the Secretary of State put on our Commonwealth connection and role? Can Mr. Milton Friedman assess that?
  Representations on the matter were made by Mauritius as long ago as the Lusaka conference. Representations have also come from Lesotho, Pakistan and Bangladesh. A week or two ago, in a written answer, the Secretary of State said that he proposed to reply to the Commonwealth Secretary-General. Many of us would be interested to see that reply. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will publish it.
  Courses and departments in our institutions of higher education are devastatingly affected. The Secretary of State's remarks gave rise to a shade of misunderstanding about home and overseas students. The Association of University Teachers in Scotland stated:
  " it is certain that a shortfall of three overseas students means the equivalent of one lecturer's salary and that the loss of one lecturer means that teaching for eleven students is lost, i.e. ultimately there must be eight home students fewer."
  Let the Secretary of State ask his officials how to deal with that.
  How will the policy affect us? Let us look at the matter crudely, taking the Government's view of the world. They clearly believe that our approach to overseas countries should emphasise our strategic and commercial interests by a

  1745
  reduced aid programme. There may be a certain logic in supporting our losses through the overseas aid programme, but not by cuts of as much as 14 per cent., which are among the most savage in the public expenditure programme. As the Select Committees have discovered, in this field there is not enough consultation.
  In considering our strategic and commercial interests, let us look at what Thailand said to the Select Committee. In a memorandum it said:
  "Thailand imports British machinery and tools, especially in the private sector, so British trained technicians and engineers are required to handle these valuable imports. The United Kingdom would lose sales to Thailand and trade in general between the two countries would drop owing to the lack of British trained and educated personnel."
  I imagine that the Government are concerned to advance our commercial interests with Thailand. The evidence from Thailand was:
  " If the British Government does increase the fees I can tell you that the number of our students here will have to be reduced by more than half. Government scholarships will be cut by more than half."
  That is borne out by what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) said about Malaysia.
  The evidence from Thailand went on to deal with the multiplier effect. It was said that a reduction of even one student going to the United Kingdom had an impact on hundreds of students in Thailand. If we want to trade with and sell to developing countries, there has to be a core in the countries to which we sell which understands our technology. If the developing countries go to the Soviet Union, France, Belgium or the United States, they will end up buying Soviet, French, Belgian or American products. That will happen because those will be the products that they understand. The folly in terms of the Government's stated objectives is extraordinary.
  There are predictions that we shall have 2 million unemployed. We are watching Britain become deindustrialised. The Government emphasise the desperate need for further impetus in British exports. Could anything, in any language, be crazier than to abandon advantage in a wilful act of sabotage?
  Let us consider our world interests in the broadest sense. Africa has had
  1746
  10,000 students in Britain in recent years. Half of the Heads of the Commonwealth were educated in Britain—that is, half of the Presidents and Prime Ministers. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) laughs.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose——
  Dame Judith Hart: I merely comment on the fact that the hon. Lady laughs.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Unfortunately, they have not put into practice the humanitarian principles that they learnt here.
  Dame Judith Hart: I let the hon. Lady's comment speak for itself.
  At a meeting to which I have referred, one of the representatives of an African country expressed dismay that Britain was throwing away all the good will and support painstakingly built up by so many over a long period. He said that African countries felt that they were being let down by Britain in a way that was forcing them into the hands of the Eastern bloc, a move that they were reluctant to make. If African countries are forced into the Soviet bloc, America or France, the effect will be to sever connections with Britain. Can that be in Britain's interests? Does it make us—I use the Prime Minister's favourite phrase of the moment—" proud to be British "?
  I refer again to the Government's distinguished external guru—I do not refer to the Secretary of State for Industry—Professor Milton Friedman. Do the Government think that he has ever given a thought to British national interests in the world? Is it supposed that Professor Milton Friedman comprehends what the Commonwealth is? I do not think so.
  Mr. Kinnock: He knows Hong Kong.
  Dame Judith Hart: That is true. The professor thinks that Hong Kong is the most superb success story of world development.
  A comment by the University of Manchester institute of science and technology was reported by The Times Higher Education Supplement in November 1979. The report states:
  " The Government's proposals are so ill-thought out, so obviously worked out on the back of an envelope, so harmful to technological research, to the academic community, to prosperity of the nation at large, that once

  1747
  this becomes apparent sanity will prevail. But reasoned argument only appeals to reasonable men and women. And reasoned argument often comes a poor second or third to the demands of Government exigency or to political force."
  We call upon the Government not to spend three years monitoring their proposals but to think again and consider reducing overseas students' fees. By all means, let a rational policy be worked out. Let us have a fair policy. Let this absurd, shameful, harmful and self-destructive step be reversed, in the interests of the students, the Commonwealth and ourselves. I call upon the Government to do that.
  6.45 pm
  The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Neil Marten): Do I take it from the concluding remarks of the right hon Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) that Labour policy is now specifically to return to the status quo?
  Dame Judith Hart: It is Labour policy to reverse the increase in overseas students' fees while a rational policy is worked out.
  Mr. Marten: Would it not be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Lady obtained a copy of the document—I think that she said that it was a Green Paper when she intervened in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science—that she told us the previous Labour Government were about to publish so that we might take into account all that the previous Government had in mind? I think that that would be helpful.
  Dame Judith Hart: I am happy to assist the hon. Gentleman. I suggest that with my full permission—I am sure that it would be with the full permission of the former Secretary of State for Education and Science, who, alas, is no longer in the House—he seeks from the officials of the Department of Education and Science and the Overseas Development Administration the proposals that were under consideration between the two Departments before the general election.
  Mr. Marten: I am sure that the right hon. Lady will pursue that matter with her colleagues and, as a supplement, provide an explanation of how Labour's proposals would have been funded.
  1748
  I know that a number of hon. Members wanted to participate in the debate. They were absent from the Chamber because of their commitment to serve on Select Committees. I think that four Select Committee sat today. For the benefit of those who were not in the Chamber and did not hear my right hon. and learned Friend open the debate on behalf of the Government, I make it clear that I shall not respond in this debate to the reports that we have received from the Select Committees, which we are continuing to study. A number of hon. Members have raised questions on the Select Committee reports. The Government must have time to give the reports full and fair consideration. We are studying them with care and interest and we shall respond to them as quickly as possible.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) referred to the 1973 report of the Expenditure Committee. I think that I was the Chairman of the Committee at that time and that he was a member of it. The report was oriented towards postgraduate students. As far as I can remember—I have not read the report since 1974—it was concerned with loans to students. That report gave rise to the fees that we recommended for postgraduate students. I think that that is a correct interpretation.
  Mr. Christopher Price: I have read the report. The hon. Gentleman is right to think that he was the Chairman of the Committee. However, I was not a member of this place at that time. I was out of the House. I joined him a year later.
  Mr. Marten: That is why it was such a good report. Doubtless it would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had been a member of the Committee.
  I recognise that a number of hon. Members are worried about the implications at home and abroad of the Government's decision to phase in full-cost fees for overseas students. We shall be dealing fully and carefully with the issues raised by the Select Committees. It is essential to keep a sense of proportion and, above all, not to cry woe prematurely. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we shall be monitoring the developments as firm facts and figures become available.
  May I now pick up one or two of the points made in the debate, although not

  1749
  all of them, I am afraid, in the short time I have available since I have to sit down at 7 o'clock. [An HON. MEMBER: " Get on with it then."] I am getting on with it right now. I start first with what I thought was a curious remark, if I heard and understood it correctly, from the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). He said that the Commonwealth was in shreds as a result of this decision. I do not know whether he meant it—I imagine that he did not—and I can only say that that is an example of the need to keep a sense of proportion.
  Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman had better read what I said.
  Mr. Marten: I shall indeed, tomorrow.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset North (Mr. Dean) spoke about Cyprus. We recognise the various special cases which have been mentioned in the debate and most particularly that of Cyprus. The Government will most carefully consider a case such as this in the light of all that has been said. I cannot give any undertakings, but we shall certainly consider what has been said in the House today.
  The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), in what I thought an interesting speech if I may say so, said that nothing in the aid programme is more important than education. That may be so. It is, I think, a question of opinion, and that is clearly his opinion. But I think that the strength of it will be shown in the extent to which the developing countries which are receiving aid devote that aid to education. There are many other priorities apart from education in the general programme of a developing country, but I agree that it is important, and I believe that time will tell the extent to which the developing countries regard it as important in the way that the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is.
  I turn next to the question of students from the EEC countries paying home student fees. This is, of course, a logical consequence of our membership of the Community. As some hon. Members will recall, I did not support our entry into the Community, but that is a logical sequence of entry and all that flows from it. But the concession of home student fees for students from other countries
  1750
  in the European Community represents a practical acceptance of the principle of student mobility, as it is called, within the Community. It anticipates the resolution which will bind us to adopt such a measure in line with other Community countries.
  I should add that this is one area where, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, the export of United Kingdom students is greater than the import of overseas students. The cost of accommodating the present number of EEC students is estimated at £1·6 million initially, rising to £4·2 million in 1983–84.
  Mr. Christopher Price: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on the question of EEC students?
  Mr. Marten: Yes, but it must be the last time I give way.
  Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman talked of it as a logical development. Will he confirm that there is absolutely no directive in force and no prospect of one ever being in force on this issue? Why do the Government kow-tow to the EEC on issues where there is no directive in force, whereas they bravely stand up to the EEC even on issues where there is a directive in force?
  Mr. Marten: I am told that there is no directive in force, but I am advised that what we are doing is consistent with the general development of the Community.
  The right hon. Member for Norwich, North and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) and, in particular, the right hon. Member for Lanark, spoke of refugees and their eligibility for treatment as home students. This is an important point for the House to have before it. The Government are aware of the difficulties faced by refugees, for example, those from Vietnam. As to their student awards and tuition fees—because of their lack of residence qualifications—these are being given careful consideration, but I cannot yet say what the outcome will be.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: It is an absolute disgrace——
  Mr. Marten: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I heard what he said.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Shame.
  Mr. Ross: I am ashamed.
  Mr. Marten: I do not want to get into an argument, because I have more to say, but I am not sure why the hon. Member is ashamed that the Government are giving deep consideration to this matter. I think that we had better leave it there and perhaps talk about it afterwards.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) raised many points, including his reference to lack of consultation. The first special report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts deals with the disclosure of information about consultation between Government Departments on policy issues. Again, the Government are giving careful consideration to the points made in that report and, as I said before, they intend to give an early reply.
  Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Marten: No. I am afraid that I must stop giving way.
  I am afraid that I was absent from the Chamber during the speeches of the right hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) and my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, Northwest (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) and Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), but I have here interim reports of what they said. I shall read all that they said with care and take full account of it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) was, I think, critical of the lack of research into many of these matters. We shall carefully consider the machinery which will deal with this aspect of the matter. We need to look at that again.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) mentioned the question of monitoring. We shall certainly be doing that. He referred also to the question of Greece. The point about Greece is that it will not become a member of the Community until January 1981. We could not justify extending the concessions to Greece in advance of Community membership, and there are administrative difficulties in the way of changing fees half-way through an academic year. So Greece will benefit from the concessions from the beginning of the academic year Septembr 1981, which will mean that Greek students will have to pay full fees for a single academic year.
  1752
  The Government have made what concessions they think reasonable and can afford. I emphasise that we shall continue to use the aid programme to help students in areas of particular importance to poor countries. We shall thus continue to finance a substantial number of students and trainees nominated by their Governments under our country aid programmes. I think that that is a point which has largely been missed in the debate. The courses that they attend are carefully selected so that they can make an early contribution to the development of their countries on their return.
  Understandable concern has been expressed about students from the Commonwealth. Most of the students under our country aid programmes are from the Commonwealth, and in addition we are contributing £3·7 million in 1980–81 to the Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan, under which 500 students from Commonwealth developing countries and a further 150 from other Commonwealth countries are at present studying here. These are scholars who make a real contribution to the development of their own countries and to the exchange of ideas and ideals within the Commonwealth, and we shall continue to support the plan.
  We also have extended, for this year, the fee support scheme under which we shall assist about 600 postgraduate students from developing countries in selected subjects. This scheme is additional to that referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend.
  Furthermore, we are continuing to support a large number of refugee students from several countries, as I have said already, and there is also a large number of students from Zimbabwe. This support will enable them to continue their studies here while we initiate a normal training programme for Zimbabwe with their new Government.
  The programmes which I have mentioned, together with special schemes of the British Council and the Inter-University Council, add up to a substantial contribution—costing some £36 million this year—to the training of people from developing countries. The emphasis is on careful selection for studies or relevance to economic and social development. These are identified in the context

  1753
  of discussions with individual Governments on their overall need for aid. I do not believe that the aid programme should become involved in any generalised schemes of support for private students. The cost would be considerable and I do not consider such schemes as deserving priority from our limited funds.
  Training in Britain is only part of our assistance to developing trained manpower in developing countries. We propose to continue support for training in the recipient countries themselves and in third countries when it is more cost-effective to do so rather than to bring students to Britain.
  I was happy to notice yesterday at
  Edinburgh university, where I was having talks with the veterinary section, that the university is getting aid from the EDF fund for its students and teachers. That is a matter that should be pursued by universities.
  I had more that I wanted to say, but I promised to sit down at 7 pm. I should like to conclude by thanking hon. Members and the right hon. Lady for their contributions, which will be studied most carefully, and asking the House to support the amendment moved by the Government.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 292.

  Division No. 339]

  AYES

  [7.01 pm

  Abse, Leo

  Dobson, Frank

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Adams, Allen

  Dormand, Jack

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

  Allaun, Frank

  Douglas, Dick

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Alton, David

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Anderson, Donald

  Dubs, Alfred

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

  Kerr, Russell

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

  Dunnett, Jack

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kinnock, Neil

  Ashton, Joe

  Eadie, Alex

  Lamborn, Harry

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

  Eastham, Ken

  Lamond, James

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  English, Michael

  Leighton, Ronald

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Beith, A. J.

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Litherland, Robert

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Ewing, Harry

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Field, Frank

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Fitch, Alan

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

  Flannery, Martin

  McCartney, Hugh

  Bradley, Tom

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  McElhone, Frank

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Ford, Ben

  McKay, Alien (Penistone)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

  Forrester, John

  McKelvey, William

  Buchan, Norman

  Foster, Derek

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Maclennan, Robert

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Freud, Clement

  McNally, Thomas

  Campbell, Ian

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  George, Bruce

  McWilliam, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Magee, Bryan

  Cant, R. B.

  Gourlay, Harry

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

  Carmichael, Neil

  Graham, Ted

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Maxton, John

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Coleman, Donald

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Meacher, Michael

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cook, Robin F.

  Haynes, Frank

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Cowans, Harry

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

  Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Crowther, J. S.

  Home Robertson, John

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Cryer, Bob

  Homewood, William

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

  Cunlilfe, Lawrence

  Hooley, Frank

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Horam, John

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

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

  Newens, Stanley

  Davidson, Arthur

  Howells, Geraint

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)

  Huckfield, Les

  Ogden, Eric

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

  Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

  O'Halloran, Michael

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

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Deakins, Eric

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Dempsey, James

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Palmer, Arthur

  Dewar, Donald

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Park, George

  Dixon, Donald

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Parker, John

  Parry, Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Penhaligon, David

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Prescott, John

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

  Silverman, Julius

  Watkins, David

  Race, Reg

  Skinner, Dennis

  Weetch, Ken

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Welsh, Michael

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Snape, Peter

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Soley, Clive

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Whitlock, William

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Robertson, George

  Stallard, A. W.

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Stoddart, David

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Hooker, J. W.

  Strang, Gavin

  Winnick, David

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Straw, Jack

  Woodall, Alec

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Wrigglesworth, lan

  Ryman, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Sever, John

  Tilley, John

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tlnn, James

  Mr. George Morton.

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

  Torney, Tom

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Costain, A. P.

  Henderson, Barry

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Crouch, David

  Hicks, Robert

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Ancram, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hill, James

  Arnold, Tom

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dover, Denshore

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Hooson, Tom

  Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Hordern, Peter

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Durant, Tony

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Edwards, R Hon N. (Pembroke)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Eggar, Timothy

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Best, Keith

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fair, John

  Knox, David

  Blackburn. John

  Fell, Anthony

  Lamont, Norman

  Blaker, Peter

  Fanner, Mrs Peggy

  Lang, Ian

  Body, Richard

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Latham, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lawson, Nigel

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lee, John

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Forman, Nigel

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Bright, Graham

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Brinton, Tim

  Fox, Marcus

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Brittan, Leon

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Loveridge, John

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

  Luce, Richard

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Macfarlane, Nell

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  MacGregor, John

  Buck, Antony

  Goodhew, Victor

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Budgen, Nick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Gorst, John

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Burden, F. A.

  Gow, Ian

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Butcher, John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Gray, Hamlsh

  Madel, David

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Greenway, Harry

  Major, John

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

  Marland, Paul

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Grist, Ian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Grylls, Michael

  Marten, Nell (Banbury)

  Channon, Paul

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Mates, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

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

  Mather, Carol

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hannam, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Cockeram, Eric

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mellor, David

  Cope, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Cormack, Patrick

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

  Corrie, John

  Heddle, John

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  1756

  1757

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rees-Davies, W. R

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Ronton, Tim

  Thompson, Donald

  Moate, Roger

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Thorne, Neil (llford South)

  Molyneaux, James

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Monro, Hector

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moore, John

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Trippler, David

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Trotter, Neville

  Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

  Rost, Peter

  van Straubenzee, W R.

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Mudd, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Murphy, Christopher

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  Waddington, David

  Myles, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wakeham, John

  Needham, Richard

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Nelson, Anthony

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

  Neubert, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

  Newton, Tony

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Shersby, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

  Silvester, Fred

  Walters, Dennis

  Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

  Sims, Roger

  Ward, John

  Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

  Skeet, T. H. H

  Warren, Kenneth

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Speed, Keith

  Watson, John

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Speller, Tony

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Parris, Matthew

  Spence, John

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

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

  Wheeler, John

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Sproat, lain

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Partie, Geoffrey

  Squire, Robin

  Whitney, Raymond

  Pawsey, James

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wickenden, Keith

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Stanley, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Steen, Anthony

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Stevens, Martin

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Porter, George

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

  Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Stokes, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stradling, Thomas, J.

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Tapsell, Peter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Mr. Spencer le Marchant and

  Raison, Timothy

  Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Rathbone, Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments):—

  The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 227.

  Division No. 340]

  AYES

  [7.15 pm

  Adley, Robert

  Brittan, Leon

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Crouch, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Brotherton, Michael

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Ancram, Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Tom

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Dover, Denshore

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Buck, Antony

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

  Budgen, Nick

  Durant, Tony

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Burden, F. A.

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Butcher, John

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Eggar, Timothy

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Elliott, Sir William

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Best, Keith

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Bitten, Rt Hon John

  Channon, Paul

  Farr, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fell, Anthony

  Blackburn, John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Blaker, Peter

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Body, Richard

  Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

  Colvin, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bowden, Andrew

  Cope, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bright, Graham

  Corrie, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Brinton, Tim

  Costain, A. P.

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  1758

  1759

  Fry, Peter

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Madel, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

  Major, John

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Marland, Paul

  Scott, Nicholas

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Marlow, Tony

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Glyn, Or Alan

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marten, Nell (Banbury)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mates, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

  Gorst, John

  Mather, Carol

  Shersby, Michael

  Gow, lan

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Silvester, Fred

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mawby, Ray

  Sims, Roger

  Gray, Hamish

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Greenway, Harry

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Speed, Keith

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Speller, Tony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mellor, David

  Spence, John

  Grist, Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

  Grylls, Michael

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

  Sproat, lain

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Squire, Robin

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

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stanley, John

  Hannam, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Steen, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moate, Roger

  Stevens, Martin

  Hastings, Stephen

  Molyneaux, James

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Monro, Hector

  Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Moore, John

  Stokes, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morgan, Geraint

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Heddle, John

  Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Henderson, Barry

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Mudd, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Hicks, Robert

  Murphy, Christopher

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Myles, David

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

  Hill, James

  Needham, Richard

  Thompson, Donald

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thorne, Neil (llford South)

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Neubert, Michael

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Hooson, Tom

  Newton, Tony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Hordern, Peter

  Normanton, Tom

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Trippier, David

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

  Trotter, Neville

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Viggers, Peter

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Waddington, David

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Parris, Matthew

  Wakeham, John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

  Knox, David

  Pawsey, James

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Lamont, Norman

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Waller, Gary

  Lang, Ian

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Walters, Dennis

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Pollock, Alexander

  Ward, John

  Latham, Michael

  Porter, George

  Warren, Kenneth

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

  Watson, John

  Lawson, Nigel

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Lee, John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wells, Bowen (Herl'rd & Stev'naga)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Wheeler, John

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Raison, Timothy

  Whitney, Raymond

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wickenden, Keith

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Loveridge, John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  Luce, Richard

  Renten, Tim

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wolfaon, Mark

  Macfarlane, Nell

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  MacGregor, John

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  NcNair-Wilson. Patrick (New Forest)

  Rost, Peter

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Beith, A. J.

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Adams, Allen

  Benn Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Campbell, Ian

  Allaun, Frank

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Alton, David

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Canavan, Dennis

  Anderson, Donald

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Cant, R. B.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Carmichael, Neil

  Armstrong, Rt. Hon Ernest

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Bradley, Tom

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Ashton, Joe

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

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

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Coleman, Donald

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Buchan, Norman

  Conlan, Bernard

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Cook, Robin F.

  1760

  1761

  Cowans, Harry

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Prescott, John

  Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

  Crowther, J. S.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Race, Reg

  Cryer, Bob

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Richardson, Jo

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Robertson, George

  Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robinson, Geoffery (Coventry NW)

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

  Kerr, Russell

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Deakins Eric

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rooker, J. W.

  Dempsey, James

  Kinnock, Nell

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lamborn, Harry

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Dixon, Donald

  Lamond, James

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dobson, Frank

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ryman, John

  Dormand, Jack

  Leighton, Ronald

  Sandelson, Neville

  Douglas, Dick

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Sever, John

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Dubs, Alfred

  Litherland, Robert

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

  Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Eadie, Alex

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Silverman, Julius

  Eastham, Ken

  McCartney, Hugh

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

  English, Michael

  McElhone, Frank

  Snape, Peter

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Soley, Clive

  Evans, loan (Abordare)

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  Evans, John (Newton)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Ewing, Harry

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stallard, A. W.

  Faulds, Andrew

  McNally, Thomas

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

  Field, Frank

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stoddart, David

  Fitch, Alan

  McWilliam, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Flannery, Martin

  Magee, Bryan

  Straw, Jack

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Ford, Ben

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Forrester, John

  Maxton, John

  Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

  Foster, Derek

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Tilley, John

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Meacher, Michael

  Torney, Tom

  Freud, Clement

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  George, Bruce

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Watkins, David

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Weetch, Ken

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Welsh, Michael

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Morton, George

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Whitlock, William

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Newens, Stanley

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Haynes, Frank

  Ogden, Eric

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Woodall, Alec

  Homewood, William

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Hooley, Frank

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wrigglesworth, lan

  Horam, John

  Park, George

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

  Parker, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Hucklield, Les

  Parry, Robert

  Mr. James Tinn and

  Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

  Penhaligon, David

  Mr. Joseph Dean.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the presence of overseas students, including those financed from the aid programme, at British institutions of further and higher education but agrees that as a general rule courses should be paid for on an economic cost basis.

  LOITERING WITH INTENT
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move,
  That this House notes with approval the Second Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 1979–80 (HC 559).
  I shall put my arguments briefly, as befits a debate of less than three hours' duration.
  Last year the new system of Select Committees was set up to cover individual Departments. It was hailed by the Leader of the House as revolutionary. That was a description upon which I cast doubts at the time, on the ground that at the end of the day it is for the Government to govern. Nevertheless, the report in general and the work of the Select Committee are important in relation to the procedures of the House.
  What is of fuller significance is that the report reflected almost unanimously the views of hon. Members from both sides of the House. No Select Committee report should be ignored, but one as powerfully supported as this one may be given more weight than usual.
  Parliamentary time is, of course, precious and in our view no time can be found in this Session. As a former Home Secretary, I am aware that the Government will need to consult. The Law Commission report is also awaited and, therefore, our motion really asks for approval in the next Session, which will start in November. Our motion can have no other meaning, given the procedures of the House.
  On the matter of " sus " and race relations, I wish to make clear, as did the Committee, that we are not arguing that the law should be tailored to meet the needs of one section of the population, as suggested by the Police Federation. The Select Committee report has examined " sus " in its broadest context. That is as it should be. In this respect, and In another context, I say to the Home Secretary that I ended detention in Northern Ireland not because I was in favour of terrorism but because I believed that there were better ways, through the law, of bringing people to justice.
  In Northern Ireland I ended political status because I regarded politically motivated crime as being no different from any other crime. Among the many
  1764
  things that attracted me to the report was its objectivity. It said about " sus ":
  "The direct effects of its repeal may come as a disappointment "
  to those concerned with the race relations aspect.
  The report went on:
  " The repeal of ' sus ' may therefore do no more than create a marginally more favourable climate for improvements in the relationship between the police and the black community."
  I have moved that the House notes the report with approval. My position is clear, but I may well be asked whether that position has changed in the last year. For some time I have had in my possession a note made on 28 March 1979 by my private office. The note refers to the departmental working party report and says:
  "The working party, therefore, recommends abolishing the relevant part of section 4 of the 1824 Act and replacing it with a new offence with the same essential features."
  The note goes on to detail Government acceptance of this and the need to await the Law Commission report on the law of " attempt." The final words of the note in relation to the then Government were:
  " The Government also wishes to consider any views which may be expressed on the way in which the present offence is used—and on the need for a new offence."
  I was not convinced of the need for a new offence but, of course, the Law Commission report had to be taken into account.
  The Select Committee report convinced me that whatever other changes are recommended, " sus " should go. I wish to discuss two matters only in the report. It states:
  " The most powerful argument against ' sus ' is that it is a fundamentally unsatisfactory offence in principle. It is not generally acceptable in English law to exact penalties for forming a criminal intention. The intending criminal has usually to carry out some act as an attempt to implement his intention."
  The report goes on to discuss conspiracy. A leader in The Times stated:
  " It offends against the important principles of justice in two ways. It makes mere intent criminal and subject to imprisonment. It allows proof of previous convictions to be introduced at the trial as evidence of that intent."
  That is the legal side. It is difficult for non-lawyers.

  1765
  How will the police operate if and when the "sus" law goes? It will not present a problem in all parts of the country, because the " sus " law is not used in all parts. It is apparently not used in Scotland. Any argument that the law is indispensable cannot apply to the country as a whole. There are general powers under the 1967 Criminal Law Act under which police officers can act if they have reasonable grounds for suspicion that an offence is being actively contemplated. Section 2 of that Act applies. I do not call in aid local legislation, because it is too important a matter to be left to local legislation.
  I agree with the report that the gap left when " sus " is ended will be insignificant. The Times leader is relevant. It states:
  "The law of attempted theft could be used more often than it is. ' Sus ' is charged rather than attempt because it is easier to obtain a conviction. ' Sus ' is used largely against suspected car thieves and pickpockets. It is not designed to stop muggers."
  Mugging is not a legal concept but we all know what it means. The leader continues:
  " The problem of street crime is a real one."
  On that, I agree with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, for whom I have particular respect, but I do not agree with his conclusions in this respect. I think that there are other ways of dealing with the problem, including using the laws on theft and robbery. We must also consider the possibility of having more police on the streets.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Since the right hon. Gentleman was in Government he has changed his mind as a result of reading the report. Sir David McNee has said that in many cases the "suspected person" offence is the only one that allows intervention by the police. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to that?
  Mr. Rees: I thought that I had indicated that what the hon. Gentleman says is not right. To use this type of law, which is contrary to the spirit of English law, is the wrong way to tackle the problem. It is a most important point. As I said of Northern Ireland, one wins a battle not by expediency but by using the normal procedures of English law.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Criminal intent is at the heart of the matter, and it is enormously important that a former Home Secretary's views should be understood clearly. The right hon. Member says that he dislikes—as the Committee dislikes—anybody being punished for an intention rather than an action. If there is evidence only of criminal intent to blow people up, to take hostages, or to assassinate, what is the right hon. Gentleman's view? He made a general statement. Will he modify his statement with that in mind?
  Mr. Rees: The "sus" laws have not been used for any of the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. There are other ways by which they can be dealt with through the law.
  I hope that the Government will accept our motion. It was not our intention that on the criminal law, which is so important, we should divide in this way. It is better that we should not. There is no need to vote on the timing. I state categorically that we are not asking for this to be put right in weeks or months. We are talking about the next Session of Parliament, by which time there will have been consultations, and the Law Commission report will be available.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: In view of the last intervention, will my right hon. Friend make it plain that "sus " is not used in relation to violence? Will he make it clear that it is used in relation to alleged street offences involving property and that it has nothing to do with the examples given by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)?
  Mr. Rees: If I had thought that even in the short term we were making terrorism more possible, I would have weighed my words heavily. We are not doing that. We concede the timing question. However, we do not depart from the conclusion that the House should approve the report so that the Government can put proposals to the House after they have considered it.
  7.36 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from

  1767
  "That to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  " this House welcomes the important contribution made by the Report of the Home Affairs Committee relating to section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, accepts the need for a change in the law, and looks forward to the imminent publication of the Law Commission's Report on Attempt and to the public response to these reports, as providing the basis for an early decision as to the best way of reforming the law while ensuring adequate protection for the public."
  The amendment accepts the need for a change in the law, but points to factors other than those in the report that the Government will need to take into account in deciding the best way forward.
  I have no desire to vote on the matter. However, I cannot regard it as a matter of semantics to say that I cannot approve the report, because approving the report would, however, one looks at it, mean immediate legislation without taking the other factors into account. I could not conceivably do that. When I have been through my argument I think that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) will see that much the best way is for him and his right hon. and hon. Friends to accept the amendment, which goes a long way to meet the points that he made.
  I join the right hon. Gentleman in welcoming the publication of the report of the Select Committee on race relations and the " sus " law. This debate follows quickly on the publication of the Select Committee's report and so provides an early opportunity for the views of the House as a whole to find expression. The Committee has performed a valuable service to the House in undertaking its examination of the suspected person offence and producing a report which deals so clearly with a complex and difficult issue.
  The Government are grateful for the analysis made by the Committee of the principles underlying the offence and of the arguments which were advanced in evidence for and against its retention. It is helpful to point out, as the Committee did, that the offence is one for which, over the country as a whole, comparatively few prosecutions are brought. It is true that, as the Committee acknowledges, abolition of the offence could be only one factor in the efforts to develop trust between the police and the black community. Yet I fully recognise and
  1768
  will take into account the strong feeling among ethnic minority group leaders that positive action on the " sus " law would be of considerable help.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Home Secretary agree that not only is the incidence of prosecutions important, but that in places such as Merseyside the police use the law to justify stopping and searching black youths, who consider such action to be harassment? Is he aware that it might not result in a prosecution? If a breakdown in law and order is to occur, it is likely to be on Merseyside. The conflict that exists between the police and young coloured people as a result of the law being on the statute book contributes to the possibility of a breakdown in law and order.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I hope that he will accept that it is right for me to stick to a brief and, I hope, clear exposition of my position, because so many hon. Members wish to speak. If I become involved in extra arguments in answer to interventions I shall prevent many of those who wish to speak from doing so. I hope that the House will respect my position.
  I wish to repeat one sentence that I stated earlier, because it is important. I fully recognise, and will take into account, the strong feeling among ethnic minority group leaders that positive action on the " sus " law would be of considerable help. At the same time, I welcome—as I know the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis does—the Committee's confirmation that there has been no deliberate racial bias on the part of the Metropolitan Police in the use of the offence. By stating these things in the way that it has in the report, the Committee has made it that much easier to focus on the real issues and to consider the way ahead.
  In the opening paragraph of its report the Committee notes that the evidence that it received was
  " overwhelmingly in favour of the repeal of this provision."
  The Committee, after reviewing all the evidence, concluded that it also supported repeal of the offence. Such a recommendation must carry weight. The Committee's general line of argument deserves most serious consideration. I wish to repeat that, in the light of the

  1769
  report, the Government accept in principle the need for some change in the law. None the less, the issue is not altogether straightforward.
  I appreciate the force of the argument that the existence of " sus " inhibits, to some extent, the improvement of relations between the police and ethnic minorities.
  Mr. Marlow Mr. Marlow rose——
  Mr. Whitelaw: If I continue to give way I shall prevent others from having a chance to speak. If my hon. Friend will not consider me discourteous—and he knows that I usually give way—on this occasion I wish to make my speech without giving way. I think that that will be fair to everyone.
  As the Committee points out in paragraph 29 of its report—and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South recognised—that is not, in itself, a conclusive argument for repeal. The Committee attaches great weight to considerations of principle, but gives less weight than many of us might do to cases that should surely continue to lie within the scope of the criminal law, but would no longer do so if the Committee's report were implemented as it stands. As Home Secretary, I must consider all these aspects of the question, and I cannot shirk my responsibility for ensuring that the public is protected.
  Accordingly, I have to say that I cannot advise the House to accept the recommendation which the Select Committee has made for the immediate and total repeal of the " sus " law without provision to fill any of the gaps in the criminal law which would be left as a result. What kind of gap would simple repeal open up? How, for example, should the police deal with a case when they see somebody try car door handles, or when they find somebody attempting to steal from someone else's handbag, which turns out to have been empty?
  That raises the question of the extent of the law of attempt, which, as the Select Committee mentions in paragraph 37 of its report, the Law Commission has been studying. Hon. Members will wish to know that the Law Commission's report on that subject was submitted to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor some weeks ago and has also been
  1770
  made available to me. In the ordinary course of events I would have hoped that it could have been published before the date of this debate but there has been little time since notice of the debate was given, and with the difficulties that are affecting Government printing generally at the moment, and of which the House will be aware, that has not been possible.
  In these unusual circumstances, I think that it would be proper for me, and fair to the House, to refer to some of the Law Commission's proposals so far as they bear on the subject matter of our debate today. As the Select Committee recognises, the Law Commission's study is relevant in that there is a defect in the existing law of attempt which, in practice, is partly remedied by the use of " sus ". I refer here to the kind of case described in paragraph 37(b) of the Select Committee's report, in which an attempt is made to steal from a bag or pocket which is in fact empty. As the law stands, a charge of attempted theft in these circumstances may not succeed. Hon. Members may like to know that, if the Law Commission's proposals for changing the present law were adopted, such conduct would clearly constitute attempted theft.
  The Select Committee says that that is merely a technical difficulty. So in one sense it is, in that it is indeed a complex area of the law, and I have no doubt that the Law Commission's proposals on this and other aspects of the law of attempt will give rise to a good deal of discussion and comment in legal journals. But to the citizen who needs the protection of the police and the law it is, and will always be, much more than an academic question. There is a real loophole in our law of attempted theft that cannot be dismissed as irrelevant in the present context.
  Although I have the advantage of knowing what the Law Commission proposes, I have not yet had time to give proper consideration to its proposals. Nor, until the report has been published, will there be an opportunity for hon. Members, the legal profession or the press and public generally, to form any judgment upon the changes in the law that it recommends. I do not see how any responsible Government could proceed to legislate on " sus ", or advise the House to accept any private Member's

  1771
  proposals for legislation on the subject, until there has been time to consider the Select Committee's recommendation in the wider context of the criminal law as a whole, both as it now stands and as it would be altered if the Law Commission's proposals were implemented.
  Mr. John Morris: Does it not boil down to the fact that the only gap in the law which the Home Secretary contemplates is an attempted theft from a handbag or a pocket which happens to be empty?
  Mr. Whitelaw: That is not the case. I shall come to further matters that are relevant to that point. What I said about the Law Commission is valid.
  While we are looking at loopholes that might be left by the repeal of " sus ", we must look also at the kind of case described by the Select Committee in paragraph 37(a) of its report—where someone is found attempting to enter a locked car, but his precise intentions are uncertain. Would it be satisfactory to leave such conduct entirely unrestricted by the criminal law? I have to tell the House that the Law Commission's proposals are unlikely to make much difference in a case of this kind. Again, to people whose property is interfered with in this way, the uncertainty of the law is much more than a technical problem. It may be that in these and possible other instances, if " sus " were repealed, the ambit of the criminal law would in other respects need to be enlarged.
  It would not meet the widespread criticism of " sus " if it were repealed, and then in substance re-enacted under a new name. But, on reflection, there might well be general acceptance that the repeal of " sus " would need to be accompanied by other changes to the existing law in order to ensure proper protection to the public.
  Those are questions that we shall need to consider carefully, taking account of the views of all those concerned—including, of course, those of the police, on whom ultimately falls the burden of enforcing the laws that we choose to enact, and on whom the blame falls if the streets of our cities become unsafe for ordinary law-abiding people.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Mitcham and Morden) rose——
  Mr. Whitelaw: I have tried very hard to continue with my speech. I shall give way once more only.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: Taking account of the points made by the Home Secretary, does he not think that it would be desirable, in the interim between further legislation, for him to give advice to chief constables throughout the country not to use the " sus " law for an experimental period? We could then see whether there was any justification for the alarm that has been expressed. We could see also whether the crime figures increased as has been suggested.
  Mr. Whitelaw: As Home Secretary, I could not contemplate advising chief constables not to enforce the law as laid down by the House. That would put us all in a very difficult position.
  The Committee stressed the importance, as a crime prevention measure, of the presence of uniformed policemen on the streets, to which the right hon. Gentleman also referred. I would not dissent from that. On the contrary, we have made significant progress in increasing the strength of the police service. But at the same time we must ensure that these officers have adequate powers.
  To sum up, I welcome the Select Committee's report as an important contribution to the material on which the Government and Parliament will have to take a decision about the future of the suspected person offence. I await with interest the contributions that will be made by hon. Members taking part in this debate. I hope that in two or three weeks we shall see the publication of the Law Commission's report, and I look forward to the views that will be expressed, both in and outside Parliament, particularly on the aspects of the Law Commission's proposals that are relevant to the subject that we are discussing today.
  Meanwhile, the Home Office will be interested to receive any views both on the Select Committee's report and on the question of what other changes in the criminal law ought to be made if its recommendations were accepted—in particular, from magistrates, from the police, from bodies concerned with race relations, including the Commission for Racial Equality, and from the legal profession.

