Sitting of 21 May 1980

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

    Public Transport (Fares)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a study of the effect of increases in fares on the use of public transport.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Kenneth Clarke): There have been a number of general studies of the factors, including fares, that affect the use of public transport. It is for the operators to assess the effects of fare increases in their particular circumstances.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister realise that the Government's policy of cutting subsidies and cutting the borrowing powers of the public bus companies means such massive fare increases that many passengers cannot afford to use the bus services? Does he further realise that that leads to a drop in the usage of public transport and a cut in the services—especially in outlying areas? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Scottish Bus Group has increased fares in the past year by 34 per cent., which is even worse than the excessive inflation created by the Government?
    Mr. Clarke: I deny that there have been massive cuts in revenue support through local authorities, although there have been some economies. I accept that there have been increases in costs for bus operators. But there are other ways to absorb costs, such as by increasing efficiency and productivity and by gearing the service to public demand, as well as handing on fare increases.
    476
    Operators should look at those alternative means to deal with the problem and not simply hand on fare increases to the passengers whenever they have large wage settlements or something of that kind.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister aware that of the seven passenger transport authorities in Britain, the rate of fare increases in the two Labour-controlled authorities is only half that in the Tory authorities? Is he further aware that passenger journeys per head have increased by 10 per cent. in Labour authorities, whereas they have fallen by 4 per cent. in Tory authorities?
    Mr. Clarke: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the classic example of the South Yorkshire authority, which is the main Labour-controlled authority, and advise him to consider the rate levels in that locality. South Yorkshire adopts a policy of making people who do not find it convenient to travel on the buses pay for the bus fares of those who do.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that, despite the rate increase in the South Yorkshire county council area, when the question was put to the local people, there was a resounding Labour victory at the local elections? Will he take note of that and stop cutting subsidies when people want a cheaper service?
    Mr. Clarke: We have not cut the grant to the South Yorkshire county council. It is being maintained at the level that it would expect as a metropolitan county following an ordinary policy. It was the previous Labour Administration who cut out the South Yorkshire transport supplementary grant, because they also thought that the policies of that county were lunatic.

    Roads (White Paper)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Minister of Transport when he expects to publish the White Paper on roads.
    Mr. Spellerasked the Minister of Transport when he now plans to publish the White Paper on roads.
    The Minister of Transport (Norman Fowler): I had planned to publish it today, but printing has been held

    477
    up by an industrial dispute. I shall publish it as soon as possible.
    Mr. Adley: I regret that, once again, an industrial dispute has prevented the publication of an important document. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, when he prints the White Paper, it will reaffirm the Government's commitment to improving the main roads to our main ports, such as Southampton? Will he take note of the recommended Euro-routes recently produced by the EEC?
    Mr. Fowler: I cannot comment on individual decisions that will be contained in the White Paper. I confirm the general point made by my hon. Friend, namely, that one of the Government's chief priorities is to encourage routes that have economic benefits, including the routes to the ports.
    Mr. Speller: Will my right hon. Friend urge upon whoever has to be urged the importance of the early publication of the White Paper, especially for areas such as the remoter parts of Devonshire where there is no other form of transport and the roads are in an awful condition?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, I take my hon. Friend's point. I hope that the printing dispute will be settled today. Whatever happens, I can assure him that the White Paper will be published in the week following the Whitsun Recess.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the comments of the chairman of the Automobile Association deploring the fact that the Government have increased road tax revenue by £745 million but are cutting back on road expenditure, especially on the maintenance of existing roads?
    Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman studies the Government's plans for and achievements in road spending and compares them with the last two years of the previous Labour Government, he will understand how well we are doing in comparison with that Administration. I cannot say that road expenditure, any more that any other form of expenditure, will be exempt from examination in the present public expenditure climate. We are giving priority to essential economic routes.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that priority extends
    478
    to routes from the West Midlands to East and South Coast ports? When considering those routes will he also consider the removal, by bypasses, of the many bottlenecks that exist?
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend would expect me, as a West Midlands Member, to be aware of the problems of the West Midlands. That is a topic that will be included within the White Paper. It is true that we place the greatest importance upon improving the environment when considering bypasses. Some of the economic routes, such as the M25, have substantial environmental benefits.
    Mr. Penhaligon: After the White Paper is published, is there any prospect of the House having an opportunity to discuss the road building programme? In my recollection it is years since it was last discussed.
    Mr. Fowler: Nothing would give me greater pleasure than a debate on the road building programme. I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's comment to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Hawksley: Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements, before the publication of the White Paper, for the 10 or so right hon. and hon. Members who are pushing for the M54 to be included in the White Paper to meet himself and the Secretary of State for the Environment? I appreciate that certain side road orders and compulsory purchase orders could be sub judice because of the inquiry that took place last year. However, my colleagues and I would like to push the needs issue to both my right hon. Friends.
    Mr. Fowler: I shall give consideration to that. I cannot go any further on the White Paper. I am aware of my hon. Friend's argument on the M54, which he has consistently advanced. We shall give consideration to that and further consideration to the needs issue.

    London Transport (Capital Programmes)
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Minister of Transport what capital programmes for London Transport he has approved over the last 12 months.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My right hon. Friend does not approve London Transport's capital investment programmes. These are for the Greater London Council to decide within the total level of resources available to it.
    Mr. Ross: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I am rather disappointed with that answer? May I press on him the need for London Transport to do something about the provision of proper collections of fares before it has another fares increase? Is he aware that the hiatus caused by none of the machines taking the necessary coinage and the lack of staff is causing enormous delays? If there is a need for capital expenditure, and if that comes within the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport, could it not be released quickly?
    Mr. Clarke: My answer is an explanation of the constitutional position. The Greater London Council is responsible for London Transport. I know that it is considering ways of improving the productivity and efficiency of the London Transport operation. Improved methods of fare collection are one of the factors that it is considering.
    Mr. Neubert: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that London Transport makes substantial amounts of capital expenditure on the provision of bus shelters throughout my constituency and that these are often obtrusive, unreasonably close to people's front doors and frequently generate hooliganism? In this age of participation and as it is nearly 50 years since the relevant statute was enacted, is it not time that London Transport's arbitrary powers to reduce amenities in the way that I have described were both constrained and curtailed?
    Mr. Clarke: I am sure that we all know from our constituency experience that bus stops and bus shelters are rarely popular when sited near houses. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of London Transport and to those responsible for the use of the powers. The continued existence of the powers will be borne in mind when we consider local authority law, including measures now before the House, and when my right hon. Friend the Secretary
    480
    of State for the Environment considers further legislative proposals.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied with the capital approvals that his Department has made and may be making in future for buses and bus design? Is is not a fact that the Treasury pays out considerable sums for buses that do not work and are now being sold off? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman examine these issues as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Clarke: We do not approve capital expenditure when giving new bus grant. We merely consider the eligibility for grant of expenditure that has been incurred by London Transport. We all know that London Transport has had problems with its Fleetline buses, which it is selling after about seven years. It is beginning to acquire a more reliable fleet that is more suitable to its needs.

    Traffic Education
    Mr. Sheermanasked the Minister of Transport what was the total amount of money spent in each of the last five years on traffic education by each county in England and Wales.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have no expenditure returns which specifically record expenditure on traffic education. I have arranged for as much of the detailed information requested as is available to be printed in the Official Report.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does the hon. and [earned Gentleman agree that, given the unacceptable level of road deaths and casualties, the Government should take a new initiative and perhaps even consider moving road safety education from the province of local authorities to the police? Is he aware that the experience of hon. Members on both sides of the House is that every time there is a cutback in public expenditure that affects local authorities, the first item to get the axe is road safety training?
    Mr. Clarke: The figures that will be printed do not include such matters as expenditure by the police, who already engage themselves quite actively in road safety education in schools. I do not think that it would be right to take the responsibility from local authorities. We all welcome urgings from those such

    481
    as the hon. Gentleman to local authorities when considering their budgets to bear in mind the heavy cost to the country of road casualties. Road safety education should be an important part of the function of local authorities.
    Following is the detailed information:
    Local authorities inform me that their total current expenditure on road safety was £5·6 million in 1975–76, £60 million in 1976–77, £6·1 million in 1977–78 and £62 million in 1978–79. The information for 1979–80 is not yet available. To give a breakdown for years earlier than 1978–79 would involve disproportionate cost. Expenditure by Welsh authorities is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