  1773
  In what I have said today I have tried to show that the problem is intricate—perhaps more so at points than the Select Committee indicated—and as Home Secretary I must, as so often, balance conflicting considerations. But on one point we are quite clear. The law is not satisfactory as it is and must be changed. Therefore, the Government intend to reach an early decision on how that should be done.
  On that basis, I hope that the House will appreciate that the best way forward is to support the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friends and myself.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: It is rare that any law should be so disliked by so many people who come into contact with it. The " sus " law is disliked not only by those who are charged under it but by the Bar, by solicitors, and by large sections of magistrates who have to administer it. The reason why it is held in such disrepute is that many people rightly regard it as unfair and unjust.
  The person who is charged under the " sus " law provisions is charged not with committing or attempting to commit an offence but with the suspicion of possibly forming an intention to commit an offence. Incidentally, he may subsequently drop that intention or form an even firmer intention not to commit the offence. Yet he is arrested, charged and frequently convicted on suspicion—and suspicion alone—and on the evidence not of independent witnesses but of two police officers.
  Since the vast majority of those who are charged with the offence are young people—frequently young black people, whose first contact it is with the law—it is not surprising, though it may be regrettable, that they should hold the law in such disrepute, and feel that it is unfair and that the police and the courts are not operating in an impartial manner. They are convicted not because someone has said " I saw you attempt to put your hand in somebody's pocket " or " I saw you put your hand in somebody's pocket and take something out "—the case is not proved in that clear and impartial way—but because police officers have seen them hanging around or acting in a way
  1774
  that has given them some cause for suspicion.
  I do not suggest that some of those who are charged with suspicion—the " sus " offence—might not at some stage have subsequently formed the intention to commit the offence—it would be naive and foolish to put forward that argument—but what I think impressed the Select Committee was that a large number of those who have been arested, charged and convicted of the offence might never have committed the offence at all. None the less, they have been convicted of a criminal offence and have had a conviction recorded against their names for the rest of their lives.
  Mr. Delwyn Williams: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any details of how many police officers have been charged with giving false evidence in these cases? I should have thought that the courts would be full of police officers arrested and charged with giving perjured evidence if what he said were right.
  Mr. Davidson: Many people are acquitted of all kinds of criminal offences. They are acquitted presumably because the jury are not satisfied, amongst other things, with the evidence put forward by the police. In the " sus " case there is no jury. There is no right of trial by jury, because it is not an indictable offence. But merely because someone is acquitted does not mean that the police will be charged with putting forward wrongful evidence. With respect, that was not a pertinent intervention. It in no way weakens the case against getting rid of this objectionable law. This law is objectionable to large sections of the community and it should not remain on the statute book for one day longer than is necessary.
  7.58 pm
  Sir Graham Page: The House must be grateful to the Opposition for choosing to debate the report of one of the 12 Select Committees set up to act as parliamentary watchdogs on behalf of the House over the working of Government Departments. Of course, I am particularly happy that they have chosen the report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I think this dispels some of the fears that we had that the Select Committees might be toiling away in vain

  1775
  because time would not be found to debate their reports in the House. Therefore, I repeat, I am particularly glad that this report is being debated today.
  I could have hoped that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary might have used that generous broad brush that he is so magnificently capable of using on occasions and said that he approved the report and explained his ifs and buts in his speech rather than putting them on the Order Paper and embarrassing some of us who put our names to the report.
  I should say at the outset that I am not inclined to support what I think is a departmental dilution, even to the extent of dissolution, of the recommendations in the report. My right hon. Friend's speech was far stronger in support of the report than the amendment that he has put on the Order Paper. I appreciate that he has been advised to be cautious about the word " immediate ". There are certain things to be done before the " sus " law should be abolished. I assure my right hon. Friend on behalf of the Committee that he can take that word " immediate " as literally as we take your word, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you ask the Whip " What day? " and he says " Tomorrow, Sir ". Of course, when we say " immediate " there is much to be done. I refer to paragraph 28 of the report where, in the heavy print of a recommendation, it is stated that, " fortified by " the recommendations,
  " we recommend the early repeal of ' sus '."
  Need we be so pedantic about the use of the word " immediate " or " early "? Of course we must have time to consider the form of the repeal and the parliamentary programme for it. We must also have time to consider the Law Commission's report. The Select Committee's report refers to that fact. We thought then that, whatever the Law Commision brought forward, it would be on technical points of law and that it would not affect the general principle that the " sus " law should be abolished. That provision could be brought in at the same time. Like the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), I too would call the autumn " immediate " with regard to the proceedings of the House.
  The report originated in and the evidence was taken by the Race Relations and Immigration Sub-Committee of the
  1776
  Select Committee, which was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Padding-ton (Mr. Wheeler). That explains why the investigation started its life entitled " Race Relations and the Sus Law ".
  Paragraph 2 of the report makes clear that when the investigation had been embarked upon it was not simply a matter of race relations, but a much wider issue, and the report deals with it in that way. It is only comparatively recently that the " sus " law has become associated with the coloured community. " Sus " has been suspect—I did not mean to make a pun—and it has been a matter of concern and anxiety for many decades. About four or five years ago it became associated with race relations. The expression of anxiety has not simply been caused by campaigns such as " Scrap Sus ". Anxiety is being and has been expressed by those people who see the results of " sus " arrests—those people who have to conduct " sus " cases in the magistrates' court, or the magistrates themselves. We must remember that such cases are heard only in the magistrates' courts, except when there is an appeal. Anxiety is also expressed by those who see the results of " sus " convictions. Those people are expressing anxiety to an increasing degree. It might be said that that is the blunt end of the problem. What about the sharp end of the problem? What about the police and potential victims? Would it not take away the power of the police in the prevention of crime if we abolished the " sus " law?
  Some astonishing evidence was revealed to the Select Committee. The Metropolitan Police gave evidence to the Committee, saying that it wanted to retain " sus ". In the metropolis, one police division differs from another in the extreme in its use of " sus ", and in the rest of the country only Merseyside and Greater Manchester use " sus " to any extent. It is used differently in different police divisions, and in different police forces. In some cases, plain clothes police make " sus " arrests, and in other cases uniformed officers make the arrests. If it is such an important weapon in the eyes of the police for the prevention of crime, one would have expected that it would be used extensively over the whole country, and in a uniform way, but that is far from the case.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir G. Page: I would rather not give way, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. There are many hon. Members who wish to speak, and I shall be as brief as I can.
  The use of plain clothes officers was dealt with by the Select Committee, and it is of great importance. If uniformed police only were used, I do not believe that a potential bag snatcher would reason out in his mind " They are using only uniformed police. I cannot see a uniform anywhere. Therefore, I can snatch that bag and get away with it." I do not believe that we need fear that. I am sure that if a uniformed policeman replaced the plain clothes man in these duties, his presence would be a real deterrent to street crime—far more than the fear of " sus " arrest from a disguised policeman.
  This so-called weapon in the hands of the police for the prevention of crime is a boomerang. The resentment which its use generates causes it to cut down the co-operation and the good will of the public—I mean the public, not the criminal—on whom the police must rely in carrying out their duties.
  I wish that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had noted with approval the report of the Select Committee. I do not object to the words at the end of the amendment:
  " the basis for an early decision as to the best way of reforming the law while ensuring adequate protection for the public "
  provided that that means only the form and trimmings of the repeal. My right hon. Friend asks a lot of me, as the Chairman who is presenting the Committee's report to the House, when he asks me to do nothing more than look on this as a contribution relating to " sus ". He is asking a lot when he asks me to accept it as nothing more than showing a need for a change in the law without a commitment to what that change may be, and when he asks me to pledge myself to do no more than look forward to the Law Commission report, and to public response. How does one ascertain public response, except at a general election? I hope he does not mean that we will
  1778
  have to wait that long to accept the recommendations of the report. I hope that the House will approve the report today.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. David Alton: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) on his enlightened speech, and I also congratulate his Committee.
  I begin my contribution with the final words of the second report of the Home Affairs Committee, which state:
  " the repeal of ' sus ' signifies the removal of a piece of law which is contrary to the freedom and liberty of the individual."
  That sums up many of the arguments involved in this legislation.
  This is not the first time that Parliament has discussed the " sus " laws. On 14 December 1978, when the previous Labour Government were in power, my noble Friend Lord Avebury introduced a Bill to abolish the criminal offence of being a suspected person. He then cited the organisations that had condemned " sus "—the National Association of Probation Officers, the Church of England, and the Catholic Commission for Racial Justice. He then listed the reasons why " sus " should be scrapped. He said that the Act was archaic in its language. For instance section 4 reads:
  " Every suspected person or reputed thief frequenting or loitering in any river, canal or negotiable stream, dock or basin or any quay, wharf or warehouse near or adjoining thereto, or any street, highway, or avenue leading thereto, or any place of public resort, or any avenue leading thereto, or any street, or any highway, or any place adjacent to a street or highway, with intent to commit an arrestable offence."
  I do not apologise for reading that, because it is right to remind hon. Members that this 150-year-old gobbledegook brings the law into disrepute.
  Secondly, there is no proof whatsoever that the Act is a deterrent to street crime. The Reverend Jack Pawsey, of Camber-well, said:
  " It is the reverse of a deterrent. Faced with a charge and conviction for something he never did, the accused joins the growing band of young people for whom it is irrelevant whether something is lawful or not. This builds up villains."
  In other words, many young people feel that if they are going to be arrested anyway it does not make much difference

  1779
  whether they are arrested on suspicion or whether they actually commit the crime. The Reverend Jack Pawsey also indicated that " sus " did nothing to improve relations between ethnic monorities and the police. Therefore, Lord Avebury, on 14 December 1978, argued that " sus " schould be scrapped and the charge of attempted theft be used instead.
  I remind the House that this debate was initiated in another place under a Labour Government, and yet the Bill was defeated, in spite of strong speeches in its support by a former Lord Chancellor. The Minister opposed the Bill, and the Labour Party was noticeable for its absence in the Lobby. So there are some grounds for cynicism concerning this debate. I have often noticed that the Labour Party says very different things in opposition from what it does in government.
  Nothing has changed now from what happened then. [Interruption.] The report of the Select Committee is, of course, welcome, but it adds little to the conclusions of the Runnymede Trust and other independent bodies. All that has been achieved by doing nothing for 18 months is further tension between the police and ethnic groups. It is for that reason that again I echo the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Crosby in hoping that this debate will not delay or halt the speedy implementation of the recommendations of this Committee.
  Mr. David Mellor: I do not think that on this topic the hon. Gentleman has the expertise that he claims. He is certainly not advancing the case that most of us accept as a reason why the " sus " laws should go. Particularly, he is not advancing the case in the report that he has so commended, because that said that it would make only the most marginal difference on racial grounds. Of course, the real objections to the " sus " laws, as one would have hoped the hon. Gentleman would know before he intervened in the debate, are the jurisprudential objections to which other speakers have alluded.
  Mr. Alton: We obviously represent two very different sorts of constituency. In the city that I represent this law causes major problems. The right hon. Member for Crosby said that although the Act is not used elsewhere there are major problems
  1780
  caused by its use in Greater Manchester, in Merseyside and in London.
  I was coming to the main thrust of my argument, which concerns the way in which this law affects good race relations. In his intervention, the hon. Gentleman tried to pretend that this had no effect, because relatively, it was so little used. That is not true. I have carefully looked at the statistics today. If the hon. Gentleman refers to them, he will see the number of arrests over the last four years under the " sus " laws.
  Nearly half of the people arrested in the Metropolitan area of London in each of the last four years were people from the ethnic minority groups. For instance, up to the third quarter of 1979, 817 white-skinned Europeans were arrested, as compared with a full total of 1,482, leaving 665 from ethnic minority groups. The same pattern existed in the previous years.
  Mr. Marlow: I think that the crux of the racial point that people try to make is whether the relationship between the police and racial minorities, particularly coloured youths, is worse in those areas of the country where the " sus " laws are used, as opposed to other areas where there are large racial minorities, including young people, where the " sus " laws are not used. The case is not proven in that direction.
  Mr. Alton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that even if it is only in the minds of those concerned, it is like a running sore in the minds of the black community. Worse than that, I think that there is sufficient evidence available, from the figures that I have quoted, which are available in the Official Report—I can give the hon. Member the details later—conclusively to show that the black minority groups are far more seriously disadvantaged by these laws than are white groups.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: On a point of clarification, do the figures that the hon. Member has given relate only to arrests, or to those who have been charged? There may be a number of young people who are taken to police stations following arrest, but because the senior police officer present does not want to prefer a charge, they are not charged.
  Mr. Alton: The figures relate to arrests. One might well make the point that whether or not persons are charged, one could still claim that it is harassment. Certainly, many people in the black community would say that the laws are being used to their disadvantage.
  Of course, the police must have power to deal with street offences. We on the Liberal Bench recognise that the law on attempted theft has got into an unholy mess. Therefore, the Government should introduce statutory reform of attempted theft, so that offenders can be dealt with under an Act which is comprehensible and which also guarantees them the right of jury trial. No one should suggest that the abolition of " sus " will change the relationships between the police and the black community overnight. But it will be a valuable declaration of intent.
  Allegations that the police are racist help no one, although it would be naive to pretend that our police officers do not reflect current prejudices. It is to be hoped that the attraction of better police pay will expand the social and intellectual spectrum of police recruitment. People who take such pleasure in sniping at the police from the sidelines should instead join the special constabulary and set a good example in community relations. We want to blur the lines between the police and the community, and not sharpen them.
  I should also like to see more moves towards the sort of community policing experiment pioneered by John Alderson, in Devon and Cornwall. Surely it is self-evident that it is better to prevent crime by having uniformed officers on the beat rather than relying over-heavily on plain-clothes men watching and waiting to catch people, not always being successful, certainly not deterring, and leading offenders on to the escalator of rising crime.
  Finally, I must commend the motion. However late, it is vital that "sus" be repealed. I am also delighted by the sympathetic noises from the Government Benches. However, we have heard honeyed words from Governments before. The previous Labour Government waited for Law Commission reports. Previously it was the final report of the working party considering the law on vagrancy. Now the Government amendment talks
  1782
  once again of the Law Commission's report. Then they will say that they do not have time under the pressure of other legislation that inevitably bogs down Governments.
  Labour and Tory Governments promise the earth and in fact do nothing. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] The Government should have given time for a simple Private Member's Bill to abolish " sus " and tidy up attempted theft during this Session, before any more damage could be done.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Charles Irving: I commence my short contribution by paying a tribute to the police. I think that every citizen of this country is conscious of the difficult job that they carry out and the abuse that is often undeservedly hurled upon them. Nevertheless, I must say straight away that the sooner this law is repealed, the better I shall be pleased. I can see no justification whatever for any indefinite delay. If the Act is deemed to be unfair and unjust now, it has been so since 1824, far too long for injustice to be perpetuated and I regret that I cannot support further procrastination.
  Even the Police Federation, in its letter dated 21 May to Members of Parliament, makes the point, among others, that:
  " Abolition of the " Sus " law will not affect the right and duty of the police to stop and question people in the street when they have reasonable grounds for doing so."
  Most of the publicity surrounding the " sus " law has concerned its effects on relations between the police and members of the black community. I share that concern, but it is important to remember that for many years a number of magistrates and members of the legal profession have considered this offence objectionable on grounds that are unconnected with racial considerations. It punishes behaviour that falls short of any substantive or attempted crime.
  In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee both the chairman of the Bar and the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association proposed that the offence should be abolished, and that where circumstances justified charges of attempted theft should be brought instead. As a former magistrate, I find myself in strong agreement with the views expressed by three members of the inner London bench,

  1783
  who gave oral evidence to the Committee. Mrs. Leah Harvey, chairman of the south central division of inner London, pointed out that the offence gives rise to great anxiety and apprehension among many magistrates. She said that the offence does not cover an attempted crime, but a " pre-attempt." The " sus " law is like no other offence with which magistrates have to deal. In general, the only evidence consists of observations by plain clothes police officers of actions that are open to misinterpretation.
  Mrs. Harvey stressed that she was concerned about the offence in general, not solely racial, terms. I strongly support her views and those of her colleagues who appeared before the Committee. They all proposed the abolition of " sus ". Having stressed that I regard the offence as unsatisfactory, for reasons that are unconnected with race, I should point out that the law has an adverse effect on racial harmony, and that that is a further powerful argument for its repeal.
  In the Metropolitan Police district, where most " sus " charges are brought, those charges involve a disproportionate number of coloured people, both in relation to their number in the population of London, and in relation to the number arrested for other offences of dishonesty. Of those arrested in the Metropolitan Police district for " sus " in 1979, 40 per cent. were black. The corresponding figure in both 1977 and 1978 was 44 per cent.
  The Home Office is well aware that feelings among the black community about the use of " sus " run very high. In its evidence to the Select Committee it referred to the representations that it had received as follows:
  " In the areas where the offence is mainly used, police practice has led to widespread feelings of apprehension and resentment on the part of the coloured community. They believe that teenagers are being harassed by the police and that black youngsters using the streets, particularly after dark, are likely to be picked up, however innocent their activities. These feelings extend to parents, church leaders and other leaders of the coloured community. However ill or well founded this apprehension may be, there is no doubt of its existence."
  I find it particularly distressing that those apprehensions have led to the breaking down of an attitude among the older generation of West Indians, who supported
  1784
  the police and demonstrated great faith in the British legal and judicial system.
  In short, I consider the case for the abolition of the " sus " offence to be very powerful. It is particularly disturbing that 356 of those who were convicted of " sus " in 1978 received immediate custodial sentences. That is a disturbing and wholly unnecessary addition to the population of our desperately overcrowded prisons. It is a disgraceful situation. I hope that the offence will be abolished, as the Select Committee recommends.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Edward Lyons: The trouble with " sus " is that people are not convicted for what they have done, or for what they have attempted to do, but for what the court finds they had intended to do. A man of unblemished characted can be sent to prison for three months, without the right of trial by jury, despite the fact that he has not committed or attempted to commit any criminal offence. He is sent to prison merely as a result of evidence to the effect that he intended to do something. In practice, that means that if two police officers saw him do two suspicious things, the burden of proof would fall on the man to establish his innocence. That is why the offence is evil.
  The National Association of Probation Officers says that the offence is unsound in principle, open to abuse in practice and contrary to natural justice. Even the Home Office working party recognises that the offence is open to abuse and that it lays the police open to allegations of abuse. The offence was not created to reduce violence, nor is it used as such. The law is used in relation to property. It has nothing to do with potential muggers.
  The burden of proof lies the wrong way. There is no right of trial by jury. Mere intention is criminal. In addition, proof of a previous conviction is regarded as assisting in the proof of intent. One therefore realises why some police forces prefer to use this charge when other charges are available. The proceedings are more rapid in a magistrates' court. It is easier to get a conviction in a magistrates' court. Evidence is tested to a lesser extent in a magistrates' court, and it is

  1785
  easier to satisfy the requirements of the burden of proof in such a court.
  Reference has been made to the variations in the incidence of use. Millions of people live in West Yorkshire. In that area about 80 charges are made each year on the grounds of " sus ". That figure has remained about the same for many years. West Yorkshire is little different from Greater Manchester, but the number of charges there has totalled about 240 a year for many years. The Manchester police force uses the " sus " law more often than does the Yorkshire police force. However, their areas are not particularly different. We are dealing with a tradition of use.
  The number of " sus " offences has not gone above 3,761 in any year, and 60 per cent. of the charges are made in London. As 40 per cent. of the charges in London are against blacks, that means that one-quarter of all charges nationally are against blacks.
  That is a high proportion, and the trouble is that even when a black person is guilty, the black community does not believe that he is guilty. That has some nasty effects, and it is one of the reasons why the offence should be abolished. Be-case of the attitude of the black community to the police, police forces sometimes cannot find enough black people to help them in identification parades.
  In addition, if the defence in a criminal case knows that there are to be allegations against the police, it will scarcely ever challenge black people on a jury, because of the damage that " sus " has done in undermining the confidence of the black community in the fairness of the police. The black community may be wrong to take that view, but there is a danger that guilty people may be acquitted by black jurors. That is part of the damage that " sus " has done. If we can remove the offence, we shall prevent a further deterioration in that attitude.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will my hon. and learned Friend answer the Home Secretary's comment about the inadequacies in the law that would exist if we abolished " sus "? If we need " sus " to deal with picking an empty pocket or trying a car door, why is it that in Yorkshire, which my hon. and
  1786
  learned Friend knows well, the offences take place, but no " sus " charge is made? There seems to be no differential in the other charges—attempted theft and so on. Why can that happen in West Yorkshire, but not in central London?
  Mr. Edward Lyons: When a thief tries a car door, there is nearly always something inside the car, and if he tries to steal something from a handbag, there is usually something in the handbag. In those circumstances, he can be charged with attempted theft. If he has an implement in his pocket he can be charged with carrying housebreaking implements or carrying an offensive weapon. A whole range of charges can be brought against a person in that situation.
  Mr. Anderson: Is it not a fact that when a man tries a car door the prosecution is uncertain whether he is attempting to take a conveyance without authority or to steal from the car? There is not an offence sufficiently proximate to either of those offences.
  Mr. Lyons: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I do not want to detain the House, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
  We all sympathise with the problems of the police and we all want to restrict crime to a minimum. The problem with " sus " is that large parts of the country manage to do without it. For example, there are courts in West Yorkshire that do not see a " sus " charge for a year on end, yet we do better in the fight against crime than some other areas. When one sees " sus " charges being preferred continually in other areas, one concludes that the police prefer to use an easy way, rather than the more difficult way, to get convictions.
  The law on attempted theft is defective in cases when the car or handbag involved is empty, but we can change that law following the new report that we understand is to be published. However, that does not mean that the existing law should remain.
  It would assist the police—many of whom give great help to the black community—in their relations with that community, and would uphold the rule of law and proper jurisprudential principles if the offence were abolished.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. John Wheeler: I welcome the opportunity to debate section 4 of the Vagrancy Act and I particularly welcome the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). I was also grateful for the response of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, particularly his encouraging statement that an early decision is to be made on the reform of the law.
  I am in some difficulty, because at this stage of the debate most of the best parts of the Home Affairs Committee report have been quoted. It is not my intention to go over the report again except to say that it must be clear that, after all these years and after all the controversy that has surrounded the 1824 Act and particularly section 4, the time has come for the charge to be removed from the criminal law. It is as simple and straightforward as that.
  I recognise the hesitancy that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary feels about the problem associated with the attempt to steal. That must be investigated and put right. However, that should not preclude the repeal of this charge. The House has already heard from the Bennett committee that up and down the country the police force is able to deal with crime on the streets without using section 4 of the 1824 Act. I remind the House again of the principal reason why the committee concluded that this law should be repealed—that in principle it is fundamentally unsatisfactory to have the offence. It must be wrong in English law to exact a penalty from an individual for forming a criminal intention. The intending criminal has usually to carry out some act as an attempt towards implementing his intention. For that reason this law has been wrong for a very long time.
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: It is not just wrong that the penalty only requires a person to have formed a criminal intent. He may not have formed a criminal intent. The position is made worse because it has only to be the opinion of two police officers that he has formed a criminal intent. A man may be tried and possibly convicted on the subjective evidence of two police officers.
  Mr. Wheeler: That is correct. The question boils down to interpretation by
  1788
  witnesses, who are inevitably police officers.
  I have sat as an inner London magistrate. I have tried such cases and acquitted. I fully understand the difficulty that magistrates have in deciding guilt or innocence.
  With regard to the number of persons sent to prison after conviction, the House should bear in mind that they are sent to prison, not merely because of conviction under section 4 but because of their previous convictions. The other side of the coin is that of 1,800 charges in a 12-month period within the Metropolitan Police district 340 people were conditionally discharged. That perhaps means that the court found those persons before it for the first time and was loth to exact a serious penalty. I speak with experience, as a member of the bench. It also means that the court is hesitant to exact a real penalty, because it is not satisfied that it should do so. The court mistrusts the character of the charge.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, however imperfect this law—and few would defend it—the burden of proof is the same as for other offences, in the sense that the court has to be satisfied that the charge has been made out?
  Mr. Wheeler: I disagree. In giving evidence to the Select Committee the Bar Council said that the table was turned in this charge. The defendant is in the position of having to prove his innocence. That is profoundly wrong, and a further reason why the charge should be repealed.
  I, too, pay tribute to the police in London. They do an extraordinarily difficult job in a large community. Their record of success in recent times in detecting robberies is second to none. However, of the 567,387 indictable offences in the Metropolitan Police area this charge represents less than 2 per cent. of the charges preferred. The plain truth is that the world will not come to an end if section 4 is repealed. The constabulary will still be able to prevent crimes on the street. A number of witnesses said when giving evidence to the Select Committee that the way to prevent crimes and offences is to have uniformed police officers on

  1789
  duty in the streets. That is why the Metropolitan Police force was established in 1829, some five years after the Act had been passed by the House.
  There is a gain to be derived from improving police and black relationships. There is no doubt that the black community, especially in the urban areas, believes that this charge is unfairly and unjustly used. If a law is to be on the statute book and if we are to preserve the traditions of law enforcement, it must be acceptable to the broad mass of the community.
  I shall not detain the House further. I merely say that the Select Committee inquired faithfully and honestly into this subject. It drew evidence from many sources, and overwhelmingly the evidence was in favour of the repeal of section 4 of the 1824 Act. That day must not be too far off.
  8.42 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: I congratulate the Select Committee on its report, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) on being more forthcoming on this issue than many of us felt that he would be, bearing in mind what he said when in government, and I congratulate the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what he said. However, I share the concern of those who have said that delay in implementing the recommendations contained in the report gives rise to a great deal of concern.
  There is a growing alienation between young people generally and the police force. That applies not only to the black community but to young people of all social classes. Anyone who looks back over the years and talks to young people now will learn that a growing alienation and hostility has developed between young people and the police. We could discuss at great length whether that is justified, and I think that we should do so. Nevertheless, alienation and hostility exist, and any law that contributes to that should be carefully examined.
  Mr. Delwyn Williams: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Lestor: No. The hon. Lady will not give way for the moment. I have only just started.
  1790
  If such a law exists, it should be carefully examined. If it can be abolished, it should be abolished. I view with great concern the attitudes among young people and the police and what young people believe to be the attitude of the police towards them.
  Mr. Williams: Does the hon. Lady realise the naivety of her argument? If she honestly believes that race relations will be improved by the abolition of the " sus " law, does she realise that the police already have many powers to harass young persons? It is something that will continue. Surely we should be considering changing those who administer the law and not changing the law itself.
  Miss Lestor: I may be many things, but I am not naive. I have not yet mentioned race relations. I have merely referred to the hostility and alienation between young people and the police. If the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) waits, I shall discuss race relations. To satisfy him I make it clear immediately that I do not believe that the abolition of this law will of itself improve race relations.
  Whatever those at the top in the police force may say about their commitment to good race relations—most of them express such a commitment—I happen to believe and, indeed, to know that that attitude does not necessarily exist as one goes down the scale in the force. A great deal more education in and understanding of race relations is needed within the police force.
  I am not suggesting that the abolition of the " sus " law means that good race relations will be achieved and that the attitude of young people will change overnight. I am not naive enough to suggest that. I am sorry that I had to digress, because I did not intend to make those remarks.
  There is alienation between young people and the police. The Home Secretary said that while he agrees that the law should be changed, as he feels it is wrong, if it is changed it will leave gaps, and that it is the gaps that cause him concern.
  I hope that the Minister of State will explain why this law is not used in many parts of the country although the same types of offence as are alleged to require the " sus " provision are committed

  1791
  People in one part of the country do not behave differently from those in another part, and I fail to understand how most communities—[Interruption.] I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) would not try to help me. I was saying that I do not understand why many parts of the country have managed perfectly well without the " sus " law and do not have a higher rate of crime than that in areas where the " sus " law is used. That is what needs explaining to those of us who do not entirely understand when the Home Secretary says that he is apprehensive about the gaps that would be left in the law.
  It is true that the numbers arrested, charged and ultimately convicted are relatively small, but the fact that people are arrested, whether or not they are charged and whether or not they are convicted, adds to the belief that there is harassment by the police among people in the black community and to their conviction that the police are not on their side.
  Therefore, whatever may be the numbers arrested and not ultimately charged or convicted, that does not alter the argument that the atmosphere created is not conducive to good relations between young people in general and the police and between black people in particular and the police.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose——
  Miss Lestor: I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. I do not want to make a long speech, and I know that others wish to contribute to the debate. I have already given way once.
  It was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) that for years before the question of race relations arose people were advocating the abolition of this law. I believe that it goes as far back as 60 years. Certainly, the National Council for Civil Liberties—[Interruption.]—about 40 years ago was arguing for abolition——
  Mr. Marlow: A subversive organisation.
  Miss Lestor: I ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot understand why hon. Members on the Government Benches, most of whom so far have supported the abolition of " sus ", now seem to want to make trite remarks.
  1792
  This will only lead me to stay on my feet a great deal longer, because I intend to make my speech in my own way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): The hon. Lady has my protection, but I think that she is really able to look after herself.
  Miss Lestor: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am inclined to hope that you will let me look after myself if hon. Members carry on in that way.
  More than 40 years ago, the National Council for Civil Liberties argued for the abolition of this law, mainly on the ground that it was contrary to what we would call natural justice and was the least defensible of any of the laws on our statute book. More recently, the Law Society has condemned it. So has the National Association of Probation Officers, which has condemned it as unsound in practice and, again, contrary to natural justice. In my view, it is not compatible with what we accept as the general rule of law in this country.
  Our criminal law should provide that those who commit offences are punished and that those who do not commit offences go free. That is what I have always understood to be our law. Yet here is a law, the only one that I know of, under which a person of hitherto clean character can be given a sentence, without trial by jury, when he has committed no offence whatever and cannot even be said to have been attempting to commit an offence. Merely because there is subjective judgment by two policemen that he intended to commit a crime, that can be the consequence.
  It is an exceedingly subjective judgment, yet that is how the " sus " law operates. Two policemen may say that a person was intending to commit a crime, in their view, because of the way in which he was behaving. A person does not have to touch a car door. He does not have to put his hand into anyone's handbag. He may loiter, may hang around in a particular manner, and two policemen may judge that he—I say " he " but it could equally be " she "—intends to commit a crime. That is how the " sus " law operates, and the person then has to prove that he did not have any intention to commit a crime. The scales are weighted against him. There is no victim in this charge. Nor does there need to be any other witness to the charge. The

  1793
  only victim is the person who has been charged.
  All the race relations bodies are concerned about this law because of the feeling among ethnic minorities that it is weighted against them. This has led to the alienation of young people, particularly black people. The situation causes great distress to parents. Parents of both black and white children inform me that they instruct their children not to go out of doors at night because of the " sus " laws. Whether they are right or wrong in the assumptions that prompt that decision, it shows that there is something wrong with our society and something wrong with the attitudes that are growing up.
  Hon. Members who are unaware of the dangers to society when confidence in institutions that are supposed to protect the individual break down should examine the issue carefully. I do not believe that society will collapse if the " sus " law is abolished. I do not believe that gaps will be left that cannot be filled. For over 60 years, the inherent unfairness and unjust nature of this law has been well known. The issue has surfaced recently because of the lobby opposed to the law and because many people have been vocal in expressing their doubts about its application. The House should take every opportunity to abolish it.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Edward Gardner: Those hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have been arguing that the " sus " laws, as they are called, should be repealed are pushing at an open door. Most people who have had any experience of the nature and the working of these laws will have no difficulty in appreciating the need for the repeal of section 4.
  One matter that gives me cause for concern is the use of the word " immediate " in the first paragraph of the report. It recommends immediate repeal of the " sus " laws, without taking into account the need to replace the law with another law that will be more satisfactory and equally effective in dealing with the offence of street crimes that the police now have to face, especially in cities like London.
  1794
  I fully understand, and am wholly in sympathy with, the argument that unevenness exists in the application of this law. I feel strongly, however—and I hope that I am right in my conviction—that the police need every opportunity that the law can provide to prevent crime from taking place.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I support my hon. and learned Friend's views. I am sure that he has not forgotten that the Criminal Law Act empowers a police constable to arrest any person whom he has reasonable cause to believe is about to commit an arrestable offence.
  Mr. Gardner: That may be so, but it does not allow a person to be taken to court and charged with an offence. It is a sanction that will discourage people if they know that they may ultimately finish up in court, for example, for an attempt.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If the gap that will exist following a total repeal of " sus " will prove to be a serious matter in areas where it is used at present, why is the gap that exists in Birmingham, West Yorkshire and the Midlands not causing difficulties for the police? It cannot be said that people do not put their hands in pockets or try car doors in those areas, yet the police manage to deal with the situation without using " sus ".
  Mr. Gardner: It is idle for the House and the hon. Gentleman to pretend that there are no thieves, no petty criminals, no pickpockets or purse snatchers in our large cities. It is an arrogant assumption——
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I do not say that.
  Mr. Gardner: No, but it is an arrogant assumption to say that the police, who argue that it is essential in the public interest that they should have the first opportunity to prevent crime, should be threatened, as they believe they are, with having this law removed.
  In the main, the police can be trusted. There are those who, like the members of all other professions and callings, disgrace the name of their profession or calling. However, in the main they are trustworthy, and they are the experts. It is clear that, in their expert opinion, they

  1795
  need a law that will enable them to prevent crime. Their expert opinion is that if the " sus " law is removed and not replaced by a comparable and more satisfactory law their ability to deal with incipient crime will be weakened.
  Mr. Mellor: Does not that beg the question that one of the reasons why " sus " is so unsatisfactory is that one has to contend, on principle, that many actions that are offences under " sus " should not be offences in the first place? It is therefore a chimera to try to say that one is looking for a new offence to replace " sus ". The object of the exercise is to say that it should not be an offence to begin with.
  Mr. Gardner: We have discussed this evening the lacuna in the offences with which the police could charge someone in the absence of a " sus " law or if the offence of " attempt " were left in its present vague state of definition so that the police did not feel—and I think they would be right in this—any confidence in using it as a replacement.
  I do not think that by repealing " sus " we are likely greatly to benefit race relations. The effect will be marginal, and the real argument against the " sus " law is that it is likely to lead, and in some cases undoubtedly has led, to injustice. That is a matter of importance, not just to one part of the population, but to the whole population.
  That is the true argument for the repeal of the " sus " law, but I beg the House to have regard for the views of the police who have a duty to see, for example, that tourists and others can walk down streets, such as Oxford Street, without becoming prey to pickpockets and other such villains. It is wrong that the House should tonight or at any time contemplate the immediate repeal of the " sus " law without first contemplating another law to replace it.
  9 pm
  Mr. John Tilley: I shall be brief and try to keep to the race relations aspect of the issue. My first point is that in many senses this is a historic occasion. I believe that this is the first debate in the House purely as a result of pressure by black British organisations.
  1796
  Of course, there has been great concern about this law for many years but it is only as a result of the pressure exerted by the " Scrap Sus " campaign over the last two years that the issue has reached the Floor of the House. The Black People's Organisation Campaign Against Sus, to give it its full title, was not asking for special treatment for its members. It was asking for equality before the law. It has addressed its call to Parliament and I am glad that that call has been answered in the report of the Select Committee.
  It will be no surprise to the House to learn that the issue of " sus " was first brought before the House by two hon. Members who represent parts of Brixton. I was the first, when I tabled an early-day motion in November 1978 calling for the repeal of " sus ". If I remember correctly the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) was the only Conservative Member who supported me. The second, and more important hon. Member was my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) who introduced a Private Member's Bill to repeal the law. The Opposition would have been glad if the Government had simply announced that they would give time for that Bill to become law in this Session.
  I agree that, if " sus " is scrapped, it will be of great symbolic importance but repeal in itself will not solve the continuing problem of the bad relationship in many of our cities between black people and the police. I quote some statistical evidence of how wide the gulf is in my own constituency. I refer to the poll published in The Times on 10 April.
  The article said that 70 per cent. of those interviewed in Brixton said that people in the area had little or no confidence in the police. More than half of the interviewees said that immigrants were discriminated against and that young people were treated less favourably than other groups. Two-thirds of those interviewed thought that it was likely that the violence in Bristol would be repeated. The sense of grievance that many black people feel about " sus " showed in the poll. Thirty eight per cent. of those questioned in Brixton felt that the police were too harsh on suspicious behaviour.

  1797
  That shows the width of the gulf that exists. I believe that this House should be concerned about that and that the Government should take positive measures to narrow the gap. " Sus " is merely the focal point for the anger and frustration felt by many black groups and individuals. That was made clear at the first meeting of the campaign in February 1978 when Paul Boateng, a solicitor from the Paddington law centre, said:
  " It is right that this campaign should be concerned about repealing the Vagrancy Act, but we must not forget that even if the Act is gone, the problem of the police is still there."
  So the repeal of this Act would be a negative action and in many ways it would only reflect a change in the policing practice that is already beginning to emerge.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose——
  Mr. Tilley: I am not going to allow an intervention. The hon. Member, among others, wishes to speak in the debate. The figures from Lambeth in 1978–79 quoted in the report show a 34 per cent. drop in the use of " sus " by the police in that district. I believe that the police in Lambeth—and this may be reassuring to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)—and elsewhere should be given every support in their use of effective measures against street crime.
  However, I believe that the police are becoming aware that " sus " is not an effective measure because many youngsters honestly believe that they will be picked up if they do not intend to commit crime and for that reason they tend to believe that they have nothing to lose by turning to crime. Black parents who have complained to me about " sus " do not condone or encourage street crime. Many of them have been the victims of such crime. They are concerned that their children will be pulled into crime because of their resentment against a "sus" conviction that ensures that they will never get a decent job.
  This report—and the Government action that I should like to see—should be just the beginning of a programme of positive improvement in relations between black people and the police. Action on the report could be an important symbol
  1798
  of the Government's will. With many other hon. Members I stress that much more positive features would be needed in such a programme. There should be an extention of experiments in community policing and an extension in the length and diversity of police recruit training so that they understand more about the communities in the inner cities where they have to work. There should be more policemen in uniform on the beat and more should live in the areas in which they work. That is desperately needed in inner London.
  The complaints procedure should be made quicker and more flexible. There must be greater liaison between community leaders, elected representatives and the police. However, that liaison must not be a one-way street. The police must be more open. They must be more willing to discuss their operational methods and to accept criticism. That is crucial to the success of the proposals in the report.
  If the police decide that the report and debate indicate that they have lost the confidence of Parliament, both the report and the debate will be counter-productive. I am sorry that the Government have not given the lead for which I hoped. If the Government tabled the amendment as a means of replacing " sus " with something else—or of replacing the blunderbuss of "sus" with an Armalite rifle the nature of which we cannot see—it is a wrecking amendment.
  Some Conservative Members committed themselves in their election manifestos to voting for the repeal of " sus ". I do not see how they can vote for the Government amendment. The Government have missed a chance to indicate to the black and white communities that, when tackling law and order in the inner cities they are prepared to be more open-minded and even-handed. They should make clear that the duty of a law-abiding community is to assist the police, but that there is a need to recognise that the police are part of the community and that they owe their first duty to all the members of that community—young and old, black and white.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I shall first respond to the sincere speech by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley). I am sure that the

  1799
  Committee did not make its recommendations in response to the first historic pressure by the new generation of black British. It would be wrong if the House at any time responded to one section of our society, whatever its colour or background. The law is general. With respect to the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central, he did no credit to the Committee when he suggested that that was its motive.
  The House knows of my affiliation with the Police Federation. If there is any group whose views should be heard on this subject it is the police. They are virtually unanimous. The Police Federation has made its opinions clear in a memorandum sent to all hon. Members. I hope that they have studied it. I shall not weary the House by reading it, but I hope that hon. Members will be in no doubt that the opinions of the police should weigh heavily with the House before it reaches a conclusion.
  We are in the presence of a rapidly rising tide of crime. Yet we are about to take away one of the powers of the police to prevent crime. In Scotland we are adding to the police armoury new powers to stop, search and detain. At the same time, in London in particular, we are taking away some of the powers.
  The police are not clinging to " sus " because they like it. They are not hanging on to it to make their job easier. It does not. The federation is saying to the House that we
  " should think long and hard before making a decision which could impair police efficiency and expose vulnerable people living in inner city areas to the risk of more crime, whilst failing to achieve the objective of better relations."
  Those are considered words. I hope that the House will weigh them.
  I wish to make three specific points. As it happens, I agree with the Committee that "sus" is objectionable in principle. I have also been long enough in the House to know that we are today seeing the beginning of the end of " sus". I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on the matter and the way in which he presented his remarks.
  I disagree with the Committee when it suggests that there need not be any legislative alternative. In paragraph 35 of the report the Committee talks of a " word of warning " that could be given by the
  1800
  police to those who may be about to commit a crime. The police are doing that all the time, but it does not always work. In paragraph 45 the Committee speaks of that new remedy for everything—more police on the beat. We are getting more police on the beat. I welcome that. But however many police there are on the beat, they will not stop some street crime from taking place.
  The Committee should have paid a great deal more attention to the reform of attempted theft. I was pleased and relieved that my right hon. Friend took the initiative in indicating to the House something of the Law Commission's thinking on this matter. I have taken the trouble to interrogate a number of constables and sergeants about attempted theft, and the practical point that they make is that it will not achieve what we require.
  Let us consider two specific examples. First, there is the young man who is a " dip ". He is seen putting his hand into someone's pocket in an underground train or on a bus. The Metropolitan Police have a directive——
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon Mr. Alexander W. Lyon rose——
  Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to listen to my point. A directive has been issued by the Metropolitan Police which makes it plain that a case must not be brought, and a charge must not be laid, where a crime is impossible. That is a matter of record. The police are under the difficulty that their own directive states that where the crime is impossible because there is no money in the pocket, no goods to be stolen from the car, or no valuables in the handbag, they must not bring the charge of attempted theft—and they do not. That is the practical point.
  Mr. Anderson Mr. Anderson rose——
  Mr. Griffiths: I have said that I shall not give way. I shall make my speech and sit down as rapidly as I can. It is because the Metropolitan Police, rightly or wrongly, operate under the directive arising from impossible crime that they frequently rely on " sus " instead of attempted theft. I had hoped that the Committee would pay more attention to that problem. If it had taken more evidence from practical working police officers, it would have recognised the