    BREAKDOWN OF LOCAL AUTHORITY CURRENT EXPENDITURE ON ROAD SAFETY 1978–79

    £m

    SOUTH EASTERN

    Berkshire

    0·013

    East Sussex

    0·124

    Hampshire

    0·150

    Isle of Wight

    0·008

    Kent

    0·266

    Surrey

    0·034

    West Sussex

    0·014

    Total

    0·609

    SOUTH WESTERN

    Avon

    0·125

    Cornwall

    0·022

    Devon

    0·138

    Dorset

    0·012

    Gloucestershire

    0·080

    Somerset

    0·043

    Wiltshire

    0·056

    Total

    0·476

    WEST MIDLANDS

    West Midlands Met

    0·292

    Hereford &Worcester

    0·111

    Salop

    0·031

    Staffordshire

    0·163

    Warwickshire

    0·111

    Total

    0·708

    NORTH WESTERN

    Greater Manchester

    0·381

    Merseyside

    0·239

    Cheshire

    0·189

    Lancashire

    0·028

    Total

    0·837

    NORTHERN

    Tyne and Wear

    0·154

    Cleveland

    0·033

    Cumbria

    0·007

    Durham

    0·109

    Northumberland

    0·058

    Total

    0·361

    YORKSHIRE & HUMBERSIDE

    South Yorkshire

    0·106

    West Yorkshire

    0·547

    North Yorkshire

    0·026

    Humberside

    0·210

    Total

    0·889

    EAST MIDLANDS

    Derbyshire

    0·089

    Leicestershire

    0·048

    Lincolnshire

    0·063

    482

    £m

    Northamptonshire

    0·048

    Nottinghamshire

    0·039

    Total

    0·287

    EASTERN

    Bedfordshire

    0·092

    Buckinghamshire

    0·004

    Cambridgeshire

    0·014

    Essex

    0·121

    Hertfordshire

    0·018

    Norfolk

    0·054

    Oxfordshire

    0·044

    Suffolk

    0·055

    Total

    0·402

    REATER LONDON

    1·659

    DTAL ENGLAND

    6·228

    Trunk Road Schemes
    Mr. Boothasked the Minister of Transport whether contracts were awarded for all of the following trunk road schemes in the financial year 1979–80 for which provision was made in the Supply Estimates 1979–80: M3 Compton-Bassett widening, A6 Elstow bypass, A17 Heckington bypass, A17 Swineshead bypass, A31 Bere Regis bypass, A40 North-leach bypass, A40 Hillingdon West End road, A40 Gloucester North bypass main works, A49 Brimfield bypass, A66 Bowes bypass, A66 Troutbeck diversion, A303 Furze Hedge improvement, A423 Dorchester bypass, and A17 Leadenham bypass.
    Mr. Kenneth Garke: Contracts were awarded for none of these schemes in 1979–80.
    Mr. Booth: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recall that he told the House on 23 January that there would be no underspend in the 1979–80 roads programme and that there would not be the situation which had occurred in previous years, which he had criticised? What has happened to the money contained in the 1979–80 Estimates for these specific programmes? Has there been underspend? Has the money been allocated to other road schemes? Are the Government in considerable difficulty with their roads programme as a result of a failure to carry out the schemes that they included in their roads Estimates?
    Mr. Clarke: The programmes that I have mentioned have not been started for a number of reasons, some because of legal challenge, some because of statutory procedures, and a few because of lack of funds. The situation is much more complex than the right hon. Gentleman states. I have taken especial care in answering

    483
    question No. 27 tabled by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) to set out the details of the financial background. I regret to say that there has been a slight overspend this year in contrast with previous years. We have breached our cash limit by a small amount. The programmes that are listed in the question that cannot be started could not possibly have been built by the previous Labour Government within their cash limit. Had they gone ahead and built everything for which they had programmed, there would have been either the most massive breach of their cash limits or neglect of vital motorway maintenance, neither of which we are prepared to contemplate.
    Mr. Adley: Does my hon. and learned Friend recognise that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has picked his priorities with care? Hon. Members representing constituencies in Hampshire and in Dorset hope that the first and penultimate items will be completed as soon as possible.
    Mr. Clarke: All the schemes that the right hon. Gentleman has identified are popular in their localities. None of them has been abandoned. I hope that most of them will be built in the next year or two. The Northleach bypass is the subject of a successful High Court challenge and is having to be considered again.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does the Minister, like many other Conservative Members, keep apologising for the spending cuts that the Government have introduced? Why does he not follow the Prime Minister, who, when interviewed a short time ago on the anniversary of her first year in office and asked "What would you do if you had the opportunity to go over your programme today?", replied that she would have cut spending much more harshly and much more quickly? Why does he adopt such a schizophrenic attitude? Surely he should be supporting the public spending cuts that the Prime Minister thinks are wonderful.
    Mr. Clarke: The road building programme has to bear its proper share in the cuts. We are seeking to achieve a stable level of programmed expenditure and to achieve that in practice year by year. That was never done by the previous Labour Government. The construction
    484
    industry was ruined by that Administration using capital cuts as an easy way out whenever they faced a crisis. They then grotesquely underspent the provision, which led to great criticism from the construction industry.

    Road Construction Units
    Mr. Iain Millsasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the road construction units.
    Mr. Fowler: I announced on 6 March, following the Rayner scrutiny of the road construction unit organisation, my policy decision to phase out sub-units by transferring their work to consultants and county councils. I have recently completed discussions with the interested organisations on the detailed policy guidelines for the action study, which will reach decisions on the individual schemes and sub-units. The action study will start very shortly, once I have published the White Paper on roads.
    Mr. Mills: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be glad to hear that many hon. Members who are interested in roads support his action. Can he give some idea of the time scale and of the nature of reduction of staff that this will involve—particularly in the sub-units—and of any further plans he may have beyond that?
    Mr. Fowler: The aim is to complete the action study in about three months in order to start savings. At the moment, there are about 1,700 people in the RCU sub-units. Therefore, there should be substantial reductions in public sector manpower in that area. I stress that that is in addition to the 18 per cent. reduction within the Department of Transport which I have already announced.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that no matter what he does about the reduction in the construction units, the road conditions in this country are in a terrible plight? What does he intend to do about improving the maintenance of roads that have been allowed to deteriorate under the previous two or three Governments? Does he realise that severe accidents are being caused by motorists seeking to avoid ruts in the road?
    Mr. Fowler: I am not sure that there is a great deal of evidence to support the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I agree with him that maintenance must be a priority. There is no case for saying that there must be some shift of resources from investment to maintenance. We take that very seriously and we shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members think that the RCUs are a total waste of time and money, that they have not justified their existence and should be scrapped in toto?
    Mr. Fowler: In that case my hon. Friend will be in sympathy with the kind of proposals that I am bringing forward. My major aim is to give more work to private consultants in this area. They already carry out an enormous amount of export work, and it makes a great deal of sense to give them a home base.

    Road Programme Priorities
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Minister of Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that the priorities of his road programme are acknowledged and, where practical, aided by the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: EEC aid for United Kingdom roads at present comes only from the European regional development fund, which benefits certain local authority schemes. Of course, we seek to ensure that United Kingdom priorities are reflected in such aid.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister take up with the European authorities the importance of roads such as the E20 Euro-route that runs from Dun Laog-haire to Holyhead along the North Wales coast to the A55, across England and then to the Continent? There is an increasing volume of traffic on that trunk road. Should not there be a mechanism whereby European aid could be given to improve this road as a matter of urgency? Will the Minister take up this matter with the European authorities?
    Mr. Clarke: At present, there is no such mechanism, but there is an interesting proposal for a transport infrastructure
    486
    fund. We wish to make progress on that proposal, and we are not holding back on the suggestion that some good European routes would justify Community expenditure.
    Mr. Hicks: Will my hon. and learned Friend elaborate on the proposals for the EEC transport infrastructure fund? Can he say what criteria will be used for aiding roads in this country, and if and when progress is likely to be made along these lines?
    Mr. Clarke: At the moment we have only a Green Paper from the Commission setting out the basis for a possible transport infrastructure fund. We hope that there will be further discussions about this possible transport fund at the next meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers. Certainly my right hon. Friend wishes to have a detailed discussion of the criteria and possible scope of such a fund, because we see potential in it and we should like to forward the idea.
    Mr. Snape: Will the Minister bear in mind that among the people demanding bigger, better and wider roads in this coutry are organisations such as the AA, the RAC, the BRF, the RHA, the Movement for London, Shell, Mobil Texaco and the multi-million pound road haulage industry, and also certain unpaid hacks on both sides of the House who frequently talk out of the sides of their heads?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman must have many effigies on his mantle-piece into which he sticks pins from time to time. In discussions about the possible EEC infrastructure funds for transport we are considering not only roads schemes, but possible rail investments. We should also like to see investment in airports and port and ferry facilities in Britain. We see no reason why the various modes of transport should be regarded as mutual enemies, or why their interests should be mutually antagonistic.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Is it not clear that one of the main objectives of the transport infrastructure fund will be to enable grants to be made for roads and other forms of transport, in particular to the South Coast ports, which would be of great benefit to communications between Europe and Britain?
    Mr. Clarke: We are anxious to pursue that idea. There seems to be a genuine Community interest in improving international links, particularly our links with ports in continental Europe. At the moment, there is no such aid in existence or on offer. My right hon. Friend will do what he can to forward discussions on the present quotas.

    Vehicle Excise Duty
    Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the Minister of Transport what is his estimate of the current amount of paid annual vehicle excise duty; and what action he is taking to collect unpaid amounts.
    Mr. Fowler: Excluding amounts refunded, the figure for 1979–80 was £1,109 million. In addition, fines, costs and back duty of almost £6 million were collected from evaders. In association with the police I am stepping up my Department's enforcement effort, and a successful campaign against evaders was mounted in Nottinghamshire in February and another has just started in Warwickshire. Other possible ways of reducing evasion are being studied and I am having a special and urgent study carried out in association with Sir Derek Rayner.
    Mr. Baker: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he accept that if some of the current estimates of unpaid duty are accurate, the need for increasing this form of duty—which is believed to be under consideration—would be avoided if proper collection were made?
    Mr. Fowler: I am not sure to what my hon. Friend refers on his last point. It is certainly the case that the reduction of evasion would make a substantial difference. That is why we have taken this action in, for example, Nottinghamshire, which led to a significant increase in re-licensing and detection not only of evasions but of many other road safety offences.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I declare an interest in that for 25 years I have been trying to get an answer to this question? Each time the question is asked Ministers give the same reply. Is the Minister aware that evaders pay only a nominal fine and a quarter's arrears, having saved hundreds of pounds in the tax they have
    488
    dodged? Will the Minister take action to ensure that evaders pay back all the arrears, plus a hefty fine? He may then get somewhere.
    Mr. Fowler: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's experience in this matter over the last 25 years. I shall certainly take up his question with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The Government are taking action against evaders, and if the hon. Member studies the report on the Nottinghamshire case, he will see how effective we have been.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Do traffic wardens have a specified duty to scrutinise tax discs that are displayed on cars? If so, how effective have they been, and what steps are being taken to make them more effective?
    Mr. Fowler: Traffic wardens carry out this duty, but in the crackdowns in Nottinghamshire and Warwickshire they were also aided by the police. I should like to pay tribute to the co-operation not only of the chief constables but of the police in those counties for the work that they have done.
    Mr. Anderson: There are people outside Nottingham who do not pay their duties. If the Minister is serious about evasion, surely more enforcement officers should be employed. Does not this conflict with the way—by cash limits and otherwise—that the Government are cutting down on the employment of such officers?
    Mr. Fowler: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not declaring an interest, as a previous questioner was. I think that the hon. Gentleman makes a fairly familiar point, and I understand his constituency point of view. However, I am sure that he will also agree that not only are we collecting more in terms of unpaid duty but we are making the whole Swansea system and the licensing system much more efficient and effective with fewer staff. I think that that is to the good of the general public.

    Rail Closures
    Mr. Andersonasked the Minister of Transport what studies have been carried out by his Department into the social consequences of rail closures.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: None, Sir, but I am aware of the report recently published by the policy studies unit.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the Parliamentary Secretary recall that the conclusions of that report are that the fears expressed at public inquiries into rail closures have been well founded and that bus replacements have proved wholly inadequate in community terms? In spite of those conclusions and in spite of what the Minister has told the House, will the Minister nevertheless sanction the new Britsh Rail proposals to close three rail services in West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Glasgow?
    Mr. Clarke: We have noticed the conclusions of the policy studies unit report. It confirms my right hon. Friend's repeated determination to avoid substantial rail closures. As for the three proposals, which I understand British Railways are formulating, they have not yet reached Ministers. When formulated, they will have to go through the full statutory procedures before my right hon. Friend begins to decide whether to sanction them. In fact, two of the three arise because passenger transport executives—local authorities—have decided to discontinue financial support for the services. The third, I understand, is adversely affected by one of those decisions.
    Mr. McCrindle: Will the Minister accept that the closure of the Epping-Ongar branch line by London Transport, as is now proposed, would have considerable social consequences for my constituency? As he is now likely to be called into the procedure, will he make sure that, whatever other economic circumstances are taken into account, the social circumstances of my constituents are not overlooked?
    Mr. Clarke: Again, of course, I cannot prejudge my right hon. Friend's decision on the Epping-Ongar line, if he is called upon to make one. But this, again, is another problem which arises because of a dispute among the local authorities concerned about which of them should continue the financial support for the present line. The Government have no interest whatever in forwarding widespread closures of rural railway services or any other.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the report in The Guardian in which the Minister is said to have given permission for the closure of railway lines, in particular the Penistone to Sheffield link? Is he aware of the consequences that this will have on my constituents in an area which is inadequately supported at present by road services? Is he aware that only a few weeks ago his right hon. Friend condemned a report in The Guardian because of the groundless anxiety that it caused, and now it is here?
    Mr. Clarke: I can understand the concern which that report has aroused in Penistone. I also know that ministerial denials of newspaper reports tend, in some people's minds, merely to feed belief in the accuracy of the reports. I am afraid that I can only say that that first report in The Guardian saying that Ministers had approved these proposals was totally and utterly untrue. We have not even received the proposals yet. Before we receive them, there may have to be a public inquiry and a TUCC report on possible hardship, and then my right hon. Friend will have to make a decison. But it is utter fiction to claim that any decision has been made about proposals which have not even reached us.
    Mr. Booth: Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept that there is much concern in the House about the continued reassertion that his right hon. Friend will not sanction substantial closures of public transport lines? Asking how large is "substantial" is like asking "How long is a piece of elastic?" Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House clearly, in a totally unambiguous way, whether his right hon. Friend will sanction the closure of the Epping-Ongar line or any other line purely on the ground that a county authority has not been prepared to provide TSG support for that line?
    Mr. Clarke: Of course my right hon. Friend cannot give guarantees that there will be no passenger line closures—any more than could the previous Government. One of the proposals that we are most actively considering is for the diversion of a passenger service from Kentish Town to Gospel Oak, that diversion being asked for in order to speed up the process of the electrification on the St. Pancras-Bedford line, which could not

    491
    otherwise handle the traffic. We cannot rule out closures of that kind. My right hon. Friend has made it quite clear that he is not interested in, and will not countenance, substantial closures of the other passenger services, and misleading newspaper reports are just giving rise to constant groundless alarm.
    Several Hon. Members——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call one more hon. Member from either side of the House on this question and then move on.
    Mr. Porter: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable disquiet, certainly in my constituency and on the Wirral peninsula, about possible closures not of passenger lines but of freight lines, which do not receive the same publicity or have the same consultation procedure? Will he give an assurance that if there is the possibility of closing freight lines, certainly on the Wirral peninsula, consultation will certainly be carried out with representatives of all parties on that peninsula?
    Mr. Clarke: I know from practice that British Rail consults very widely when contemplating the closure of freight lines. However, in the case of freight lines there is not the same social problem as there is with rural passenger lines. British Rail is under a commercial remit so far as its freight business is concerned and there is no requirement for ministerial consent for the closure of any freight line. I have to say, therefore, that quite different considerations apply in that case.
    Mr. Buchan: Is the Minister aware that one of the three lines mentioned in the report of yesterday is the Kilmacolm line in my constituency? Does he agree that it would be extremely stupid and shortsighted even to give consideration to any such proposal in view of the major development that has taken place on the Clyde with the Clyde link? The social policy studies unit report makes quite clear the long-lasting effect that this would have on rural areas, and that includes my area.
    Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend will have to consider proposals if they reach him, and Glasgow-Kilmacolm is one of the lines mentioned. However—and this
    492
    also deals with the other point made by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth)—the Greater Glasgow PTE is withdrawing support from the Glasgow-Kilmacolm line. We have to consider that, because there are many metropolitan counties which give substantial financial support to their railway services, and it alters the situation when some metropolitan counties decide to withdraw their financial contribution. They are, after all, the locally elected representatives of the people who are likely to be affected by the service changes.