  1801
  real difficulties to which my right hon. Friend referred.
  " Sus " will have to go. It is plainly the will both of the House and of the Government that it should go. But it is vital that the recommendations of the Law Commission on reform of attempted theft should also be considered carefully, so that we do the two together.
  In the debate this afternoon we have rightly been concerned about race relations. It is worth putting on record that the Committee did not find that the police were guilty, in any respect, of racial discrimination. I regret that the Committee, in some paragraphs of its report, spoke about " black and white arrests ". There are no black or white arrests; there are only arrests of citizens. I hope that the House will maintain a colour-blind attitude to the commission of crime, as the police do. This is not a racial matter; it is an objective matter concerned with the commission of crime. I conclude with words used by the Police Federation and urge them particularly on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The Police Federation states:
  " An example of how ' sus ' becomes confused with the normal process of stopping and questioning occurred in the aftermath of the Bristol riot, where it was alleged that ' sus ' was frequently used against the young black community. In fact, this offence is very rarely charged in the Avon and Somerset Constabulary and clearly ' sus ' was being used in this case as a blanket term for criticising police actions."
  That frequently happens. " Sus " is the catch-all phrase.
  " Abolition of the ' sus ' law will not affect the right and duty of the police to stop and caution people in the street when they have reasonable grounds for doing so, and the Police Federation has asked the Royal Commission to propose clarification of this power for all police officers as there is considerable confusion about it up and down the country.
  If ' sus ' is to be abolished, the immediate reaction of many people when stopped by the police will be to suspect that they are making use of a power which no longer exists."
  —that is the rub. If " sus " is removed, it will be assumed at once that the police cannot stop and cannot act on suspicion. I am afraid that there will be this danger unless quickly—in my view, simultaneously—we replace " sus " with a reform of attempted theft to deal with the problem of street crime.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: If " sus " were to be replaced with another charge, the danger is that that charge would be subject to the same objections of principle as those to which " sus " is now subject.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) that the days of " sus " are numbered. I also agree that the fact that it harms race relations is not a sufficient reason for changing the law. But the hon. Gentleman's advice relating to this police directive is out of date. The law on conditional appropriation, which was unclear following the cases of Easom and Husseyn, has been clarified in recent case law—the case of Walkington and the Attorney-General's References (Nos. 1 and 2 of 1979)—and has been applied specifically on conditional appropriation in respect of " sus " in the case of Miles v. Clovis. Therefore, the directive, which relates to the Metropolitan Police force, is out of date and should be amended in the light of current case law on conditional appropriation.
  I make only three points, in view of the time. First, we must recognise that one of the great attractions of " sus " to prosecuting authorities is that it is a summary offence. They know that if such cases were to go before juries, many prosecutions would not succeed. Therefore, it is perhaps too convenient for prosecuting authorities to rely on " sus ". Indeed, it undermines the rule of law in that respect.
  The fundamental objection has already been put forward by other hon. Members—namely, that people are convicted on evidence of intention, not of an unlawful act. That objection in principle is coupled with the fact that there is considerable opportunity for abuse.
  There is evidence that the use of this law varies from police division to police division. It suggests that there is too large a discretion available to a prosecuting authority whether to bring a charge of " sus ". Therefore, there is a danger of the charge being used oppressively. That in itself must reduce respect for the law.
  There is a real danger that a police officer on the beat will reach the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that a young man is up to no good—or that young men are up to no good—and make a " sus "

  1803
  charge. I have a personal friend who is a retired police officer. In his early days he was in plain clothes and was picked up by two young police officers when he was hanging about. He did not let on, and he was taken back to the police station. The two young police officers were rather embarrassed when they found out who they had picked up on what they thought was a " sus " offence.
  Because of this selective enforcement and because of the dangers of oppressive use of the powers, in addition to the objections of principle that have been raised by other hon. Members, I believe that " sus " must go. We can have our differences about the word " immediate ", but I have lingering doubts about the question whether " sus " should be replaced in areas where many people think that there may be a lacuna in the law—the proximate test in attempted thefts which does not now go far enough, the " dipping " in Underground stations, the trying of car doors, and so on. My conclusion is that whatever attempt is made to replace " sus " will give rise to the same objections of principle that now damn it.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have an advantage, in that I have both prosecuted and represented defendants charged under this Act. Further, I have served as a special constable in a force where this Act is used. These experiences have fortified me in my conclusion that section 4 of the Vagrancy Act should be repealed—for one overwhelming reason. It is certain that this offence gives rise to more unsatisfactory convictions than any other that I have encountered.
  There are two reasons for that. The first is the nature of the evidence required. It is not necessary to prove a substantive criminal offence, it is simply necessary to prove a suspicious act, which gives rise to the conclusion that a person is acting suspiciously, and that he harbours a criminal intent. Thus, acts that are capable of at least two interpretations are frequently relied upon as constituting an essential element in criminal offence, for example, loitering in a doorway, following a girl with an open handbag or fingering car doors. They are all acts that are capable of an innocent explanation or a guilty explanation.
  1804
  One of the real problems is that in the first instance the discretion and the interpretation is given to two police officers or one police officer on the beat. I am prepared to accept that in the majority of cases that discretion is exercised with considerable justice and good sense, but in a small number of cases we have to face the fact that the police are motivated by a degree of prejudice and hostility towards the person concerned. I say that with all the experience of 12 years at the common law Bar behind me, and I am certain that that is true.
  This is the sort of offence where an admission is of particular importance. If one finds a burglar sitting in front of a safe with a blow-torch it does not really matter what he says, because he has no excuse, but if a man has committed a number of actions that are not unequivocal, and one is trying to establish a guilty intent, what he says is of particular importance. This Act exposes the police to temptation. I am certain that in a small number of cases they " verbal " the defendant in order to secure a conviction. By that I mean to say that they misrepresent what he says or misinterpret what he says, and sometimes attribute to him things that he has not said at all. These things do not happen very often, but they happen. They happen sufficiently often to cause great concern to the House.
  I am not in favour of immediate repeal, for the simple reason that I take the Home Secretary's point that this matter must be considered in the context of the Law Commission's Report on Attempt.
  Mr. Barry Porter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No, I will not.
  However, this is a matter of which the House must be aware. We need reform, and we need repeal.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. George Cunningham: Although this has been a short debate, there have been a large number of contributions. It is of very great significance that in all those contributions from the Government

  1805
  Benches, there have been only two speakers, apart from the Secretary of State, who have supported the Government's position. One of those spoke in his capacity as a representative of the Police Federation. We all knew, before the debate started, what the position of the Police Federation was.
  When the House created the new system of Select Committees last year, the view was expressed on all sides that it would be a waste of time unless the Committee reports were brought to the House fairly speedily after production for the House to express a view upon them. The Opposition have been content, therefore, to use some time today to give the House an opportunity of expressing a view on this very important report from the Home Affairs Committee on the offence of loitering with intent. I congratulate the Committee, and especially the chairman of the Committee and the chairman of the Sub-Committee which actually conducted the investigation, on the calm detachment and bi-partisan approach which they adopted in their investigation, an approach which has been reflected for the most part in our debate today.
  The report was almost unanimous. There was only one member of the Committee who dissented from any part of the report. That means that the House must give great weight to the opinion that has been expressed in it. If we do not do so, these Committees might as well not exist and we might as well return to the old system.
  The House must decide tonight what view it wants to express. We have had all the reports that we need. We have not just had the Select Committee report; we have had the Home Office working party report. We have had other investigations over the years. There comes a time when a decision is needed. But we are not tonight engaged in actually changing the law. That will come later. We perfectly understand that if the decision is taken in favour of the motion which we have tabled tonight, there still rests with the Government the matter of timing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) made clear at the beginning of the debate, and I make clear now, that we read the motion as indicating that there should be repeal of the provision in the course of the
  1806
  coming Session, that is, the Session after this one. That is what me mean by our motion.
  It would be impossible—I see the Home Secretary assenting—for us to pick and choose between hundreds of sentences in a report with regard to timing. What we have to do is to give the House an opportunity of saying " We agree with the recommendation. Now let the Government fit this into their parliamentary programme in the near future."
  The offence of loitering with intent has been controversial from its inception and long before it took on any aspect of racial discrimination. It has been called the most unconstitutional Act in the book. The Lord Chief Justice of England in 1924 attacked the very idea of using this offence in substitution for attempted theft because the evidence was not sufficient to justify such a charge. Lord Justice Scott, in the Ledworth and Roberts case in 1937, said that the whole series of Vagrancy Acts had been born out of circumstances which no longer existed, and he concluded:
  " To retain such laws seems to me inconsistent with our national sense of personal liberty or our respect for the rule of law."
  The Select Committee was right to address itself to the fundamental faults of the Vagrancy Act offence and not only to its effect on race relations. The existence of " sus " does adversely affect police relations with ethnic minorities, but that problem goes much wider than " sus " and will still be with us when " sus " is repealed. That is the case against those who, like the Police Federation, say that we are having this debate only because the case has been mounted by those who are primarily or exclusively interested in race relations. Our statute book is cluttered with archaic provisions. If we do not use our common sense and individual judgment and if we do not do some weeding out when a case is so overwhelming, every bad idea that is conceived will stay on the statute book for ever.
  What is so offensive about the Vagrancy Act offence? The best way to answer that question is to imagine that that law did not exist and that an hon. Member had proposed for the first time that it should be put on the statute book. Imagine the case that an hon. Member would have to make. He would have to say that he wanted to make it an offence

  1807
  to intend to commit a serious offence and that certain practical things would indicate that a person had had that intent. If an hon. Member put his case in such a way, he would be laughed out of court
  The hon. Member might suggest that the law would apply if a person was loitering. However, by loitering I do not mean that the person would have to be walking slowly. He could be running, walking fast or standing still. He could be doing any physical act, because that is what is meant by loitering. The hon. Member might say that the provisions would apply only in the case of a suspected person. He might say that he would allow a man's previous convictions to be invoked—contrary to the general principle—in order to prove that he was a suspected person. The hon. Member might say that that should be allowed even if the policeman who had made the arrest had not known that the man had previous convictions. In addition, it might be suggested that anyone—not only a policeman—could make the arrest.
  All hon. Members know that if the offence had not existed and if an hon. Member had made that case, he would have been regarded as something of a loony. The provision would not have got on to the statute book. However, those are the characteristics of the Vagrancy Act offence. I submit that it is a good principle that if no one would have been prepared to advance such a proposition if we had not had it, the fact that it was put on the statute book 160 years ago cannot mean that it is a good thing to leave it there.
  In practice, the faults of " sus " go wider. Technically, as the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) said, the onus of proof in a case of " sus " rests with the prosecution, as it does for other offences. It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the definition of " sus " is such that the onus is shifted to some extent on to the defendant. Courts decide " sus " cases on the balance of probability, not on the criterion of beyond reasonable doubt. Although some of the magistrates who spoke to the Select Committee agreed with the proposition, most would strenuously deny it. However, I believe that in practice that is what happens.
  1808
  I cannot forget the case of one of my constituents. He appeared before a stipendiary magistrate and was convicted on a " sus " charge. The magistrate told him after he had been convicted that he could not believe my constituent's explanation of his actions on that day. The appeal was later allowed by the Crown court, when the man came before a proper judge. The case was then properly examined. However, it is clear from the remarks of the stipendiary that the case had been decided on the balance of probability and that the onus was on the defendant, contrary to the principles of English law.
  The definition is such that there is too great a chance that innocent people may be convicted. Nothing can harm the relations of the police with all sections of the community—both black and white—more than the conviction of innocent people. The magistrates who appeared before the Select Committee confirmed that they believed that the balance of proof in a case of " sus " shifted on to the defendant.
  The question arises whether the police need this or any equivalent power. It is argued that they do. Certainly the police need every power that we can properly give them to pursue and to catch criminals. But we must not offend the proper principles of the law in doing so. There has been no satisfactory answer to the question " If this offence is so important, how comes it that it is used hardly at all in some parts of the country, including some of the big cities outside London which have conditions similar to those in inner London?"
  Does anyone argue that pickpocketing or interfering with cars is less common in Glasgow than in London? " Sus " exists in Scotland. We wished it upon them in 1870—they were free of it in 1824—but it is not used.
  It was interesting to see the reasons given by Home Office officials why " sus " was used in Cardiff. The explanation was that London policemen used to be lent to Cardiff to help deal with the pickpockets who went from London to Cardiff for the races and the London policemen took with them the habit of using " sus ". The only explanation why " sus " is used in some parts of the country and not in others is that it is a matter of

  1809
  habit. The police in some parts of the country manage to do without the power.
  The police have other powers. In London they have the stop-and-search powers of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, and there are similar provisions in other parts of the country. There is also the provision under the Criminal Law Act 1967 by which a policeman may arrest on suspicion and without a warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects is about to commit an arrestable offence. Those provisions differ from " sus " in that the arrested person does not afterwards face criminal prosecution for an offence. He is arrested and interfered with in what he may have been attempting to do, but he does not face conviction.
  Let me illustrate to the House the dangers of the " sus " arrangement, compared with the others. I had a constituent who was picked up on suspicion that he had been attempting to steal from handbags. He was holding a grip. It was searched, but nothing incriminating was found. In Birmingham, the police would have used their stop-and-search powers and, when they did not find anything incriminating, that would have been the end of the matter. In this case, the man was charged with " sus " and convicted, though his appeal was allowed in the Crown court. We give the police a temptation when we allow them to proceed to a prosecution and not only to stop and search for incriminating evidence.
  The chairman of the Criminal Bar Association told the Select Committee that it was his view and, he believed, the view of his colleagues that the offence was unsatisfactory and archaic and that no loss would be sustained by its abolition. The Society of Labour Lawyers called for repeal, the Society of Conservative Lawyers said that it was open to abuse in its present form and the magistrates called for repeal.
  The Home Office working party of 1976 called for a rewording of the offence, but that working party consisted entirely of Whitehall officials and serving police officers. They admitted to the Select Committee that their remit in studying the matter at that stage had been much narrower than the remit adopted by the Select Committee. In any case, the working party said clearly in its report that it
  1810
  was a matter ultimately for the judgment of Parliament.
  Whenever a reform in our law is proposed, the defence goes up " Let's wait for such and such a committee to report ". Those of us who were trying about three years ago to create the right for an arrested person to tell someone that he had been arrested were greeted with predictions of doom about what would happen if such a proposal were passed and we were advised to wait for the Royal Commission on criminal procedure to report.
  The House exercised its judgment that night and the provision was passed on to the statute book. Since then, no more has been heard from the police or anyone else about those predictions of doom. The Police Federation says that we should wait for the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, but the federation is mistaken in believing that the content of the criminal law, as against pre-prosecution procedure, is properly a matter for the Royal Commission.
  The Commission has had evidence put to it on the subject, but it is not a matter on which it can properly report. The Government more relevantly suggest that we await the publication of the Law Commission's report on " attempt ".
  I took the precaution a month or so ago of asking the secretary of the Law Commission whether its review of " attempt" was touching on the matter of " sus ". The reply that I received stated:
  " The Law Commission is not dealing with the question of the need for or the reform of the suspected person offence … In our forthcoming report on attempts … we shall make it clear that our conclusions in regard to the law of attempt have been reached independently of considerations affecting the section 4 offence and do not of course preclude further examination of that offence."
  There needs to be change in the law on " attempt ", but that does not bear upon the need for us to express a general opinion today on the need to repeal the " sus " provision.
  We are asking the House to say tonight that it agrees with the recommendation of a Committee of Conservative and Labour Members who have conducted the most thorough examination of this question that it has been given. The Committee says that repeal should take place now, but we all know that in parliamentary reality that cannot be next week or even this Session. There is no

  1811
  one who would not settle for next Session. That is what we intend by our motion, and that is the significance that we shall attach to it if it is passed.
  The Government, by contrast, are asking the House to say to the Committee " Thank you for your useful document. We shall do something about it at some time. We shall not say what we shall do and we shall not exactly say when we shall do it, but we shall do something some time." That is not a proper response to the situation and to the report before us. I beg Conservative Members to do what is necessary to make the House of Commons work—exercise their judgment in the light of the overwhelming view expressed in the debate and the reports and support our motion.
  9.42 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): There has been a wide measure of agreement on both sides of the House about the criticisms that can properly be levelled against the " sus " law. I therefore regret that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has been less than fair to the Government in his assessment of the implications and reasons for our amendment. The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough in the ways of this House to know that a Government who were seeking delay and an excuse for inaction would not include in their amendment reference to an early decision or refer to a report of the Law Commission that is already in the hands of the Lord Chancellor and has been seen by my right hon. Friend and myself. Precisely because there is—and it was apparent that there would be—a wide degree of consensus about the faults of the " sus " law, it was considered right by my right hon. Friends to table an amendment that stated the Government's position with greater precision than would have been possible by not tabling an amendment in that form.
  It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury to say that their motion asks for action next Session and not immediately, but that is not what it says, or what the Select Committee report said.
  On a more substantial point, we suggest that matters other than those dealt with
  1812
  by the Select Committee should be looked at, not because we wish to be carping in our reference to what the Select Committee said but because we believe that those other matters, and in particular what the Law Commission had to say on the law of " attempt ", are relevant to the consideration of the way in which we should deal with the " sus " law.
  The criticisms that have been made of the " sus " law from both sides of the House have been legion. In that sense I adopt the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), who said that those who are criticising the law are pushing at an open door. It is significant, therefore, rather than to rehearse the criticisms that have been made in any detail to consider the nature of the criticisms and the gravamen of the general objections to the offence in its present form.
  The criticisms start with the objection that in this offence far more than in most, but not exclusively, heavy reliance is placed on proving criminal intention rather than specific acts. There is criticism that in this instance it is possible to rely on previous convictions in making good the offence. The criticisms draw attention to the antiquity and the antique language of the Act. It is said that in this offence, which involves an accusation substantially of dishonesty, the accused person does not have the right to trial by jury.
  In the rehearsal of those criticisms, two matters become apparent. First, it is apparent that they are substantial and real criticisms. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the Government consider that the present law is not a proper vehicle for the administration of justice in today's circumstances. Secondly, it is important to observe that, vital as these various matters are, and important and crucial as they are when considering whether the offence provides the defendant with adequate rights when he is charged, they are all objections of an essentially procedural nature. They are objections directed to the way in which the offence is brought, the way in which the prosecution is brought, and what has to be proved.
  I now come to an issue on which there may be a difference between those of my right lion, and hon. Friends who support the amendment and Labour Members who

  1813
  do not. I contend that the criticisms fall short in advancing with any degree of conviction the argument that the acts in respect of which the offence is brought are acts which, if properly proved with the full protection of the law, should not be criminal. We are not able to say that all that we have to do is to repeal the law without covering any of the ground that at present is covered by it. That is because we believe that there is a serious case for taking the view that a gap would emerge in the ambit of the criminal law that would allow persons to engage with impunity in acts that should properly be within its ambit.
  Two specific situations have been mentioned, and both relate to actions of dishonesty. There is the handbag or the pocket in which there proves to be nothing. In that case the act would not be capable of prosecution as a criminal attempt, because it would be an attempt to commit an impossible act. In spite of what the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said about recent decisions of the Court of Appeal, the fact remains that the leading case on impossibility is that of Haughton v. Smith, which still establishes that a person cannot be convicted of an attempt if what he is attempting to do is impossible.
  As my right hon. Friend said in deploying the Government's case at the outset, the Law Commision makes recommendations on that specific practical point. In the face of that situation and the problem seen in its proper light, it cannot be right to pray in aid the report of the Law Commission—which has already been printed, if not finally published—and say that there is prevarication, since any responsible Government, faced with a gap in the law of the kind that I have explained, are entitled to say to their supporters and to the House that it would be only rational to await publication of the report and consider whether it was necessary to make a change in the law of " attempt " to deal with the matter.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that in his communications with the Law Commission he was told that the consideration of the law of " attempt " was independent of the consideration of the law of " sus ". Of course, that is right. But, from the point of view of this House, representing as it
  1814
  does, or ought to do. the interests of the community as a whole, it is entirely reasonable for us, in looking at the gap that would open in the law if " sus " were repealed without any kind of replacement, to ask whether there is something in the law of " attempt " which, if changed in the way that the Law Commission is recommending, could enable a real mischief to be dealt with by the criminal law without the unfairnesses, antiquity and procedural objections of the present law. That is what we are saying.
  Mr. George Cunningham Mr. George Cunningham rose——
  Mr. Brittan: I shall not give way, because time is short.
  I do not pretend that it is only the question of an attempt to commit the impossible that would be in the gap if the law of " sus " were repealed without any kind of replacement. There is also, for example, the question of dishonest tampering with car door handles. In that situation, even if the Law Commission's report were implemented, it would not lead to criminal prosecutions being possible in the absence of the " sus " law, because, as the hon. Member for Swansea, East made clear in an intervention, the act of handling a door handle does not clearly show an intention to commit theft. It is equally compatible or consistent with an intention to take and drive away.
  Mr. Cunningham Mr. Cunningham rose——
  Mr. Brittan: May I finish the point? I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that he wishes me to have the same chance to put my case as he rightly grabbed with both hands to put his own.
  In that latter circumstance, if one thought that an act of that kind was something that one ought not simply to allow to take place without any intervention of the criminal law, some other type of legislative intervention would be necessary to cover it.
  All of that does not mean—I am anxious to stress this beyond any doubt whatever—that in suggesting that it may be necessary to make changes in the law one is wishing simply to rewrite " sus " in modern form or dress it up in a different way. That is not what I am arguing for in any way. I accept that much of the ground that " sus " covers can be left

  1815
  uncovered, but I urge the House also to acknowledge that there is some ground which " sus " covers which ought to be covered by the criminal law in a form which is more modern and does not have the objectionable features that the present " sus " law has.
  Mr. Cunningham: How does the Minister get round Birmingham?
  Mr. Brittan: The Birmingham point, if I may so call it—perhaps I may say this for the assistance of those hon. Members who have not had the opportunity to hear the whole debate—is the suggestion that there can be no gap in the law which needs filling when one takes into account the variations in the use of the " suspected person " offence in different parts of the country. Those who made that point failed to point out that the figures provided by the Home Office to the Select Committee showed that all forces in the country made at least some use of the power in the years 1976 to 1978. The fact that there are variations in the extent of the use of the power is a very different matter. It cannot be said that there are parts of the country in which the " sus " offence has not been used at all.
  An important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) illustrates the thinking of the Select Committee. The Committee, to do it credit, as all would wish, did not pretend, and did not state, that there would be no gaps in the law if the " sus " offence were abolished. It suggested that there were alternatives that could be used and that alternative provisions of the law were available and appropriate to cover some of the area at present used by " sus ".
  One of the suggestions in that line of argument is that some of the local Acts should be used. Section 66 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 was prayed in aid. But that is not really appropriate. It applies only where a person is reasonably suspected of having or conveying, in any manner, anything stolen or unlawfully obtained. That does not apply.
  The more important example raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham was the provision of section 2(5) of the Criminal Law Act, which says
  " A constable may arrest without warrant any person who is, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be, about to commit an arrestable offence."
  The Select Committee, in its report, envisaged that some of the ground at present covered by " sus " would be covered in that way. I concede absolutely that in the vast majority of cases at present covered by " sus " it would be possible to use that provision. I maintain, however, that it would be worse to use that provision than to retain " sus ". I shall explain why. A power that allows a constable to arrest somebody and not to charge him increases the chances of harassment far more than an offence where the person who is arrested is at least brought before a court.
  Many hon. Members have criticised the fact that two policemen can say what they like about an accused person, but it is for the court to decide whether it chooses to believe what those policemen say or accepts the inferences from the conduct that those policemen describe. If one says that instead of people being arrested and brought before a court they should simply be arrested as a means of dealing with the immediate problem and then released, one is surely giving an open invitation to precisely the kind of harassment that a rational reform of the law would seek to avoid.
  Even when the view taken of this antique offence is uniquely and universally hostile, one has still to accept the fact that some alternative, over some of the ground, is necessary. It is because the Opposition motion does not give sufficient, or any, credence to that undoubted fact emerging from a fair analysis of the position as a whole that I commend to the House the amendment that stands in the name of my right hon. Friend.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 283.

  Division No. 341]

  AYES

  [10 pm

  Abse, Leo

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Adams, Allen

  Ashton, Joe

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Allaun Frank

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

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Alton, David

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Anderson, Donald

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

  Armstrong, Rt. Hon Ernest

  Beith, A. J.

  Bradley, Tom

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Palmer, Arthur

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Haynes, Frank

  Park, George

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  Parker, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

  Parry, Robert

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Home Robertson, John

  Penhaligon, David

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Homewood, William

  Prescott, John

  Campbell, Ian

  Hooley, Frank

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Horam, John

  Race, Reg

  Canavan, Dennis

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

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

  Cant, R. B.

  Huckfield, Les

  Richardson, Jo

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Robertson, George

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Robinson, Geoffery (Coventry NW)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Cook, Robin F.

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rooker, J. W.

  Cowans, Harry

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Crowther, J. S.

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Ryman, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Sandelson, Neville

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Kerr, Russell

  Sever, John

  Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Kinnock, Neil

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

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lamborn, Harry

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hllls)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lamond, James

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

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

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Deakins Eric

  Leighton, Ronald

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Silverman, Julius

  Dempsey, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dewar, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

  Dixon, Donald

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Snape, Peter

  Dobson, Frank

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Soley, Clive

  Dormand, Jack

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Douglas, Dick

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dubs, Alfred

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Stoddart, David

  Dunnett, Jack

  McElhone, Frank

  Strang, Gavin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Straw, Jack

  Eadie, Alex

  McKelvey, William

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Eastham, Ken

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  English, Michael

  McNally, Thomas

  Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Tilley, John

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  McWilliam, John

  Tinn, James

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Magee, Bryan

  Torney, Tom

  Ewing, Harry

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

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Field, Frank

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Fitch, Alan

  Maxton, John

  Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

  Flannery, Martin

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Watkins, David

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Meacher, Michael

  Weetch, Ken

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Welsh, Michael

  Ford, Ben

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wheeler, John

  Forrester, John

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

  Foster, Derek

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Mitchell. R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Freud, Clement

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Whitlock, William

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  George, Bruce

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Newens, Stanley

  Winnick, David

  Gourlay, Harry

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Woodall, Alec

  Graham, Ted

  Ogden, Eric

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Harrison, Rt Hon Waller

  Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

  Mr. George Morton.

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Bowden, Andrew

  Alexander, Richard

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Ancram, Michael

  Best, Keith

  Bright, Graham

  Arnold, Tom

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Brinton, Tim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Brittan, Leon

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

  Blackburn, John

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Blaker, Peter

  Brotherton, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  1818

  1819

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Pollock, Alexander

  Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

  Hill, James

  Porter, George

  Buck, Antony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

  Budgen, Nick

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hooson, Tom

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hordern, Peter

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Butcher, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

  Raison, Timothy

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Benton, Tim

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Channon, Paul

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Chapman, Sydney

  Knox, David

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Churchill, W. S.

  Lament, Norman

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

  Lang, Ian

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Latham, Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Colvin, Michae

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Cope, John

  Lawson, Nigel

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Cormack, Patrick

  Lee, John

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  Corrie, John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Scott, Nicholas

  Costain, A. P.

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Crouch, David

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Silvester, Fred

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Loveridge, John

  Sims, Roger

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Luce, Richard

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Dover, Denshore

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Speed, Keith

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Macfarlane, Nell

  Speller, Tony

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  MacGregor, John

  Spence, John

  Durant, Tony

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Sproat, lain

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Stanbrook, lvor

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

  NcNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Stanley, John

  Eggar, Timothy

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Steen, Anthony

  Elliott, Sir William

  Madel, David

  Stevens, Martin

  Eyre, Reginald

  Major, John

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

  Fairgrleve, Russell

  Marlow, Tony

  Stokes, John

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Farr, John

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fell, Anthony

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Mather, Carol

  Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Mawby, Ray

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thompson, Donald

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thorne, Neil (llford South)

  Forman, Nigel

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Fox, Marcus

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Mills, lain (Mariden)

  Trippier, David

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Trotter, Neville

  Fry, Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Moate, Roger

  Viggers, Peter

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Molyneaux, James

  Waddington, David

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Monro, Hector

  Wakeham, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Moore, John

  Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Morgan, Geraint

  Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Gorst, John

  Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

  Waller, Gary

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Walters, Dennis

  Gray, Hamish

  Mudd, David

  Ward, John

  Greenway, Harry

  Murphy, Christopher

  Warren, Kenneth

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

  Myles, David

  Watson, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Needham, Richard

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Grist, Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

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

  Gryils, Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Newton, Tony

  Whitney, Raymond

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

  Normanton, Tom

  Wickenden, Keith

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hannam, John

  Oppenhelm, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hastings, Stephen

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Young, David (Bolton East)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Parris, Matthew

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Heddle, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Henderson, Barry

  Pawsey, James

  Mr. Anthony Merry.

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the important contribution made by the Report of the Home Affairs Committee relating to section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, accepts the need for a change in the law, and looks forward to the imminent publication of the Law Commission's Report on Attempt and to the public response to these reports, as providing the basis for an early decision as to the best way of reforming the law while ensuring adequate protection for the public.

  STEEL WORKERS (SEVERANCE PAY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]
  Mr. Bill Homewood Mr. Bill Homewood (Kettering) rose—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should wait a moment. I shall time the debate from when I call him.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Homewood: I am grateful that you, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister are here because I felt such an idiot on the last occasion and I thought that again today I might be standing here addressing an empty House in ethereal circumstances.
  It is a source of constant irritation that when the media reports on the terms offered to steel workers when they are asked to agree to a closure, the top figure which applies to only a small number of workers who are being made redundant, is quoted. As a result, £17,000 is the magic figure. That was the figure used for Bilston and Corby. It is also being used in headlines about the Port Talbot and Llanwern arrangements. Perhaps I should not find that so objectionable if other industrial and social statistics were quoted in the same way. However, for those instances the average is always used.
  Steel workers' compensation for job loss after closure is made up of a number of elements, one of which is the State redundancy payment. There is also the ECSC
  1822
  readaptation scheme, guaranteeing a wages make-up for two years for those under 60 years of age and for two and a half years for those over 60. It is paid to those drawing unemployment pay if they are over 55 years of age, but only to those who obtain a job if they are under 55. Severance pay is the subject of negotiations between the British Steel Corporation and the trade unions. I fear that that will settle down at about 62 weeks' pay, based on the average earnings of the last 13 weeks of normal work and including all accrued holiday money.
  On the subject of Corby, I understand from a councillor that the average pay-out will be between £7,000 and £8,000, which is hardly the grandiose position portrayed by the media. It is not generous for the majority of those who have spent much of their lives in the industry and who now find themselves thrown out of work at 35 or 40 years of age in a town like Corby, which will be an employment desert for at least the next four years.
  Seventy two per cent. of the population of Corby live in public housing. For many, the prospect of moving to another area for work is not bright. For those who are prepared to purchase a house, the severance pay will almost certainly be swallowed up. The average price of a house is more than £23,000. In addition, there are the iniquitous transfer and moving costs.
  The debate concerns those who will not be anywhere near as fortunate as those in circumstances that I have described, even though they have lost their jobs for the same reason as the BSC workers, namely, the closure of a steelworks. Throughout the steel industry there is, and always has been, a substantial and necessary amount of work that the main employer, be it BSC or a private employer, has subcontracted to other undertakings, mainly under the headings of civil engineering, furnace wrecking and rebuilding, industrial painting, lorry hire, the production of byproducts, scrap cutting and burning. They subcontracted those jobs on the basis that it is easy to hire and fire subcontractors if they are there only in respect of a specific job.
  Unfortunately for those with whom I am concerned, it has never worked out that way. People came into the steelworks to do contract work, have become

  1823
  highly skilled at that operation, and during the course of their employment at a steelworks have become permanent. There is one contractor in Corby who has a specific works contract with his employees that states quite specifically that they will never be employed outside Corby. I know that that does not apply only to Corby, but to a great number of steel undertakings in Britain. It will become a problem in Port Talbot and Llanwern in the near future.
  In Corby, although it is difficult to get exact figures, many contractors have yet to determine their attitudes. I suppose that when the iron and steelworks finally depletes its employment resources, some of them may find jobs in other places, but the common assumption is that no fewer that 500 people indirectly employed by the BSC will lose their jobs as a direct consequence of the closure of the iron and steelworks.
  Trade unions in the steel industry have for many years argued that the employment of contractors in iron and steel works should be restricted to work of a temporary nature and that all other work should be carried out by direct labour. For reasons known only to themselves—there have been many guesses, but I shall not repeat them, because I should be reluctant to shelter behind parliamentary privilege—the employers have always resisted these advances. In consequence, in Corby 5,500 people directly employed by the BSC will leave the industry on one set of terms and 500 people indirectly employed by the BSC will leave on substantially worse terms because their employers will not provide severance pay to the extent of that provided by the BSC.
  This debate is designed to bring the matter to the Government's attention. I urge upon them the necessity to correct something that on two moral counts is utterly wrong. First, it is necessary to bring it to the Government's notice, because on two occasions the Prime Minister has defended severance payments to steel workers—once in the House and again on "Panorama" on television—without apparently being aware that many steel workers do not get such payments.
  There should be no doubt that the people about whom I am speaking are steel workers. It will come as no surprise to the empty Government Benches tonight, but it may come as a surprise to right
  1824
  hon. and hon. Gentlemen who contributed to the debate on the appointment of the new BSC chairman that steel cannot be produced without furnace workers, furnace builders, civil engineering squads and scrap cutters and burners. I say that it would come as a surprise, because the more I listen to Conservative Members the more I realise that they have trouble in distinguishing between a steel ingot and the back of a bus and a steel worker and the Abominable Snowman.
  I said that there were two moral issues. The first is the Under-Secretary's argument, when we discussed the matter with him, that the Government could not accept the responsibility of employers. We know that during every steel debate in the past 12 months—and we have had many—the Government have stuck like a leech to the concept that they were not prepared to intervene in the BSC's affairs.
  There has never been any concealment of this duplicity. When the Government talk about aid to the BSC, it must be remembered that it is the taxpayer who is funding the buying out of the steel workers' jobs. It has been admitted on numerous occasion that £300 million of the £450 million earmarked by the Government for expenditure on the BSC in the current financial year will meet the redundancy and severance payments that have been agreed between the trade unions and the BSC management. It is not the employer—the BSC—who is funding the buying out of jobs, but the Government, and, in effect, the taxpayer.
  It is immoral that one steel worker living next door to another steel worker can lose his job in the same circumstances and receive £5,000 or £6,000 less, simply because his employer is not the BSC, although in a number of cases he will have given more service to the steel industry than his BSC counterpart.
  Another immorality stems from the reason why the BSC negotiated, and the Government funded steel workers' severance pay arrangements. It was purely and simply because without the main trade unions in the industry being induced by their membership to accept the position, steel closures would have been inordinantly more difficult than has been the case so far. Indeed, many people would argue that steel workers have been seduced into accepting situations that will, not only in the medium term but in the

  1825
  short term, prove to be seriously to their disadvantage, as is already being admitted in places such as Hartlepool and East Moors.
  Of course, the people about whom I am talking now have little trade union muscle. They are small, fragmented groups, incapable of embarrassing their employers, the BSC or the Government plant closures. Over the years there is do doubt that their employers have taken substantial profits from their efforts. This is obvious from their reluctance to lose their involvement. But the workers can now be discarded. No doubt their previous efforts have already been spent by the shareholders, and the Government know that the infamous policy of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) can be exercised without fear. But surely, when people are losing their jobs, that is cavalier to the point of being iniquitous, immoral and obscene.
  I ask the Government to assist in alleviating the awful bitterness that will be felt if nothing is done for these people. I estimate that the amount of money involved in Corby is £2½ million, or 0.81 per cent. of the amount that has already been allocated for redundancies in the current BSC financial year. It is a once-for-all payment, and it is, of course, only £700,000 more than the all-for-one payment that we shall be making to the new BSC chairman.
  10.30 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall): I think that the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood) was. in a sense, selling himself a little short tonight. He made a number of points as if it were the first time that this argument had ever been pressed upon the Government. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for being assiduous in the extreme in arguing this matter. I have had meetings with him. We have corresponded. He and some of his Friends have been to see me and have put a number of these points to me before. I appreciated the amiable way in which he opened the debate. I understand why he was not able to be with us when we hoped to discuss this matter a couple, of weeks earlier.
  1826
  The hon. Gentleman was perhaps verging a little on the extravagant side. He made a number of points that we all understand. When there is a need to carry the party-political battle, sometimes one lets fly. I understand that very well. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least discharge me from any suggestion that I do not know a steel ingot from the. back of a bus. After 20 years in the steel industry, if I did not know the difference between the two I certainly should have been given my redundancy very much earlier than I was.
  There are many hon. Members on the Conservative Benches who take the keenest interest in the industry. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) in his place, because I know that he, too, is concerned about the situation at Corby, as indeed is the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. John Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning my presence. I was seeking to intervene. Because of the shortage of time, I shall not do so fully. However, I should like to endorse fully nearly all of what has been said by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood). As the Member for an adjacent constituency, I have admired the way in which the hon. Gentleman has struggled with these very difficult problems. Indeed, the question of the subcontractors is one that has caused concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that my hon. Friend will give the hon. Gentleman a sympathetic reply.
  Mr. Marshall: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has given cross-party support on this argument. I should like to make it clear that I cannot help but be sympathetic towards many of the basic arguments that are put forward.
  I have to be somewhat brief in the time remaining. I have only about 10 minutes, so I may not be able to deal quite as fully as I would wish with this matter.
  It is true that contract workers frequently work side by side for many years with BSC employees. They do as thorough and dedicated a job. In many senses they are as loyal to the BSC as the corporation's own employees, but of

  1827
  course there are differences. The earnings vary, according to the particular job that they do, and in a number of cases the salary earnings may well be comparable.
  To all intents and purposes, therefore, I take the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point in saying that they may seem to be identical to the BSC employees. In that sense, in a closure situation, I can well understand the feeling that they may have that the situation is unfair from their point of view. Indeed, when the hon. Gentleman came to see me, on 1 April, I think, with the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), I was very much moved by the argument that was put and by the feelings of bitterness that this situation creates within a small community. I understand the point perfectly well.
  I want to make it quite clear that I start from a position of great personal sympathy for the argument that is being put forward. Indeed, I have great personal sympathy for the hardship that arises in these situations. I hope very much to have an opportunity of seeing this in the wider context of what is happening at Corby, the remedial actions, and the whole future for Corby when I visit it some time next month. I shall be writing to the hon. Gentleman to advise him when the date of that visit is confirmed.
  However, before we come to the question of the BSC's payment I should make clear the considerable role that the Government play and continue to play wherever they see that they have an action open to them. I think that the Government was trying to suggest that the Government had within their hands greater powers than I believe is the case. I have consistently argued that the question of severance pay is a matter for settlement between the BSC and its employees. As for the payment of benefits for contract workers as well as for the BSC's employees, under the terms of the European Coal and Steel Community—an issue on which the hon. Gentleman and I have corresponded—he will know that we are actively pursuing the opportunities open to us. We expect that about 200 of the 600 contract workers at Corby will be eligible for those benefits. Some contract workers at Shotton will probably also qualify, taking the total number of contractors'
  1828
  employees who will be eligible to nearly 600. That is a sizeable number.
  I hope at least that after all our discussions and correspondence the hon. Gentleman understands the logic of our position on the BSC payments. We do not feel that we can intervene in such negotiations without undermining much of the role of management and the trade unions. The hon. Gentleman, knows very well that that view has been taken by successive Governments. It is not a new view. The previous Labour Government had to face the same situation during closures at Ebbw Vale, East Moors and Shelton, where redundancies included contract workers. Like us, they decided that they were unable to intervene in terms of severance payments, and that they were for the BSC and its employees to decide. When one considers the wider question of the taxpayers' funding—as the hon. Gentleman said—one finds that the same attitude prevailed during the period of the previous Labour Government.
  The hon. Gentleman said that we should intervene because, by allocating the money for severance payments, we already have a major stake. As he knows, we have not allocated a set amount of money to the BSC for redundancy payments. It is important that this aspect is made clear to the House. It is true that the nationalised industries are constrained by statute from raising money to finance their operations. The Government therefore provide directly the bulk of their financial requirements, including money required to fund redundancies within the cash limits. However, the private sector does not operate under those constraints and has access to commercial markets to raise finance if it cannot generate all its immediate requirements internally.
  We have therefore allocated a global sum, leaving the corporation to assign that money according to its perceived priorities. Much of the hon. Gentleman's argument stems from the assumption that there is a loss-making situation. I recognise that at present that assumption is realistic. However, he must also recognise that when—as we all hope—BSC returns to profitability, redundancy payments will need to be self-funded.
  Most contract workers at BSC sites have separate employers and are not BSC employees. The hon. Gentleman has raised

  1829
  several wider questions. I accept that they show that contractors' employees often work entirely on BSC sites. When they lose their jobs it is as poignant as it is for a BSC employee. However, it is not for me or for the Government to say to whom BSC should make severance payments.
  I also have sympathy with BSC's point of view. It would be asking a great deal of an employer to extend severance payments to employees of another company. Even if the Government could intervene, and if we were to tell BSC to make payments to contract workers, other inequities would follow. We should have to draw another dividing line that would leave several sections of workers on the wrong side. There would then be pressure to make payments to the suppliers of goods and services. What about the contract workers who have been made redundant in the past? I have already cited those made redundant in the lifetime of the previous Labour Government. Surely they would feel that they had been treated unfairly. What about those employees of BSC who leave shortly before the works close either by chance or in order to get into the local jobs queue first? They would no doubt press for equal treatment and say that, like contract workers, they were directly affected by the closure, even if they were not actually employed by the BSC at the time.
  Looking beyond the BSC, we should be opening even bigger floodgates. If we put pressure on the BSC we should be creating a precedent for other nationalised industries. The hon. Gentleman needs to consider only for a moment the case of British Shipbuilders and the closure of shipyards to realise that the parallel would be argued and all the same difficulties would apply.
  Having said that we will not interfere with the BSC's arrangements, let us consider the alternative suggested by the hon. Gentleman, namely, that a Government-funded
  1830
  scheme might include contract workers. Alas, that would open the floodgates to similar groups of employees in other industries, who would want similar schemes. As the House knows, the constraints on public expenditure simply do not allow for that possibility.
  Redundant steel workers, including many contract workers, already benefit from the two statutory schemes, for redundancy payments and for payments under ISERBS within the European Coal and Steel Community. A further statutory scheme could not take into account the local variations that are a feature of severance payments negotiations. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the level of severance pay under a statutory scheme could match that recently agreed by the BSC.
  Therefore, while I regret that I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman any prospect of a change in our policy in this matter, his representations and his genuine concern at the predicament of this group of workers have prompted me, out of sympathy and a long-standing personal connection with the industry, and because of my past knowledge of Corby, to consider whether there is any room for manoeuvre. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I find that there is no such room. The precedents that I have cited and the difficulties that would be raised are insuperable. They are the reasons that prompted the previous Government to take the same view.
  It is with no sense of satisfaction that I have to come to that view. If we could assist—I understand the hon. Gentleman's arguments—we should be glad to do so, but I see no room for manoeuvre, and I regret that the hon. Gentleman must take the answer that I have given him tonight, and that he has had in recent weeks.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