    British Railways (Staff)
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Minister of Transport what was the total number of employees of British Railways at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: The figure at 22 March 1980 for the Railways Board as a whole, including the subsidiaries, was 240,534. Of these 179,076 were employed in the railway business, 2,955 fewer than at the beginning of the year.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. Friend reiterate that the efficient use of manpower with resulting productivity is vital to the effective future of British Rail? Does he recollect that at the time of the last wage settlement considerable optimism was expressed by British Rail on the ground that the rail unions were at last prepared at least to discuss certain matters that hitherto they had not been prepared to discuss? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied, particularly regarding the way in which that statement was received by the executive of the National Union of Railwaymen?
    Mr. Fowler: I think that it was Sir Peter Parker, the chairman of British Rail, who said that productivity was the rock upon which the future of British Rail was based. We entirely agree and accept that.
    I think that we and the public will expect the improvements in productivity that were mentioned at the time of the statement to be realised.
    Mr. Bagier: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give credit to the railway-men? Will he not concede that there has

    493
    been a tremendous improvement in productivity? The reduction in the number of staff shows that quite clearly. Will he take this opportunity to stop the sniping that goes on at British Railways staff, who have an extremely difficult job to do? Will he accept, for example, that many of the delays are caused because many of the jobs involve unsocial hours in many parts of the country and just cannot be filled at the rates of pay being offered?
    Mr. Fowler: There is no sniping at British Rail staff. I am glad to pay tribute to the improvements that have taken place over the years. Between 1960 and 1979 there was a 54 per cent. reduction in staff. Those reductions and improvements in productivity have slowed down over the last few years. It should be common ground, at any rate, not just between both sides of the House but in the railway industry, that further improvements in productivity are essential if fares for the travelling public are to be retained within reasonable bounds. I think that that is also something with which the railway industry must concern itself.
    Mr. Gummer: Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement of the editor of the major modern railway magazine that the drivers of freight trains are still insisting, through their union, on the adherence to divisions not just pre-nationalisation but pre-grouping, and that the drivers on British railways do fewer hours a week actually driving than those in most countries in Europe?
    Mr. Fowler: Anyone who considers our railway system objectively will come to the conclusion that improvements in productivity are necessary and possible. I hope that that message will be taken on board by those working in the railway industry.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Minister realise that if the same drop in numbers were to occur again, no men would be left to work in the railway industry? Will he accept what the chairman of British Rail said when the latest agreement was reached? He said that British Rail had made one of its best advances and that it was sufficient to justify a request to the Government for more favourable treatment and for extra investment. Is he aware that investment is badly needed?
    Mr. Fowler: No advance has yet been made. I agree that if such advances are made, they will represent a substantial step forward. However, it is possible to make economies in freight yards, parcels and in administration. The Government and the public will want those goals to be achieved.

    A564 (Stoke—Derby Link)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the inspector's report following the public inquiry into the Blythe Bridge to Uttox eter section of the A564 Stoke to Derby link.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hope that the inspector will be able to complete his report within the next two months.
    Mr. Knox: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of those living in the area are in favour of the proposed route? When he receives the inspector's report, will he reach a quick decision?
    Mr. Clarke: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, one cannot prejudge the conclusion of such an inquiry. I realise his anxiety about the decision on the route and about the future of the scheme. We shall reach a decision as quickly as possible when we receive the inspector's report.

    Public Service Vehicles
    Mr. Bevanasked the Minister of Transport how many public service vehicles are currently licensed by the traffic commissioners.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: For the year ending 31 March 1979, the number of PSV licences granted by the traffic commissioners was 75,320.
    Mr. Bevan: What annual reduction is expected in the number of licences to be issued by the traffic commissioners when the Transport Bill is enacted?
    Mr. Clarke: The legislation will change the system. We shall go over to operators' licences. We shall not licence individual vehicles. The Act will improve the quality of transport services in many parts of the country. It will provide great opportunities to existing and new operators to develop their present services

    495
    and to introduce better services than are at present found in many areas.

    Road Accidents (Injury Statistics)
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Minister of Transport what reduction in the injury rate on Great Britain's roads occurred between 1970 and the latest available year.
    Mr. Fowler: In 1970, 7,499 people were killed on the roads and 93,499 were seriously injured. In 1979, 6,327 people were killed and 80,274 were seriously injured. This was the lowest figure of those killed since 1958 and it is estimated that the number of casualties, per vehicle distance travelled, fell by 30 per cent. between 1970 and 1979.
    Mr. Mawby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will be very pleased with those figures and with the tremendous increase in safety? Does he not agree that the decline of 30 per cent. in the number of casualties can be ascribed mainly to the development of the motorway network? Will he acknowledge that motorways are our safest roads and that they have an accident rate that is nearly one tenth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—certainly, I am reading.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. As I have said before, it is foolish to confess in public. The hon. Gentleman may glance at his notes, but he should not admit it.
    Mr. Mawby: I apologise Mr. Speaker. I was led astray. Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the accident rate on motorways is about one-tenth of that on urban roads?
    Mr. Fowler: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. There has been a reduction in the accident rate—which I am sure that the House will welcome—during the past decade as a result of better roads. However, that is only one factor. There has also been an improvement in training facilities and that has been of particular help to young people. It has made a major contribution to the reduction in the number of accidents.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that those figures could be improved substantially in a number of areas? Is the Minister further aware that we are still waiting for the Government to produce
    496
    some hard-hitting proposals—that will require some expenditure—to reduce the number of motor cycle accidents? Is he further aware that the glow-worm campaign is supported by such national newspapers as the Sunday Mirror and by many other organisations? Will not that campaign help to prevent accidents to motor cyclists and pedestrian children?
    Mr. Fowler: The glow-worm campaign is being organised by RoSPA and by the Sunday Mirror. We welcome the campaign and hope that it will be successful. I know that the hon. Gentleman has expressed concern during the past few months about motor cycle accidents. We shall shortly produce proposals on that subject. I hope that they will relieve the hon. Gentleman's concern. Far more motor cyclists must be trained before they go on the road for the first time.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: To what extent does drunken driving contribute to those figures? Does my right hon. Friend intend to introduce new measures to tighten up the restrictions on drunken driving?
    Mr. Fowler: Yet, Sir. At present, about one in three of those drivers who are killed are over the limit. That underlines the importance of taking action over drunken driving. The Blennerhassett report—which we are now consulting—lays down the basis for action. Only one aspect is controversial, namely, the random test. The Government are not committed to introducing such tests. I would need a great deal of persuasion to change my mind on that point. I hope that hon. Members from all parties will agree that the other measures contained in the Blennerhassett report should be introduced.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: To what extent did the temporary speed restrictions, introduced as a result of fuel problems in 1974, affect the accident rate during the years of enforcement?
    Mr. Fowler: In many ways, they hardly affected the accident rate.

    London Underground (Violence)
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his recent discussions concerning violence on transport undertakings.
    Mr. Fowler: The conference on violence on public transport, which was held on 6 May, was attended by representatives of a wide range of interested organisations. A number of areas were identified for future action, including strengthening of the British Transport police, the setting up of mobile police units, stiffer penalties for offenders, the greater use of close circuit television and two-way radios, and action to ban alcohol on certain trains.
    The Government are now giving urgent consideration to all those points.
    Mr. McCrindle: Although I welcome the conference's decision, particularly that part of it which related to increasing the number and effectiveness of police on London Transport, will the Minister confirm that that can be achieved only by expenditure that is beyond the existing budget of the British Transport police? Bearing in mind that the issue concerns law and order—supposedly exempt from public expenditure cutbacks—will he confirm that a lack of finance will not cause a major hold-up in achieving that objective?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. We are studying British Rail's proposal for mobile units in respect of the British Transport police. Those units will not be hindered by a lack of resources. I reaffirm that the Government will give priority to law and order.
    Mr. Snape: Will not the Minister concede that the British Transport police have outlived their usefulness? Is not there a good case for arguing that the ordinary police force should be responsible for law and order on public transport? Next time he meets his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will he tell him that many of those who have worked, or who are working in the transport business feel that it is about time that the Home Secretary issued an edict to magistrates to the effect that assaults on public transport staff should result in custodial sentences?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The British Transport police are continuing to do a good job in exceptionally difficult circumstances. His proposal will not receive much support. The hon. Gentleman will know that the
    498
    Home Secretary proposes to increase the maximum prescribed penalty for the offence of assault to £1,000 and six months in gaol. I agree that sentencing policy will affect the problem.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is the Minister in favour of a separate police force for London Transport? Is it not a fact that there was a delay in dealing with the Neasden disturbances because a report had to be made first to the London Transport police before the Metropolitan Police could be brought in?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not think that that is a fair interpretation of the facts. Virtually all the people who were at the conference agreed that the British Transport police had a good role which should not be disturbed.
    Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the Minister make it obligatory for all transport operators to have two-way radio installed in all passenger-carrying vehicles? Will he encourage the use of two-way radios at railway stations where communications are so important?
    Mr. Fowler: Certainly we are looking at the possibilities of two-way radios. They are already used in some areas and we shall study the case for extending that use.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Manpower
    Mr. Beaumont-Darkasked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the lowest figure for the Civil Service since the war; and if he will take steps to bring down the service to a figure near to this amount.
    The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Paul Channon): The lowest figure for the Civil Service since the war was 643,000. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 13 May, we intend to bring the number of civil servants down to about 630,000 over the next four years.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is concern that the savings will be made on the services to people while the administration still rolls on? Will he make productivity a central part of his policy, although the

    499
    Civil Service is loth to discuss this matter? If we get the right productivity, we can have the savings and provide good service to the people.
    Mr. Channon: I certainly agree that essential services should not be cut. We want extra productivity and that is what we shall achieve.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Minister tell us why the Prime Minister chose a figure of 630,000 civil servants? Why was it not 620,000 or 640,000 or even 500,000? Will he also tell the House how many of the 75,000 further reductions announced last week had not been announced previously?
    Mr. Channon: The Government chose the figure of 630,000 because, after careful study, we decided that that was appropriate. On the question of the cuts that had already been announced, I was surprised to read the astonishing speech by the hon. Member accusing the Prime Minister of misleading the House. In fact, she made the situation perfectly clear in her statement.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: As the number of civil servants has increased since the war, does my hon. Friend believe that the quality of government has improved?
    Mr. Channon: Certainly it has improved in the last 12 months.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Minister aware that it is easy to reduce the number of civil servants if, at the same time, one puts the work out to the private sector? What action is the Minister taking to ensure that, when work is put out to the private sector, there are gains in efficiency and that Ministers who are under pressure to reduce the numbers of civil servants will not just transfer the work and pay more for the disadvantage of getting the work done by the private sector?
    Mr. Channon: I have not noticed that it has been easy to reduce the number of civil servants, but I am grateful to the right hon. Member for telling me. Where functions can be performed more efficiently or economically outside, it may be right to hive them off. I assure the right hon. Member that each case will be considered on its merits.

    Pay Research Unit
    Mr. Whitneyasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the operation of the Pay Research Unit.
    Mr. Channon: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Whitney: Will my hon. Friend consider that answer carefully again? When he looks at the operation of the PRU, will he not consider that it has resulted in high levels of Civil Service salaries, which have increased the difficulties of reaching reasonable pay settlements in the private sector?
    Mr. Channon: Whatever the truth of that statement, it is not the fault of the Pay Research Unit. In this year's pay settlement the Government have applied a strong discipline in the form of a 14 per cent. cash limit. I wish that that had been followed in other sections of the community as well.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the Minister aware of the comprehensive press reports this morning that the Government will look again at fair comparison for settling Civil Service pay? Does he remember the denials of previous press leaks of this sort which were subsequently confirmed in the Prime Minister's statement last week? Will he say something today to assure people that those press leaks are not from Government Departments. as they clearly appear to be?
    Mr. Channon: I have not the least idea where those leaks came from. I was not responsible for them so I cannot confirm or deny what the hon. Member has said. I should be very surprised if they came from Government Departments.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that the weakness of these comparisons is that in the public service there is no strain, no risk of dismissal, an index-linked pension and honour from the Queen? Compared with the risks of private enterprise, civil servants are very softly bedded.
    Mr. Channon: I take note of my hon. Friend's views, and I understand that a large number of hon. Members share them. A system of comparability has been used to fix Civil Service pay almost

    501
    since the time of Northcote Trevelyan, and to change it would be quite a major undertaking.

    Manpower
    Mr. Gummerasked the Minister for the Civil Service what proposals he has for a Civil Service manpower policy for the rest of this Parliament.
    Mr. Channon: I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 13 May.
    Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems is that the suggestion is always made that the only way to reduce Civil Service numbers is to reduce the number of jobs? However, in private enterprise one of the ways of reducing staff numbers is to get more productivity. Many of us feel that there is no indication of more productivity from civil servants.
    Mr. Channon: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government's aim is to cut out unnecessary functions and provide the rest more efficiently. The main emphasis of the recent cuts will be on increased efficiency. That meets my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister confirm that the manpower policies of the Civil Service will mean that the rules will be applied very rigorously on the departure of senior civil servants for lush boardroom jobs? Will he confirm that when Mr. John D. Lippett went to GEC, in answer to a question of mine about this the Minister said that Mr. Lippett had no dealings with GEC? Is he aware that that was not the case? Secret information revealed in the new New Statesman demonstrated that a meeting had been held with Sir Arnold Weinstock, Mr. Lippett and others to carve up Rolls-Royce. Will the Minister take this into account in his future manpower policies and stop this shift to lushly-paid jobs?
    Mr. Channon: I am not prepared to comment on individual cases. This whole question is under discussion by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, and the Government eagerly await its report.

    Pension Indexation (Review)
    Mr. Broce-Gardyneasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he has yet concluded his review arrangements for independent reviewing of the Government Actuary's computation of the value of pension indexation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Channon: A detailed announcement will be made very shortly. The inquiry will start work as soon as possible after that.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: This seems to be taking an unconscionable time. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative Party was committed at the last general election to the proposition that the arrangements for index linkage of public service pensions should be put on a basis which bears comparison with the situation in the private sector?
    Mr. Channon: I do not think that it is right for me to comment on what the inquiry may find. I can assure my hon. Friend that his tabling of this question has activated the Government's mind with great rapidity, and I hope that he will have a happy Whitsun when he sees what happens.
    Mr. Dykes: Is my hon. Frend aware that, with the recent increase in inflation, the amount of capital needed to buy a top civil servant's pension, even with early retirement, would be almost £500,000? Does not that stick in the gullets of most people?
    Mr. Channon: I do not recognise that figure, but that is the sort of evidence that the inquiry will wish to consider. I hope that my hon. Friend will submit evidence to it.

    Staffing Levels
    Mr. Canavanasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will meet representatives of Civil Service trade unions to discuss staffing levels in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Channon: I have met representatives of the Civil Service trade unions twice in the last few weeks to discuss staffing levels. I am very willing to meet them again if they wish it.
    Mr. Canavan: What is the sense in deliberately creating more unemployment by making thousands of civil servants redundant, then perhaps having to employ an extra 7,000 civil servants in order to deal with the extra people out of work?
    Mr. Channon: There is no intention of making thousands of civil servants redundant. I have already made clear that we believe that the changes in the Civil Service can be achieved with a minimum of compulsory redundancies. Therefore, the hon. Member's premise is wholly wrong.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is inconsistent to try to cut staff numbers in the Civil Service while at the same time trying to attract more civil servants by applying the principle of comparability?
    Mr. Channon: I note my hon. Friend's views. I have nothing to add to my earlier answer about comparability. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to achieve a smaller Civil Service so that the country as a whole—and I believe that the majority of my hon. Friends share the aspiration—feels that it is getting value for money for the work that the Civil Service does.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: When the Minister next meets Civil Service union leaders will he try to find out why in 1980 it takes four to five weeks for the assistant to the assistant to the assistant of a Minister's private secretary to forward a letter, when, 30 or 40 years ago, it took only three to four days?
    Mr. Channon: I shall make a point of mentioning that at my next meeting with the Civil Service unions. However, I feel that some union leaders may say that they are over-burdened by the hon. Gentleman's written questions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons Norman St. John-Stevas): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
The Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations, originally announced for
504
consideration on Tuesday, will now be taken at the end on Thursday.
Mr. Dalyell: When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to make a statement on——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Business questions must relate to the statement that was made, which concerns upholstered furniture—I believe.
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind the date of the recess, when shall we be told when the Government intend to apply sanctions against Iran and have an opportunity for debate?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible to put a question to the Leader of the House on his short business statement?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, on upholstered furniture.
Mr. Farr: Will the business be limited to one and half hours, or, in view of the intense public interest, will the time be extended?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: As I indicated to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), I was sympathetic to the suggestion that we should have extra time. I suggested that the matter should be discussed through the usual channels. It has been agreed that there should be an extra half hour for the debate on upholstered furniture. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend.

PRISONERS (ACCOMMODATION)
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
" the unlawful action of the Home Secretary in accommodating prisoners in association rooms, classrooms, storerooms, visiting rooms, a library, offices, a dormitory floor, hospital annexes and a corridor."
This matter is specific, in that the Home Secretary is illegally accommodating 150 prisoners at any one time in accommodation that has not been properly