  TUC
  TUC
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  CANNOCK WOOD
  CANNOCK WOOD
  ABINGTON
  ABINGTON
  FAMILY POLICY REVIEW
  FAMILY POLICY REVIEW
  PETERHEAD
  PETERHEAD
  MACCLESFBELD
  MACCLESFBELD
  BROMLEY
  BROMLEY
  PRICKWILLOW
  PRICKWILLOW
  LEISTON
  LEISTON
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY BUDGET (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTION)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY BUDGET (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTION)
  HEATON MERSEY
  HEATON MERSEY
  CIVIL SERVANTS (TRANSPORT)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (TRANSPORT)
  MINERAL INTERNATIONALISATION (REPORTS)
  MINERAL INTERNATIONALISATION (REPORTS)
  COMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION)
  COMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION)
  COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
  COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Ukranian Exiles
  Ukranian Exiles
  New Hebrides
  New Hebrides
  Oman
  Oman
INDUSTRY
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Derelict Land Clearance Area (Manchester)
  Derelict Land Clearance Area (Manchester)
ENERGY
  Urenco
  Urenco
  Anthracite
  Anthracite
  Opencast Coal Production
  Opencast Coal Production
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Senior Administrative Posts
  Senior Administrative Posts
DEFENCE
  Aldershot Army Display
  Aldershot Army Display
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Vagrancy Act 1824
  Vagrancy Act 1824
  Tobacco Sales (Juveniles)
  Tobacco Sales (Juveniles)
  Young People (Relations with Police)
  Young People (Relations with Police)
  Marches (Public Order)
  Marches (Public Order)
  Police Duties
  Police Duties
  Press Council
  Press Council
  Police Complaints Procedure
  Police Complaints Procedure
  Terrorist Attacks (London)
  Terrorist Attacks (London)
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Drug Trafficking
  Drug Trafficking
  Recidivism Rates
  Recidivism Rates
  Bailed Persons (Offences)
  Bailed Persons (Offences)
  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Licensing Hours
  Licensing Hours
  Shotgun Licences
  Shotgun Licences
  Prison Officers (Surplus Housing)
  Prison Officers (Surplus Housing)
  Parliamentary Boundary Commission (Greenwich)
  Parliamentary Boundary Commission (Greenwich)
  Prisoners (Parole and Day Release)
  Prisoners (Parole and Day Release)
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Casinos
  Casinos
  Government Policy
  Government Policy
  Shoplifting
  Shoplifting
  Fire Service (Pay)
  Fire Service (Pay)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Jury Vetting
  Jury Vetting
  Passports (Iran)
  Passports (Iran)
WALES
  Dispensed Prescriptions (Loss)
  Dispensed Prescriptions (Loss)
  Dieticians
  Dieticians
  National Parks (Tree Planting)
  National Parks (Tree Planting)
  Maternity Units
  Maternity Units
  Microprocessors
  Microprocessors
EMPLOYMENT
  Leasing Finance
  Leasing Finance
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Female Workers (Exemption Orders)
  Female Workers (Exemption Orders)
  Retraining and Skillcentres
  Retraining and Skillcentres
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  Women Workers
  Women Workers
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Ethnic Minorities
  Ethnic Minorities
SCOTLAND
  Hampden Park
  Hampden Park
  Robroyston Hospital, Glasgow
  Robroyston Hospital, Glasgow
  1981 Census
  1981 Census
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Interim Discretionary Relief (Small Businesses)
  Interim Discretionary Relief (Small Businesses)
  Roads Policy
  Roads Policy
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Regional Development Banks
  Regional Development Banks
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL SAVINGS (1 April 1984)
  DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL SAVINGS (1 April 1984)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  Day of Action
  Day of Action
TRADE
  South Africa
  South Africa
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Child Mortality
  Child Mortality
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Exports
  Exports
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Motor Vehicles (Imports)
  Motor Vehicles (Imports)
  Foreign Manufacturers (Quotas)
  Foreign Manufacturers (Quotas)
ENVIRONMENT
  Research Programmes
  Research Programmes
  Heveningham Hall
  Heveningham Hall
  Land Registers
  Land Registers
  Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979
  Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979
TRANSPORT
  M66 (Extension Contract)
  M66 (Extension Contract)
  Road Bridges (Lorry Weights)
  Road Bridges (Lorry Weights)
  Motorway and Trunk Road Schemes
  Motorway and Trunk Road Schemes
  Roads (White Paper)
  Roads (White Paper)
  LAND REGISTRY
  LAND REGISTRY
  BRITISH LIBRARY
  BRITISH LIBRARY
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Greek Students (Fees)
  Greek Students (Fees)
  Part-time Teachers
  Part-time Teachers
  Illiteracy
  Illiteracy
  School Meals and Textbooks
  School Meals and Textbooks
  Education Policy
  Education Policy
  School Places (Cost)
  School Places (Cost)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mentally Ill Patients (Psychosurgical Operations)
  Mentally Ill Patients (Psychosurgical Operations)
  Hospital Closures (Flowers Report)
  Hospital Closures (Flowers Report)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Artificial Limbs
  Artificial Limbs
  Mesothelioma
  Mesothelioma
  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital
  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Community Hospital Project, St. George's Hospital
  Community Hospital Project, St. George's Hospital
  Medicine and Dentistry Schools
  Medicine and Dentistry Schools
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Herbicide (Land Spraying)
  Herbicide (Land Spraying)
  Fenoprop
  Fenoprop
  Intensive Farming
  Intensive Farming
  Tree Felling
  Tree Felling
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Northern Ireland Agriculture Industry
  Northern Ireland Agriculture Industry
  Apples and Pears
  Apples and Pears
  Beef Imports
  Beef Imports

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

PARLIAMENTARY DRAFTSMEN
Lord RENTON: 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 how many legislative draftsmen there were in the parliamentary counsel office on 5th May in each of the years 1975, 1979 and 1980, including those engaged on Consolidation Bills and those seconded to the Law Commission; and what steps are being taken to implement the (6th) recommendation of the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation, that all available methods should be used to recruit and train more draftsmen as a matter of high priority.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames): My Lords, on 5th May 1975 there were 22 legislative draftsmen working full-time in the parliamentary counsel office, including those engaged on Consolidation Bills and those seconded to the Law Commission. The corresponding numbers for 5th May 1979 and 5th May 1980 were 24 full-time and two part-time, and 20 full-time and three part-time respectively. Since May one additional draftsman has been recruited and three more are expected to be in post shortly.
We are, of course, constantly watching the staffing levels in the parliamentary counsel office.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that unexpectedly, partially satisfactory reply, I should like to ask whether he is aware that, in almost every Session of Parliament—whichever Government are in power—the parliamentary counsel are under great
1586
pressure and we need more and more consolidation? It takes five to six years to train a parliamentary draftsman so that he is fully competent to take charge of a major Bill. With those facts in mind, will he press on with this?
Lord SOAMES: Well, my Lords, I do not think that we are doing badly. If I am partially satisfying my noble friend Lord Renton, then that is already something. As regards pressing on, I do not honestly believe that the real trouble as regards Bills flows from the number of parliamentary draftsmen and parliamentary counsel. I think that noble Lords on both sides of the House will agree that frequently the faults lie with those of us who are Ministers who very often expect miracles from parliamentary draftsmen.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, is not the real mischief too much legislation? It well becomes me to say that in the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who fulminated against it during the last Administration. It is worse under this Administration and your Lordships' House must bear the brunt of it for the rest of the summer.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I cannot totally disagree with the noble and learned Lord's sentiment. He has put his finger on a very tender pressure point, but it will be better next year!
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us on both sides of the House who have had many years of experience know that the euphoria of a party winning an election often tends to overload the legislative programme? Nevertheless, I think that from this side of the House some of us who have had to read the hard work of these draftsmen would like to pay a tribute to the years of work and the meticulous understanding of semantics which these people possess.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and I of course associate myself with what he has said. I think that the work that they do is absolutely miraculous considering all the pressures that are put upon them.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord cause some consideration to be given to the Finance Acts and the taxation statutes which really are, in many respects, I hope he will agree, so obscure that it takes years to understand even a couple of clauses?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, it is quite something for me to know that the noble Lord opposite shares my view and finds it difficult as well. It is quite something to know that it is not only me who finds them difficult to understand. However, I would ask the noble Lord to be understanding to me, because he has asked a rather far-reaching question, whereas the original Question concerned how many parliamentary draftsmen there were at a particular date.

DOMESTIC THERMAL INSULATION
3.11 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they realise that in order to meet the last Government's programme of improved thermal insulation in buildings the glass fibre manufacturers invested some £80 million in capital equipment; and that due to this Government's failure to pursue this most cost-effective method of energy saving two companies have announced redundancies of between 10 and 20 per cent. of their workforce.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the Government are continuing to promote loft insulation by providing grants under the Homes Insulation Scheme which, with the additional help for the elderly on low incomes to be implemented very shortly, will amount to £16–7 million in 1980–81.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that reply, and in spite of the small amount of help that he tells us the Government have given, would he think it unfair to say that the Government really seem to have
1588
shown no enthusiasm, or practically none, for the most cost-effective energy saver that we can have, which is insulation? Would he also agree that the problem that I have raised in my Question could be very easily solved if the Government would improve the insulation standards in the building regulations, which they seem quite unwilling to do?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Viscount's ever ongoing concern for this subject. I seem to have been answering his Questions on this subject for some 10 years. We are very well aware of the importance of energy saving. Realistic pricing is part of our concern and we are doing everything we can to encourage it. The noble Lord and the House must be aware that last year we allocated some £24 million, but only about half of that amount was taken up. Therefore, it is not unfair to say that we are being rather unfairly criticised. We never undertake to do everything. We undertake only to give a prod to people to show them the way and to help them a little.
On the last part of the noble Viscount's Question, dealing with the insulation scheme, only this week the Association of District Councils has written to my right honourable friend at the Department of the Environment saying how much it welcomes the freedom to decide its own standards in the building industry. We like local councils to build their houses as they wish.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said, why is it that the Department of the Environment's new proposals do not include any requirement for floor insulation? Why do they allow, for example, architects to trade off wall insulation against roof insulation? How does the noble Lord think that this will help the nation's conservation programme?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, as I have just said, we are leaving it to the local authorities which are building the houses.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that these are the Department of the Environment's own proposals? Does he not realise that?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the Department of the Environment has published a consultative document and regulations will be issued as advice to the building trade at the end of the year. As the noble Lord is aware, this is an ongoing situation.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, what action is the department taking to encourage local authorities, or by alteration of or amendment to the building regulations, to ensure that insulation is included when domestic and business premises are being built? It is very much cheaper to include insulation then than to build it in at a later stage. Why cannot building regulations be altered to ensure that every building built today is built to the requirements of insulation standards?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, we are giving every encouragement to local authorities. The department sends out messages and circulars to all industrial builders and users. We cannot do more. We are not a complete nanny and mummy to industry; we leave them to do something for themselves.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in this period, when every local authority and building company is trying to cut costs, the absolute minimum of insulation will be incorporated into new buildings unless the building regulations are changed?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, industry is trying to cut its own costs to save its own money. Heating buildings and keeping them cold in summer is expensive. Therefore, it is in industry's own interest to use insulation and it will do what is wise from the point of view of its own pocket.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that matters cannot always be left to local authorities and others? If that could be done, we would not have had planning regulations and all the rest. We are building new houses for the future, and it is not good enough to say that it is simply to be left to the people on the ground, who are under many other pressures. Will the noble Lord not agree that this is a useless sort of approach?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: No, my Lords, I would not. I also do not agree that local authorities do not know how to build houses.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, are the Government aware that due to their lack of action, companies manufacturing insulation materials are laying off men and that there are very heavy redundancies now in employment? Do they think that this is consistent with their policy of trying to conserve energy, with the ever-increasing costs of petrol?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, it is not for the Government to tell insulating companies how to invest their money. If they took an incorrect view of the commercial prospects, that would not be the Government's fault. I would also point out that the firms concerned can help themselves by having a more positive sales policy to encourage the public to take more interest in this subject.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I suggest that perhaps we should move on to the next Question.

HONG KONG PATROL SHIPS AND ITALIAN GUNS
3.17 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why it was necessary to buy from Italy seven Oto Melara 76 mm. dual purpose guns to equip five new patrol ships for service in Hong Kong.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, the Oto Melara 76/62 mm gun system was selected for the Hong Kong patrol craft as the only gun available in the required time-scale which could meet the performance requirement agreed with the Hong Kong Government. It is a standard NATO mounting already in service with seven NATO countries, is of proven reliability

1591
and is easily maintained. In addition it has already been successfully linked with the United Kingdom-manufactured Sperry Sea Archer which has been selected as the fire control system for the craft.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he consider it rather unfortunate that we could not make them in this country in the time required? Will he also be kind enough to tell me the cost of these guns and who will transport them to Hong Kong?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, it is, of course, unfortunate when any foreign manufacturer proves to be better able to meet a British requirement than a British manufacturer. I can assure the noble Baroness that we carried out an extremely careful examination of all the possible British equipments before going for this one. As I have already pointed out to her, the fire control system and the radar are made in this country. On cost, the total system is of the order of £2 million for each complete equipment, of which the gun accounts for about £900,000. The first vessel is intended to be built in this country and so presumably the gun will be carried out on it. I do not know where the other ships will be built.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that there would be very considerable support for the motivation of the Question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers?—while, of course, appreciating what the Minister has said about availability and also the relativity of production as between Italy and this country, as he has explained. Could he confirm—I am sure noble Lords would like to know the answer to this—whether there was the closest consultation on this matter, as on others, between the Hong Kong Government and that of the United Kingdom, and particularly that the views of the Governor of Hong Kong, Sir Murray MacLehose, were given the very greatest weight possible?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I can confirm both aspects about which the noble Lord has asked me. It has to be said that the choice of the type of weapon is not without
1592
contention both in Hong Kong and in this country, but we have maintained a very close liaison with them and, in so far as one can reconcile views, I think that has been done.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to say why the Hong Kong Government require these additional patrol vessels? What is the purpose? Is it to deal with illegal immigration from China, or in the event of an emergency can these vessels be used for combative purposes?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the immediate requirement is, of course, concentrated on the illegal immigrant problem. The ships being used there at the present time are mostly very old; they are the old ton-class minesweepers which are 15 or 16 years old and one rather unreliable high-speed vessel. The equipment is required partly to enhance and replace the existing ageing vessels. It is also judged that it is necessary in any potential confrontation to be able to give a good account of yourself in any vessel you might need in those waters.

THE CLOSED SHOP: HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT
3.21 p.m.
Viscount DE L'ISLE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received the report of the European Commission of Human Rights on the complaints of the closed shop by Messrs. Young, James and Webster against the United Kingdom, adopted on 14th December 1979, and whether they have decided upon the course of action which they will pursue before the European Court of Human Rights to which the Commission has referred its report and before which they will now be summoned to defend their violation of Article 11(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms reported by the Commission.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have received the report which the commission has referred to the court. A chamber of the court has been constituted but no date for a hearing has been set and Her Majesty's Government have yet to be asked by the court for their submission on the case. When they are so asked they will consider, in consultation with their professional advisers, what submissions it might be appropriate to make.
Viscount De L'ISLE: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for that economical Answer, may I ask whether he realises that as the Employment Bill will be again before the House next week, it is very important that the Government on this important matter, which affects the human rights of three railwaymen whose complaints have been found substainable by the commission, should be in a position to tell their attitude to human rights in general and to the commission's report in particular?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am happy to assure my noble and gallant friend that, if the Employment Bill had been the law at the time when the complaint arose, there would have been no complaint because the Employment Bill as at present drafted completely covers the point. I would also remind him, in the presence of the noble and learned Lord concerned, that when the 1976 legislation was going through I warned him there would be trouble with the commission, but he somewhat pooh-poohed the suggestion. I now have the luxury of knowing that at least a majority of the commission agreed with me and not with the noble and learned Lord, but I have not yet the glee, to borrow a phrase of his from the other day, of knowing whether or not the court will take the same view.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, as I have not had the pleasure of reading the report of the commission, which the noble and learned Lord has had, I cannot comment on its wisdom or folly. I wait with impatience to read it myself.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, no doubt the noble and learned Lord will
1594
also await with equal impatience what the decision of the court will be.
Viscount DE L'ISLE: My Lords, further to those supplementary questions, may I ask the Lord Chancellor whether he is continuing to ride two divergent horses, the horse which was contended at Strasbourg by the Solicitor-General and the horse that the complaints will be remedied? Is he aware that he cannot have it both ways?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: No, my Lords, I was answering a perfectly respectable question, if he will allow me to say so, from my noble and learned friend. The Solicitor-General on 9th July 1979 made it very plain to the commission that the view of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the merits of the case differed significantly from that of the previous Administration. In fact, the commission divided and the majority took the view which I tended to take on the previous occasion. But there was a minority and, as the noble and learned Lord will be relieved to know, there is no divergence here; the duty of a Government who are impleaded before a court of justice, whether in this country or in Strasbourg, is to assist the court, if only as an amicus curiae.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the new Bill was submitted to the commissioners in December and that they, I understand, have found against both the previous Labour Bill and the new Bill in that it contravenes human rights? Is he further aware that 23 cases have been submitted by the commissioners for judgment and in no case have their recommendations been upset? As this Government always look forward, would it not be right to anticipate that the legal judgment may follow precedent in this connection, and ought we not, before we go any further in the consideration of this very important Employment Bill, to have a statement from the Government about what they will do if they are found to be offside under the present legislation we are considering?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if my noble friend will study the report he will find he is not right in the first of the observations he made, but I do

1595
not have the report before me and cannot quote from it. As regards the statement, we shall of course comply with the Convention on Human Rights, but I do not think there is any prospect of our present proposals being held to be contrary to the Convention on Human Rights. If it is, then of course we shall comply with the convention.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does it follow that a decision reached by a European Commission, whether on human rights or on some other subject, is always acceptable to the countries of the Nine? If so, how does the noble and learned Lord account for the French defiance of a particular European Commission in another context?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is confusing the Strasbourg Court with the Luxembourg Court.
Lord HARRIS of HIGH CROSS: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord be wholly astonished to hear that there is some legal support for the view that the proposed Clause 6 on the closed shop, which involves some kind of inquisitorial process—it has been described as an examination of the heart and mind of the individual—is wholly inconsistent with the commitment into which the Government have entered, in the words of the convention, to safeguard the individual's
"freedom of thought, of conscience and of religion"?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid I was dealing with the question of my noble and gallant friend which referred to a particular complaint in a particular report of the commission. I therefore do not think that point arises. But if the noble Lord from the Cross Benches wishes to put down a Question, I will answer it. I do not like giving instant answers on legal points.

BUSINESS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that dinner will be available this evening at the usual hour.
1596
The Report stage of the Transport Bill will be adjourned at about 7 o'clock for approximately one hour.

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.29 p.m.
Read 3a.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
Lord RENTON: My Lords, I feel that we should not let this occasion pass without acknowleging that the noble and learned Lord Advocate and the parliamentary draftsmen have made splendid progress with this piece of consolidation. It was not very long ago that we had an amending Bill before us that called for consolidation. We have now got it and we should pay tribute where it is due.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass, and in so doing I should like to thank my noble friend for his comments of a few moments ago. I very much appreciate what he had to say.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PORT OF LONDON (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

TRANSPORT BILL
3.31 p.m.
Report of amendments received.
Clause 2 [Definition of "public service vehicle"]:
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin) moved Amendment No. 1A:
Page 3, line 27, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this amendment in replacement of the one so effectively moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth and carried on a Division by your Lordships in Committee. The amendment as moved was defectively drafted. The provisions of the 1978 Transport Act to which it referred are repealed in this Bill, and, as I think my noble friend will agree, it was not in a precise enough form for the statute book. I did not draw attention to these defects during the Committee debate, thinking it better for the discussion to be on the principle of the amendment. I have no wish to persuade, or even to try to persuade, your Lordships to overturn that decision, which clearly represented the wishes of the majority of your Lordships—indeed, quite the contrary—and what I am now moving is designed to embody that decision in an appropriate legal form by an amendment to the 1972 Road Traffic Act.
What it does, as your Lordships will see, is to provide that no policy given for the purpose of the 1972 Road Traffic Act should exclude cover for motorists who are sharing their cars in return for contributions towards their running costs. It does this by saying that any restriction in such a policy should still include, and no exclusion should exclude, the use of vehicle-or car-sharing, provided that the conditions in Clause 2 of the Bill are met. These conditions are spelt out again in this clause, which is after all to form part of the 1972 Road Traffic Act. The only change which we have made, to meet the wishes of the motor insurers, is to exclude in terms the sharing of motorcycles.
I should remind your Lordships that this new clause, which relates to private
1598
car policies, is concerned with personal injury liabilities which are required to be covered by Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1972. The undertaking given in 1978 by the Motor Conference goes much wider than this, and of course the subject matter of the amendment (with much else besides) falls within its scope. The market undertaking, which now forms part of the contractual relationship between insurers and their private car policyholders, will remain in force, subject only to an increase in the permitted number of passengers from seven to eight.
This undertaking has operated without giving rise to any difficulties and will, I am confident, continue to do so, greatly to the advantage of all concerned. The Motor Conference have told me that since their undertaking is wider than the scope of the amendment, they see no reason for any fresh documentation or alteration of policies. The Government have certainly no wish to force motor insurers into increasing their administration costs, but I trust that they will take all reasonable opportunities to ensure that those people mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lucas, in his speech in Committee and who had apparently hitherto missed noticing the undertaking, will have it drawn to their attention. Certainly the Government will do so in any publicity which is issued about the new opportunities for car-sharing. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, in view of some of the remarks that I am to say to the noble Lords the Ministers later, I must say, in connection with this amendment and Amendment No. 63C (with which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin associated it) that we complain that the first we saw of it was when we arrived here this morning and consulted the Marshalled List and the Supplementary Marshalled List. This is a very important matter, and it requires the most careful consideration. From what the noble Lord has said, it seems that it is all right, but to a great extent we shall be guided by what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, says about it, since he moved the original amendment.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend

1599
for his explanation of Amendment No. 1A, which is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 63C. At the Committee stage I did not realise that the amendment that I moved was defective, and it was not until my attention was drawn to this fact by the department that I was able to engage in conversations with them. It is rather a pity that a number of your Lordships have approached me with a letter from the Motor Conference, which they have not seen fit to send to me, and so I have had to have my discussions with the department on the basis of what they have told me. Nevertheless my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave detailed explanations and earlier in the week provided for me a draft amendment; and I have been able to discuss this with those who advise me.
Amendment No. 63C, to which it would be appropriate to speak now in order to save time much later tonight, in essence embraces all that I wished to embrace by virtue of the amendment that I moved at the earlier stage—which is, quite simply, that, notwithstanding an undertaking, all domestic policy holders shall be covered by the minimum policy which an insurance company may provide under the old legislation so as not to exclude liability arising in the event of an accident when the motor car is being used with a shared-cost passenger. The matter really is as simple as that.
I quite accept what my noble friend has said with regard to motorcycles, and in any event in that connection it really is a rather impractical proposition. So far as I am concerned, the subsequent amendment, No. 63C, for which the amendment that we are discussing, No. 1A, paves the way, is quite satisfactory.
Perhaps I should add that again I am obliged to the department for the amount of work that they have done in a very short space of time. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I am a little surprised that the amendment should have reached us this afternoon, instead of perhaps at a later stage, but I do not think that this is a bad thing. We can deal with it now while our minds are fresh and get it out of the way. Lastly, I must say that the parliamentary draftsmen find an extraordinary way of inter-
1600
preting what I thought was a comparatively simple point. I can do no more than suggest that your Lordships accept my noble friend's amendment.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I spoke on this matter at the Committee stage, when I was very much moved by the realistic problems which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, pointed out in regard to domestic car owners and their insurance companies. As I am strongly in favour and am strongly supporting the Government's proposals about car-sharing, it seems to me, as I said at Committee stage, that it is an important social matter to have the position of the average domestic owner of a car who indulges in car-sharing clearly set out vis-à -vis the insurance company.
I have had a letter and a memorandum from the Motor Conference, and I should like to express my gratitude for the help they have given to me in explaining the position as it is with motor insurers. But I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in saying that I received a copy of Amendment No. 63C only this morning, and therefore it is very difficult for me at this stage to do anything more than to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; but I am not in a position to say that I fully support Amendment No. 63C since we have not had the opportunity to examine it.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, may I first of all apologise to the House for the short notice that was given? If it is any comfort, I would assure noble Lords that I, too, had the same short notice. Indeed, only this very morning we were receiving as many (would you believe?) as 20 amendments and it is far from easy to absorb it all. Nevertheless, the important thing, surely, is to be quite satisfied that we are dealing correctly with this matter; and in that it is one which was raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas (and so effectively, as I said before), I would hope that in the circumstances as we have to deal with them the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, may feel, so far as concerns what he had to say on the subject, it is now acceptable, and perhaps your Lordships might accept the amendment.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I follow, if I may, on what the noble Lord the

1601
Minister has just said, first of all to say that, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, it is obviously a matter of satisfaction to the Opposition that he is perfectly happy with this clause as amended. However, I have to follow the noble Lord the Minister in what he said about the lateness of amendments put before the House. This may be a convenient moment for me to say, if I may—and I do it most respectfully—that it is quite impossible for this House, which is given very much a revising duty, to consider matters properly at Report stage when there is such a rush between Committee and Report. I say this when the noble Lord the Minister admits to the House with his usual frankness and his continuous courtesy that he himself was faced with, I believe, about 20 new amendments this morning.
Many assurances were given at the Commitee stage to the Committee that matters of importance which were raised on this Bill would be considered, and that there would be replies from the appropriate Ministers. Let me say at once that replies have been received, but they have been received literally over the last few days. I understand completely the problems that Ministers have to face, but that has meant no proper time to consider the replies in the light of amendments put down, and no proper opportunity for the House to deal with an important Bill properly at the Report stage. I make my protest, my Lords; I hope that something can be done in future to avoid this sort of situation.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, just before we leave the subject I think I ought in fairness to say that there are some 68 amendments that I have before me at the moment. If we are talking about some 20 just received, I think it would be equally fair to say that there were a good number which were dealt with between the Committee stage and now. Furthermore, many of them concern very complicated matters which require the most careful consideration; and when Ministers say in good faith that they will go away and think about matters raised, often by the Opposition or even by my noble friends on this side, they do exactly that. These matters are taken away, there are consultations about them between ministerial colleagues, then there is consultation with officials, and then
1602
there is discussion with the parliamentary draftsmen; and in the relatively short time between Committee stage and Report stage, for all that, when there are many such things—
Lord MISHCON: It should not be, my Lords.
Lord BELLWIN: The noble Lord says that it should not be, but it is bound to be if the Government take a tolerant attitude at Committee stage in being willing to look at matters again, rather than saying, "I am sorry, but that is all there is to it and we will divide if you wish to divide"—and I do not really think that that is what the noble Lord would most wish us to do. But once we do take that attitude, if there are many amendments which we undertake to look at again, and, furthermore, others which follow thereafter, often at short notice, then I feel we are bound to be in this situation. However, having said that, I feel that noble Lords on all sides understand the difficulty, and we shall just have to cope with it as best we can, trying to be as helpful as we can at all stages.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Classification of public service vehicles as stage, express or contract carriages]:
3.46 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 43, leave out (" either of those places ") and insert (" both ").
The noble Lord said: Having made clear our viewpoint on the other issue, I should like to follow my noble friend Lord Mishcon in thanking the two noble Lords the Ministers for carrying out their promises to write us on a number of matters, which they have. That is not to say that automatically we will do as they request us to do, but we appreciate the fact that they have carried out their assurances. My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is similar to that of the amendment which was proposed in Committee, although now, as your Lordships will see, it is in a more simplified form. The amendment in this simplified form is brought forward again, firstly, because there is a principle involved and, secondly,

1603
because the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, gave an assurance that he would discuss the point involved with his friend the Secretary of State and would let us know the outcome.
I should remind your Lordships of exactly what is the point involved. The subsection determines whether or not a particular service shall be a stage carriage—that is, a local bus service—in which case it comes fully within licensing requirements; or, alternatively, that it shall be an express service, and be outside licensing. It also determines whether excursion or tour shall qualify as an express service. This is a complicated matter, and its complication is shown by the fact that I believe the Government themselves have had two or three bites at the cherry to try to get this right. But, with respect, I would suggest that it is still not satisfactory, and that is why we have submitted the amendment.
The original wording was somewhat tortuous. It would appear that, originally, reference to the 30-mile radius was intended to exclude from road service licensing excursions and tours when they travelled more than 30 miles from their picking up point and setting down point, which are in the same place or in the same vicinity; while excursions or tours within the 30-mile radius were given a simplified licensing procedure. I believe I am correct in saying that the intention was to exclude journeys where the route was more than 30 miles from both picking up and setting down point or points, as the case may be. This is not the position within the present subsection, as the phrase used is "either of those places". The amendment seeks to restore what we thought was the original intention by changing these words to "both", so that it reads "both places ".
The amendment would also avoid the position of an operator extending a route a very small distance in order to go beyond the 30 miles and qualify as an express service—provided it meets the other condition, of course, of passengers being set down 30 miles from where they were picked up—and therefore be free of road service licensing, although at the same time travelling over the same route as a stage service bus which is fully licensed. In Committee, I gave one
1604
example of how this could be done; the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, gave another example; and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that many examples could be given, which indicates that this could be a general problem. It is on both these grounds, and in view of the assurance given by the noble Lord the Minister that he would consult with the Secretary of State, that we have put this amendment down again. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I said that I would consult; I have certainly done so and I am glad to confirm it. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, today as I did in Committee. Furthermore, the consultations with my ministerial colleagues to which I refer have been quite extensive. But nothing that the noble Lord has said today alters my view that this issue boils down to a basic difference in approach. We in Goverment wish to free as many services as possible from licensing, others, especially noble Lords opposite, wish to keep as many as possible within licensing. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, described in Committee a hypothetical service from Manchester to Stoke on Trent which, by making a four-and-a-half mile dogleg, could thereby take passengers over 30 miles from the starting point although not from its destination. He is right in saying that I, too, could have given many other illustrations and I am sure that many others could have done so without difficulty.
The Bill as drafted would keep that service out of licensing. Lord Underbill's amendment then and today would bring it within licensing along, with all the other services that, for purely geographical reasons, might have to take a route of this kind. I am thinking of a road round a lake or a sea loch in Scotland. We are not willing to withdraw this relaxation from such genuine cases for the sake of catching, perhaps—and it is only "perhaps"—a handful of operators who may be going a mile or two out of their way. As I said in Committee, they would not have to do much of that sort of thing before their custom would fade away. It would be a very self-defeating matter, in my submission, and therefore I fear that we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I find my noble friend's reply rather disappointing.

1605
I think that we are absolutely no further in solving this important problem. I think also that one point must be mentioned. My noble friend said that the Government wished to free from licensing as many services as possible and that the Opposition wished to keep them within licensing. I do not know whether the Opposition agree with that, but one does know that the operators and all those connected with the bus industry—and I do not want to repeat that on every amendment that we will deal with today; so that I will dispose of it at once—are very concerned about this Bill. On this point, it is not a question of keeping within licensing; it is a tidying-up operation trying to streamline matters to make some good sense. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned Manchester and Stoke on Trent. I mentioned Leicester and Northampton. We go on talking about this till the cows come home but nobody seems to come up with answers. It seems that it is going to be very unsatisfactory. This is not one of the most important amendments in the Bill but it is an important one. Your Lordships will get all sorts of anomalies (if that is the right word) and, in any case, a lot of rather unsatisfactory results if this amendment is not accepted.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I raised this matter at Second Reading. Within my own experience, I know of operators in the West of England and also in the area of the Lake District who find this problem about longdistance operators coming into an area and doing local work in that area a very real one. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said that he was disappointed about the Minister's reply. I join with him in that, but I should like to add a word or two which I hope the Minister will not find offensive. It seemed to me that the brief that he had to read about the possible operation of these operators was somewhat naive in the circumstances where people find themselves in tourist areas, where people come from long distances and where the buses stay there for a week or so. I am sorry that the Minister is not supporting this improvement, as I see it, in the amendment put by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. If Lord Underhill takes a particular step, I will support him.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am sorry I that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, thinks I am naive about this. He may feel likewise about many other matters before we end this Session. I hope not, but it is possible. So far as I am concerned, I am convinced about this. I understand the concern expressed. The points made by my noble friend Lord Teviot are, as always, points to which one should pay attention because of his considerable experience and knowledge of this industry; but, at the same time, if one thinks carefully about this, in practice it is not going to be what the noble Lord thinks. The requirement is that the passenger must have travelled at least 30 miles during the course of the journey. What we are talking about is a possibility. Are we seriously saying that operators will deliberately set out to follow a tortuous route to reduce in some way the number of miles travelled? It does not make sense.
I try to understand the points put by noble Lords, I try to listen carefully and, if the points are valid, to accept them. In this matter in particular I feel strongly that the fears expressed are not valid. I do not think that this is going to happen because, if it did, then the company concerned would not stay in business for five minutes. Would the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, himself go for a second time on a service which takes him via Timbuktu to get to a destination just over 30 miles away? I do not think so. I am sorry that we cannot accept the amendment in this case. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will take the nuance made by my noble friend Lord Teviot when he said there is much before us in many areas about which we have differed and will continue to differ. This may not be the most important of them.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, it is not the most important amendment before us; nevertheless, it is an important one. The Minister refers to operators tricking by going round a tortuous route. Those are the words the Minister used in Committee. If one looks at the example that I gave—and it is in the Official Report—or the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, it is not a tortuous route; it means going into another built-up area for a couple of extra miles and going

1607
beyond the 30 miles. While it may influence your Lordships, if you look at the example given, it cannot be described as a tortuous exercise.
It must be said that the industry is very concerned about this. They want to tidy it up and, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, they feel that it is an issue. While we shall not divide on this, we shall not withdraw the amendment because a principle is involved. I hope that the Minister will continue discussions with the industry on this matter. If we are going to look at everything as if those on this side of the House were viewing matters only in a restrictive way, we shall not succeed on any issue. This has nothing to do with the basic difference of views between us and the other side of the House. This is a tidying-up matter and putting clear issues which cause concern to the Confederation who represent the industry. We will not withdraw the amendment but we shall not divide the House.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Signs on vehicles.
—(1) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment:

(a) no passenger vehicle of less then eight seats which carries passengers for hire or reward, or for payment of any kind, other than a hackney carriage licensed to ply for hire under the several enactments in force within the United Kingdom for licensing such hackney carriages, shall have affixed to the roof, thereof, a sign of any kind or description;

(b) nothing in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall prevent a District Council from requiring, or allowing, an identification, sign or mark, on a Private Hire Vehicle licensed under Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976:

Provided always that any such sign, or mark, so required or allowed, shall have no means of illumination and shall be fitted, or affixed, on the side doors, and or, rear of the vehicle and below the window line of the said vehicle;

(c) no vehicle being used to give lifts for payment under this Act, or the Transport Act 1978, shall carry any sign of any
1608
kind or description on any part of the vehicle indicating that the vehicle was being, or is used, to give lifts for payment.

(2) If any person contravenes the provisions of this section he shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds and to a daily fine of twenty pounds.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am in some difficulty here because this amendment proposes a new clause with the rubric, "Signs on vehicles". Noble Lords will have noted that there is a new clause put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, dealing with the same matter. It would be wrong of me at this stage to comment upon the new clause proposed on behalf of the Government. It has not yet been moved and I should be out of order if I were to do so. On the other hand, I do not want to waste the time of the House in explaining why we have put down the amendment standing in my name and the names of my noble friends. I would say that when this matter was first discussed in another place and during the Committee stage, both the Secretary of State and the noble Lord the Minister expressed some sympathy for the general matter. We now have their new clause on the Marshalled List. I think the best thing that I can do is not to move this particular amendment and to leave my remarks until we come to consider the Government's own amendment at a later stage.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved].
Clause 7 [Attachment to road service licences of conditions as to fares]:
4 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 9, line 9, leave out ("not")
Page 9,line 11, leave out ("unless") and insert—
("if (but in no other circumstances) they are").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be recalled that an amendment to this subsection was tabled at the Committee stage. The clause as in the Bill provides the traffic commissioners shall not attach to a road service licence any conditions relating to fares unless they are satisfied that to do so is to protect the public from unreasonable action by the licence-holder or to regulate competition between stage services. The amendment seeks to put

1609
this important matter more positively. It would provide that the commissioners shall exercise these powers if they are satisfied on one or other of the two points.
The guidance would be placed in the affirmative rather than the negative. This, in my view, would give an indication to the commissioners of the balance to be given to this question of fares. The balance would be in the same positive way that the Government themselves are doing in shifting the balance for the granting of road service licences.
It will be recalled that there was some difference with the Minister on this point when the matter was debated in Committee. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, came to our assistance and suggested the insertion of the words:
" and in no other circumstances ".
The Minister generously offered, despite his own personal reservations, to have a look at that suggestion. On that basis, the amendment was withdrawn in the Committee stage. The noble Lord the Minister has kindly written to me on this point, but despite what he said the amendment is now re-submitted. I stress that it does not alter the restricted nature of the commissioners' powers, it merely expresses those powers with a different balance, and the question of fares is one which we feel should have that different balance. Therefore the amendment is now submitted with the inclusion of the words suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, we have considered, as my noble friend Lord Bellwin promised in Committee, the helpful suggestions put by the noble Lords, Lord Mischcon and Lord Simon, that this clause should be amended along the lines that have now been proposed. My noble friend Lord Bellwin said in his recent letter to Lord Underhill:
" Your argument here was that Clause 7(3) should be cast as a duty not as a restriction on the general discretion given by Clause 7(1) and 7(2)(a). It would be possible to completely redraft the subsection—and that rather than the amendment of one or two words would be required—but not without losing some of the force of what we wish to impart. The clause is deliberately cast in its present form to emphasise the restricted nature of the commissioners' power
1610
over fares. We regard that as of some importance."
I should like to amplify that. In fact a complete redraft of the subsection would not even suffice. What would really be required is a redraft of the first three subsections to point them as it were in the new direction.
I know that noble Lords are worried that as drafted the clause might suggest that the commissioners may be satisfied that it is essential in the public interest to act and yet not do so because their power to do so is discretionary not mandatory. I think I can reassure noble Lords that where commissioners are satisfied that it is essential to act in the public interest, they will act. Indeed, we hear mostly of worries that they may be too quick to act rather than too slow. I do not think we differ on principle here, only on semantics. I hope in that case noble Lords will not press these two amendments.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, your Lordships will not find it strange that I should be supporting these amendments because the suggestions came from my noble friend Lord Simon. He has asked me to apologise that he is unable to be in his place today or tomorrow, if the discussions continue tomorrow. I too must apologise because I shall be unable to be present then, because I have been committed for several months to an engagement at lunch-time in Cardiff. Unfortunately, I cannot cut it at this late stage.
Another matter which surprised me is that in the course of discussions that noble friends on these Benches have had nobody intimated to me that a letter had been written by the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I do not know that a copy even went to my noble friend Lord Simon.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, it was sent to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am much obliged, my Lords. That is another inefficiency of our organisation on these Benches. I did not have that copy. I do not want to complain continually, but I have been surprised that copies of

1611
the correspondence between the noble Lords, Lord Underhill, Lord Mishcon and the Minister concerning matters where I had intervened in the debate were not sent to me.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I can only apologise to the noble Lord. When writing to a noble Lord if another noble Lord is involved we try to send him a copy. The noble Viscount was sent the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred. I apologise if we have been remiss and I will look into that.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am obliged for the apology but I have not received a single letter in regard to any matter on the Transport Bill. That seems to be an oversight on the part of the Government and I am grateful for the apology.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, what we are concerned about is that we do not want to give the impression that we do not want the commissioners to act in this matter. I am certain that, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, amplify the letter that was sent to us, it will be on the official record, it will be noted and the commissioners will undoubtedly take note. We do not want it to be in the negative. It is the Government's view that they should act where it is necessary. On that basis, I withdraw the amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Grant of road service licences for certain excursions or tours]:
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendments Nos. 5 and 6:
Page 10, line 36, leave out (" either ")
Page 10, line 45, leave out from ("tramcars") to end of line 2 on page 11.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter was considered in Committee. After which I thought was a reasonable amount of discussion, the amendment was withdrawn in consequence of an assurance kindly given by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, that the matter would be looked at, although he made it absolutely clear that he could give no promise of any concession.
In fairness to other noble Lords, I must set out the issue. I will do so as briefly as possible. The traffic commissioners have a responsibility within the provisions of the Bill to grant licences under the proposed simplified procedure, where they are satisfied that the proposed service would be an excursion or tour and does not compete directly with an existing service or would operate only to enable passengers to attend special events.
During the debate at the Committee stage, I indicated that it had been put to me that there could be legal argument as to what was a special event. I pointed out also that in paragraph 1 of Schedule 12 to the 1968 Road Traffic Act the words there used were:
"special occasion".
It was questioned whether the change of the words to:
"special event"
had any significance.
Other noble Lords considered that this matter should be clarified, and my noble friend Lord Mishcon advanced the view that what should be avoided was the problem of any litigation arising from this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has kindly sent a detailed letter to me, following consultations which he had with his ministerial colleagues, as he promised he would do. But, having considered this letter, it is still thought desirable to place this amendment before your Lordships. Apart from the points advanced by the Minister, the noble Lord stressed that the administration of the provisions relating to special events is best left to the commissioners' discretion. I also expressed that view at the Committee stage, and I do so now.
I think a number of matters can be left to the commissioners' discretion, though in passing I must say I note that when the Government want to give the commissioners clear instructions they are put into the Bill, and when we ask that there should be clear instructions the Government find all sorts of reasons why they should not be put in. In this particular matter it is because the commissioners, I feel, can be relied upon to deal with this question in a sensible way that I believe the amendments I have now moved should be supported. This will take out reference to "special events" and leave the

1613
commissioners free to determine whether a service is an excursion or tour on the criteria set out in the Bill. That would be a simple thing and it would avoid any possibility of the legal confusion which, despite the letter which the Minister kindly sent to us, we on this side of the House still believe could arise. By taking out these words we do not impair the Bill at all, but we leave the commissioners free to use their discretion in the light of criteria set out in the Bill.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, if I recall correctly what was said at the Committee stage—and I think this is important—this particular Bill changes the word "occasion" and sets a new test of "event". I must confess that I rather welcome this because, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said at the Committee stage, there have been a considerable number of cases in the High Court in order to determine what is a "special occasion". As I understand it, the reason why this is a very difficult test indeed is that "occasion" is very much a subjective test as opposed to an "event", which I take to be a more objective test. For that reason I prefer the word "event". But in any case the person who is going to decide whether it is a "special occasion" or "event" is one of the traffic commissioners. I feel that this amendment is not necessary.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, was kind enough to recall to your Lordships' memory the discussion that took place on this matter earlier, may I very briefly indicate the concern I expressed then and still feel? I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, challenged me on that occasion to distinguish between "occasion" and "event"; and I remember that we smiled across the Benches as I remarked that I personally could not tell whether, if it ever occurred that the Government gave way to any Opposition amendment, that would be either a "special occasion" or a "special event". The noble Lord, Lord Morris, says "both". I only tell him that if this occurs this afternoon, we shall be celebrating both in no uncertain fashion.
To become serious now about what is a very important point, in my respectful submission to your Lordships, this would
1614
not matter if we were dealing with a discretionary power in the traffic commissioners, because if they were given discretion and an application was made to them and in the use of that discretion in an honest fashion they came to a conclusion, it would be most unlikely that litigation would follow and, if it did follow, that it would be successful. However, this Bill as now worded provides that the traffic commissioners must grant a licence in the event we are talking about; namely, the "special event". That means that if you have not defined "special event" in the Bill anyone who goes out from the traffic commissioners with a negative response would not be going to the courts on the basis of the traffic commissioners having wrongly exercised a discretion; they will be going to the courts on an argument that what they regarded as a "special event" the traffic commissioners have not regarded as a "special event", and the court has only to find that it was a special event and the traffic commissioners will obviously then be ordered to reverse their decision.
At this stage of the Bill, when we have an opportunity of dealing with clarity and seeing that language is employed which will not lead to unnecessary litigation and possibly to whimsical remarks by a judge, be it of first instance or in the Court of Appeal, as to Parliament having done a rather clumsy job, it seems that one ought to pause and reflect that this is mandatory and that there is no definition of "special event". As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has said, there is case law which deals with the words "special occasions"—and heaven only knows what case law might now develop on the meaning of "special event" if we do not even trouble to define it. That was the point I made at Committee stage and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, was kind enough to write to me. I am so sorry he did not write to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, but he did write to me, and I know he will forgive me if I say that I read his letter with the greatest of care, in exactly the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has said he read my letters but that he was not moved by them. May I say that in the same way I was not moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord who thanked me for my letters. I do not think I can be blamed for not writing to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, on this as he did not take part in the debate. I wrote, as has been said very generously, to the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Underhill, and to my noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Teviot.
A noble Lord: Favouritism!
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am not saying that, because qui accuse s'à ccuse.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said, may I change my attitude and thank the noble Lord for not sending me a copy of his letter? I really feel that if the Government are so obscure in their attitude towards these Benches; I was really dealing with many matters on that occasion and I ought to be grateful to him for not increasing my fan mail so much!
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. As has been said, I promised to take these matters away at Committee stage and look at them. I did so and I wrote to noble Lords. It might help those of your Lordships who were not recipients of those letters if I now go into a little of the substance of what I wrote:
"After consulting with my ministerial colleagues I remain convinced that the clause should not be amended. The "special event" criterion does allow some excursions or tours outside those covered by subsection (1)(a) to get licences under the clause. For instance, a day trip from Brighton to the Derby could be licensed under this paragraph even if it could not under (1)(a) because there are regular services from Brighton to Epsom.
"The administration of the provision relating to special events, like that of many other provisions in the Bill (and in the present legislation) is left to the commissioners' discretion. I believe that the bus industry has come to accept their judgment and the impartial way in which they exercise it, and I am sure that an attempt to define "special event" would undesirably fetter that discretion and might force them to act in a way that would not actually be the most sensible one.".
My noble friend Lord Morris, who has been so helpful as regards this Bill, also asked why the words "special event" had been used in place of "special occa-
1616
sion", which appears in the current legislation. In Part I of Schedule 12 to the 1960 Act the phrase "special occasion" was used as part of the phrase "a race meeting, public or other like special occasion". As I indicated (Hansard, col. 240) in Committee, that phrase has led to litigation. It has been held by the courts that a "special occasion" in this context must be a particular individual occasion akin to those specified. In Clause 9(1)(b) the phrase "special events" is not used in such a way as to admit of construction ejusdem generis. It stands alone. It is thought that "event" in this context is more apt than "occasion" and is likely to be free from influence by any restrictive constructions of "occasion" in Part I of Schedule 12 to the 1960 Act.
My right honourable friends, as well as my noble friend Lord Bellwin and myself, have given much thought to this matter and I must tell your Lordships that I am afraid that we are unable to give any undertaking to take this away for further consideration. We are convinced that our wording is the best and I beg your Lordships to accept our advice on this matter.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I am always anxious to accept good advice that is given to me, but most of the reply of the noble Lord the Minister has dealt with the legal argument as to what is a "special event" and a "special occasion". The purpose of our amendment is to avoid that legal argument by taking out those words altogether. The noble Lord said that there has been litigation. That proves the very point that we have been trying to make, that there is a possibility of litigation in interpreting "special event" and "special occasion".
Our amendment is such common sense. It proposes to take this out and then the Government and the rest of the House can all agree together to leave these matters for the commissioners, in their wisdom, to decide. That seems to me to be such common sense that it is very difficult to see the point that has been put forward in arguing the different legal definitions of "special event" and "special occasion". But the noble Lord the Minister has made it clear that the Government will not move. This is not an issue on which we want to divide the House, but we cannot

1617
withdraw the amendments because we think that they are such common sense.
On Question, amendments negatived.
Clause 11 [Duration of road service licences]:
4.22 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 11, line 37, leave out from beginning to first ("on") in line 7 on page 12 and insert—
("(1) Subject to section 10, a road service licence shall continue in force until surrendered by the holder unless at the time of the granting of the licence the traffic commissioners for special reasons determine that it shall continue in force only up to and including a date specified in the licence, in which case it shall continue in force only up to and including that date.
(2) If, where an expiry date has been specified,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is the same as one which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in Committee. It might, therefore, be questioned why we move the amendment from this side of the House. It will be recalled that another amendment, which stood in the names of my noble friends and myself and which would have had the same effect, dealt with precisely the same matter.
The purpose of the amendment is to remove an element of bureaucracy from the licensing procedure, with which I am certain the whole House will be in agreement. I emphasise that the amendment in no way introduces any new principle that could change any criteria for the granting of a licence. It would, in effect, take out the whole of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 11 and replace them with the words set out in the Marshalled List. It proposes that when the traffic commissioners have granted a road service licence, it shall remain in force unless it is surrendered by the licence holder, or unless at the time of granting the licence the commissioners consider it desirable to insert a condition that it shall continue only up to a specified date.
This would remove a considerable amount of bureaucracy and would save administrative costs. I emphasise that in no way will it take away any powers from the traffic commissioners as, apart from the two points to which I have referred,
1618
they will continue to have their powers of revocation or suspension under Clause 10.
Your Lordships may recall that in Committee there was a very useful discussion on this matter, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, listened with obvious attention. He said that he reflected that the arguments were finely balanced and kindly added that he wished to take the matter back and look at it again. On that basis, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, withdraw his amendment and a similar amendment standing in the names of my noble friends and myself was not moved. I understand that the Minister has conveyed his views to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and no doubt the noble Lord will wish to comment on those views. But in view of the points that I have made, which we still think are valid, I beg to move this amendment.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, stated, this amendment is very similar to the one which I moved in Committee. I note that the provisions have been slightly streamlined compared with my own proposals, but the amendment is none the worse for that. I must thank my noble friend Lord Mowbray, who wrote me a charming letter, but I cannot say that, in some ways, I am any more convinced, and I still think that this amendment is very necessary.
I do not wish to repeat the arguments which were put forward in Committee, nor those which have been very well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. But your Lordships will remember the encouragement that was given earlier by my noble friend Lord Bellwin, and will share my disappointment at the fact that the Government have not seen fit to come forward with their own proposals for further reducing the bureaucracy and the unnecessary cost in relation to the life-span of road service licences.
The cost falls upon bus and coach operators, because the various licensing services, taken together, are self-financing and are paid for by the fees of those operators. However, it must be remembered that the cost to the operator is not only the fee, because there are also his own administrative costs in preparing and processing licence applications. Unnecessary waste in this respect can only be passed to the travelling public. There-

1619
fore, I hope that my noble friend will look at this amendment with some kindness.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, you will remember that when we discussed this matter in Committee we agreed to look again very carefully at the arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked then what estimate had been made of the savings which would accrue from a change from five years to timeless licences. I am afraid that I cannot give him a precise figure, but I am advised that the amount would be small and would not, of course, appear at all until 1985. There would continue to be variations, and if we charged fees for variations, as my noble friend Lord Morris suggested in Committee, there would be costs involved in the very administration of fee collection.
We have looked at this matter very carefully. The points raised during our debate in Committee, and again today, show some of the problems and disadvantages of attempting this change. These disadvantages seem to us to outweigh the small savings which this change would eventually bring. I have already explained our thinking on this in a letter to my noble friend Lord Teviot, who moved a similar amendment in Committee. I hope that he will bear with me if I just outline to the House some of the points which I made to him in my letter.
A timeless licence would have to be revocable or surrenderable if there were not in future to be a lot of dead wood on the trees. And even with the change in the burden of proof, a licence-holder is bound to have something of an advantage in making an objection to another application. But the powers in Clause 19 are taken from the 1960 Act and are intended to allow the licence-holder to enjoy his monopoly from the stated period. Thus they are limited to the grounds of contravention of conditions. It would not be possible to revoke because the operator was providing a poor service which a competitor might do better.
Some revision of Clause 10 would be required to fit in with timeless licences. Although it has been argued that the traffic commissioners could always impose a time limit on a. licence if they thought
1620
it appropriate, we feel that, in the context of the clause, the phrase "special reasons" is restrictive and would not do if there were to be a discretion to the commissioners to impose a time limit in a generally timeless system. Moreover, the more commissioners used their discretion, the less would be the advantages of the timeless system itself.
My Lords, I quite agree that, as the noble Lord has said, the arguments are finely balanced. I think on balance, however—and our department is fairly happy and united on this matter—our arguments hold water more than the noble Lord's. I agree it is not a dogmatic matter; it is finely balanced, but, having looked at it very closely, we still slightly prefer our own view.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I entirely support the views of the Government on this matter because there seems to be something rather odd if one enters into a timeless licence. This entering into commitments for perpetuity seems to me basically wrong. I would not have intervened at this stage had I not wanted to remind the House that that was the view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, at the Committee stage, and as he is not in his place at the moment I thought I would raise the point. It does not seem to me to be a matter of being well balanced. It seems to me a serious defect in this amendment that perpetuity in regard to the licence is introduced.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is not what we are seeking in this amendment. We are not seeking perpetuity. What we are suggesting is an administrative item, when a licence is granted, and if the commissioners in their wisdom have not thought to specify a date at which it would end, it means they are pretty satisfied with the application, and therefore it will continue until it is either revoked or suspended by the commissioners, which they would have power to do.
Obviously, if there was going to be perpetuity and continuation could not be stopped at all we would not be putting forward this amendment. I am very surprised to learn—and I must accept the department's figures which have been

1621
given to the noble Lord the Minister—that the saving would be very small, and I hope your Lordships will keep this in mind when we may be discussing other matters such as conductors' licences, where I think we are told the saving could be considerable. I am not having the bureaucracy of issuing licences, but I must accept what has been said, that the saving would not be much.
The noble Lord says the arguments are finely balanced, and this is not an issue on which we are prepared to go to the extent of a Division. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. But I do hope that the Ministers, in view of its finely balanced nature, will continue to discuss the matter with the traffic commissioners with a view, possibly, to simplifying the matter if the commissioners and the Government consider that some change could be made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Designation of trial areas]:
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 12, line 41, leave out (" but shall not do so except on an application made to him by the local authority concerned ").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the House, my Lords, I should like to speak collectively to Amendments 8, 9 and 10, because these are all interrelated. The three amendments deal with the question of the revocation of the designation orders for trial areas. Similar amendments were withdrawn at the Committee stage in view of the further consideration which the Minister kindly promised to give to the question of the period following which an order can be revoked. That matter will be considered on a later amendment; therefore I will not deal with it at this stage.
No matter what may be decided as the minimum period following which a designation order may be revoked, I would emphasise that in my view it still remains desirable that the Minister should have power to act or revoke or vary an order without this being conditional upon an application being made by the local authority concerned, because that
1622
is what the Bill now proposes. The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Minister to act if he should consider it desirable so to do. There could be circumstances in which a local authority might not wish to act but the circumstances in a particular trial area might be such that the Minister might consider it necessary to take action. In our view it would be wrong to tie the Minister's hands and prevent him from doing that.
On the other hand, of course, the local authority concerned must have the right to make an application to the Minister either for a revocation of the order or for a variation of the order, and I would emphasise that that right is retained by the other two amendments, Amendments Nos. 9 and 10; therefore Amendment No. 8 would give the Minister power to act on his own and Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would still retain the right of the local authority concerned to make application to the Minister, and then he would take appropriate action. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, these amendments would at least by implication, take the control away from the local authority in what the Government consider to be a crucial respect as far as trial areas are concerned. If a trial area can be revoked by the Minister regardless of the wishes of the local authority concerned, this would undermine the authority's position. This whole subject was very carefully rethought by my ministerial colleagues during the passage of the Bill in another place and the conclusion was that the initiative on the revoking of the trial area, as indeed in designating it in the first place, should rest with the county, regional or islands council. One could speak at some length on this, but one would only come back to what I have just said, which is a basic point, I think; therefore I advise the House that we cannot accept this amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, it is clear from the fact that no other noble Lords wish to take part in the debate that we are not likely to get very far if we press this matter. May I just say that we are not proposing to take matters out of the local authorities' hands, except where the Minister is satisfied that things

1623
are breaking down in a trial area and therefore something ought to be done. It does seem so foolish to suggest that we must not interfere even if things are going wrong.
Even though the noble Lord cannot accept our amendment, I hope he will keep this point in mind, because maybe in some other way he can ensure that the Ministry keeps a close watch on things and, if necessary, could enter into discussions with the local authority to see that it does make an application. Unless that is done we might find the experiment going wrong—and we shall be dealing with this when we come to the period of revocation—yet because we have put this into the Act nothing can be done, because nobody must take away the right of the authority to make the application and the Minister cannot move.
I think the amendment is so reasonable I just wonder whether the Government are digging their heels in and not moving at all on these things. As obviously they are not moving I have no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw, but I hope the Minister will keep in mind the point I have made about possible future consultation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
4.39 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 13, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert ("of two").
The noble Lord said: At the Committee stage, my Lords, concern was expressed that there should be a safety valve in connection with the designation order for a trial area and for it to be revoked or varied before the period specified, which, on our reading the Bill, could be as long as five years; and it was stressed at the Committee stage that surely this cannot possibly be right. If the experiment in a trial area was proved to be a failure, there must be power to terminate the order or vary it before the end of the period as specified. If that power is not given, there could be a situation of complete chaos. Not only would that be unfair to operators
1624
who were in the area before a designation order was made but, even more important, it would be wrong to make the public in the area suffer with dislocation of transport arrangements.
In the light of the debate in which quite a number of noble Lords participated, the Minister said that the Government would take this away and consider very seriously making the minimum period two years and possibly abandoning the five-year period. The noble Lord added that there could be merit in that suggestion and that it could be a halfway house. In the light of that statement, the amendment which I moved on that occasion was withdrawn.
The Minister has kindly written to say that the matter has been reviewed but that the Government are reluctant to give up the flexibility which, it is claimed, the present provision allows. He adds:
"Although the two-year period may be suitable for one authority, because of special circumstances another may prefer a longer period".
I regret that the Government have not tabled their own amendment because there was obviously great concern about this issue at the Committee stage. The amendment which I am now moving provides this flexibility. It meets the suggested compromise, that a designation order may not be revoked before the end of a specified period of two years. That is what the amendment says. It makes no reference to a maximum period. However, I should tell your Lordships that this point is covered by Amendment No. 12. That amendment, however, covers a completely different principle, so it would be wrong for me to deal with it at this stage.
I hope that the Minister will consider that the amendment is helpful and that, despite the letter he sent, he will find it possible to accept it. All we are saying is that no order shall be revoked before the end of two years. That seemed to be the way that we all wanted to go. We have not put in a maximum; that will be covered by the next amendment which deals with the period of an order and not its revocation. Therefore I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, need not worry about nobody supporting him on this amendment. I rise with a vengeance

1625
because I believe that it is a very important amendment indeed. I hope that my noble friend Lord Bellwin will explain why he did not see fit to put forward an amendment relating to the minimum period for a trial area, for he spoke at some length during the Committee stage and, I thought, showed some sympathy. This matter would not be so important if there were some other safety valve to operate in the public interest. Unfortunately that is not the case. Once a designation order has been made and it is proved that the trial area is patently damaging the public interest, there is nothing to be done about it until the minimum period in the designation order has expired. As the Bill is drafted and as has been said, that could be a period of five years. It seemed to me that my noble friend Lord Bellwin saw merit in containing this to a minimum period of two years; so I am all ears and am waiting to listen to what he has got to say.
4.43 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I say quite clearly that I had considerable sympathy, as my noble friend said, when this matter was raised last time. However, it is one of so many points that arises from the Bill. It is a technical Bill which moves into areas about which many Members do not have great experience. I have discovered that one of the virtues of having the various stages is that one can take away and discuss, both with ministerial colleagues and with experts and officials, matters which may not always be clear at the time. That is what I undertook to do and that is what I have done. I assure my noble friend and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that we have given particularly careful consideration to the purpose which these amendments set out to fulfil—as I promised we would do. But having done so, we have concluded that on balance it would be undesirable.
With regard to these trial areas, we are most concerned to allow the maximum flexibility. In this type of situation, local authorities should be better able to judge the circumstances of their areas than central Government. For that reason we should like to leave it to local authorities to decide the minimum period for which a trial period should run. They are entirely free to ask for a two-year minimum period, which would have the
1626
same effect as this amendment, if they so wish. On the other hand, it may be that a local authority will feel that its own particular circumstances demand a firm commitment for a longer period. We want them to be free to decide this for themselves.
It is a matter of judgment. One is trying not only to give local authorities freedom to decide, in view of their own local situations; one is also trying to ensure that the period given would make it worth while for operators to make an investment. Many may well feel that two years is not a sufficient period of time to invest in new buses, or whatever. There are undertones in what is now proposed, in that this could have an adverse effect upon the whole concept of trial areas. Therefore one has to offset that balance by the points very fairly made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
A point which troubled me last time was this: what happens if something goes wrong and you are then in a situation where you want to do something but you cannot? In practical terms, though, if something did not come up to expectations, how long would it last? What would be the extent of the kind of disastrous situation which we were contemplating previously? Having thought that through, carefully, I do not think that it would by any means lead to the kind of situation that one might be said to have to expect.
I concede that our concern about giving encouragement to authorities to have a shot at these trial areas is a finely balanced matter. We shall shortly be discussing one or two amendments which also relate to trial areas. They are what they are said to be; they are trial areas. This is an attempt to try to do something which may give an answer. If it does, then, as I said before, the prize will be very great. If it does not, then quite rightly we shall be concerned as to where we go from there. But I do not think that we need to be so concerned as noble Lords fear. In order to give the scheme a chance, I think that on balance it is right that we should go ahead as planned. That is the reason why I have tried at some length to say why we cannot support the amendment.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, if the Minister's logic is followed in your Lord-

1627
ships' House, Alice in Wonderland will have many companions. I say that for this reason. Many of your Lordships may think that it is very praiseworthy that experiments are being made. I well remember that at Second Reading the noble Lord the Minister said that a fresh look had to be taken at transport licensing because this had not been done for a very long time. We accept that. Also, we accept the bold thinking and experimentation: the fact that there will be trial areas of a nature that we have never known before. With respect, however, the noble Lord the Minister has overlooked the very argument about local authorities that he has endeavoured to put forward. He has overlooked the very wording of this section.
The situation cannot be altered. A trial area cannot be finished as a trial area. The order cannot be revoked unless the local authority applies to the Minister. During the course of his argument the Minister said that local authorities know what they want in their own areas; they obviously must be trusted; and in these circumstances we must have regard to the decision of the local authority, I remind the Minister once again that the order cannot be revoked unless the local authority applies to the Minister. Then under this clause the Minister does not have to abide by the application and assent to the application of the local authority. He need not revoke. But what this clause is now doing is to say, in regard to an experiment, in regard to mistakes which may have been made by the local authority which they want to admit and rectify, in regard to a situation which in the experiment may turn out to be dangerous, although the local authority has applied and although the Minister, on investigation, finds that it is a very proper application to revoke, "In our wisdom and following the line of the Minister we have decided that the local authority will not be able to do it and nor will the Minister".
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, went very far at the Committee stage and most of us appreciated it; he went far to meet the reasoned arguments that were put to him and I detected—I hope I was not too optimistic but it seems as though I was—a glimmer of hope, indeed almost a shining
1628
light when, at the end of his speech, he said, "I suppose if the minimum period were two years that would make the noble Lord happier"—and he was kind enough to address himself to me. I responded with a smile and the words, "Much happier", and I went away from the Committee stage feeling that some illumination was going to be cast on the clause when we reached it at Report stage. Although we have put down the very period that was then suggested by the Minister not as being something which he accepted should be an amendment to this clause but as something that he was seriously going to consider, even now the Minister says "No".
I end by saying this: we should be extremely foolhardy, in regard to an experiment which ought to be made but which is an experiment, to bind the hands of the local authority, who will know what is happening in their area, and the Minister, so that even though they both wished to revoke an order they could not do so. I hope very much that this amendment will be supported.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to add a word to this brief debate and I must apologise for having to go to a short meeting of deputy Speakers when the amendment was starting. It is an interesting point. Evidently the House is of the general view that these trial areas are a valuable experiment. They could teach us much and could prove valuable and therefore we are all in favour of them. What we have to think about are the optimum conditions to give them the best chance of success. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with his usual persuasiveness, has begun to alarm us about the possibility of things going wrong and local authorities wanting to bring the trial scheme to an end prematurely because things have not gone in the way they expected them to go and in the light of that two years would seem to him to be the maximum period that they ought to have. The other side of the coin is—
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, if I may intervene, the noble Lord referred to a maximum period; we are saying that no order shall be revoked before a minimum period of two years.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: Yes, my Lords, but the order which the Minister can make will be anything between two and five years and what I am interested in is that the Minister, when he makes his order for an experimental area, should usually, I would hope, give a period longer than two years. The problem as I see it is that, if we are to succeed with this idea—and nobody can tell whether it will succeed, although there are some areas in which it looks hopeful—operators must come in and give a service and they must have time to establish themselves and to make their business profitable. Therefore I am most anxious that the period of the trial shall not be too short. I would hope that the flexibility will be left—two to five years—and I would hope that when the local authority considers an application they would suggest that the trial should be for three or four years, or whatever it might be. I would myself regard two years as being too short a time to show whether or not such a scheme could succeed.
It is that aspect of it that I see as a danger, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, sees a danger the other way. So I would wish to see the flexibility left but I would add the hope that both local authorities and Ministers, when they are considering a proposal, would tend towards the upper end rather than the lower.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I very much sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has just said. With his great experience in local authority matters his word must carry a great deal of weight. But while we all support these trial areas as an experiment what I have not yet gathered in the course of the debate is what kind of investment is involved in this trial area experiment. If in some areas the amount of investment is very small it is quite likely, as the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said at Committee stage, that the experiment may fall on its face or be a disaster. Therefore, in considering the minimum period for this designation area, what amount of investment is likely to be involved? I understand that it is difficult to give a general answer to that and no doubt the Minister has had discussions and has some informal views as to the quantity of the investment required.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, if, by leave of the House, I may speak again on this it is difficult to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has said, what the investment would be. It would depend upon the county, its area and size. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for his interjection because what he said is valid. It comes back to the point I was making earlier—namely, how far do you want to make a judgment on something which is a balanced thing. If we make it so short that an operator says "Well, for two years I cannot take the risk of buying a bus or buses", the scheme will never get off the ground at all.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, said, I was very concerned about this and I think I put it quite openly, but what convinced me in the end was that, when we started to talk about disasters, my noble friend said "Come on, what are we really talking about? Here would be a situation where an operator had come in, he had made an investment and at the worst it had not come off, What then would happen?" The likelihood is that you would then have something which was not so good as it might otherwise have been. That is when the authority would have to decide what move to make. But in practice that will not mean that an area will be left without services. It just does not work that way. If there is an opportunity, then someone will take care of that opportunity. Although I am sympathetic to the basic point made, there is a balance here, and I think it should be the other way.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, before he sits down, will the Minister at least clarify my mind on this: in what circumstances does he think that a local authority in this country, plus a Minister, would make such a mistake as to revoke an order, in view of the circumstances that he himself has outlined to the House?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, if I may beg leave to come in for a third time; I am not quite sure how far I am in order although I think probably I am, but I suspect the noble Lord is not in order. The last thing I am going to do is to enter into hypothetical situations or guesses. I am not without experience of local authority situations myself. I have

1631
thought this through very carefully. I stick to the points I have made. There is a balance. There is a very sound argument both ways, but I stick with the one I have put forward.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, if the argument is finely balanced I hope we may be able to shift the balance in the right direction. Perhaps it is our fault that we have not explained it simply enough, but three noble Lords who have spoken have not understood the point of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that operators must be protected, that there must be a longer period than two years. We are not arguing about that. The amended provision would read:
"A designation order—
(a) shall not be revoked before the end of the period of two years ".
It simply says it shall not be revoked before the end of two years. We are not saying it must last only two years. The question of the period of the order will be dealt with in the next amendment, and incidentally we are saying it should not exceed a maximum of five years. The argument that we are trying to limit it to two years is not there. I expect I explained it badly. Surely nobody is going to oppose the proposition that the order shall not be revoked before two years. We are saying no matter what goes on it has got to last two years. The local authority cannot ask the Minister to revoke it before the two years are up. I would have thought that everybody would be in support of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, says—and I am not going to decry the people he has consulted—that noble Lords have
very little experience about these matters, which I must accept as applying to myself. But they have discussed with experts, and we have discussed with experts—the industry. Nobody can be more expert than the industry representing 95 per cent. of the operators. They are concerned with this matter. I believe it is true that they would go along with the amendment I have proposed. I again emphasise that what the amendment is clearly saying is that there should be no steps towards revoking an order before a period of two years. The question of the operators is covered by the Government's own schedule. The Government schedule deals with the duration of a licence which shall be automatically granted for a period, almost indefinitely. We shall be dealing with this on a later amendment.
The argument is put forward that the local authority must be left to deal with this. We are not arguing about that now, for the simple reason that the House in its wisdom decided not to go ahead with our amendment which would have let the Minister act. Now we are really saying that the local authority shall not take any steps at all to revoke an order within two years. This is the simple argument, and on that basis, I hope the House will agree that we are putting forward a simple amendment and rather complicated arguments are being put against it. I hope the House will approve the amendment. If not, we shall have to divide.
5.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 99.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Avebury, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Leonard, L.

Balogh, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Listowel, E.

Banks, L.

Gosford, E.

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

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gregson, L.

Blease, L.

Hale, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blyton, L.

Hampton, L.

McCarthy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Meston, L.

Brockway, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Mishcon, L.

Byers, L.

Hughes, L.

Oram, L.

Collison, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Peart, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Jacobson, L.

Phillips, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Jacques, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Janner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Rochester, L.

Stedman, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Stone, L.

Whaddon, L.

Segal, L.

Strabolgi, L.

White, B.

Shackleton, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Wigoder, L.

Shinwell, L.

Teviot, L.

Willis, L.

Stamp, L.

Underhill, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Dundee, E.

Margadale, L.

Amory, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Marley, L.

Auckland, L.

Eccles, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Barnby, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bellwin, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Middleton, L.

Belstead, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Monson, L.

Berkeley, B.

Faithfull, B.

Morris, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boothby, L.

Ferrier, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Burton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Caccia, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Northchurch, B.

Caithness, E.

Gisborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cathcart, E.

Gray, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Chelwood, L.

Greenway, L.

Redmayne, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Gridley, L.

Renton, L.

Clitheroe, L.

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

Rosslyn, E.

Clwyd, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cockfield, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Harvington, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cork and Orrery, E.

Henley, L.

Savile, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hereford, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigavon, V.

Hives, L.

Spens, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hood, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Croft, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathspey, L.

Cromartie, E.

Ilchester, E.

Swansea, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ironside, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Daventry, V.

Long, V.

Trenchard, V.

De Freyne, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Trumpington, B.

De La Warr, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Vickers, B.

Derwent, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Vivian, L.

Digby, L.

Mancroft, L.

Westbury, L.

Dormer, L.

Mansfield, E.

Young, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.13 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 13, line 18, at end insert—
("() Subject to the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) a designation order shall specify the period (beginning with the day on which it comes into force and not exceeding five years) for which it is to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12. Notwithstanding the decision on the previous amendment, obviously the amendment which I am now moving can still stand. The House divided on the question of the revocation period and its decision now means that the Bill stands as printed with a revocation period of two to five years. Our amendment seeks to lay down that,
1634
when a designation order is made, it shall specify the period for which it is to be in force. Moreover, according to the decision that has just been taken, it can be revoked; otherwise, we could have a situation where a trial order—and your Lordships must remember that it is an experiment—could go on indefinitely. It would be a strange experiment which went on indefinitely and, therefore, there must at some point be a halt. Surely the Government themselves will wish to assess the results of an experiment in order to decide future public transport policy. So, in our amendment we are seeking that a designation order shall specify the period for which it shall be in force, which shall not exceed five years.
In the light of the discussion on the previous amendment and the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent—with

1635
which I think so many people will agree—this amendment gives considerable flexibility because it can be any period up to five years. As one cannot revoke an order before two years—that is still in the Bill—it means that there will be some flexibility, because it will be in existence for between two years and (if our amendment is carried) five years. That would appear to us to be most reasonable.
The actual period would no doubt be the subject of consultation between the Minister and the local authority concerned, which might decide that it will be three years or four years, but as a maximum it cannot exceed five years. Again, perhaps we on this side of the House are too simple and expect too much, but it seems to us to be such a reasonable and constructive amendment that I hope on this occasion the Minister will find it possible to accept it.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I say quite briefly that I endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. In my view this is a constructive amendment and it seems to me to be common sense. If an experiment is to be undertaken in a particular area, there should be a limited period in which it should be capable of being carried out. It seems to me, therefore, that to put a limit of five years on any order which can be made is eminently reasonable.
I should also like to take the opportunity to thank the Ministers concerned very much indeed for arranging for all the letters that have passed between them and the Opposition to be handed to me. They were handed to me at about five o'clock this afternoon.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, although the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and his explanation of it, appear quite reasonable, I must point out that the amendment does not go quite far enough. In the event of the experiment taking place in a small locality and, for example, the period being within the five years, what will happen afterwards? The trouble with so many experiments—and a good example was the "sleeping policeman"—is that they almost always go on forever and become the absolute custom, and the experiment becomes fact.
1636
Surely, if the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, wishes to ensure that something shall run for a reasonable time—in this case five years—he should then provide for what should happen afterwards in the event of that period being entirely satisfactory. It may well be that the local authority and the operators concerned will wish, for a variety of reasons—finance being the one that springs to mind—to have a further two years. If he puts this in some people may say, "Well, let's have a look at these people for three years; after all, if we like them, we can go on for another two, otherwise we shall be pressed to the limit all the way". While I am not sure that I am entirely happy with what he is aiming to achieve, it may be that I have not quite understood exactly what he is hoping to achieve by the amendment.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I too shall be brief on the matter. The suggestion that there should be a maximum period for a trial area, that it should automatically come to an end after live years, is quite new. It is our hope, of course, that a trial area will be a success, and that, when once road service licensing has gone, it will have gone forever. However, that will remain to be seen. Without making a meal of this matter, in view of what has been said on the previous amendment—which quite frankly I originally thought we would discuss at the same time as this amendment—I think that what I must say for the Government is that we cannot agree to anything which makes revocation automatic.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, before the House considers with its usual care anything that the noble Lord the Minister has to say, may I try to deal with the very real point that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised. I thought that the noble Lord the Minister would say in reply that obviously the Minister, on the recommendation of the local authority, can at any time, as I understand it, make an order under this clause. Having a maximum of five years for the original experiment would surely not stop the local authority, in the event of a successful experiment, applying for a further order to be made by way of further trial in respect of a trial area, and the Minister then would be able to make the order for a period up to five years.

1637
Therefore, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was answered, as I read the clause, but I noticed that the noble Minister did not see fit to deal with it at all. I say this to him in the friendliest possible way: he really must not dismiss important matters of this kind airily—especially when they are such new provisions and new experiments in the world of transport—and say that he does not intend to take very much time over this point. I know that he does not mean to be discourteous to the House and that he is trying to save the time of the House, but I am afraid that the time of the country may be expended rather extravagantly if we dismiss these points too lightly.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I say that I am not desperately worried about this. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will put me right, but I do not think but since yesterday evening I have given it a little more thought. I do not think that it is the maximum period about which we should worry so much as the minimum period. It has been announced what we plan to do and I shall probably be dealing with the minimum period very late tomorrow afternoon.
On the maximum period, if by some miracle a trial area is a phenomenal success, I see no reason—and if I am wrong I think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will put me right, but I do not think I am—why the period should not be longer than five years. Therefore, I do not think that this amendment is as serious as the last one. It is a very different amendment.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, perhaps he could clear my mind on one aspect of this which is similar to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Will he explain what happens at the end of a designation order, whether it has been a success or a failure? Will there be a review, a report or some publication? If so, what does the Minister then do? Does the local authority reapply for an extension if it is satisfied? We arc all very interested in this and we hope that it will be a success. I am a little more sanguine than my noble friend, Lord Teviot, and I believe that at any rate in
1638
some areas it will be a success. I should like to know what is the procedure so that we can understand a little better what the effect will be of the amendment which noble Lords opposite have tabled.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, before I deal with the point which my noble friend has raised, may I say that, first, I was not aware that I was dealing with matters airily? I hope that what I have done so far during the course of this Bill, or anything else I have been doing, does not give an indication that I treat matters airily. That certainly is not the intention. As I said earlier this afternoon, I suspect that before we come to the end of the summer, with the various other legislation coming through this House, it might be felt that I deal with matters anything but airily. However, as to that, time will tell.
I turn to the very important and relevant point raised by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. Of course, in many ways this is all still being resolved, but the fact is that if it is a success it will continue indefinitely. There will be no need for applications or for anyone to apply for further periods; it will simply continue. Necessarily, there will be monitoring as the experiment proceeds, and it will be watched very carefully. Clearly, if it is successful, it will simply continue, and to the best of my knowledge there would then be no need to apply for a further period—it would continue automatically.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I find it very difficult to understand the Minister's reasoning on this matter. This is absolutely new. The Experimental Areas Act 1977 was nothing like this, but there the maximum period was two years; a period of two years was laid down in that Act. The relaxation of licensing was nothing like what is being proposed here. Complete relaxation is proposed here, except for what is called "co-ordination by the local authority", but obviously the local authority will do very little co-ordination.
I should have thought that the Government would want to include a maximum period, and I think that five years is a fair period. If the Government would be happy to take our amendment and to add

1639
to it quite definitely that it can be renewable on application by the local authority and be considered by the Minister, we should be quite happy to accept that. My interpretation is that it could be done without writing that into the Bill. However, if the Government would like it written in, I shall readily withdraw the amendment so that they can write the position in. We think that there should be a maximum period because otherwise we could find ourselves in difficulties. I know that it is to be monitored, but at some stage someone has to sit down and say, "Is this experiment in such and such an area working out? Is it successful?" It may be partly successful. The Minister might want to devise something slightly different for the particular area.
Therefore, it seems to me that on every possible ground there ought to be an amendment to the Bill which provides
that the period in which an order shall be enforced shall be laid down when the order is made, and that it shall not exceed a maximum of five years. We believe that it can be renewable if there is a general desire for it. However, I repeat, if the Government feel that they want to make it so watertight that it is written into the Bill, I shall be only too happy to withdraw the amendment in order that that can be done. But if they feel that they do not want to go along that road of co-operation, frankly, we regard this as another question of principle, and we shall have to ask the House to divide on it.
5.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 91.

CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Han worth, V.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rochester, L.

Avebury, L.

Hughes, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Banks, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jacobson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Segal, L.

Blease, L.

Janner, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Jeger, B.

Shinwell, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stamp, L.

Brockway, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stedman, B.

Byers, L.

Leonard, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Listowel, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

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

Stone, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Tanlaw, L.

David, B.

McCarthy, L.

Underhill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Meston, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mishcon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Nathan, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Oram, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gregson, L.

Peart, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Willis, L.

Hampton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Auckland, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Eccles, V.

Barnby, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Bellwin, L.

Craigavon, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Belstead, L.

Crathorne, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Berkeley, B.

Croft, L.

Faithfull, B.

Bessborough, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Falkland, V.

Boothby, L.

Daventry, V.

Ferrers, E.

Burton, L.

Davidson, V.

Ferrier, L.

Caccia, L.

De Freyne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Cathcart, E.

De La Warr, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Chelwood, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Digby, L.

Gray, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Dormer, L.

Greenway, L.

Cockfield, L.

Dundee, E.

Gridley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Matley, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

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

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Savile, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Harvington, L.

Middleton, L.

Spens, L.

Henley, L.

Morris, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hereford, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hives, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Swansea, L.

Hood, V.

Northchurch, B.

Teviot, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ironside, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trenchard, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Pender, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lyell, L.

Redmayne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Renton, L.

Vickers, B.

Mancroft, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Vivian, L.

Mansfield, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Young, B.

Margadale, L.