505
certified for sleeping. In doing so, the right hon. Gentleman is breaching the terms of the Prison Act 1952 and the 1964 prison rules. That is happening today at Oxford prison, at two female remand centres, Low Newton and Risley, East Sutton Park borstal and at six detention centres, where prisoners are having to sleep in association rooms, classrooms, on corridor floors and in a library.
The matter is important. The Government, more than anyone should adhere to the law, especially when they parade themselves as a Government of law and order. The Prime Minister today said that the Government should set an example to others, but on this occasion the Home Secretary is breaking the law when he more than anyone should comply with it. There can be no excuse for breaking the law. In this instance the right hon. Gentleman is acting in a cavalier manner that can only bring the law into disrepute and disrespect. It makes a mockery of the exhortations of the Home Secretary and his Ministers to others to comply with the law. It is serious when anyone breaks the law. It is profoundly worrying when the Government do so.
The matter is urgent. The practice is going on now. It is a direct and inevitable consequence of overcrowding in our prisons. In addition, 150 prisoners are accommodated in police cells for up to two days because of lack of accommodation in our prisons. That state of affairs will continue unless and until the Home Secretary has the courage to
506
embark on urgent and radical action to reduce the massive overcrowding in our prison system.
A decent and responsible Home Secretary would have explained to the House the unusual and peculiar circumstances in which he finds himself. If he had a proper sense of responsibility, he might even resign. He should at least have the courtesy to explain to the House and the country why he is breaking the law and when the Tory lawbreakers will comply with it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
" the unlawful action of the Home Secretary in accommodating prisoners in association rooms, classrooms, storerooms, visiting rooms, a library, offices, a dormitory floor, hospital annexes and a corridor".
The hon. Gentleman made a serious speech and the House will have listened with concern to what he had to say.
As the House knows, it is not for me to decide whether this matter shall be debated. I have to decide only whether a debate shall take priority over our business today or tomorrow.
I regret that, having carefully considered the hon. Gentleman's representations, I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (REFERENDUM)
3.37 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the holding of a Referendum on whether the United Kingdom should continue to be a member of the European Economic Community.
Next month we have the fifth anniversary of the 1975 referendum, when 42 per cent. of the United Kingdom electorate voted in favour of continued membership of the Common Market. Next month we shall also have the first anniversary of direct elections to the European Parliament, when only 32 per cent. of the United Kingdom electorate bothered to vote.
Pro-Marketeers will argue that in 1975 the majority voted to stay in the EEC. However, there are recent indications of a substantial switch in public opinion. Last month the Sunday Telegraph published a Gallup poll which indicated that 59 per cent. of the electorate would now vote to come out of the Common Market and only 27 per cent. would vote to stay in. The majority, including many who voted "Yes" in the 1975 referendum, realise what many of us have said for many years—that our membership of the Common Market has been an unmitigated disaster. It has brought escalating prices—especially of food—destroyed thousands of jobs, had a crippling effect on our balance of payments and been ruinous for our economy.
In January 1973, when we joined the Common Market, inflation stood at 8 per cent. It is now 21·8 per cent, which is worse than for any other Common Market country. In 1973, unemployment on average was just over half a million. It is now more than 1½ million, with the worst figure for May since the war. In 1972, the year before entry, our balance of payments deficit with the Common Market was £647 million. In 1973, the first year of membership, it had more than doubled, to £1,399 million. Last year it had doubled again, to £2,735 million.
In 1973, our net contribution to the Common Market budget was £102 million. By last year it had risen to £959 million.
508
The Government's White Paper on public expenditure indicates that unless there is a radical change it will increase to £1,550 million by 1984. It is interesting to note that the only year in which there was a net gain out of the Common Market contribution was 1975, the year of the referendum, when it appears that the British public were lured by a £56 million net gain in our Common Market contribution.
I accept that the Common Market cannot be blamed for all our economic ills. Nevertheless, our membership has made things significantly worse instead of better. The common agricultural policy, for example, has contributed largely to our budget deficit and also to inflation through increased food prices. Yet, paradoxically, millions of tons of food are going to waste.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was coy about giving me up-to-date figures on the total amount and value of food in storage. However, with the help of the Library, I managed to get figures for October 1979. These show 353,000 tons of skimmed milk powder, at an estimated value of £240 million; 1·3 million tons of wheat, at an estimated value of £110 million; 54,000 tons of barley, at an estimated value of £5 million; 49,000 tons of beef, at an estimated value of £120 million; and 244,000 tons of butter, at an estimated value of £930 million. As hon. Members will know, a few weeks ago, there was a Common Market deal to sell 20,000 tons of surplus butter to the Russians at the knock-own price of 25p a pound—less than one-third of the price that the British housewife has to pay in the shops. It also appears that the British housewife may be expected to pay some of the price for any reduction in our Common Market contribution if a new deal is negotiated on farm prices leading to higher prices for food in the shops.
What is required is not simply a reform of the common agricultural policy or a reduction in our budgetary contribution. The fundamental problem is the Treaty of Rome—a charter for making the rich richer and the poor poorer. The freedom of movement of investment inherent in the Treaty of Rome has meant an exit of investment and jobs from this country. If that is thought to be Socialist rhetoric, hon. Members should study the letter, dated 30 April, from the director-general

509
of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, sent to all hon. Members, stating:
" We feel that the ' Golden Triangle ' countries have taken a disproportionately large share of what investment has been available in recent years."
There has been an exodus of investment from this country, especially by multinational companies with a European connection. One thinks, in Scotland, of Massey-Ferguson. There was also yesterday's news from Talbot of another 1,300 threatened redundancies at Linwood. Whole industries have been crippled and jobs destroyed because membership of the Common Market reduces our ability to stop import penetration of the United Kingdom market. I can point to damage in my constituency to industries such as chipboard, foundries and paper. A few weeks ago I visited a paper mill that is due to close in the town of Denny. Both management and trade unions put forcefully to me the point that our membership of the Common Market meant a reduction in our share of the United Kingdom market—let alone the European market—rather than an improvement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why"].
The pulp and paper industry faces difficulties exacerbated by our Common Market membership. I hope that pro-Marketeers such as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) will reflect on the troubles facing the pulp mill in Corpach, where 450 jobs are at stake, as well as more than 1,000 jobs elsewhere in Scotland—including some in my constituency—in such occupations as forestry.
These events make a mockery of the slogans used during the 1975 referendum by pro-Market fanatics, that membership of the Common Market would mean jobs for the boys. What jobs? What boys? Perhaps the slogans refer to the 410 Euro-MPs and such people as Lord Soames, who became a vice-president of the Commission, and Roy Jenkins, the present president of the Commission and supposed head of that bureaucracy with an annual salary of more than £85,000. He has done quite well out of Common Market membership. It is clear, however, that the vast majority of people now realise that they were conned by the expensive and massive propaganda of the 1975 campaign.
510
It is significant that the pro-Market side, according to its own account, spent more than £1,500,000—an amount more than 10 times the amount spent by the anti-Market side. I propose in my Bill that there shall be maximum expenditure, similar to the limits placed on candidates at a general election, making for a fairer campaign and a fairer result.
I submit, finally, that my Bill is timely. There is to be another Common Market summit in Venice next month, when, for the third time, the Prime Minister will try to obtain a satisfactory reduction in our Common Market contribution. If last week's meeting in Naples is anything to go by, it looks as though she will be heading for a third failure. The right hon. Lady is on record as saying that she is in favour of referendums. I suggest that after the summit the people of this country should have their say and be given the chance to undo the mistake made in 1975.
To leave the Common Market would not mean shrinking into inward, narrow-minded nationalism. I am not a nationalist. I have never believed that co-operation between people should stop at Berwick-upon-Tweed, the English Channel, the Berlin Wall, or any other barrier, whether man-made or natural, but the Common Market has created a barrier round itself. It is a protectionist bloc consisting of only a minority of the peoples of Europe. The whole ethos of the club is not international co-operation but ruthless, cut-throat competition, where the rich members get richer and the poor members get poorer.
A referendum now would reverse the 1975 result and provide an opportunity for pursuing better domestic policies in industry, agriculture and fisheries and throughout the whole economy, as well as building valuable political and economic links on a wider international basis throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Inverness (Johnston) has indicated to me that he wishes to oppose the motion.
Mr. Russell Johnston: I ask the House to reject the application of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) to introduce the

511
Bill, on two grounds. The hon. Gentleman suggests that a referendum is in some way a noble, democratic device, introduced for high idealistic reasons by individuals who, above all else—whatever their personal views—wish to ensure that the public will is known and implemented. While conceding that there are a few hon. Members—I think especially of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart)—who regard referendums as good things, I do not think that this is felt to be the case either in the House or in the country. Both in the House and in the country there is an acceptance of the value of representative government, whereby people study issues carefully and decide upon them, knowing that in due course they will be accountable at the polls. As a passionate advocate of proportional representation, I argue that the basis of this representative government is distorted, but this has nothing to do with the acceptance of the value of representative government per se.
Referendums are advocated only by those who believe that they would win a referendum at a particular time. [Interruption.] I wish that someone would try to silence Labour Members below the Gangway.
Mr. Bob Oyer: The hon. Gentleman is trying to gag us.
Mr. Johnston: For example, if we take issues of life and death, such as capital punishment and abortion, it is surely significant that those who advocate the return of capital punishment advocate a referendum, while those who are opposed to abortion do not. That is an indication of the fact that those who argue for the Bill, irrespective of the validity of the arguments, are interested only in ensuring that a reflection of public opinion is achieved at a time when they feel that their view holds water.
Secondly, if the Bill were accepted, it would be taken as a clear sign from the House that it wished to turn its back on the European Community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] When one considers the history of Europe in this century alone and the particularly dangerous instability of the wider world at the moment and the limited nature of our disagreements—I stress that—against the deep gulfs—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must be fair to the hon. Member for Inverness and allow him to make his case without constant interruptions.
Mr. Johnston: It would appear that those who are opposed to the Community feel that the noise of their interjections lends validity to their arguments. I do not believe that that is so.
The area of disagreement that we have entered into in the Community is limited compared with the deep gulfs in the world at large, which have been drawn to our attention by the Brandt Commission. Therefore, if we turned our back on the Community, it would be a profoundly negative act.
We have never really tried to make the Community work.
Mr. Cryer: It will not work.
Mr. Johnston: We can achieve nothing if we do not do it in a spirit of commitment.
I reject flatly the contention of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire that everything that is wrong in this country is the fault of the Community.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend did not say that.
Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire referred to the situation facing a pulp mill in my constituency. That has nothing to do with the Community. It is a good example of the fact that many hon. Members and others blame what is wrong on someone else.
All members of the Community face similar problems internally, while externally the threat to world peace is greater than at any time since 1939. Certainly there are differences among our nine countries, but I do not believe that their resolution will be achieved by rhetoric and nationalism. They will be achieved only by politics, fair argument and patience.
My late fellow-countryman, Dan McGarvey, of the boilermakers' union, was a good man in many ways, but I have never forgotten that he once said that if he had to choose between the well-being of Scottish boilermakers and the well-being of French peasants, he knew which side he would be on. That was

513
a profoundly erroneous analysis. Whatever we do in this country, we have a common interest in achieving, throughout this Continent and the world, the fair resolution of disagreements.
I believe that in the European Community we have an opportunity to do that and we should be foolish in the extreme to turn our back on it.

Division No. 319]

AYES

[3.55 p.m.

Adams, Allen

George, Bruce

Newens, Stanley

Allaun, Frank

Graham, Ted

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Ashton, Joe

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Paisley, Rev Ian

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

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Park, George

Bell, Sir Ronald

Hardy, Peter

Pendry, Tom

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Haynes, Frank

Prescott, John

Bidwell, Sydney

Heffer, Eric S.

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Homewood, William

Proctor, K. Harvey

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Race, Reg

Bradford, Rev. R.

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Richardson, Jo

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Buchan, Norman

John, Brynmor

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Canavan, Dennis

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Rooker, J. W.

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Sever, John

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Kllroy-Silk, Robert

Sheerman, Barry

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Lambie, David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

Coleman, Donald

Lamond, James

Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Leighton, Ronald

Short, Mrs Renée

Cook, Robin F.

Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Cowans, Harry

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Skinner, Dennis

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

Litherland, Robert

Soley, Clive

Deakins, Eric

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Spearing, Nigel

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Spriggs, Leslie

Dempsey, James

McCartney, Hugh

Stallard, A. W.

Dormand, Jack

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

McElhone, Frank

Straw, Jack

Dubs, Alfred

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McNamara, Kevin

Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

Eastham, Ken

McWilliam, John

Tllley, John

Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

Marks, Kenneth

Torney, Tom

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Marlow, Tony

Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

Ewing, Harry

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Farr, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Weetch, Ken

Field, Frank

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Welsh, Michael

Fitt, Gerard

Maxton, John

Wigley, Dafydd

Flannery, Martin

Maynard, Miss Joan

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

Winnick, David

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Forrester, John

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Mr. Bob Cryer

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

and Mr. Ioan Evans

NOES

Adley, Robert

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Cope, John

Alexander, Richard

Bowden, Andrew

Corrie, John

Allson, Michael

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Costain, A. P.

Alton, David

Bradley, Tom

Critchley, Julian

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Brame, Sir Bernard

Dewar, Donald

Ancram, Michael

Bright, Graham

Dickens, Geoffrey

Arnold, Tom

Brinton, Tim

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Aspinwall, Jack

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Dover, Denshore

Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Duffy, A. E. P.

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

Dunlop, John

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Banks, Robert

Bryan, Sir Paul

Durant, Tony

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Buck, Antony

Dykes, Hugh

Belth, A. J.

Bulmer, Esmond

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Burden, F. A.

Eggar, Timothy

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

Butler, Hon Adam

Elliot, Sir William

Berry, Hon Anthony

Cadbury, Jocelyn

English, Michael

Best, Kelth

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Fairgrieve, Russell

Bevan, David Gilroy

Cant, R. B.

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Biggs-Davison, John

Chalker, Mrs. Lynoa

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Blackburn, John

Channon, Paul

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Chapman, Sydney

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

Fitch, Alan

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 219.

Fletcher-Cook, Charles

Madel, David

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Forman, Nigel

Major, John

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Fox, Marcus

Marland, Paul

Scott, Nicholas

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

Mather, Carol

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Mawby, Ray

Shersby, Michael

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Mawhlnney, Dr Brian

Silvester, Fred

Goodlad, Alastair

Mayhew, Patrick

Sims, Roger

Gow, Ian

Mellor, David

Skeet, T. H. H.

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Gray, Hamish

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

Greenway, Harry

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Speller, Tony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Spence, John

Grist, Ian

Molyneaux, James

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Monro, Hector

Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

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

Montgomery, Fergus

Squire, Robin

Hampson, Dr Keith

Moore, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hannam, John

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Stanley, John

Hastings, Stephen

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Myles, David

Stokes, John

Heddle, John

Needham, Richard

Stradling Thomas, J.

Henderson, Barry

Nelson, Anthony

Tapsell, Peter

Hicks, Robert

Neubert, Michael

Temple-Morris, Peter

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L

Newton, Tony

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Onslow, Cranley

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Hooson, Tom

Osborn, John

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Howells, Geraint

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Trotter, Neville

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Viggers, Peter

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Pattie, Geoffrey

Waddington, David

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Pawsey, James

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Penhaligon, David

Wakeham, John

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Waldegrave, Hon William

Knox, David

Porter, George

Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

Lamborn, Harry

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Waller, Gary

Lamont, Norman

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Ward, John

Lee, John

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Wheeler, John

Le Marchant, Spencer

Prior, Rt Hon James

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Raison, Timothy

Whitehead, Phillip

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Rathbone, Tim

Whitney, Raymond

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wickenden, Keith

Loveridge, John

Rhodes James, Robert

Wilkinson, John

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

McCrindle, Robert

Rifkind, Malcolm

Wolfson, Mark

Macfarlane, Nell

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

MacGregor, John

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Maclennan, Robert

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Rossi, Hugh

Mr. Russell Johnston

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Rost, Peter

and Mr. John Home Robertson

McQuarrie, Albert

Question accordingly negatived.

SOCIAL SECURITY (No. 2) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
Ordered, That the Report [15 May] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]
Report considered accordingly.
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Resolution put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and agreed to.
Following is the report of the Business Committee:
That the allotted day which under the Order (6 May] is given to the proceedings on Consolidation and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of that Table.

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of Proceedings

New Clauses and Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2.

6.30 p.m.

Amendments to Clause 3.

7.30 p.m.

Amendments to Clauses 4 and 5.

9.30 p.m.

Remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Midnight

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SOCIAL SECURITY (No. 2) BILL
  [ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  SOCIAL SECURITY (No. 2) BILL
    Clause 1

      REDUCTION OF COMPULSORY UP-RATING OF CERTAIN BENEFITS
      4.8 pm
      Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out Clause 1.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
      No. 20, in page I, line 16, leave out ' paragraphs 1 and 4 ' and insert ' paragraph 1 '.
      No. 21, in page 1, line 18, leave out ' maternity allowance '.
      No. 22, in page 1, line 19, leave out ' paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 ' and insert ' paragraphs 1 and 2 '.
      No. 2, in page 1, line 19, leave out ' 2 '.
      No. 3, in page 1, line 21, leave out ' invalidity pension '.
      No. 23, in page 1, line 22, leave out ' and maternity allowance '.
      No. 4, in page 2, line 1, leave out '4, 5,'.
      No. 5, in page 2, line 2, leave out from ' benefit ' to ' and ' in line 4.
      No. 6, in page 2, leave out lines 6 to 12.
      No. 7, in page 2, line 17, leave out from ' benefit ' to end of line 19 '.
      Mr. Orme: This iniquitous Bill proposes a major change in social security policy, and clause 1 is at the basis of the Bill. It affects the unemployed, the sick, those who suffer from industrial injury, widows, the disabled, and other categories. The whole purpose of the Bill is to cut entitlement to benefits by five points.
      The uprating that will take place in November this year will be a cut in real terms, because it will not meet the rate of inflation forecast by the Government,
      518
      let alone the rate of inflation as it may be in November.
      We are talking of 24 November, which is two weeks later than the date on which benefit payments should have been made. In essence, that means that people will be robbed of their entitlement to two weeks' increases. That is rubbing salt in the wound. People will not receive their due entitlement under the law.
      I stress that this Government have created a turmoil in the social security system. In reviewing sick pay the Government have introduced a Green Paper. It is not really a Green Paper. It is not a consultative paper; it is a White Paper. The Government intend that sickness benefit shall be available for the first eight weeks of sickness—payable through the employer—at a lower rate than the present national insurance rate.
      A major inquiry into industrial injuries was undertaken by the Department of Health and Social Security. I quoted from the report in some detail in Committee. The interesting thing about that report—a report by officials—is that it came out overwhelmingly in favour of industrial injuries payments and underlined the need for them. Many people do not realise that industrial injuries payments are to be cut by this Bill. I am not prepared to use the word "abatement". We are talking about cuts, not abating benefits as such.
      Apart from this review, we have changes in the supplementary benefits system and the prospect of taxation at some date in future and no guarantee when it is to take place, though 1982 is forecast. The Secretary of State is not in a position to give a firm date. We have all this against the current rate of inflation. The social security system is in disarray and is creating uncertainty for beneficiaries. The Bill will have a demoralising and frightening effect upon claimants and will undermine the whole system.
      We are talking about the rights and entitlements of 22 million insured people. It is right to emphasise that clause 1, which we seek to debate, is the heart of the Bill. A great deal of publicity has been given to clause 6—an important clause to which we shall come later—but the Bill is about not clause 6 but the whole