Sandford, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Orders designating trial areas]:
5.35 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 60, line 10, leave out ("as long as the licence remains in force after that time") and insert ("a period of one year or, if the service has been operated for less than two years, until the expiration of three years from the date on which it was introduced ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with precisely the same point as one we tabled in Committee. On that occasion it was withdrawn in the light of the reconsideration to be given to the issues involved, issues which we have already debated today. However, we have not had an opportunity of testing this matter among your Lordships. The schedule as at present drafted makes it absolutely clear that when a trial area order has ended, an operator who has had a stage service in the area shall have a road service licence granted to him as of right and that the licence shall continue indefinitely.
I recognise that the Government believe in the maximum possible competition in public road transport, but even the Government support the continuation of road service licensing for stage service carriages as being essential; that is, licensing through the traffic commissioners. Under the Bill we are to have a situation that, no matter what may be the position in relation to bus services in a trial area, there is to be an open-ended entitlement when the experiment finishes; and I
1642
assume that some of these will finish at some time. Surely that cannot possibly be justified. In my view, it is irresponsible to give such an open-ended entitlement and it is grossly unfair to those operators who may have been operating in the area for many years prior to the inception of a trial area experiment.
In Committee, I agreed with the Government and with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that operators who come into a trial area must be given a degree of security if they are to be induced to invest; and that point is recognised in the amendment. We are proposing that, instead of this open-ended entitlement, when a designation order is terminated an operator should be given entitlement to continue with the road service licence for a further period of one year. However, we go on to say that if the particular service has been operated for less than two years, the operator shall have an entitlement to continue the service for a full period of three years from the date the service was started.
That appears to us to be a reasonable proposal. If the Government feel that three years is too short a period, I am sure my noble friends and I would consider adjusting the period. What we are complaining about is this open-ended entitlement, first that a licence will be given automatically—irrespective of any other consideration, one will get a licence—and that it will continue indefinitely. We believe that that is going much too far. I repeat my assurance to the Minister that, if he says the Government will examine the matter and be prepared to alter the period we have suggested, of two years

1643
as a guarantee, or, if the service has not run for a period, it can continue for three years from when it was started, we shall readily give that consideration, so long as we tackle this question of an open-ended entitlement which we think is both irresponsible and dangerous.
Lord BELLWIN: I have not changed my view since we last discussed this subject. I said then that I saw no reason why a road service licence granted to an operator in a trial area which had been revoked should be any different from any other road service licence. Indeed, I can see a case for saying that an operator who has successfully provided a service in the competitive environment of a trial area should be rewarded, not penalised. But all we propose is that he should be treated equally; that is, his road service licence should normally last five years, like any other.
I am sorry not to be able to meet the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on this point, but I believe that paragraph 6(2) of this schedule is important in terms of ensuring that entrepreneurs will not be discouraged from starting services in trial areas and undertaking the necessary investment by the fear that the trial area will be revoked and that they will be unable, because of opposition from others—perhaps major operators who have been unwilling to provide services while the trial was going on—to get the licence they will then need for a worthwhile period of time. The matter is not open-ended, bearing in mind the five-year period. It would be open-ended only if the licences were for a timeless period; and that proposition has been rejected.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, it is fairly clear that the Government are not going to move on this matter. We will not ask the House to divide, but since once again a question of principle is involved, we will not withdraw the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
5.41 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Exemption from duty to co-operate in trial areas.
"(1) Within a trial area the duty of public passenger transport operators to co-operate with one another or to afford one another information in respect of their operations shall not apply.
(2) The duty referred to in subsection (1) is that specified in—

(a) section 24 of the Transport Act 1968 (in passenger transport areas);

(b) section 151 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (in Scotland otherwise than in passenger transport areas);

(c) section 1 of the Transport Act 1978 (in non-metropolitan counties in England and Wales)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the support of my noble friend in Committee I proposed an amendment, the purpose of which was that in a trial area—we are still dealing with trial areas—operators should be excluded from the statutory duty placed upon them to co-operate with other operators and with local authorities, and to provide information in respect of their operations. In the course of that debate I drew attention to a statement in another place by the Secretary of State that, because trial areas mean more competition,
"… it may be sensible to relieve operators of the duty to co-operate and tell each other what they are doing".
On that occasion the Secretary of State said that he would give further thought to the matter.
The noble Lord the Minister stated in a debate in Committee that as the county council will still have a duty to co-ordinate public transport in their area, it is wrong to suggest that operators should not co-operate with local authorities in trial areas. Nevertheless, the Minister said that he also saw merit in what had been said in the debate about the position of operators being compelled to co-operate one with another, and he gave an undertaking to speak to the Secretary of State to find out whether he intended to make an amendment at Report stage. It will be noted that there is no amendment in this respect on behalf of the Government before your Lordships.
I fully accept what the Secretary of State and the Minister have said about the necessity to co-operate with the county council, and therefore that aspect has been deleted from the amendment now before your Lordships; it was included in the

1645
previous amendment. We saw the force of the argument put to us by the Minister and, being reasonable people, we accepted it. I now ask that the Minister acts reasonably and accepts this amendment.
It is being proposed that in an area in which there is complete competition (which would be the situation in trial areas) an operator shall be compelled to cooperate with a rival operator—surely that is asking too much—and, what is more, to supply information about his operations to other competitors. Last time the Minister said that what was suggested here was reasonable, and I believe that it is even more reasonable now because we have complied with the Government's desire and have removed any suggestion of excluding co-operation with the county council. Now we merely wish to remove from operators the statutory duty placed upon them by various Acts to co-operate with other operators, which we believe is unreasonable. In an area of intense competition no one can expect that, and I hope that the Government will reply to our reasonableness by accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Lord a question, though I should have liked to do so before he sat down. Bearing in mind the vital need to provide adequate services, particularly in rural areas, how on earth can services run by different operators work in a practical way if there is not co-operation concerning timetables and routes, so that operators do not all run on the same route, and at the same time? Surely co-operation is vital in those circumstances.
Lord UNDERHILL: I would agree with the noble Baroness, my Lords. That is one of the problems of the trial areas' experiment, which is not our problem, but is a problem relating to the relieving of all road service licensing in those areas. The Government wish to have complete free competition for as many operators as wish to enter, subject to some form of co-ordination by the county council. All we are saying is that surely it is asking too much that one operator shall tell another operator exactly what he is doing, thus enabling the other man to intensify the competition. That is what would happen, and we consider it unreasonable.
1646
It is no good believing that operators will sit around a table and decide how they are to work nicely with one another. Each operator will be trying to get the best of the cake, and the best of the cake will be in the areas which are the most profitable, with services operated at times that prove the most profitable. I cannot see one operator saying, "I'll take the bad area. You take the good area". They will all be after the good areas. That is one of the problems. One cannot expect one operator to co-operate with another operator who can then beat him.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, when we are considering this Part of the Bill we must always remember that we are dealing with a new experiment. These are new ideas, the object of which is to encourage private enterprise, not only so that entrepreneurs may make money, but in order to ensure that the community at large, through the efforts of the entrepreneurs, will be assisted in their local activities by being able to move around in their area and have the advantages of transport amenities.
It seems to me that at this stage the Government are at variance with the spirit of private enterprise. They say that there should be a statutory duty to co-operate. Surely in private enterprise co-operation, when it is necessary, will arise automatically. To compel an operator who is indulging in this kind of experiment to disclose information and to make it compulsory for him to co-operate with other people seems to me to be quite wrong, and I strongly support the amendment.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, following what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said, it is important to remember that fundamentally this experiment is to be in a trial area, and the whole object of a trial is to learn. Unless there is a criss-cross of information between operators in all sectors, and indeed with the public in a trial area, no one will learn anything from the trial. I have certain doubts about making it a statutory duty on operators to disseminate information one to the other. I believe it is of vital importance that people should be encouraged to swap information and experience within the period of the trial.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has raised a very important point, following on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and I think that the noble Baroness had this point in her mind, too. Obviously if there is sense in having co-operation—and one can well see where that sense is vital—then there ought to be co-operation, and it ought to be encouraged, but it should not be written into an Act of Parliament. One cannot force people to co-operate. If one makes this a statutory duty, one causes co-operation in a voluntary spirit to fly out of the window. People do not like being ordered to cooperate and to exchange information. They prefer a sensible approach being made to them, and that is really in the interests of everyone. That, as I understood it, was the whole burden of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Really, it is vital of course in the spirit of this amendment; and that is why, in any decision which may be made on this, I hope it will not be a decision based on the fact that anybody is suggesting that there should not be co-operation. It is on the point that it should not be written into the Bill.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I have some sympathy for what the noble Lord has just said. I think it is a mistake to make co-operation a statutory duty. In any form of industry you get a certain amount of co-operation among some employers, but if you made it a statutory duty for industry to cooperate I think it would be sheer madness. If you have a certain manufacturing process that you want to keep to yourself to keep your firm alive, you do not go and give it to your competitors. I know that is not a very good parallel, but I feel there will be a lot of voluntary co-operation, anyway, among these operators. I think it is a great mistake to make it a statutory duty.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I listen with some amusement to the fervour with which noble Lords opposite plead the case for there not having to be statutory obligations to co-operate. I find it rather amusing because I remember how vigorously, on other occasions, they pleaded that there should be statutory obligations to consult. As I said at the time, I do not know how on earth, in
1648
practice, you can ever compel people to consult by writing it into a statute that they must consult, and what that consultation then means, I really do not understand. But I cannot argue that and at the same time plead a case for there being a statutory obligation to cooperate, which is even less likely, indeed. Therefore, I do not argue the case very strongly at all.
Frankly, I do not think that it really is worth putting this provision into the statute book; but, conversely, I do not think it is particularly worth opposing it if it comes up. I just do not think it is of such moment. I am more concerned with what it would really mean. I think it would be something of a pious hope, frankly, if it went in as it is; and, therefore, this is going to be one of those, I am not sure if they are "events" or "special occasions", to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred earlier, when he said that the Government would in fact accept an amendment. In the circumstances—and I am not without cognisance of the points made by my noble friends behind me—Yes, we accept it.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, may I say that I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his acceptance of this amendment. It has proved that we can put a reasonable case and that he can put a reasonable acceptance. I am very grateful to him.
Clause 17 [Power to prohibit driving of unfit public service vehicles]:
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendments Nos. 14A and 14B:
Page 17, line 13, leave out ("owner") and insert (" operator ")
Page 17 line 15, leave out ("owner's") and insert (" operator's ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may take these two amendments together, Nos. 14A and 14B. The definition of "owner" includes a person who has hired a vehicle. Originally, the industry interpreted the words "agreement for hire" as relating to a long-term leasing of a vehicle, but on consideration this appears not to be so. The words also cover the hire of a vehicle with driver for even an afternoon or evening

1649
trip. This does not seem to matter except in relation to Clause 17(3). As the Bill is at present drafted, the vehicle examiner who issues a prohibition notice has to bring the contents to the owner's attention—that is what it says, "the owner's attention"—as soon as practicable. If the short-term hirer is defined as the owner, by the time he receives a copy of the notice the vehicle will long have been back with the person who in reality owns it.
The person is, we submit, really the operator. Here is an interrelationship with the new definition of "operator". If the basis of that decision is the person whose disc is exhibited on the vehicle—and we are going to have a Government amendment accepting the position of discs—then that person is the logical recipient of the notice. It is a general view that the vehicle examiner would not look at the name sign-written on the back of a coach or at any other possible form of identification, because these do not necessarily give him the information he requires. What he needs to know is clearly indicated on the operator's disc; and, in all logic, the recipient of a notice should be the person whose disc is displayed. To further explain the point, many operators will have a trade name sign-written on the coach, possibly something like "Sunny Tours", while the disc may show "(Blank) (Blank) Limited"—something totally different. Therefore, it is maintained that in all circumstances the correct reference in Clause 17(3) should be to the operator, and not to the owner. That is the point of these amendments, and I beg to move them both.
Lord BELLW1N: My Lords, these amendments are not acceptable as they stand. In most cases the "owner" as defined in Clause 42(1) will also be the "operator" as defined in Clause 42(2), although, of course, there will also be occasions when there is an owner but not an operator. If the operator were to supplant the owner in the subsection, it would be necessary to have some provision to cover the operator by whom the vehicle is being or was last used. In some cases the operator who last used the vehicle might not be the most appropriate person to receive the notice. "Owner" comes nearest to reaching the person we really want to get the notice; that is, the
1650
person with responsibility for the vehicle and who may be expected to correct any defects before it goes back on the road. However, my Lords, I think that the points made by the noble Lord are sufficiently interesting for me to be able to promise that in the short interim between now and Third Reading we should like to look again at the phraseology of this particular provision.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister, and, in the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw these amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Grant and duration of licences]:
5.58 p.m.
Lord MORRIS Lord MORRIS moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 20, line 9, leave out (" with ") and insert ("on").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that this is purely a drafting amendment, and I must confess that in moving it I feel a little mean, because the object of this amendment is to excise from the Bill the luxurious esotericism which the draftsman has seen fit to use. Your Lordships will notice that in line 9 on page 20 the phrase "the date with which it is to expire"—that is, the licence—is used. Solely on the grounds of consistency, in other parts of the Bill—namely, in Clause 11(1)—the phrase "the dates in the year on which road service licences are to expire" was seen to be the correct phrasing. Similarly, in subsection (2) the phrase is," the date on which the licence is expressed to take effect"; and again, in Clause 12(5)(a), "the day on which it comes into force". Indeed, in the same subsection on page 20, in the line above, it says, "the date on which the licence is to come into force".
I believe—and I might add that this is a pure guess—that the reason why the draftsmen felt it meet and right to use the words "with which" arose out of a misunderstanding as to what the word "on" means, because in using the words "the date on which it is to expire" it might

1651
be felt that it was not absolutely clear because it could expire at any time on that date. But I believe it is quite clear, because in the context in which the word "on" is used it is purely shorthand for, taking the first example, "the date at the beginning of which the licence is to come into force', and, secondly, "the date at the end of which the licence is to expire ".
It really is very plain if one takes an example in absurdum. If one were to issue a licence for the period of 24 hours commencing at the beginning of 1st January 1980, one could draft it simply as: "Date of commencement of licence, 1st January 1980; date of expiry of licence, 1st January 1980". It can only mean that the licence will commence at the beginning of, at the first second of, 1st January 1980; and must end at the end of, at the last second of, 1st January 1980. The reason for this is very plain. It is because events have an irritating habit of beginning at the beginning and ending at the end. I fail to see why, on the ground of consistency, the draftsmen felt it proper to use the phrase, "the date with which". I am sure that if I were—God forbid!—to have to take O-level English Language again, I should get nine out of ten rather than ten out often if I used "the date with which "rather than the phrase" the date on which".
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend's magical advisory touch is not going to convince my advisers on this occasion although we completely understand the reasoning behind his amendment which he explained at the Committee stage and again usefully today. He was concerned that the use of the preposition "with" in relation to the expiry date of a licence in Clause 20(5) was rather pedantic, especially when the word "on" was used in other places in the Bill. I can assure the noble Lord that the use of the phrase "the date with which it is to expire" is quite deliberate in this case. It avoids any doubts arising as to whether the licence expires at the beginning or the end of the day. The word "with" makes it clear that the licence expires at the same time as the date ceases to exist, that is, at midnight on the day in question.
1652
The noble Lord mentioned in Committee that the preposition "on" was used in subsections (1) and (3) of Clause 11. These subsections must be read in conjunction with subsection (2) where the use of the phrase "up to and including" makes it clear that the word "on" must include the last of the days in question. In Clause 20(5), there is no such clarifying phrase, and the use of the word "with" is therefore necessary. I hope that, with those words, the noble Lord will agree that our advisers are up to the mark, too.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, it is plain to me that the draftsmen have fought gallantly to keep that phrase within the Bill. In the light of that explanation, for which I thank my noble friend and from which I have: learned a great deal, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.4 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to exhibit operator's disc
.—(1) Where a vehicle is being used in circumstances such that a PSV operator's licence is required, there shall be fixed and exhibited on the vehicle in the prescribed manner an operator's disc issued under this section showing particulars of the operator of the vehicle and of the PSV operator's licence under which the vehicle is being used.
(2) Traffic commissioners on granting a PSV operator's licence shall supply the person to whom the licence is granted with a number of operator's discs equal to the maximum number of vehicles which he may use under the licence in accordance with the condition or conditions attached to the licence under section 21(1); and if that maximum number is later increased on the variation of one or more of those conditions, the traffic commissioners on making the variation shall supply him with further operator's discs accordingly.
(3) Regulations may make provision—

(a) as to the form of operator's discs and the particulars to be shown on them;

(b) with respect to the custody and production of operator's discs;

(c) for the issue of new operator's discs in place of those lost, destroyed, or defaced;

(d) for the return of operator's discs on the revocation or expiration of a PSV operator's licence or in the event of a variation of one or more conditions attached to a licence under section 21(1) having the effect of reducing the maximum number of

1653
vehicles which may be used under the licence.

(4) If a vehicle is used in contravention of subsection (1), the operator of the vehicle shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, in moving this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 46, 48 and 49. These amendments will come as no surprise to noble Lords. I promised in Committee that a clause requiring the display of operators' discs, a clause very similar to that moved in Committee would be put down at this stage. In addition, there are one or two small consequential amendments.
I do not wish to detain noble Lords, but I should explain two differences from the version of this clause discussed in Committee. First, the opening words are different. Naturally, a disc will be required only in circumstances in which a licence is required. These words make that link clearer than in the earlier version. Secondly, the particulars to be shown on the disc are to be prescribed in regulations: under subsection (1) they will be particulars of the operator of the vehicle and of the operator's licence under which it is being used, and our intention is to prescribe the operator's name and the serial number and expiry date of his PSV operator's licence. We do not intend—and, indeed it would not be within subsection (1)—to prescribe details of the vehicle or the operating centre. I commend these amendments to your Lordships, and hope that in view of what I have said the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I am delighted to see the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. He gave an assurance that he would be introducing an amendment. I am not only pleased that he has done so but that he has done so in the terms in which it is before us. I had put down an amendment but, on receiving information about this amendment, mine was withdrawn and does not appear on the Marshalled List. I have pleasure in supporting the Government amendment.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I wonder whether this amendment
1654
goes far enough. At the Committee stage (I think in relation to the marking of these operators' cars and vehicles) the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, accepted how necessary it was in order to protect taxi licencing, to prevent persons driving cars which pretended to be taxis by putting signs on the cars closely resembling those used by licensed taxis. I wonder whether, in drafting this clause, the position in relation to taxi licences had been considered adequately. It may be that under subsection (3) of the new clause the point I have raised (which is an important point) is covered. That subsection uses the words: "Regulations may make provision …" The form of the regulations may perhaps make it possible to avoid the problems that certain taxi proprietors have in regard to the marking of cars.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I intend to stand up, together with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to say how pleased I am with this amendment. Also, if it is in order to do so, may I thank the noble Baroness on the Woolsack for telling us which list we are on. That was useful in the case of the last amendments. Amendments on either list are coming up all the time and it is useful to be told which list is relevant. I hope that the noble colleagues of the noble Baroness will follow her example. With respect, I find rather surprising what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has said. In this particular instance we are discussing PSV licences. There is another sign that we will be discussing on, I think, Amendment No. 64 which is going to deal with taxis. May I say that I think that this amendment goes all the way and is thoroughly acceptable.
Clause 23 [Duty to inform traffic commissioners of relevant convictions, etc.]:
6.9 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 23, line 36, after ("who") insert ("knowingly").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a very short time on what I think to be

1655
an important point. There is a clause in the Bill which casts a duty to inform the traffic commissioners of relevant convictions of the applicant or of any employee or agent of his. If he fails to do so, he has committed an offence and is liable to be fined for it. In the Bill as it originally stood the word "knowingly" was inserted. That word has now come out; and if your Lordships will look at a subsequent provision in the Bill you will see that this offence is covered by a defence which may be put; namely, that if there was reasonable excuse for failing to inform the commissioners of a conviction that is a defence. It is on exactly the same basis that I tried previously to persuade your Lordships—at that time unsuccessfully, but I still live in hope—that we ought to be clarifying, we ought to be making the tasks of the courts easy when they are interpreting the provisions to which we are giving legislative effect.
Regarding a serious matter such as convictions—which are most relevant when the traffic commissioners have to consider the fulfilment of their duties—it obviously should be an offence if knowingly there is a failure to communicate those offences to the traffic commissioners. Those who have to decide whether or not to prosecute, and those who have to decide whether or not the offence is committed, should not be burdened with having to ascertain whether the defence comes within the purview of this Bill: namely, that there was a reasonable excuse.
It is a reasonable excuse that one was going through matrimonial difficulties at the time, and that to give publicity and possibly to communicate a conviction to the traffic commissioners would not have helped the marriage along because the offence was being kept away from a wife? Is it a reasonable excuse that somebody had put a letter in a pocket of a jacket and then unfortunately forgot about it, and therefore the communication was never made? Is that a reasonable excuse, or is it not? These are matters which will trouble those who have to decide about a prosecution, and these are matters that will trouble those who have to decide whether to acquit or convict. As I have said, the word "knowingly" was originally there. In regard to a serious matter
1656
of this kind, I ask that this word go back again.
Very quickly, may I say that the Minister was kind enough to promise to write to me, and he did. What he is really saying in his reply—and I hope that I am fairly paraphrasing him—is that if you put in the word "knowingly", you cast a burden upon the prosecution to show that the person concerned presumably knew about his own convictions and knew that he had not communicated. Anyone who has been used to prosecuting knows that that is a very slight onus indeed. Certainly in regard to the man himself, one would have thought that would have applied to his employees and agents because, as your Lordships will see, the convictions are limited to the course of the applicant's own business. Therefore, it would be an extraordinary situation if the onus could not be very easily discharged by a prosecution. It is in those circumstances, and in regard to a serious clause of the Bill, that I ask for the word "knowingly" to go back where it originally was.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, while we are clarifying points, this may have been mentioned earlier but so many of these clauses refer to repute and, in one case, good repute. We are creating criminal offences, as my noble friend pointed out. Is this repute in his professional capacity or in his moral or social capacity? There is a difference. It seems to me that we are creating some problems for the courts because of the rather vague definitions which occur in several of these clauses. I am also fascinated by the amount of the fines which seem to vary very much from one clause to another. Obviously, some of these offences are much more serious than others, though it is very difficult to discern it when studying the Bill. I should like to know, on the point about "knowingly", what kind of repute we are talking about. Is it professional repute?
Lord BELL WIN: My Lords, I am of course aware of the noble Lord's concern about the correct formulation of the defence available to a person charged under this clause, and, as he said, I have written to him on this point. For the benefit of the House, I will try to explain briefly why the defence "without reason-

1657
able excuse "is preferable. I am advised that the" knowingly "formulation would import into the offence an element of mens rea. As the noble Lord said, the legal burden of proof would then be upon the prosecution, and this might be unduly onerous. On the other hand, if the prosecution discharged this burden of proof, injustice could result to the accused if he acted knowingly and (through some cause such as illness) blamelessly.
The word "knowingly" introduces an unwelcome element of uncertainty. For example, it has been held to include deliberately turning a blind eye. The alternative of the "reasonable excuse" formulation seems therefore far more satisfactory. In the original drafting of Clause 23(5), the legal burden of proving a reasonable excuse would, by virtue of Section 81 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, have been on the accused, and if he had discharged it no offence would have arisen. In the formulation now in Clause 40(1) an offence will arise, the legal burden of proving a reasonable excuse will be on the accused, and if he discharges it he will have a good defence. Thus Clause 40(1) avoids both the possibilities of an unduly onerous burden on the prosecution and injustice to the accused. I hope that in view of that explanation the noble Lord will agree that the clause should remain as it stands, and will withdraw his amendment.
To comment on the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for a definition of "good repute" I would have to refer her to the third paragraph of Schedule 3. If she will forgive me, I will not read it out, but it is there for her to see. As to the fact that she is concerned that fines seem to vary, she answered that herself when she rightly said that the offences may vary and other circumstances may vary. If the noble Baroness would like to have more information, and cares to get in touch with me, I will gladly provide it.
Lord MISHCON: I cannot pretend that this argument ought to be carried any further. It is a question of putting one's point of view and hearing a very courteous reply. One merely says (I hope with the same courtesy) that one does not agree with the reply; but one thereupon sits down and mutters "Content" and hears the discontented opposite.
6.18 p.m.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, the Question is, that the amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content".
My Lords, I will put the Question again. The Question is, that the amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". Clear the Bar.
6.20 p.m.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will put the Question once more. The Question is, that this amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content ".
Several noble Lords: Not-Content.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Not-Contents have it.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 24 [Duty to give traffic commissioners information about vehicles]:
6.21 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 23, line 43, after (" practicable ") insert (" or in any event within fourteen days ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am so glad that I remained silent, which is not a habit to which I am accustomed in your Lordships' House! May I be permitted to speak to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 together? The same point is involved and, if I may say so frankly to your Lordships, I am much more concerned that No. 18 should be acceptable to your Lordships than No. 19, although your Lordships may in your kindness decide to favour both and the Minister, with his customary generosity, may accept both.
The first amendment, No. 18, relates to Clause 24 and under that clause it is the duty of a holder of a licence—
"… on the happening to any public service vehicle owned by him "—

1659
and I want to emphasise these words if I may—
"of any failure or damage of a nature calculated to affect the safety of occupants of the … vehicle "—
I am using shorthand here—
"or of persons using the road, to report the matter as soon as is practicable …".
It is the phrase "as soon as is practicable" that I wish to emphasise. We are envisaging under this clause the situation of a very serious threat to public safety. Again, I plead with your Lordships: should there not be certainty as to the duty imposed when a serious matter of public safety is thus involved?
Obviously, I do not hold out for my period of 14 days, and if the Minister suggests that it might be 21 days or 28 days, I shall not mind as long as he does not make it too long, because public safety is involved; and I would be the first person to concede the point about time and then ask your Lordships' leave in the usual way to withdraw my amendment. But what I cannot be satisfied with—and here my noble friends support me—is a situation where, on an offence of this kind being committed, there is always available the argument that the defendant did it "as soon as is practicable". Again the prosecution is in doubt. Should one prosecute for an offence under this section? Is the excuse a good one or a bad one that it was done "as soon as is practicable"? Was two months, three months or four months "as soon as is practicable"? Again the court is placed in difficulty as to what was" as soon as is practicable"? Although we all know that these are words which sometimes appear in an Act, they do not normally appear in sections of an Act dealing with serious criminal matters or even semi-serious criminal matters. It is for that reason that I ask for a time to be inserted and not to have these vague words "as soon as is practicable ".
I promised that I would also talk to Amendment No. 19. That deals with the duty which is cast by subsection (2) of this clause when the holder of a licence makes an alteration—
"otherwise than by replacement of parts being made in the structure or fixed equipment of any public service vehicle owned by him, to give notice of the alteration as soon as is practicable…"
Again I have used shorthand to try to deal with this clause. This is not, in my view, such a serious matter as the first subsection and I do not hold out for the time limit quite so strenuously, although I should have thought that here again it was a very sensible thing to have a time limit rather than the vagueness of "as soon as is practicable". That is the logic and the reasoning behind those two amendments and I hope they will be acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I believe that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, really has considerable merit. There is only one flaw, as I see it, in the way the amendment is drafted, which is that if one has a time limit specified within the Bill—be it 14, 21 or 28 days, and I believe that the first amendment should have a different time limit from the second amendment because of the different circumstances—then the words "as soon as is practicable" become unnecessary. From a drafting point of view, I believe it might be better if those words were taken out and an actual time limit set into the clause. If my noble friend Lord Bellwin would consider that point in his answer, I should be very much obliged.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I always hate having to address your Lordships in order to answer two legal gentlemen when I have no legal knowledge at all. We had a fairly full debate in Committee as to the merits or otherwise of the phrase "as soon as is practicable". I said then that I felt it was more appropriate in this case than a time limit. I have however carefully considered with my learned and wise colleagues in the department the arguments for and against introducing a time limit of any length, but have concluded that there would be no merit in this.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will be aware that I have written to him on this point and I think I copied my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill; but I am sure it would be helpful if I explained my reasons to the House. Briefly, the matters required to be reported under Clause 24 cover a wide range, from minor defects and alterations to major damage to vehicles. It would be difficult to set a single time limit which would be appro-

1661
priate in each case and which would not impose an unnecessarily onerous burden on operators. As I have already indicated, we think the words "as soon as practicable" adequately cover the particular circumstances of each case.
I might add that this is a familiar phrase in law and we do not believe that it will create undue difficulties in practice. On the contrary, we have a suspicion that a specific time limit could create extra problems in that it might provide a disincentive to report at all, if it were not done within the specified time. In view of what I have said, I hope the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, it is absolutely true that the noble Lord was kind enough to write to me, and he said in his letter precisely what he has just said to your Lordships. My only comments are as follows: it can hardly be said to be a difference between what may be a minor defect to a vehicle and a major one, when one reads into this section that the requirement to notify—and I did emphasise those words—is only in the case where the damage or failure is—
"of a nature calculated to affect the safety of occupants of the public service vehicle or of persons using the road …".
That can hardly be a minor defect. Secondly, I suppose the argument could be advanced on every conceivable occasion, when anyone was required to notify anything, that the circumstances may differ and, therefore, never putting a time limit in the Bill, because it is much more sensible to put the words "as soon as practicable".
This is not a concept that is acceptable to lawyers or to those who sit as lay justices. It is not acceptable to the common sense of people who are trying to lay down provisions which affect a serious situation. I am afraid that I remain unconvinced. I only hope, in view of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, as well as my offer to alter the time limit if it helps, that the Minister can concede the point. If he still finds himself unable to concede it, I do not think it right to divide your Lordships on a matter of this kind, but it is highly regrettable.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Further appeals on points of law]:
6.31 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 27, line 34, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) If on an appeal under this section the High Court or Court of Session is of opinion that the decision appealed against was erroneous in point of law, it shall remit the matter to the Minister with the opinion of the court for rehearing and determination by him.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 38. This amendment takes up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, during Committee stage. I am grateful to him for bringing to our notice the interpretation that could be put on Clauses 27 and 33; namely, that the power to give any decision which might have been given by the Minister would involve the court in considering the merits of the case. This was not our intention. To avoid all doubts, the amendment removes this power, and ensures that the court must in each case remit the matter, with the opinion or direction of the court, for re-hearing and determination by the Minister. I hope that both of these amendments will be acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, here, again, the noble Lord the Minister was kind enough to write to me and did so in terms as kindly as those he has used in the House this afternoon. I am only too glad that some observations of mine have, at least, been of use in the course of this Bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, perhaps I should point out to your Lordships that the agreement to Amendment No. 20 preempts Amendment No. 21.
Clause 29 [Death, bankruptcy, etc., of licence-holder]:
6.33 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 28, line 19, leave out (" if he ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to Clause 29. It is a detailed matter on which I shall, therefore, be extremely careful in adhering to my brief. Perhaps I should say that I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, because they are all related. Apart from possible circumstances which might be specified in regulations, this clause relates to individual licence-holders as opposed to corporate bodies. The smaller operators who may be affected are concerned at the failure to provide any transitional provisions to cover the death and, possibly, the insanity of an individual licence holder. The purpose of this group of amendments is to make such provision.
The greatest concern relates to the death of a licence-holder. At such a time, a family is involved in its bereavement, and the formalities of the funeral will take precedence over the formalities of licensing. In such a family, with a tradition of public service, it will be automatic that services will continue or, if necessary, be covered at a time such as this. The nature of the service and other business combine to make this an almost foregone conclusion. Only when the immediate needs of the family in its bereavement have been taken care of will the thought of licensing have any relevance. In the meantime, the public will have continued to receive the service which they depend upon, although technically, that service will have been provided illegally.
It is not enough to say that the operation of the traffic commissioners' powers under subsection (4) will take care of this technical offence. No doubt in most cases this would be the position in practice. However, where it is seen that the law clearly leaves a vacuum, it is desirable that amendment should be made to cover such a situation. The amendment to paragraph (a) is aimed at satisfying this need. It would allow a 28-days maximum period, during which a service could be continued before subsection (4) was
1664
brought into operation. The logic of this amendment should be self-apparent, although it is possible that there could be a debate on the period which should be allowed. I should stress that it is the considered opinion of independent operators in the industry that 28 days is a practicable and reasonable period.
In the case of bankruptcy, it is thought that there is sufficient forewarning to allow application to be made to the traffic commissioners under subsection (4). Moreover, there may be circumstances in which the commissioners will wish to act under paragraph (b) of that subsection, rather than under paragraph (a). For these reasons, no transitional period is suggested.
In paragraph (c) of subsection (2), it is again thought that some transitional arrangement should be provided, although the circumstances relating to insanity seem to fall between those for death and bankruptcy. There is likely to be greater warning of a committal order than of the precise time of a licence holder's death. Very similar arguments apply as compared with paragraph (a), but it is thought that a period of 14 days would be adequate, compared with the 28 days suggested in the case of death. In our view—and it is the view of the operators—these amendments collectively fill a gap in the clause which ought to be filled. That is the purpose of this series of amendments. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I, too, will have to speak in some detail on this point. I sympathise with the problems to which the noble Lord has drawn attention. I realise that the death or sudden insanity of the proprietor of a small business can cause great distress and problems. Nevertheless, I do not think that we need or should make special provision in this Bill to deal with such possibilities. We need not, because prosecutions for illegal operation in the short interval between the death and the traffic commissioners' direction are highly unlikely, and if they did take place I am sure Clause 40 provides adequate defences. We must remember that the traffic commissioners' direction, once obtained, will be effective to prevent the termination of the licence; that is, as from the date on which it would otherwise have terminated. The amendments are

1665
undesirable because they create more difficulties than they solve. Perhaps the House will bear with me a few moments while I illustrate a few.
In the context of the death of an operator, what is to be made of the expression "next of kin or personal representatives"? Will the next of kin take precedence over the personal representatives? How will the personal representatives be able to ascertain within a reasonable time whether there are any next of kin and, if so, whether all or any of them are able and willing to act? It is not certain what the expression "next of kin" means in this context. Presumably, it is intended to mean the person or persons entitled on intestate succession under Section 46 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, as amended.
There may be no such persons, or there may be many and not all of them will necessarily be entitled to absolute interests. If there are any, they may be hard to find; they may not be sui juris. It would be very strange, and probably unsatisfactory, if they were to take precedence over the personal representatives upon whom all powers, right and duties relating to the estate would normally rest. If there were no next of kin, or if the personal representatives were to take precedence over them, many of the same objections would apply. If the personal representatives are executors they may be unable or unwilling to run the business. It may be several days, or even longer, before they decide whether to renounce their right to a grant of probate and this right might be jeopardised by action relating to the business which could be construed as inter-meddling in the estate. If the personal representatives are not executors it may be several weeks or even months before they obtain a grant of letters of administration and thus derive authority to deal with the estate. As with executors, they may be unwilling or unable to manage the business (and the prospect of doing so might discourage them from applying for a grant). If several persons are next of kin, executors or administrators they may disagree among themselves how to run the business, and some or all of them may be manifestly incompetent to do so.
In the context of the insanity of a licence-holder, the reference to personal
1666
representatives in the amendment as moved is not easy to understand. That expression is generally taken to mean the persons entitled to administer the estate of a person who has died. It does not seem to have a relevance in relation to a person who has become unsound of mind. As to the provision for "next of kin" the same objections mentioned in relation to a deceased operator apply here too, with the added objection that the meaning of the expression in this context is not known since it could hardly be appropriate to apply the provisions of Section 46 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, as amended. I would not be surprised if the Court of Protection had objections to any such provision.
Nor do the amendments make it clear how they relate to the provisions of subsection (4). Are the powers of the "next of kin or personal representatives" to take precedence over the powers given to the traffic commissioners in subsection (4) or not? In any event it seems that the traffic commissioners would be impeded in an efficient exercise of those powers by any provisions such as those contained in the proposed amendment.
I have no doubt that the best way to provide against the results of the death, bankruptcy or madness of an operator is to give the traffic commissioners a wide discretion which they can, and I am sure will, exercise swiftly and sensibly to the benefit of those by whom and for whom the service is provided. To replace this discretion with confusing, uncertain, arbitrary and probably retarding provision of the kind embodied in the amendments is something which I do not think the House will wish to accept.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I am reminded of a speech made some years ago by the noble Viscount, the first Lord Samuel, a figure who was loved in this House, a much respected Member on the Liberal Benches. He was addressing the Civil Service on their centenary celebrations and, after paying a wonderful tribute to them for the way they had helped his career, he said, "However, there is one thing I have always found in regard to them: they have a problem for every solution". I was reminded of that when I heard the replies given to what was the very humane purpose of this

1667
amendment; and indeed there are many problems that have been presented, I can see, by the Civil Service for that solution.
My Lords, in view of the fact that there is a real problem here, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister would not think that rather than by amending the Bill (although my noble friend put the case for it, in my view, so well) the problems could be met by sending, possibly after consultations with the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport, some helpful memorandum, especially useful to the small operators, who are really the relevant people here, and to the traffic commissioners, as to how they might handle the cases that have been referred to tonight. If the noble Lord the Minister could say that that was a practical solution to this problem, I have an idea my noble friend Lord Underhill might have something helpful to say to the House.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, by leave of the House, I do by all means say, let us have a look at that and see what we might do. After all, the object is to be helpful and I certainly take the point made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 23 to 27 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Fare-paying passengers on school buses]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 29, line 8, after ("bus") insert (" belonging to the authority ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 31 and 34. These amendments clear up a slight confusion in the clause as tabled in Committee between school buses belonging to local authorities and those contracted to them. I need hardly remind your Lordships that, over the country as a whole, the latter is much the larger category. Both types of school bus are used by local education authorities to carry pupils to and from school free under the duties laid on them by the Education Acts. On both types local education authorities may wish to carry on school
1668
journeys fare-paying passengers, especially pupils to whom they make a charge because they are outside the categories of whom free transport is provided, but it is only in respect of school buses belonging to them that authorities need a power to provide local bus services independently of journeys to and from school. We indeed hope that local bus services will be provided by contract school vehicles, but that will be a matter for the operator, not for the education authority.
The clause as drafted would have put difficulties in the way of the use by authorities of vehicles contracted to them for carrying fare-paying passengers as well as pupils travelling free. I am sure that the House will agree that this matter should be put right. I beg to move.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 29, line 9, at end insert (" which is during school term provided under paragraph (a)").
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will recall that when this complete new clause was considered in Committee it was agreed by your Lordships by a majority of only 10 votes. At that stage it was not possible to table amendments, only to accept or reject the clause, and, although some of us may regard the new clause as unsatisfactory, it has been accepted by the Committee and therefore the appropriate step now is to endeavour to seek amendments.
At the present time education authorities can operate their own vehicles without the formalities attaching to public service vehicles, provided that the children are not charged a fare. There is, however, the provision in Section 12 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1953 which makes it possible for pupils not entitled to free school transport to be carried on the local education authority vehicle and charged a fare, except in Scotland where, of course, they have to be carried free. The relaxation applies only to pupils, but the consent of the traffic commissioners is required. If persons other than pupils are to be carried, at present the vehicle must be licensed as a public service vehicle and a road service licence is required. That is the law as it is at present.
Under subsection (1)(a) of the new clause this provision is extended to the general public, as opposed to pupils only, but a road service licence, rather than a consent, as in the Act I referred to, will be required. Although there are objectionable elements in this arrangement, the change envisaged from the existing practice is relatively minor and therefore no amendment to paragraph (a) is suggested. However, in paragraph (b) a very different situation is proposed, for the paragraph would permit these non-public service vehicles to provide a service where a road service licence would be required. It is submitted that before such freedom is given, the local education authorities, whose responsibilities, your Lordships will agree, are in a totally different field, should at the very least be required to operate under the same conditions as the professional PSV operator.
There will be some safety aspects to be dealt with in subsequent amendments, but I will not deal with those at this stage. However, there is one area where it may not be thought to be unreasonable to impose special conditions for operations during school holidays, as opposed to those during term time. This relates to the maintenance of the services provided during term time. If they have to be discontinued during the school holidays, then term time passengers are deprived of continuity of service. Moreover, if it is reasonable to permit people to travel on a particular vehicle at one time, it seems illogical to deny them the same opportunity at another. In other words, the service should be provided in term and out of term.
In all these circumstances, it is suggested that a reasonable compromise would be to allow the continuance of the term time service during the school holidays but to relate services of any other type to the normal PSV law. There are some misgivings about even this compromise. But because of our desire to ensure that the public receive the best possible service, this point is conceded. We feel that to go beyond it would be a retrograde step. Therefore, I beg to move this amendment to Clause 30.
6.51 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, again I find it necessary to support the noble
1670
Lord, Lord Underhill. This amendment touches only the tip of the iceberg. I think Hansard will prove that in Committee we discussed this matter at great length and that many of us in all parts of the House were very worried about this new clause and the way it was drafted. The noble Lord's amendment seeks to improve the effects this Bill will have in practice, when it comes to the overall provisions of public service.
It seems to me that the essence of the amendment is road safety, although on a human level there is a compromise aimed at improving public services. I do not really like this compromise because it may impinge on safety, but I have to recognise that my feelings in this respect go beyond the amendment now being debated.
Turning specifically to the amendment, I recognise the logic of permitting services throughout the year on vehicles which, in the normal course of events, are intended to carry school children during the school term. If I must accept the basis of this operation without the safeguards which I would prefer to see, I must logically accept the carriage of the adult fare-paying passengers, not only during term time but at other times of the year. A service which is irregular in this respect will hardly find favour with the public.
Therefore, this far one can go: that if vehicles owned by local education authorities are to be given carte blanche to carry the public, then it must be that they should conform with the safety standards imposed, with very good reason, on the professional carriers in this field. I am sure that this is a sensible and practical improvement to the Bill which we are now considering, and I urge the Government to accept it.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I made it clear when I moved this clause in Committee that it was part of our policy to keep open as many ways as possible of meeting people's varied transport needs and that the clause had been drafted to provide the maximum flexibility. This amendment runs counter to that policy. It would limit the use which local authorities can make of the school buses that they own.
Of course a school bus will often not be available during the school day to carry

1671
ordinary fare-paying passengers; it will be in use for educational purposes. However, it would be wrong to exclude the possibility. Would it not be wasteful in the extreme to have a vehicle parked, unused all day, at a school while local people lacked, say, the shopping service that it could provide for them?
The requirement for road service licences and the need to fit in with normal school services would prevent any abuse of this power, even if the normal good sense of local authorities did not. I do not accept that the exemptions from quality licensing, exemptions which are justifiable on their merits, do not warrant curbs on the times of the day at which these school buses can provide services. I do not know that there is much more that I can add to this point. When my noble friend Lord Teviot, with, as I said earlier today, his considerable experience and knowledge, expresses concern, then I, too, must be concerned. But in this instance, at least, I have to say that we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord LUCAS of CH1LWORTH: My Lords, I am surprised that my noble friend takes such a firm view at this stage, because it seems to me that there is some merit in what the noble Lord, Lord Underfill!, has said. I accept that the reason for the clause is to provide the maximum flexibility. That is quite laudable, so far as it goes. However, the safety factor seems to me to have been almost totally ignored. This is the point which my noble friend Lord Teviot mentioned.
I cannot see that it is reasonable that a vehicle which belongs to a certain person should, willy-nilly, be put to a purpose other than that for which it was originally intended; namely, for the use of the school on what one might call school activities. School activities normally finish at the end of term. Then this vehicle is used in a different area. In practical terms, there will not be the same constraints upon the serviceability of the vehicle during that period because the degree of responsibility will have been removed.
I do not want to impinge upon the next amendment which appears on the Marshalled List, but it seems to me that a
1672
school-owned bus, used for school purposes, has the kind of responsibility attached to it that a sensible head teacher may apply. During the holidays, who is going to be in control? I suspect that probably nobody at all is going to be in control, and this is where I think that we ought to have some safeguards. Unless my noble friend can produce a rather more telling argument, my inclination is a little towards the mover of the amendment and my noble friend Lord Teviot.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I comment upon the safety aspect which I accept ought, perhaps, to be more fully covered. But may I add that I had intended to go in a little more detail into that point on Amendment No. 30. Therefore, I will try to tie the two together by saying that I appreciate that noble Lords have shown concern for the safety of operation of these vehicles. I can assure them that both I and my ministerial colleagues have thought very deeply about this subject, which we do not take lightly. However, we continue to be of the view that I expressed in Committee; namely, that local authorities are fully responsible bodies and can be trusted to maintain their vehicles properly. It is for them to decide what qualifications to require of their drivers.
Let us not forget that a number of local education authorities run their own school buses and that neither PSV licensing nor PSV driver's licensing applies to them. This state of affairs has continued for decades. The Labour Governments of the past have been content to let it so continue. We are introducing no new exemptions. All we are doing is widening the use that can be made of the vehicles.
Even if our best hopes are fulfilled, the number of adults carried on them will be a small fraction of the numbers of pupils. The modest extension proposed in the Bill attracts amendments to bring in all the provisions of quality licensing, yet there is no suggestion that they are required when the only people being carried are pupils, for whom free transport is being provided. I do not think that this is very logical. I think that our purpose, which is to open up as many ways as possible of meeting people's varied transport needs, will best be served by retaining the present exemptions in the new context.

1673
Of course I should have to respond to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth that these buses will be run by the education authority and not by the school. That is a very important point. Finally, on this point of safety, may I say that the annual testing under the roadworthiness directive will apply to these vehicles as to all public service vehicles and therefore the quality control will be greater and not less in the future.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I must deal with this amendment in relation to the clause as it stands, not as I hope it will be after we have dealt with the next amendment, which no doubt will be taken after we have adjourned. As it is at present all the safety provisions are being excluded, yet the proposal under (b) is to run a full bus service. Therefore I must ignore the fact that I shall be moving amendments on a safety provision in a later clause because I must not assume that the House will accept them, although I think if your Lordships take a reasonable view they will be carried. Therefore this amendment endeavours to get over the problem by suggesting that what should be run out of school time is the same sort of service as it has been suggested under (a) should be run during school time.
The noble Lord says that he wants flexibility, which is all right but not when we are playing with safety provisions. It becomes too haphazard; it is flexibility merely for the sake of it. Therefore, we could not possibly agree to withdraw our amendment but, as we are going to deal with the whole subject of safety provisions after the adjournment, it is my intention not to divide the House on this amendment so that we may get on with the safety provisions when we return, which I think is the most important matter in this clause.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I think that, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has indicated, this would be a convenient moment for the House to adjourn. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 8 p.m.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.3 p.m. to 8 p.m.].
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, Amendment No. 30 preempts Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 and therefore if it is agreed to I can call neither Amendment No. 31 nor Amendment No. 32.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 29, leave out lines 10 to 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will speak to, and, if I may, move Amendment No. 32 as well as Amendment No. 30. I have already referred to the fact that when the new clause was discussed in Committee it was carried by a majority of only 10 votes. I believe that was because there was considerable concern among your Lordships as to the safety aspects of these new provisions. That is the purpose of this amendment. If I may say so without being flippant, I only wish there was loudspeaker contact into all the rooms in your Lordships' House because otherwise very few people will hear what we have to say on what I believe is possibly the most important clause of this Bill. It does affect the question of security and safety.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to the latter part, the last five lines of subsection (1). There it is suggested that certain provisions of the 1960 Act and of this Bill when it becomes an Act shall not apply to the services now proposed in paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). Let me stress the provisions that are to be excluded. There is Section 144 of the 1960 Act: this is the necessity for the driver to have a public service vehicle driver's licence. That is to be excluded. There are Sections 15, 16, 17 and 18 of this current Bill; these relate to the powers and facilities for the inspection of passenger transport vehicles. That is to be excluded. The need for a PSV to have a certificate of initial fitness is to be excluded. The power of a certifying officer or PSV examiner to prohibit driving of unfit public service vehicles is to be excluded. The necessity to have a PSV operator's licence is to be excluded. All these safety provisions are to be excluded under this Bill.
I would ask your Lordships why, because a vehicle is owned by a local educa-

1675
tional authority, it is to be considered proper that a driver of a school bus need not have a PSV driver's licence. I know it may be argued that this has never been a requirement where the bus has been used only for school transport. Speaking for myself, I believe that is more the pity; I believe it should have been required. But now that the school bus vehicles are to be used as stage service vehicles, as local buses, surely the same conditions that apply to all other PSV vehicles must apply in these cases. I would like to ask the noble Lord the Minister how the exclusion of these provisions can possibly be justified. We are not discussing whether or not the new experiments, the innovations, should take place. We are talking about the safety provisions for these innovations.
The noble Lord the Minister said at Committee stage:
"So long as we are satisfied about the safety aspects the amendment should be accepted ".
That was the new clause. The new clause was accepted in Committee, but I honestly believe that many noble Lords supported this because they did not want to stop this new experiment. So on a reasonably large vote it was carried by only 10 votes. I believe the majority of noble Lords will take the view that I do, if only they hear the case, and unfortunately there are only a few people in the Chamber. But I hope the noble Lord the Ministers will recognise the validity of this case and support it. There is now the opportunity to deal solely with the question of safety. We can put aside any criticism of the scheme. We are dealing solely with safety aspects and we have an opportunity to put this matter right.
Your Lordships may query why we have two amendments. Perhaps I may explain. The first amendment would ensure that the five safety provisions shall be restored and be required for the services to be operated under both paragraphs (a) and (b); that is, both when the school bus is carrying passengers other than pupils and also when it is being used as a proper bus service. There may be some noble Lords who may consider that, as paragraph (a) is only an extension of the present school bus transport so that passengers other than pupils can be carried, therefore the safety provisions need not be introduced.
1676
Personally I hope that very few noble Lords will take that view. But because we have two amendments those noble Lords who take that view will have the opportunity to support the second amendment, the purpose of which is to confine the desired safety provisions solely to the normal bus service to be operated under paragraph (b).
Whatever your Lordships may feel about paragraph (a), surely there can be no noble Lord really hearing the case who can possibly justify a bus running as a full service bus without having these five safety provisions that apply to any other bus running in the whole of the United Kingdom. How that can be justified I just cannot see. I sincerely hope that support will be given to the first amendment, No. 30. But I would urge as strongly as I possibly can that any noble Lord who feels that he cannot support No. 30 because it embraces both schemes should give approval to Amendment No. 32.
In conclusion, I believe this House cannot tolerate any public service vehicle running on our roads without the safety provisions which the Government recognise are essential for all other stage bus vehicles, in fact all public service vehicles. Why they spoil their own case for this extension of the school bus by excluding the safety provisions I simply cannot understand. If the noble Lord the Minister cannot agree with the safety provisions being extended to the proposals under paragraph (a), I hope he will agree to them being extended under our second amendment, so that public service vehicles, school buses that are being used as a bus service, shall have to fulfil the same safety provisions as every other vehicle running on a stage bus service. I beg to move.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for expressing all his doubts and for putting forward this amendment, which I think is very apt and very right. I am very grateful for the adjournment, because I have been spending part of it getting advice from the experts. On the question of safety, I would have thought the local educational authorities might be able to manage to get their vehicles through the annual testing, but I ask my noble

1677
friend this question: Do these local education authorities have adequate maintenance facilities for looking after these vehicles, which PSV operators do have. That is my first question. Also these vehicles used by local education authorities are probably perfectly adequate for running two journeys a day. They are obviously not the most modern and best vehicles. Looking at those vehicles, if I had to work a full shift on them, I would find the whole thing very unpleasant; as a driver I would not enjoy it at all. If it were, for example, only twice a day and perhaps I did something else and was a part-time driver, I would have to accept it. However, if I had to do eight hours straight through on some of these vehicles, it would be a different matter. However, that is a personal opinion.
There are one or two other points which are connected with this matter. I do not think that local education authorities have people knowledgeable in road transport law, and I do not think that I am out of order in making that comment. Bus companies and so on do have people with knowledge. If they were operating these services, perhaps the local education authorities would have to employ a man who was proficient in road transport law. They might have to pay him a great salary and provide him with accommodation and a secretary, and they might have to provide him with one or two personal assistants. That is against the principle of the Bill because they would be adding to the cost, which is a most important consideration.
There is no point in going through the other matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, except as regards the PSVs. I must stress that if one has a PSV driver system one cannot allow other people who do not have a PSV driver licence to operate normal services—it just does not hold water.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, before I comment upon Lord Underbill's amendment, I feel that your Lordships should perhaps take particular note of what is happening in the Bill. I have not been in your Lordships' House very long, but I have seen marked changes in the way in which we conduct our affairs. Perhaps one of the more distressing features that seems to have crept in over the
1678
past few years is that of treating Report stage as an extension of Committee stage.
There was some comment earlier this afternoon between my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as to who was in order and who was not in order. I do not think that your Lordships' House is always very worried about that aspect of our proceedings if we are getting on with the business in hand. I really wonder whether we are getting on with the business in hand or turning over old ground again. After all, we had a debate on this particular topic at Committee stage and the matter was dealt with by 10 votes. If the matter was not fully discussed then, that perhaps was the fault of, and to the disadvantage of, those who were so engaged. I find that coming back to this kind of thing time and time again does not advance the cause.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, moved his amendment with a good deal of vigour—if I may say so—which comes, I am sure, from his feeling that he is absolutely right on this occasion. But suppose the discussion goes against him? Will he say that because of the thinness of numbers in the House on a Thursday night he will leave this matter for Third Reading, and shall we then have this whole matter brought up again in a fortnight's time? So I would ask the noble Lord opposite to take note—if I said, take heed, I am sure that he would understand how I mean those words—of what I am saying within this context.
The noble Lord has put the case for the amendment pretty forcefully. I think that perhaps the most forceful point he made was when he said that local education authorities had, for many years past, under the existing legislation, been exempt from the provisions and he went on to say, "More is the pity". He then described how he thought that this extension of that exemption was even worse. In that respect I have sympathy with him. If perhaps we had this matter in a different kind of Bill and altered the existing arrangements, then I think that I would have more sympathy with him. I share sympathy with him in that it certainly seems to be wrong that a certain group of people, a certain body, by virtue of an existing exemption, may now engage in something new, claiming that exemption which would be to a com-

1679
mercial advantage over and above those other people who may be so engaged. I think that that is probably where I cease to be in sympathy with the noble Lord.
Most of my life has been spent in that area of the transport industry which I suspect is somewhat rougher than the passenger carrying business. We would accept the commercial rubs with some equanimity. This may well be a commercial rub which the other passenger operating people may have to wear.
I think that the safety aspect is another matter, and that is why I do not like it in this Bill. If, under present legislation, we have to require the driver of a passenger carrying vehicle to have a PSV licence then, in my book, everybody who does this should have a PSV licence. I do not think that it is very fair that we should require one group of—and I shall use the word—"workpeople" to have a certification of competence to do a certain job and on the other hand say: No, these people, because they are employed, by, or with or under the guise of, a local education authority, may be excluded from having that certificate of competence—in this case the PSV licence. That is where I would ask my noble friend to give us some assurance that there is no unfairness.
I think that the last point I should like to make is concerned with the kind of people who will run the local education authority buses. I do not accept the argument of my noble friend Lord Teviot regarding the local education authority garages and servicing places. They are usually common to other facilities in local authorities which are usually to a very high standard. I do not accept the argument of my noble friend Lord Teviot that the vehicles are necessarily older or of a lower serviceability. My experience as a garage man repairing coaches—admittedly not buses—is that some of them are not always perhaps to the highest standards. I see no reason why local education authority buses should be any lower than that.
However, if the education authority gives authority to, say, the geography master to take the schoolchildren on a field trip in the coach or bus during
1680
school term, or purely on a school excursion under certain controlled circumstances, why should that geography master, if given permission on the one hand, not run an excursion for the teacher/parent association—which may or may not be fare-paying—to the seaside during the school holidays? He is not as competent—indeed, in no way can he be as competent—as the man with the PSV licence. I think that it is on those grounds that I have sympathy at this time with what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is saying. Having said that, I think that the amendment is misplaced, in the wrong Bill. As I said right at the beginning, now that we have discussed it in Committee, I think that it is wrong that we should go over all this ground again.
8.20 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am grateful for the observations made all round the House on this matter, because I entirely accept that this is a very important matter. The fact that it was so discussed last time and was so decided upon covers two aspects. On the one hand, it covers a point made, if I may say so, by my noble friend Lord Lucas just now; that is, do we, indeed, have time to take the same argument and go over it all again? On the other hand, the point which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made about the closeness of it is not at all irrelevant, and I accept that as such.
But it is so easy when talking about safety to become emotive, to make a case sound so dramatically right which, in fact may not be right. One has only to say in the context of almost anything, "How dare we put anything into jeopardy where safety is involved!", and, of course, everyone will immediately nod their heads and say, "Yes, that is so". But then one has to look at exactly what it is we are talking about.
First, I want to deal with one of the points made by my noble friend Lord Teviot. He asked whether local education authorities have adequate maintenance facilities. In some cases they will have, and in other cases they may not. Surely whether they have such facilities themselves is not the point. I should have thought the point was whether they have access to maintenance facilities, and everyone has that. If you do not do the work your-

1681
self, you give it to someone else to do. Probably the private sector does it every bit as well. With great respect, I do not think that that would deter me too much when being concerned about the safety aspect.
For myself, in all that has been said I think that there is a greater strength of argument as regards the requirements for drivers' licensing. I am prepared to say that I should like to take that aspect away and talk to my colleagues about it. I believe that there is a point there. Whether or not it is a point of sufficient value, of sufficient weight, in the context of the totality of this scheme, at this stage I do not know. However, I think that it is sufficiently worth while for me to say, as I have, that I will take it away and we shall have a talk about it.
Turning to the amendment as such, if one takes away all the emotive aspects of it, I think that it is really illogical in a way that perhaps the previous amendments were not. If quality controls are essential in the interests of the travelling public, why are they not essential when the public are being carried along with pupils going to and from school? In my own mind I am not satisfied that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has made a great case as to that.
I explained earlier when we discussed other amendments why we did not wish to restrict the power to carry adults in such vehicles at certain times and seasons, and it follows that any restrictions of the exceptions from quality controls to times when the vehicle is being used to carry pupils is also unacceptable. We are coming round to what the Bill is all about. I am afraid that this amendment is contrary to the Government's clear and simple policy, to widen opportunities for travel and to maintain only restrictions that are essential in the public interest. That is what we are about. Yes, we can be diverted and, yes, we have to listen properly to the concerns that are raised, especially where safety is at issue.
However, I am not at all deterred, as is the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, by the safety qualifications. Perhaps with the exclusion of the drivers' licensing area, about which I want to go further, I do not think that we need be unnecessarily disturbed; certainly I am not. Therefore,
1682
while recognising the concern and all that goes with it, and bearing in mind that we have been over this ground before, I have to advise the House to resist the amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, may I first deal with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I am relatively new to this House, but I am certain that the procedure that we have adopted on this clause is proper. When we debated this in Committee, we debated an amendment to introduce a new clause. We had no chance to put down amendments on the safety provisions. The whole matter was discussed as a new clause, a new scheme, and a new innovation. Admittedly, in the debate from this Dispatch Box we put certain queries and reservations about safety. However, the principle before the Committee was the new clause, the new experiment.
Tonight we are not arguing about the new clause or the new experiment. Now we are considering an amendment to a new clause which was the subject of a Government amendment in Committee. With all due respect to noble Lords who have been here longer than I have, I would suggest that this is a proper way in which to use a Report stage; otherwise it means that we have no opportunity at all to amend in detail a Government amendment introducing a whole new clause which could be of a sweeping character. Therefore, I fully justify what we have done on this.
In passing, I ought to say that where my noble friends and I have been defeated on a Division during the Committee stage, noble Lords will note that we have not brought those amendments forward here. In the main we have brought forward amendments on issues where the Government Ministers said that they would like to take a look at various matters. Again, I believe that that is the right way to treat a Report stage. I am saying these things only for the record in order to justify the attitude that we have adopted on these various amendments.
I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, but he said that it is misplaced, in the wrong Bill. Where could we deal with what we regard as a point that is wrong in a new clause in the Bill, except to deal with it in the Bill?

1683
Otherwise it will be approved, and matters with which we disagree will be approved without any opposition. Therefore, we must bring forward the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, did not think that I was too emotional. If I am emotional, perhaps I should be very pleased because, frankly, safety provisions are a matter of which the whole country must take note. Whether we want further experiments, innovations or ideas, surely we shall not introduce them without keeping safety provisions in mind, otherwise public transport will be in the devil of a mess. Therefore, if any of us feels emotional on safety provisions, I believe that he or she is justified in his or her feelings.
The noble Lord also said that it is illogical. In the first amendment I said that we should have these safety provisions for both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). It is my personal view that it might have been wise, even when the school bus was only carrying pupils, for the driver to be competent. However, that is a personal view and does not face us on the Bill. We are now arguing that we should have safety provisions for the proposals actually contained in the Bill. I accept that the Bill proposes wider opportunities. But I say to the Minister, for heaven's sake, do not have wider opportunities at the risk of public safety, because that is what is being proposed. It is being suggested that we cannot have wider opportunities and still have safety provisions. But I deny that. Why cannot the Government say, "Yes, the Committee agreed that we should have this new scheme, but we recognise that the safety provisions ought to apply"? It will not upset the scheme in any way; therefore, why not do it? What is good for PSV vehicles in one direction is surely good for PSV vehicles being used in this scheme, and the most telling point is that under paragraph (b) the school buses owned by local authorities could be used for a full local bus stage service.
But what are we telling the commissioners? After all, they have to apply for a road service licence, and that is what I think the Minister said when we last debated this matter. We are telling the commissioners—I have been told that we must not put restrictions on the commissioners, but in this case we shall
1684
be doing so—that any other person who applies for a road service licence must comply with the PSV safety provisions that is, except this applicant, and he can run a stage bus service without any PSV safety provisions. I am not the one who is being illogical; the Government are being completely illogical over this.
I do not want to divide the House if I can avoid it. While I believe, therefore, that the other provisions are important, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment in view of the assurance the Minister has given that they will examine this question of the PSV driver. But I wish to make it quite clear that if the Government do not move on this, then, whether or not I shall be misusing the procedure of the Third Reading, I shad bring forward an amendment on this issue at that stage, for this House has a right to demand that any new scheme introduced by the Government must have safety provisions within it. On that basis, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 29, line 12, leave out from (" to ") to end of line 13 and insert (" a school bus belonging to a local education authority in the course of its use by the ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
8.32 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 29, line 29, at end insert (" to operate within the area of the local education authority concerned ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I asked in Committee whether there would be any limitation on the area in which a school bus would be entitled under the Bill to operate as a full bus service. The Minister has kindly written to me on the matter, but despite what he says—and he has put up quite a good case—I am moving the amendment because it is important that we should be quite clear that we do not want local education authorities apply-

1685
ing to run bus services all over the place, well away from their own areas, and I am giving the Minister an opportunity to put his viewpoint on this issue. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I agree that local education authorities will not normally want to provide bus services in other authorities' areas, and the Government are not going to encourage them to do so. We are thinking, in the whole of this clause, of local education authorities and transport planning departments working very closely together and deploying school buses where a local transport need can conveniently be met by them. Of course, this will usually be in the area of the education authority, but I do not see why services which cross the boundaries between one authority and another—boundaries which are not always natural ones for transport purposes—should be prevented.
I do not think the fears expressed by the noble Lord about invasions by one authority of another's territory are well founded. We must remember that road service licences will be required, and the road service licence procedure allows sufficient scope for the views of county councils to be made known and taken into account.
I do not want to say a great deal more about this. As the noble Lord said, I have been in some correspondence with him on the subject. I recognise the point he makes—fairly, as he makes most points—but I am not unduly concerned about this and it is an area with which I am not wholly unfamiliar. I am not too disturbed about this and I would not want to accept the amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I wanted to give the Minister an opportunity to make that statement. That is important because the traffic commissioners will have to consider applications and they should appreciate that it is not the wish of this House that education authorities should make applications outside their areas. In view of the noble Lord's remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 34.
Page 29, line 31, leave out (" belonging to that authority ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 28, and I therefore beg to move.
Clause 31 [Use of certain vehicles by educational and other bodies]:
8.35 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 30, line 22, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this deals with the previous provision, which was carried in Committee, with regard to the extension of the community bus scheme for large vehicles and, at the risk of repeating what I said in the previous debate, I must reiterate that nobody wants to inhibit the scheme which was agreed at that stage. To make myself perfectly clear, I must emphasise again that in Committee we were discussing a new scheme and had no opportunity to amend the Government's proposals, but tonight we have, and I what am proposing in this amendment is that by leaving out paragraph (a) we shall ensure that these vehicles have drivers with PSV licences.
Nobody knows what will be the size of these vehicles. There must be a certain minimum, but a charitable or educational body might give a double-decker. Even if it is being used for charitable purposes, surely we are not so charitable as to permit a vehicle of that size to be taken on the road without the driver being qualified. I am therefore really asking for the same as I asked on the previous amendment—dealing with the education bus, as it were—but with one difference. I am not here talking of other safety provisions, as I realise that it may be possible to let those go in this case because we are dealing with vehicles which will be used only occasionally. But from the point of view of those who will drive those vehicles, this is a matter of the utmost importance.
Can we permit a large vehicle to be used for carrying passengers without considering the competence of the driver? Frankly, I am thinking not just of the people on

1687
the bus—they are important enough—but of all the other road users, the pedestrians and motorists and so on. As the Minister has agreed to reconsider the other question, I hope he is prepared on this issue to give an assurance that this matter will be looked at. Otherwise we shall be carrying the goodwill of this House a little too far in our readiness to agree to an innovation to help charitable and educational bodies, while at the same time saying, "We do not care whether or not the driver is qualified."
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, aware when he talks of the possibility of a double-decker vehicle being driven, that it might be one of those old double-deckers with a crash gearbox? It might not last for many years. When I was driving, which was not all that many years ago, I had a licence to drive all types. Those who came from London Transport were not qualified to drive the old type of bus I was driving because they were used to driving buses with pre-select gearboxes. What I say might apply not only to double-deckers. We might have people with PSV licences coming across these old vehicles for the first time in their lives. I am sure that some noble Lords will remember driving cars in which, to chsnge gear, they had to double-declutch—rather different from the smart syncromesh gearboxes we have now. Someone who has had no relevant experience might be asked to drive a double-decker, and he might have to change up, which is not very difficult, but then change down, with a standing load. He might be starting off on a hill where he has to crash gear from first to second. I think that perhaps I have said enough, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has made his point.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, it is very difficult to argue against such technical expertise. In fact I have before me a number of arguments against what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said. I believe that they are very strong arguments, but it would be rather difficult for me to deploy them at this moment, in view of the undertaking that I gave on the previous amendment as regard drivers' licensing. Therefore in this case, as in the earlier one, I must undertake to take the amendment away and consider it in
1688
the same context. If there is a case at all on the earlier amendment—and I certainly do not acknowledge that there is—there is far less of a case on this issue, for reasons that I could deploy but in regard to which there is no purpose in so doing in view of the fact that I am undertaking to take away the amendment and discuss it with my colleagues.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, in view of that readiness to consider this amendment along with the previous amendment, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. But make no mistake about it, my Lords, we on these Benches are so concerned with the safety provision that if, after reflection and after the Minister has discussed the matter with his colleagues, the Government feel that they can do nothing about it, we shall use the Third Reading in its right way and will bring forward amendments on this matter and on that relating to the school system, to ensure that for the good of the public of this country the safety provisions are introduced. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.43 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 30, line 33, after ("small") insert ("or large").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the same clause as did the last amendment, and once again I remind the House that we believe that we have a right to try to amend the new clause that was introduced on the previous occasion. In discussion in Committee on the new clause I drew attention to what appeared to be an anomaly. Permits will be required to run these large vehicles by charitable or educational bodies. The proposed permits for large passenger vehicles to be used under the new clause may, according to the Bill, be granted by the designated bodies, which the Minister told us will in all probability be the local authorities.
The clause also proposes that the traffic commissioners shall continue to be entitled to issue permits for small—note the word "small"—passenger vehicles under the Minibus Act. Designated

1689
bodies (which most likely will be the local authorities) shall be entitled to issue permits for small passenger-carrying vehicles under the Minibus Act, but shall also be entitled to issue permits for large passenger-carrying vehicles under the new clause. In fact only the designated bodies will have the right to issue the permits for the large passenger-carrying vehicles.
I suggest that this surely is an anomaly, and in relation to the standing of the traffic commissioners it can hardly be justified. The amendment would enable permits for small passenger-carrying vehicles to be issued by both the designated bodies and the traffic commissioners; in other words, to restore the position as it was prior to the Bill being presented. But permits for the large passenger-carrying vehicles shall be issued only by traffic commissioners.
This seems to be the appropriate way to handle the question of permits. To leave the traffic commissioners, who are very important people, solely with the responsibility of issuing permits for the small passenger-carrying vehicles under the terms of the clause, but for the designated bodies to be the only bodies entitled to issue permits for the large passenger-carrying vehicles, seems to be the wrong way to go about it, and I hope that the Government will accept that this is an anomaly which should be put right. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords I do not consider that this is an anomaly. However, I appreciate the noble Lord's reasons for moving the amendment. There are indeed arguments in favour of giving the authority to grant permits for larger vehicles to the traffic commissioners. There are also arguments in favour of restricting this extension of the Minibus Act to schemes which have a particular local value and which the local authority have approved. The most direct way of doing this is to restrict the authority to grant permits to local authorities designated for the purpose. Without making a meal of this matter, on balance this is what we prefer.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, in view of the firm attitude of the Government, I will not press the issue to a Division, but we do not propose to withdraw the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Clause 33 [Amendment of Transport (London) Act 1969):
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 33, leave out lines 27 to 33 and insert—
("(3) If on an appeal under this section the High Court is of opinion that the decision appealed against was erroneous in point of law, it shall remit the matter to the Minister with the opinion of the court for rehearing and determination by him.").
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 34 [Abolition of licensing of conductors of public service vehicles]:
8.46 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT Lord TEVIOT moved Amendment No. 39A:
Page 33, line 43, at end insert ("; but it shall only cease to have effect if there is only a driver in charge of the bus ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. I apologise to the House and to my noble friend who is to answer for the Government for introducing the amendment rather late, but I point out that this is a completely new amendment. During consideration at Committee stage, of the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill drew attention to the matter of conductors, whereas during the 110 hours spent on the Bill in the other place they did not see fit to discuss it. However, not to worry; this gives us something fresh to do. My amendment is concerned with conductors' licences. I see no point in issuing a conductor's licence to a man who also has a driver's licence.
When my noble friend replied to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and myself during consideration of whether the clause shall stand part he said, on 19th May, as reported at column 593 of the Official Report:
"This clause removes the requirement in Section 144 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 that public service vehicle conductors be licensed. We think that this is now an anachronistic function which the licensing authorities have performed since the controls were introduced on PSV

1691
operations in the Road Traffic Act 1930, and that it should now be abolished. The need for statutory screening of conductors to ensure that operators could employ only those licensed by virtue of physical fitness and good character might have been defensible in the early years, but nowadays conductors' suitability should properly be a matter for their employers or prospective employers, as it is in almost all other kinds of work. In fact, over the past decade only a handful of applications have been refused or licences revoked ".
I have no quarrel at all with that. My noble friend pointed that out. But as in many other matters, the conductor's badge means rather more than that. If my noble friend can tell me that the conductor will still be in charge of the bus, will still have the same rights to control it with regard to the public, and if necessary will be able to call help, and that his rights will be totally unimpaired, then I do not think that I would worry to much. I wonder whether my noble friend can give that assurance. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would not be quite so happy with even that pronouncement; but one could develop the matter along that line.
Going back to that little debate which we had on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part?, which did not take very long but was very apt, I pointed out then that the conductor has rather a lot of responsibility, and that when the public come on the bus and see his badge they recognise his authority. He has authority over the public that come on to his bus. Also, the badge is really quite useful in that it enables members of the public, if they find themselves at difference with the conductor, to take his number. In that way they get the right conductor; but that is not really the point at issue. Late at night, or at times when, let us say, people are not altogether sober, or there are ugly situations, that badge provides the conductor with some form of security, as it does other members of the public on that bus. They feel there is somebody responsible in charge.
I shall not go on for very much longer at this stage because on this occasion, for the first time today, I have a right of reply, but I can foresee that there could be members of the public who, if they now see a conductor without a badge, will hurl the most frightful abuse at him and will say, "You have not even got a licence; you have no authority". It could put
1692
him in a very embarrassing position indeed. Also, people's manners to their fellows have altered. I think all of us here were brought up to remember that one never said anything nasty to anybody who came from abroad, or anybody who had a different accent from oneself. If one did, it was thought terribly "down the road", and you certainly got slapped down; but I am afraid that people do not behave like that now, and one can foresee the most horrible situations. This is quite a different aspect, and I am quite sure that it is rather difficult for my noble friend to reply on this, but I have given him a lot of material, and I should like him to look at this amendment very thoroughly. I beg to move.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I am puzzled by my noble friend's amendment. As I understand it, any bus company is perfectly free to dress up their conductors in the uniforms of SS generals, if they want to; and I cannot really understand why the licensing of bus conductors necessarily affects the dress that he wears.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, perhaps I may also say that I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, with his great experience in these matters and who knows so much about rowdy situations on buses, should think that such a badge is so important. If it is important in a particular area where there is trouble, surely the operator can supply him with that badge. I have found this very difficult to understand. When this matter was raised on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part?, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, indicated that he was quite surprised at some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Of course, I have to be very careful because the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has the right to reply on this matter, and perhaps he has not got the experience of replying that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has in these matters. But it seems to me that it is an interesting point. It is delightful to hear the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, but I should have thought that this was not a matter which required much attention in your Lordships' House.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I am sorry but I must disagree with the last two

1693
speakers and support the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and I will tell your Lordships why. In an earlier debate the noble Lord the Minister emphasised consultation with the experts. This morning I consulted the experts, the people who do the job—the Transport and General Workers' Union, whose men want this. Why do they want it? It is for the reasons which I outlined in my speech in Committee. They believe it is a partial protection for their members. They also believe it is a partial protection for the public. I saw a letter in the Guardian only the other day written by a member of the public. He was not complaining about the conductor, but he was able to refer to a particular incident because of the conductor's number.
It is not good enough to say that any company can issue a badge, because what has to be realised is this. If a conductor does not get the renewal of his licence, no other company can employ him. If Messrs. So-and-So Transport decide to issue a badge and the man commits a misdemeanour, he can go to the next company—there is no need to worry at all. I can assure your Lordships that the men who do the job, the drivers and the conductors, believe that this is something which should be continued. At the Committee stage the Minister said that this was an anachronism. But—and this is the important thing; it is not what you and I think—is it going to help the men on the job to feel that they are able to do the job in the way they want to do it, and that it gives them this little extra protection? If so, then I believe we ought to do it.
It cannot be expense, because the noble Lord the Minister, when I wanted to have road service licences semi-permanent unless they are revoked, told me that the cost was negligible. Therefore, even though I made a suggestion at Committee stage that we might deal with this in another way, as I said in the debate earlier this afternoon the cost is not the thing that worries. What should be our concern is: Is this something which helps the men on the job? The men on the job, as late as this morning, said to me, "Please, will you push for this amendment to be supported."
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, with the leave of the House may I ask him,
1694
if this is such an important matter, why was there not an amendment put down at the Committee stage, if this is such an important matter?
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think the House should be aware that under our Standing Orders the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is not permitted to seek the leave of the House.
Lord MISHCON: So, my Lords, somebody who has not got to seek the leave of the House will now, to the displeasure of the House, thereupon address them. My Lords, I do not intend to take long. There is, I think, a point which has not yet been brought out clearly in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, dealt with a code of manners exhibited by this generation which, it appears, is different from the manners of the last generation. That may or may not be true. One thing that this generation appears to have inherited, certainly in these contemporary times, is a degree of violence on transport which I think has brought shame to the members of the public who are responsible for it. I therefore think that we have got to give a little more concentration to this clause.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, talked in his usual amusing way, having left the world of draftsmanship and entered the world of reality. He said that any transport company could, if it so wished, dress up its conductors in such uniforms as they might decide. Most of us know in reality that uniforms have gone for postmen and for most people. Those of us who have a little tradition within us I think regret it to a large degree. I think it brought dignity in many ways to their position, and recognition by the public. But it has gone because of the expense, and one will not find transport companies suddenly deciding that they ought to dress their employees in uniforms similar, I believe it was said, to the SS, or anybody else.
My Lords, the point about it, I think, is this. People who are prone to violence have a certain amount of a sanction imposed upon them when they are dealing with somebody who very clearly has a licence number and bears some badge of authority, and is known, not necessarily to those people but generally, to be somebody who is licensed to carry

1695
on the job he has got. Many of us know that if charges are brought against people who have been responsible for that violence, whether it be to an Underground employee or to a driver of a bus, they are prone to say that when a remark was made to them they did not know that it was a conductor or somebody employed on the Underground or whatever it was. They thought that the remark to which they objected and which preceded the violence came from somebody who had no right to address them or to ask them to move on or whatever. That defence is not tenable in the average court because the court is able to say, "How can you possibly say that unless you were blind drunk and could not see? It was obvious that this man was wearing a badge and it was known who he was."
In this day and age, unfortunately, I think this matter has to be given a lot more attention. When your Lordships have heard (as you have from my noble friend Lord Underhill) that people who are engaged in this occupation have asked that this should continue—and it is not usual for people engaged in such occupations to ask needlessly for badges, numbers or uniforms—and my noble friend Lord Underhill is able to inform this House that it is the wish of the union representing these men (because it is the wish of the men) that they should have it, is it not right and proper that we should give proper attention to the matter and not just nod with the Minister on something which has nothing to do with politics or with the policy behind this Bill but which has a lot of common sense, unfortunately, in 1980?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, this is a most important point because, although it seems small, it raises matters which worry passengers and your Lordships have shown that you are thinking about their problems. Nevertheless, I must confess that I am not going to be able to advise the House to accept this amendment because it is going to require to retain just what we are trying to avoid—the whole paraphernalia of conductors' licensing. It would merely ensure that conductors' licences were not required by drivers of one-man operated buses. In fact, drivers of one-man operated buses are not at present required to have conductors' licences, and though many of them do so,
1696
it is a precaution against the possibility that at some time they may find themselves in the position of conductor on a crewed bus.
I explained during our debate at the Committee stage that the Government believed that conductor licensing was now anachronistic and that the considerable administrative burden of the licensing system could be got rid of. Perhaps I should say a few words in amplification of what I said then. The Government certainly consulted the trade unions (and I stress this) before coming to a final decision that conductor licensing should be abolished. We understood and took account of the concerns that were expressed, but after full consideration we decided to go ahead with the abolition. We appreciate totally—and I say this particularly to Lord Mishcon—the concern of the unions for the protection of bus conductors against unruly passengers; and the recent conference in which both of my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Minister of Transport took part did, I think, make some very constructive suggestions. I do not believe that conductor licensing has any part to play here.
Certainly the idea of block licences, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in Committee, has no noticeable advantages over the provision by operators to their conductors of some distinctive mark or badge of authority. Do we really believe that thugs and hooligans on the rampage, possibly with a lot of drink aboard, are going to take note of whether this is a Ministry of Transport licensed conductor or a company licensed conductor? I think it is not sensible to think that a man on the rampage will consider whether it is only a company badge or a Government badge. I do not believe that it will make any difference in these particular circumstances. He will still be on the rampage. Conductors, if they have a badge or mark of authority or a uniform—and I agree with the noble Lord that uniforms are going out, they are expensive; but badges or marks of authority may be merely forage caps—are identifiable as much as are Ministry of Transport licences. Conductors with these company marks of identification will still have a legal authority over the passengers in the vehicle. That is the important point. They will still have legal authority. We are revising and bringing up to date the

1697
the Conduct of Drivers, Conductors and Passengers regulations in a way which will, we hope, be helpful; the trade unions are being fully consulted about this.
We must remember that there are many other public servants in a position of trust similar to that of bus conductors who can find themselves having to deal with very tricky situations involving the public. I am thinking particularly of railway and underground staff and such people as school caretakers. For many of these, some form of uniform provided by their employers is felt to be helpful; but in no case that I know of has some form of public licensing been considered, and I am very doubtful whether the trade unions concerned would welcome it any way. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree to reject this amendment. Although I see the point of it, I do not think it will do any good at all.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, if I were to treat this in the proper way I should have to take some time in doing so; but I do not intend to do so. My noble friend Lord Morris spoke about being able to dress people in uniforms. It was not uniforms to which I referred, but badges. On this point of uniforms, some years ago the National Bus Company gave their drivers and conductors what they thought was a rather smart uniform. I may say in this connection that after the uniforms had been issued I called in at a bus cafe which I used to use and asked the lady behind the counter what she thought of the new uniforms. She replied that, in them, the men looked like "out-of-work chorus boys". One has now come to accept that uniform.
But it is not a matter of uniforms, but of the badges. This is a sensible amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I think, with some trepidation, realised that I had some right of reply. He asked why I and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had not done something about this in Committee. We had thought that we would deal with it on the Question, that the clause stand part, but found that we could not do so. That is the reason why I am doing so now even at this late stage. Furthermore, the Transport and General Workers' Union are pleased about this; and I do think that we are really letting them off the hook. If I were still
1698
a conductor or if I left here and went back as a conductor and I saw this piece of legislation, I would go straight round to the branch secretary and I would tell him to put a resolution down at the next meeting and deal with it. If I could get no satisfaction and I thought he was being in any way dilatory, I would go straight round to the office of the district officer and take him to task. You pay your subscription to your union and you are entitled to some service. So I am delighted that the Transport and General Workers' Union are taking this amendment extremely seriously.
I come to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who mentioned violence and also my noble friend Lord Mowbray, who mentioned other transport officials such as on the railways who do not have licences but carry some authority; they are in a different situation on a train or on a railway station from those who are in a moving vehicle and have to face violence late at night. The badge is a very definite piece of equipment, however small it might be.
My noble friend Lord Mowbray made reference to remarks he made at the Committee stage, and he used the first person singular. But I have looked back and see that he never uttered a word on this. However, never mind about that. He tells us although this has its good points, it is not to be taken too seriously, and not to press for it. Quite honestly, I think it is something that should be looked at again. It is something worth dividing on. I remember in Opposition on the other side of the House it was often said that it was a good idea to give the other place a chance of having another word. If it gets that far, they will have that chance.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I apologise if I misled the House. My noble friend Lord Bellwin obviously dealt with this in Committee with his accustomed brilliance. In going to sleep at night I obviously improved on Lord Bellwin's speech and I thought I had made it. That must be the explanation! Great people do occasionally have hallucinations: George IV thought he had charged at Salamanca.
To be serious, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said that the Transport and

1699
General Workers' Union take this very seriously. We are pleased about this and we have had discussions with them about it. It really boils down to what I have already dealt with: they want some form of authoritative licensing in the form of a badge. The arguments for that turn out to be to stop people who would be under their control not taking them seriously. I have already pointed out that they have legal power over the people under their control in the bus, or whatever it may be, if they are wearing an authorised badge or mark given to them by the company for whom they are working. The fact that it is given by the Department of Transport through the licensing authorities is not going to add one iota of legal authority to them. The idea that hooligans or thugs on the rampage are going to take any more notice of a Government licensed badge than a company licensed
9.20 p.m.
Clause 35 [Reduction of minimum age for drivers of public service vehicles]:
badge is slightly in Cloud-Cuckoo land. I think that this is unnecessary.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, with the leave of the House—I do not know if I still have the right of reply—
Several noble Lords: You do not.
Lord TEVIOT: There is nothing written in this Bill that there has necessarily to be a badge, whether it is a company badge or some other badge. We have discussed this for long enough and I say we should give the other place an opportunity to consider this if it gets there.
9.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 39A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Boston of Faverhsam, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

David, B. [Teller.)

Mishcon, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stone, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Swinfen, L.

Greenway, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Teviot, L. [Teller.]

Hale, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Rosslyn, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Dundee, E.

Mansfield, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Margadale, L.

Auckland, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Morris, L.

Bellwin, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Beistead, L.

Ferrier, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fortescue, E.

Renton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gainford, L.

Sandford, L.

Burton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Carr of Hadley, L.

Gray, L.

Savile, L.

Cathcart, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Selsdon, L.

Chelwood, L.

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

Strathclyde, L.

Cockfield, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Harvington, L.

Trenchard, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

De Freyne, L.

Killearn, L.

Vivian, L.

De La Warr, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Westbury, L.

Denhatn, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Wigoder, L.

Digby, L.

Lyell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 34, line 17, at end insert ("or on any service when the vehicle used is constructed and equipped to carry not more than 15 persons including the driver.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, explained why there was no amendment at the Committee stage, I must give a similar explanation in connection with this amendment. It so happened that I had decided to deal with the matter on clause stand part, but the Lord Chairman was quick off the mark and the poor old pensioner could not keep up with him, so I missed the opportunity. So now we have an amendment on this issue which deals with the age of drivers.
As drafted, Clause 35 allows persons between the ages of 18 and 21 to drive a public service vehicle in certain circumstances. These circumstances can exist only where the vehicle driven does not come within the scope of EEC Regulation 543 of 1969, because all passenger vehicles governed by that regulation must have a driver of at least 21 years of age. As presently worded, Clause 35 takes advantage of one exemption from the EEC regulation; namely, vehicles operating on a regular service with a route not exceeding 50 kilometres. As it stands, a person of 18 could not drive a large bus on a long journey over 50 kilometres, but could drive one in a crowded city. That seems ridiculous. So, in theory, a young driver could take a double-decker bus along Oxford Street.
The industry points out to me that, in practice, that would not be the case, because a PSV driver's licence, like an ordinary driver's licence, has sub-classifications, and I have no doubt that the commissioners would authorise the driving by these young people only of smaller vehicles. But that is only if the commissioners so decide in their discretion. The law is as I have outlined it, if this Bill is passed, and surely the law ought to be correct. It should not just hope that the commissioners will use their sense in dealing with this matter.
It seems to be only due to a misunderstanding that the second exemption from the EEC regulation has not been included for the purposes of Clause 35(2). In fact, the benefit of the clause is in the relation to the training of younger men as PSV drivers and, of its nature, this training will be related to small vehicles. Your Lordships will note that there is nothing in the amendment to deal with paragraph (a), which would still enable young
1702
drivers to come in in certain limited circumstances and, therefore, secure the training. All we are trying to do is to tidy up the wording, and to ensure that what may be carried out by the commissioners is actually the law as decided by Parliament. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, surprising though it may be to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I welcome this constructive amendment. It conforms to the principle of allowing full use of the derogations from EEC Regulation 543/69, which the Commission have allowed us. As passenger vehicles with up to 15 seats overall are exempt from the regulation within the United Kingdom, there is no reason why we should keep to the EEC minimum age of 21, if we are satisfied that younger drivers can drive these vehicles safely on passenger services.
Quite frankly, the only reason why we did not make this provision in the clause ourselves is that we did not think it would be of sufficient interest to operators to merit the further complication of the legal framework. It would seem that we were wrong. I understand this amendment has support from the industry. I am therefore pleased to advise the House to accept it.
I do so, however, with one small reservation. The exemption for vehicles between 10 and 15 seats overall from EEC Regulation 543/69 applies only to journeys wholly within the United Kingdom. On an international journey the driver would have to be at least 21 even on that part of the journey which is within Great Britain. In the event of tonight's amendment being accepted, as it is, to ensure that our Bill does not violate EEC law, I shall therefore move an amendment at Third Reading limiting the scope as required.
I should make it clear that the amendment proposed would only affect PSV licence holders while engaged in driving PSVs. It does not give those holding only an ordinary driving licence the right to drive large passenger vehicles before the age of 21, even though the EEC regulation would not prohibit us from giving them that right for journeys within the United Kingdom. We feel it is right that the reduction of the minimum age for driving large passenger vehicles

1703
should be limited to those who intend to make a career of bus driving and who have submitted themselves to supervised training under a PSV operator.
I therefore have pleasure in asking the House to accept this amendment—it is one of those occasions, special occasions indeed—subject to the point which the Government will try to rectify at Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.27 p.m.
Lord UNDERBILL Lord UNDERBILL moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
("Repeal of s. 29(4) of Transport Act 1968
. The provisions of section 29(4) of the Transport Act 1968 shall cease to have effect and it shall be within the powers of the British Railway Board, where those using the railway, shipping and hovercraft services provided by the Board may require them, to provide (or secure the provision of) co-ordinated services for the transport of passengers by road for use by those and other persons.").
The noble Lord said: It will be recalled that at the Committee stage there was an amendment dealing with this matter but in different words, and since the Committee stage we have reflected upon the matter and have brought forward a new amendment which is more precise and says precisely what we mean.
My Lords, I should mention that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has graciously sent me an apology because at the Committee stage I said there had been no communication on this matter from British Rail. He did, as one would expect him to do, check on this and found that there had been, to his colleague, and he has sent me a gracious apology for that statement. We now accept that the Railways Board did ask for these powers to provide link buses in this field. There seems at no time to have been any suggestion to the board that its eight-month-old request was ill-founded because existing powers were adequate. It is not hard to see why the board thinks it lacks such powers. On the face of it, it is forbidden by the 1968 Act from any bus activity except for replacements for temporary or permanent rail closures, although I am told there is a gracious provision for the board to run staff outings as well.
That the board is involved with buses cannot be denied, and surely no one wants to stop the Heathrow rail links or the new service link between Kettering and Peterborough; yet these seem to be tolerated on the rather thin basis that the railways, the National Bus Company and London Transport were once part of the long-defunct British Transport Commission. But there is no opportunity for a direct deal by British Rail with any private—note that, "any private "—or municipal operator. One of the Heathrow links is in fact put through London Transport into a private company. Indeed, if there is no National Bus Company depot handy, or, I presume, a depot in Scotland of the Scottish Transport Group, then economics rule out any possible link at all.
The main call, my Lords, is for road links to rail services, but the present inhibitions can affect other parts of British Railways, like shipping and hovercraft. I am told—it is rather remarkable—that for their highly competitive rail ferry service from London to British Army bases in Germany the board has to use the good offices of Germany Railways to provide coaches on the other side of the Channel. It is equally remarkable that of two competing hovercraft or shipping undertakings one can freely contract for, or even invest in, buses to give passengers a total package while its British Railways neighbour cannot, because of the law as it now stands.
This is rather important. I am assured that the board does not want in any way to set up its own bus undertaking. There is, supposedly, a wealth of private operators only too willing to expand into rail links if these can be arranged, within the law, by the board. What the board wants to do, and it seems to be a very good thing, is to make the best use it can of its improved inter-city network by linking in those towns that are not easily covered by rail connections. This is just what has been done for Kettering, Corby and Oundle, by linking them with high-speed train services at Peterborough. This is the service which was referred to by the noble Lord the Minister and which came into operation only in May of this year. This would seem to be entirely in tune with the avowed philosophy of the Bill to set aside pointless inhibitions, and we

1705
are trying to eradicate inhibitions in this amendment.
The present position brings about some foolish anomalies. A PTE has power to arrange services to link with railway stations. That is very sensible. But if the board itself wanted to arrange such railway links with an operator it could not do so by means of its own arrangements. The law prevents it from doing so. Therefore, even if the board itself wanted to arrange for such links to be provided under the existing law, the links would not be allowed. The board has the power to arrange for bus services to replace temporary or permanent rail closures. Therefore the board arranged a Keswick to Penrith bus service. Many passengers from Keswick want to travel to the important rail link at Carlisle, but the board may not make such arrangements with an operator for such a rail-bus link. I think noble Lords will agree that that seems to be rather illogical.
I have mentioned the Kettering-Peterborough link. I have here details in various brochures of bus-rail links, with a common ticket supplied and arrangements made with the operators—but this seems to be rather thinly within the law—only where there is an NBC depot or a Scottish Transport Group depot. There may be many golfers in the House. British Rail have arranged a golf link to St. Andrews, with trains going from various stations to the station at Leuchars, and a bus link direct to the gates of the old course at St. Andrews. Why did they arrange this? Because the public wanted it. They were able to arrange it through W. Alexander Fyfe Ltd. Why? Because they are a subsidiary of the Scottish Transport Group. They could not do this other than through the Scottish Transport Group or the NBC.
The board is clearly desirous of developing arrangements with bus operators to provide linked services to and from stations. I am told that there are 140 British Rail area managers each with freedom to make sensible arrangements, but so long as there is this inhibition because of the law many of them feel that they cannot go ahead and discuss matters with operators. Therefore, it is not a question of taking business from any operator. What may happen is that extra business will be provided. At the
1706
moment, however, it can only be done by rather thinly using the law through the NBC or anybody who is attached to the Scottish Transport Group.
When I raised this matter in Committee, the Government gave no indication that the board already had full freedom to run linked buses. I understand from the Minister that their view is that the board already has ample powers to operate such buses. British Rail do not believe that is the case. If the noble Lord says tonight that British Rail has these full powers, naturally I will readily withdraw this amendment and hope that the Ministry will arrange immediately a meeting with British Rail and with the representatives of the bus operators so that they can discuss the matter fully. But British Rail do not believe that the law enables them to make these arrangements. If they were enabled to make them, they could provide very good rail-bus links which would help the public, British Rail and the bus undertakers.
9.35 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on this amendment and to endorse all the arguments that he has made in favour of it. I have had the advantage, with the help of a member of the Railways Board, of tracing the whole history of the law in this matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has indicated, the law at the present time is that the Railways Board cannot carry passengers by road, except where a railway service has been temporarily interrupted or discontinued. That law goes right back about 80 years ago. I think it was an Act of about 1902 that started all this off and it has been endorsed all through the history of the law up to the present time to prevent the Railways Board from showing any initiative in relation to adopting, encouraging or helping their passengers to transfer themselves from place to place.
In this modern age with the great success of inter-City lines it is so frequently the person at the railway station or the railway headquarters who will know what the passengers there want. Therefore, it seems to me to be quite contrary to the general theme of the Government to prevent managers in the railway service

1707
from being able to introduce services for passengers about which they will know far more than anybody else, being the man on the spot.
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, and as the Railways Board have indicated quite clearly, they do not want to own their own fleet of buses. Therefore, they are not in competition in that way with other operators, but they do want to enable their managers in certain areas to adopt an initiative, knowing what the local passengers want. It is really an expansion of rail links for the benefit of the communities, and therefore I support this amendment.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, first may I confirm the apology which I sent in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for the error which I made at Committee stage when I spoke to a similar amendment moved by the noble Lord. I said then that the British Railways Board had not made any representations to the Minister about the need for wider powers to run bus services. I found out subsequently that they had written to the department to say that it would be consistent with the Government's objective of encouraging new initiative and enterprise if the present restrictions on the board's powers to carry passengers by road were lifted. I have already written to the noble Lord apologising for this error, and I should like to repeat that apology tonight.
However, on this issue I am still not aware of circumstances which might arise in the future which would make it necessary for the board to have wider powers to operate bus services than those they have already. At present, the Railways Board operate bus services where the rail service has been temporarily interrupted or in replacement of a railway passenger service which has been closed. They also make arrangements with existing bus operators to provide bus services which connect people much more conveniently to the rail network. At Committee stage I mentioned a recent example—the new Kettering-Corby-Peterborough coach link. The board may wish to have powers to operate bus services themselves without restriction, but I do not think that this is a road that the British Railways Board should take. As the noble Vis-
1708
count, Lord Hanworth, and my noble friend Lord Teviot said at the Committee stage, we do not want the Railways Board to start running their own bus services. They have a large enough management task running the railways and their other subsidiary activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, expressed some doubts about British Rail's powers to enter into arrangements with bus operators for the provision of bus services connecting in to the rail network. Since the board already make such arrangements, I imagine that their lawyers think that this is consistent with their powers. This is certainly not the argument deployed by the board when they commented on the need for widening their powers; they were then arguing that if there was to be greater competition in the provision of bus services the board should be able to participate in the action. However, now that doubts have been raised about their powers I will certainly have that looked at as a matter of urgency. I think it is important that the board should be able to make sensible arrangements with bus operators for the better integration of bus and rail services.
I am not really aware of the distinction that British Rail make arrangements with bus operators, and I am not aware at all of the arrangements with the National Bus Corporation's companies. I think the best and most helpful thing that I can do at this time is to say again that if there is some uncertainty that as a matter of urgency should be looked into I will take steps to implement that immediately.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister, and in view of his statement I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [Fees for grant of licences, etc.]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 34, line 45, at end insert—
("(iii) the issue of operator's discs under section (Duty to exhibit operator's discs) of that Act; ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 16, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 35, line 29, at end insert (", disc ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have also spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 16. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
("Temporary modification of penalty
. In section 96(11 A) of the Transport Act 1968, at the end add—
"Provided that, until 31st December 1983 or such later date as the Minister may by order for the purposes of this subsection prescribe, where a driver or member of the crew of a motor vehicle has contravened any such requirement of the applicable community rules but—

(a) has not, insofar as is material to the offence, driven or been on duty for more, or been off duty for less, than the periods provided in the domestic drivers' hours' code, or

(b) the offence relates to distance driven, the fine shall not exceed £1." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage I moved an amendment in precisely these terms and in column 605, after the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, had been good enough to say something, I said this:
"On the clear understanding that he will be good enough to let me know—and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, would also wish to be informed—the progress regarding the thoughts of his right honourable friend on this matter, and will do so well before Report stage so that if necessary we shall know that we have to repeat the amendment in some form or other at that stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment ".
The noble Lord the Minister was kind enough to write to me. I am certainly not, going to quote the whole of his letter, but with his permission, I will quote merely the last cogent paragraph:
"I freely admit that some of the provisions of Regulation 543/69 are unnecessarily restrictive and bureaucratic and may impose unnecessary costs on industry, but I cannot agree that it is worth overthrowing the vital principles of the rule of law and the independence of the police, not to mention our Treaty obligations, in order to put the matter right. The proper course is to press for amendments to the Regulation through Community channels. I assure you that we shall lose no opportunity to do so."
May I tell your Lordships that the Opposition has its work cut out in endeavouring both democratically and with dignity to pursue its attempts to overthrow the Government. It cannot take on the additional duties of overthrowing the vital principles of the rule of law, the independence of the police and our treaty obligations. I therefore, on that understanding, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 [Defences available to persons charged with certain offences]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved].
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 37, line 12, leave out ("and 21(7)") and insert (", 21(7) and (Duty to exhibit operator's disc)(4)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I did speak to this amendment with Amendment No. 16, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Amendments of other Acts]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 37, line 21, at end insert—
("() Where the running of public service vehicles is restricted or prohibited by any provision contained in—

(a) a local Act (including an Act confirming a provisional order) passed before the commencement of this subsection; or

(b) an instrument made before the commencement of this subsection under any such local Act,

the Minister may, on the application of any person affected by the restritcion or prohibition, by order made by statutory instrument modify or revoke the restriction or prohibition.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment gives the Minister power, on application, to modify or revoke by order any provision of pre-existing local Acts which restrict the running of public service vehicles. The whole presumption of this Bill is in favour of allowing operators to run the services they wish, unless the traffic commissioners are convinced that that would be against the public interest. It sits oddly with this general presumption to have in existence restrictions under local Acts on the services

1711
that may be run, and in trial areas the conflict between the universal freedom and the specific restriction would be intolerable. This amendment, therefore, enables the Minister to modify or revoke them upon application.
I should emphasise that we are not talking here about traffic regulation orders but about the restrictions which some local Acts still in force contain, for instance, on the operation of a local authority's public service vehicle undertaking along certain roads or in certain areas. I think the House will agree that such statutory restrictions on the operation of a particular undertaking are now completely outdated and that is is right to have a power to repeal them. There was, of course, a section in the 1960 Road Traffic Act which enabled provisions in Acts passed before 1930 to be repealed but only following a cumbersome public inquiry procedure; a procedure which was, I am sure, quite appropriate in the circumstances of the 1930s when restrictions on the provisions of bus services were the order of the day, and the only need was to ensure consistency. But now that we are going for a much wider freedom I think that a more simple power of modification or revocation is appropriate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments relating to public service vehicles]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 66, line 49, at end insert—
(" () an operator's disc under section (Duty to exhibit operator's disc) of this Act; ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when we dealt with Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 67, line 9, after (" certificate") insert (" or disc ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 67, line 9 at end insert—
(" 13. In section 248 (power to hold inquiries) after "the London Government Act 1963" insert "or section 23A of the Transport (London) Act 1969".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small consequential amendment which I regret to say was missed at an earlier stage. It stems from the provision in Clause 33 that appeals on London bus agreement arc to be heard by the Minister. Bus appeals heard by the Minister are handled by appointing an inspector. Various procedural matters are covered in Sections 248 and 249 of the Road Traffic Act 1960. This little amendment ensures that those sections will also apply to the new London appeals. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MORRIS Lord MORRIS moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 70, line 13, leave out (" bus") and insert (" stage carriage ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is a very little fish which somehow got through the net at the Committee stage. I spoke to it in principle at the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Morris for reinstating himself in the hierarchy of advisers to the Government and for the very helpful drafting amendment which I am very pleased to accept.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Clause 44 [Initial government holding in successor company]:
9.48 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 40, line 18, at end insert (" and the Minister or his nominees shall at all times retain a minimum holding of twenty-six per cent of the said securities in the successor company ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have the firm feeling that the shorter I am in regard to this amendment the more likely I am to have the sympathy of your

1713
Lordships. If only your Lordships approved the amendment with the same alacrity as you approve of the promise of brevity I would be so happy. However, this is the only amendment which is being moved in regard to the National Freight Corporation and the very important provisions in the Bill which relate to it.
The philosophy of the Government in regard to achieving, first of all, a transfer of the National Freight Corporation to an ordinary limited company, and then the sale on of certain of the shares of that limited company to the public or to some purchaser in the private sector, has been approved by your Lordships' House and in another place. Therefore, there is no room for argument, discussion or debate on that aspect in your Lordships' Chamber tonight.
The purpose of this amendment, which is entirely new and which I hope your Lordships will feel is a proper one, is to see that the Government at least retain a minimum of 26 per cent. of the shareholding within the private company whose shares will be off-loaded on to the market. Noble Lords may have wondered what the reason is for the magic figure of 26 per cent. I know that 51 per cent. would have been a figure which your Lordships would have appreciated immediately as one that gave control, and we debated this during the Committee stage. That amendment was defeated and it is not proper that it should be repeated tonight.
But the 26 per cent. would give the National Freight Corporation—one of those public entities which has done extremely well and merited praise in your Lordships' House, in another place and, indeed, in various circles of transport in the United Kingdom—with its 36,000 employees, the security of knowing that it will not loosely, quickly or irresponsibly be liquidated, or that things will not happen to it and to its employees of which your Lordships would not approve.
Therefore, although the private sector will have a chance to appoint its own directors, and to run the company and its policy, the one thing that they would not be able to do would be to pass such a resolution as required 75 per cent. of the votes of the company; and your Lordships who are familiar with company matters will know that that is a magic
1714
figure which, indeed, covers such aspects as liquidation.
I said that if I put my point shortly I would best commend myself to your Lordships' favour in endeavouring to see that this last battle for the security of the employees of this corporation and the preservation at least of its life in its new form is achieved. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am, indeed, very much aware of the significance of the 26 per cent. to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, refers. The Government's object in bringing forward this legislation is quite clear. It is to transfer control of the NCF firmly into the private sector. We had quite some debates on this last time round, but I feel that I should make that quite clear again tonight.
Yet again, this amendment seeks to impose what we consider to be unnecessary restrictions on the successor company. It would give Ministers sufficient voting power to frustrate important changes that other shareholders might be desirous of approving by special or extraordinary resolution; for example, as the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, knows so well, amendment of the memorandum and articles of association, or variation of the share capital.
In Committee noble Lords opposite unsuccessfully moved an amendment to give the Minister a controlling interest by way of having a majority of the voting power in the successor company. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was entirely open in saying then that he thought:
"it is a general question of the need to have control of this corporation in the national interest ".—[Official Report, 19/5/80; col. 656.]
He hoped that that was the principle that the Committee would feel able to endorse. I fully respected his point of view then, as I do now, but the fact is that the Committee did not feel able so to endorse. As this latest amendment would be entirely contrary to the policy that the Government have consistently stated during the passage of this Bill, we must, therefore, oppose it.
Additionally, I should just like to say that I do not believe that the security of the employees of the corporation will be any less under the proposals that we are making than it is now. Indeed, in view

1715
of all the arguments that were deployed previously, and which I shall not trot out again at this time of night, I feel quite the contrary; I think that there will be opportunity for them in a way that would not be likely to continue if the situation remains as it is at present.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, with the brevity I promised, the Minister having been brief and to the point, I will merely quote what the Minister said in another place. When asked on 27th November—the reference is col. 1129 of Hansard of the other place—whether he could guarantee that employees would not suffer as a consequence of this provision in the Bill
and the transfer to the private sector, he said, "I cannot guarantee that". I believe that is the only quotation I need give in answer to what the noble Lord said. I only hope that when the House divides on this amendment noble Lords will at least remember that a great number of people are looking to your Lordships—this is the last opportunity the House will have—to safeguard their future without in fact taking control.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 53) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 58.

CONTENTS

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Collison, L.

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

Sefton of Garston, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mischon, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Stone, L.

Hale, L,

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mansfield, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Margadale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ferrers, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Bellwin, L.

Fortescue, E'

Mottistone, L.

Belstead, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gray, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Greenway, L.

Renton, L.

Burton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

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

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cathcart, E.

Savile, L.

Chelwood, L.

Harvington, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cockfield, L.

Hives, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Killearn, L.

Swinfen, L.

Culien of Ashbourne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Teviot, L.

de Freyne, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Trenchard, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Digby, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Westbury, L.

Dundee, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

10.3 p.m.
Clause 47 [Funding of relevant pension obligations]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 53A:
Page 43, line 9, leave out (" for the time being within") and insert (" specified or described in ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 53A, for the convenience of the House I wish to speak also to the identically-worded amendments, Nos. 63A and 63B. These are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 53A is intended to put beyond doubt the fact that Clause 47 applies to future schemes of supplementation that the successor company may introduce, as well as to past schemes. Amendments Nos. 63A and 63B are likewise intended to put beyond doubt the fact that future schemes of supplementation are taken into account for all purposes for Part III of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Meaning of "the relevant pension obligations"]:
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 46, line 28, leave out (" and ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 57 together. This amendment was negatived at the Committee stage, but it is brought forward again because, with the deepest possible respect, the Minister's arguments at the Committee stage were so unconvincing, and I hope to show your Lordships that the justice of the pensioners' case is by contrast so compelling.
Put shortly, the Minister's case was as follows. First, whether the increases in question would have qualified for support under the 1974 Act is—and I quote from column 691 of the 19th May:
"… a hypothetical question to which I fear there is no answer ".
That is the end of the quotation. A little later, however, the Minister said—and again I quote:
1718
"I am clear, however, for the reasons that I have explained, that the department would not have been prepared to agree to this, because it would have been in breach of the principle that the Government are only providing support in respect of historic ' obligations ".
That ends the quotation. Secondly, the Minister said:
"… we must not forget that these railwaymen all rejected the option to transfer into a modern scheme with better benefits ".
Thirdly, the Minister said:
"… the benefits of the … scheme are fully indexed in line with inflation after the member of the scheme retires ".
I ask your Lordships to examine these points a little more closely. First, it is quite clear that the increases could have qualified for support under the 1974 Act. The Minister claims that the department would not have agreed because the liabilities were not "historic". But what could be more historic than a firm expectation of increases in pensions allowed for in a formal actuarial valuation report by the Government Actuary—no less than the Government Actuary—written before the 1st January 1975? Admittedly the increases were not written into the rules of the pension scheme, but this is because of the peculiar and indeed extraordinary nature of the financing arrangements for this scheme.
My Lords, may I be permitted to highlight some points on these financing arrangements? The members' contributions were not invested: they were used by the British Transport Commission in their business. Hence the Government indirectly had the use of the money, since they did not need to provide so much cash to support the commission. A completely fictional notional fund was built up in respect of the pension scheme, backed by no assets whatsoever. Every five years the Actuary carried out a notional valuation of this notional fund to determine whether there was a surplus because the members' contributions had been higher than they should have been. The whole charade (I can call it no less, my Lords) was authorised by the Statutory Instrument which introduced the scheme—a Statutory Instrument made by the same department which now proposes to treat the scheme in such (and I have to use the word) a shameful manner.
When, the Government Actuary carried out his valuation in 1974 it was apparent that the members' contributions had in fact earned a considerable surplus. Rather than release all this surplus straightaway, the Government Actuary reserved most of the surplus for future increases in pensions to provide at least some protection against inflation. Obviously this was particularly important for the younger members of the scheme, since the pensions are fixed monetary amounts not linked to wages, and inflation is likely to erode the already pitifully small sums provided by the time these members come to retire. The price protection outside the scheme, to which the Minister referred, does not start until after they retire.
My Lords, what the Bill does is to prevent the promised increases from being paid unless the Railways Board can find the money. But where is that money to come from? The Railways Board has no surplus funds. It is as much as it can do to meet current financial commitments. It certainly has no cash left over to provide these increases, which, although provided in respect of small individual pensions, are nevertheless quite costly in aggregate. The reality is that unless the Government find the money these increases will not be paid.
Let us now examine, with your Lordships' permission, the Minister's other main argument. Again I quote:
"We must not forget that these railwaymen all rejected the option to transfer into a modern scheme with better benefits".
The Minister quoted this in support of his case. What support it gives, I frankly cannot see. But there is a vital fact which the Minister overlooked. When these railwaymen rejected the option to transfer into a modern scheme with better benefits, this was in 1978 when the people concerned could expect to look forward to the increases which the Government Actuary had allowed for in his 1974 valuation report. It was not until 1979—that is, one year after they had exercised their option to stay in the BTC Male Wage Grade Pension Scheme—that the present Bill, with its penal clauses, came along to deprive them of those increases. If this Bill remains unchanged it will undoubtedly be regarded by the members
1720
of the BTC Male Wages Grade Pension Scheme as restrictive legislation, a concept which is abhorrent to Parliament generally. If they had known that the Bill was coming, many of the members would no doubt have chosen to join a modern pension scheme; but they did not know.
My Lords, possibly I can summarise and conclude the case that I wish to bring before the House in these five short points. First, the increase could have qualified for support under the 1974 Act; that is, enough funding debt could have been created to enable such increases to have been provided assuming a reasonably successful investment policy. Secondly, the problem arises because of the extraordinary financial arrangements for the scheme; and these were instituted by the department itself. Thirdly, the increases in question were a firm expectation before 1st January 1975 and therefore can reasonably be regarded as historic. Fourthly, the members chose to remain in their scheme in 1978 because, among other reasons, they believed that the increases would be paid; hence the Bill appears to them to have precisely the same effect as retrogressive legislation. Fifthly, and finally, if this amendment is not made, the board will not be able to afford the increases and the pensioners will therefore suffer. I beg to move.
Lord DE FREYNE: My Lords, at the Committee stage my noble friend the Minister said that he had sympathy with the pensioners of this scheme. I have one specific question to put to him. As I understand it, the first of the increases in question is now due to be paid, an increase of 20 per cent. backdated to March 1979. This means that everyone who has retired from the scheme since that date should now get 20 per cent. more. I have inquired about individual cases and I should like to quote the example of a Mr. H, who retired on 25th May this year upon reaching the age of 65. He was a cellarman in the refreshment rooms at Marylebone and he had entered the railway service in 1934. His pension at present amounts to £1.56 per week. This would now be increased by 31p per week if the increases allowed for by the Government Actuary in 1974 are introduced. My question is: If the board cannot afford to pay these increases

1721
—and I understand that they have no finance for this purpose—will Mr. H get the increase he has been expecting or not? If not, how can this be explained to him?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke with great conviction on this matter. I should like to speak with equal conviction, and make a few points that clearly have to be made. The noble Lord said that the increases could have qualified under the 1974 Act; but I say they could not. As the noble Lord said, the rules were not changed before 1st January 1975; and I reject entirely the claim that the legislation is retrospective. The noble Lord said that the increases were promised; but that is not the position. The increases were a contingency assumption made by the actuary. The board took no steps to pursue these. The board ignored the allegedly promised increases in the negotiations under the 1974 Act.
The noble Lord has suggested that the Government are being harsh and unfair. I cannot accept that charge, either. The 1974 Act was not concerned with the terms of railway pension schemes. It did not cover the improvements to which the noble Lord has spoken. The Bill, as I have so often said, is intended to reproduce the 1974 Act support. The noble Lord is asking for new expenditure on new support and I cannot advise the House to agree to this.
I spoke at some length to these amendments when we considered them in Committee. Today, therefore, in particular I hope that I need not explain the circumstances of this particular scheme, which was closed to new entrants 13 years ago. When it was closed, all members were given an option to join a much better scheme. Those who are still members turned down that option, and other options to join better schemes which they have subsequently been given. I am advised that the only pensioners of this scheme who did not have an opportunity to join a better scheme were those who retired in 1967. Since then their pensions have been fully indexed. The year 1967 was before inflation reached its present level.
Some of the railway pension schemes are very poor schemes—and I said exactly
1722
that when I spoke on this in Committee—with low contributions and equally low benefits. The BTC Male Wages Grades Pension Scheme is one of these. Other railway pension schemes are very good schemes indeed. They provide for pensions to be based on final salaries and for pensions in payment to be fully indexed in line with the retail price index. As I have said, all the members of the Male Wages Grades scheme have had an opportunity to join a new scheme. However, this Bill is not concerned with the terms of the schemes. It is concerned with the means by which support should be provided for the obligations which the board owed at the beginning of 1975, when the financial reconstruction in the 1974 Act came into force.
We cannot say for certain what would have been done under the 1974 Act. The negotiations were broken off before funding was completed. As it happens, the particular problem of the prospective increases in the Male Wages Grades scheme was never discussed in the negotiations, as I said. The board seem to have overlooked these increases. I understand that the actuaries took no account of these prospective increases in the calculations that were done for the 1974 Act, and I repeat what I said on that. The 1974 Act did not permit funding debt to be prescribed in respect of improvements to pension schemes made after 1 st January, 1975. The board could have improved the scheme—indeed they still can—but they will have to bear the cost themselves. I can only repeat what I said in Committee. I have considerable sympathy—who would not have?—with the members of this scheme, who stand to receive only very low pensions from the scheme. However, the purpose of this Bill is not to put right anomalies in railway pension schemes, and I cannot advise the House to accept the amendments.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I feel I must clarify one point which to me is extremely important. At no time did the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggest, as I think has been suggested, that this legislation is in any way retrospective. It manifestly is not. But what I think he tried to suggest, and it is something with which I have great sympathy, is that this aspect of this part of the Bill could in the

1723
future have a retrospective effect which, so far as the people affected by the Bill are concerned, comes to precisely the same thing.
The noble Lord knows better than anybody that the whole point with regard to retrospective legislation goes back deep into our history. I must stress the point to my noble friend that the retrospective effect of this legislation can be seen in this way—that people could in the future be penalised for actions they took in the past which they might not have taken had they known the Bill was coming. Is it because members of the railway pension funds have in the past exercised future irrevocable options between 1974, when the Railways Act arrangements were introduced, and 1979, when this Bill was first introduced at a time when they believed that all the pension schemes were to be properly funded under the Railways Act 1974 on an actuarial basis freely agreed with the managers of the pension schemes concerned?
Under the Bill the situation is very different. I shall not continue: this argument has been gone into before, but I believe it needs reiterating and I would implore my noble friend the Minister to consider this again very carefully, as indeed I know he has done.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I am sure the House will have listened with great interest to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and one noticed how the Government Chief Whip was intensely interested in the contribution that he had to make. I now know that the sympathy of the Government Chief Whip is obviously with me in this amendment—I could tell that from the look on his face!
I cannot believe—I mean this—that the Government would not want to take another look at what is a most miserable position. It has been created by the provisions and the new thoughts under this Bill, and one cannot throw it off merely by saying that this Bill is not dealing with pensions schemes and pension matters but it is dealing with something else. It is in reliance on the good heart of the Minister, who expressed sympathy and who I am sure does not want that to be a purely vacuous expression of pity but
1724
wishes to do something constructive about it that I shall not withdraw this amendment but allow it to be negatived, if it has to be. I hope that your Lordships will not let it be negatived, but if it has to be, it will be in the hope that something can be done between now and Third Reading: otherwise I must return to this theme, and it is a theme in a minor key. I do not think the Government will wish to join in such music at this time.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I think it is only fair to point out to him that if he allows it to be negatived he will not be able to return to it on Third Reading.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I must immediately say how accurate I was in thinking that the Government Chief Whip was in favour of my amendment! I do appreciate his very helpful observation: that I mean in all seriousness, because it was most kind of him to put me right about this. In those circumstances, with the very kind hint and in the belief that my faith in the Government is so well justified that I shall have some reward before Third Reading on behalf of these pensioners, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.25 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 46, line 33, at end insert ("; and
(d) any obligations of the Board arising after the operative date under the British Transport Commission (Male Wages Grades) Pension Scheme in respect of the prospective pension increases for which allowance was made in the actuarial valuation of the Scheme as at 31st March 1974.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to one moved at the Committee stage, but withdrawn in order to study the Minister's remarks. It seems that the main reason for the Minister's objection to the previous amendment was the fear that the obligation would be greater than that which existed at 1st January 1975. I quote from what he said at the Committee stage. The noble Lord the Minister is looking at me—
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, if the noble Lord will excuse me, I understood he said, when he spoke to previous amendments, that he was including this one as well. He said Nos. 55 and 57, and I assumed that he would now be talking on Amendment No. 56.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Earl Cathcart): My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord spoke to, but did not propose, Amendment No. 55, and of course he cannot propose No. 57 because it is not consecutive.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I apologise to the House. I am full of apologies tonight, and I am sorry if I have put two feet wrong successively. I spoke, I thought, with the leave of the House, to Amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 57. I thought, therefore, that having disposed of my speech and having withdrawn, I was now being allowed to speak to No. 56. I had not heard No. 55 called. I thought it was No. 56, so I apologise and sit down.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 46, line 33, at end insert—
("() Such obligations shall take account of the amendments introduced with effect from the date when employments in respect of which pension rights are earned under the scheme were contracted out under the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 but only to the extent that the relevant pension obligations shall not exceed the total payments which would have been payable if the scheme rules had remained unchanged since 1st January 1975.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful. This amendment is similar to one moved at the Committee stage, but it was withdrawn in order to study the Minister's remarks. It seems that the main reason for the Minister's objection to the previous amendment was the fear that the obligation would be greater than that which existed at 1st January 1975. I quote from what he said at the Committee stage at column 685:
"But the Bill, like the 1974 Act, is concerned with the pension entitlements that existed at 1st January 1975, and not with subsequent increases in those entitlements ".—[Official Report, 19/5/80.]
In order to meet this point, the amendment now put forward contains a proviso which makes it quite clear that the obligations will not in any case exceed
1726
the total payments, including pensions increases, which would have been payable if the scheme rules had remained unchanged since 1st January 1975.
The point is that the decision to contract out under the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 resulted in increases in certain obligations and decreases in others. The Bill takes credit for the decreases, but does not meet the cost of the increases which arise from precisely the same cause, even though the increases are less than the decreases. This seems to be eminently unfair and the amendment seeks to ensure that the pension funds do not lose under the one heading, because they have saved the Government money under the other heading by contracting out. Even if the amendment is passed, the Government's obligations will be no greater than if contracting out had not taken place, and no greater than the Government's obligations would have been under the 1974 Act, assuming that the funding debt would have been calculated fairly. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sandys spoke at some length to a similar amendment at Committee stage and I would not wish to repeat all that he said on that occasion. I should, however, like to remind the House of the purpose of Part III of the Bill. It is intended to reproduce by a different means the support for the board's historic pensions obligations that was to have been provided under the Railways Act 1974. In particular, we are seeking to define the relevant pension obligations of the board in Clause 45 of the Bill in such a way that they equate to the obligations that were to have been supported under the Railways Act 1974. The pensions provisions of the 1974 Act formed only one part of a comprehensive reconstruction of the board's finances. We are not seeking to re-open the general financial settlement laid down in the 1974 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that the Government are in some sense being unfair or inequitable.
It has been suggested that the Government are in some sense being unfair or inequitable. I cannot accept this suggestion. We have gone to considerable lengths to make sure that the Bill covers all the obligations that would have been

1727
supported under the Railways Act 1974. When the Bill was being drafted, we accepted a number of suggestions from the board to achieve this aim, and some of the Government amendments which have already been moved were also designed to achieve this aim. I might mention—by way of examples—the amendments on transfer values which I moved in Committee and the amendments on current service contributions which my learned friend the Parliamentary Secretary moved in another place. We have endeavoured to deal absolutely fairly with the board in this respect.
It is not in dispute that support was not going to be provided under the 1974 Act for the increases in the board's obligations which are the subject of the present amendment, and, that being so, I can state our position quite simply. The purpose of the amendment is to enlarge the commitment which the Government and the taxpayer incurred in 1974, and that is in our view outside the ambit of the Bill. Therefore I cannot accept it.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I will not burden the House with a detailed answer to the Minister's speech. I am afraid he has completely forgotten the proviso which I emphasised, and which I emphasise again, because that proviso, in my respectful submission, meets the main burden of his argument; namely, that the amendment now put forward contains this proviso which ensures that the obligation will not in any case exceed the total payments—I am repeating what I said before—including pensions increases which would have been payable if the scheme's rules had remained unchanged since 1st January 1975.
I do not feel that your Lordships will be in the mood to take this matter any further at this stage. It is a very technical matter. I have tried hard to understand it myself and to put it to your Lordships in the clearest possible language, and I do not want an injustice to be suffered as a result of the lateness of the hour and my own inability to put over a technical matter in the way it should be put to your Lordships.
In those circumstances, and only in those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment; but I do so in
1728
the hope that the noble Lord the Minister will consider what I have said, and especially my speech in reply, and if he could communicate some hope to me in the meantime it would help me in my attitude on Third Reading.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, of course. As the noble Lord said, this is technical and complicated. We shall read very carefully what the noble Lord has said. He knows my position; I have stated it. We will read it and consider it, he can be assured.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think this might be a suitable moment that I move the Motion that the House do now adjourn.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  INDIRECT TAXATION: PERCENTAGE PAYMENTS
  INDIRECT TAXATION: PERCENTAGE PAYMENTS
  RENT OFFICERS: GUIDANCE
  RENT OFFICERS: GUIDANCE
  POP FESTIVAL ATTENDERS AND THE POLICE
  POP FESTIVAL ATTENDERS AND THE POLICE