      519
      basis of the social security system and the national insurance principle as such.
      The Government forecast a rate of inflation of 16½ per cent., and we have to put that against 22 per cent. which is the current year-on-year figure. We do not know what the rate of inflation will be in November this year, but we have the Secretary of State on record in Committee casting doubt on whether that 16½ per cent. can be met. Therefore, we have a right to put a direct question to the Government. We talk about 16½ per cent., but in clause 1 we are talking about benefits for the unemployed, the sick and the disabled being uprated by only 11½ per cent. If the inflation rate is higher than 16½ per cent., it will mean considerably more than a 5 per cent. cut for beneficiaries. Therefore, we are entitled to ask whether, if there is a shortfall, if the Government's forecast does not meet 16½ per cent. and the rate is higher in November, the Government will make good that shortfall for the millions of beneficiaries who will be affected. It is bad enough for the unemployed, for those who have suffered industrial injuries and for widows to lose 5 per cent., but the prospect that they may lose considerably more is disastrous.
      4.15 pm
      I have some figures which I want to put before the House. If the rate of inflation were 18 per cent., the shortfall for a married couple on retirement pension would be 55p per week. If it were 19 per cent., the shortfall would be 95p per week. If it were 20 per cent., the shortfall would be £1·30 per week.
      I turn now to unemployed single people. Unfortunately, there are far too many in our society at the moment. Under clause 1, they will have their benefits reduced by 5 per cent. If the inflation rate is 18 per cent., they will lose £1·20 a week. If it is 19 per cent, they will lose £1·35 per week. If the rate of inflation is 20 per cent., they will lose £1·55 a week. That is a considerable amount on a bene fit for a single person of only £20·65 per week. The Government must tell the House what their policy will be if there is a shortfall.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), who was
      520
      the Secretary of State for Social Services in the previous Labour Government, is present. He will appreciate that when there was a shortfall under that Government they recommended that that shortfall be made good, and it was made good. Last year, because there was a shortfall in earnings, the Government refused to meet it. We are talking now not about earnings but about prices. If there is a shortfall in the prices forecast, we are entitled to know whether the Government will make good that shortfall.
      The Secretary of State for Social Ser vices (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I think that it is right to put the facts on record. The right hon. Gentleman, perfectly properly, said that we are not talking about earnings. But he was plainly inaccurate in saying that the Government did not make good the shortfall last year. When the Government came into office and found that the pension uprating, which had been prospectively announced by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), would not be enough to meet the prices forecast of 17½ per cent., they added to that another 1·9 per cent., which was the shortfall on the previous year to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring. We made up the shortfall for the long-term benefits——
      Mr. Orme: Not for the short term.
      Mr. Jenkin: No, not for the short term. There was no obligation to do that. But we made up the shortfall for the long-term benefits.
      Mr. Orme: But not for the short term. In the Social Security Bill, the Secretary of State refused to make up the long-term benefit based on earnings. In the last month of the year earnings ex ceeded the benefit by about 1·9 per cent. The law still existed and it still does exist, as we know, because the Social Security Bill comes back tomorrow——
      Mr. David Ennals: We are basically talking about short-term benefits. The Secretary of State dealt with long-term benefits. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the last up-rating the Government did not compensate in terms of the short-term benefits that the House is now debating?
      Mr. Orme: That is absolutely correct. We feel that we are entitled to ask what

      521
      the Government will do against the current rate of inflation. It is bad enough for beneficiaries to have to wait two weeks longer than they should and to have 5 per cent. knocked off what they believe to be their entitlement, but it will be even worse, if there is a shortfall, if that shortfall is not to be met. This is absolutely crucial. We hope that we shall hear from the Secretary of State on this issue.
      I want to raise one or two important issues of principle in the clause. First, I refer to the effects on the national insurance principle and its relation to supplementary benefit. It was surely the desire of previous Governments, including Conservative Governments, to reduce the number of people on supplementary benefits, to remove the poverty trap, and to direct people, and their benefits, as of right, through the national insurance principle. That principle was cut into by the Government. That will have a lasting effect on the whole system.
      We now see a deliberate move by the Government to shift people who are on national insurance benefits to supplementary benefit. The Government's initial forecast is of 110,000 people being transferred to supplementary benefit, and, with that, the creation of 1,000 additional jobs in the Civil Service. So much for tackling administrative problems and bureaucracy. No doubt the Opposition will want to discuss in more detail the national insurance principle—that has been established and accepted, as of right, within our society—and the effect that the Bill will have on it.
      I shall be brief as I know that many of my hon. Friends want to take part in this relatively short debate on this major clause. I want to come to the question of taxation. We think that we are entitled to ask the Government about this matter. Under pressure, not least from my hon. Friends and from pressure groups outside Parliament, the Government said that when economic circumstances permitted—the taxation situation in 1982 or 1983, or whenever the date would be—the question of invalidity benefit for the disabled would be considered. They said that they would take into account the five points when they assessed taxation and would bring up the rate to the correct amount. However, the Secretary of State did not give that guarantee for other benefits. If there is a five point
      522
      reduction this year and a five-point reduction next year, the benefits will be affected by Government policy. The Opposition want to know whether the Secretary of State will restore the benefits to their correct level in the light of taxation.
      As a result of what the Government are now doing, people who do not pay tax will lose benefit. That is the crucial factor. Many of the pressure groups outside Parliament, not least the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and the Disablement Alliance, say that when taxation of benefits is introduced a sensible Government should consider the level of taxation and where it would apply. The Government are not doing that. They are deeming that the people will lose that money irrespective of whether they are in the tax bracket. The people who are most in need are being penalised under the provisions of the Bill.
      Those are facts. The breaching of the national insurance principle and the effects of taxation and the other measures will initially have a ripple effect upon the 22 million people who pay for national insurance benefits at present. We are dealing with the working population of this country, who pay taxation and insurance contributions week by week. The magnitude of what the Government are attempting has not been fully understood in the country. Obviously, we must increasingly turn our attention to that.
      I now want to face the argument that the Government make about the size of the social security budget and the cuts that must be made in public expenditure. The basic point is this: we are not discussing cuts in public expenditure on benefits for which people have not contributed. We are discussing transfer payments for people who contribute weekly towards benefits to which they are entitled. When they need those benefits, there is a transfer payment. Therefore, it is not a matter of a simple cut in public expenditure. We do not accept that it is. When we discuss transferring contributions to people entitled to benefit, we mean transfers to those who pay national insurance contributions and who are entitled to benefits.
      I now turn to the subject of industrial injury and sickness pay. Under the clause

      523
      one of the most outrageous Government proposals is to cut injury benefit for people who need it at a crucial time in their lives. Unfortunately, with the speed of modern industrial technology, many people are seriously injured at work. Because of their injuries, they are often unable to follow their previous employment and, in many cases, will not subsequently receive the same wage or salary. Sometimes they must take more menial jobs. They take other work which does not carry the salary or wage which was previously earned.
      That is bad enough in itself, but industrial injury also causes trauma. Industrial injury benefit does not put matters right. It is outrageous for the Government to say that they will cut industrial injury benefit in real terms at a time when a man or woman, because of family circumstances, need it. The Government have not given us a justifiable explanation.
      My hon. Friends, who took part in a long debate through the night on industrial injuries benefits, will confirm that the case which the Opposition put to the Government was overwhelming. We based most of our arguments on the most recent paper prepared by the Department of Health and Social Security.
      Mr. Nicholas Baker: We are talking about people who receive benefits and who therefore have a strong element of need. The right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that the recipients of these benefits were the neediest, the poorest in society. I ask him what evidence he has for that.
      Mr. Orme: These statistics about the people who claim benefits show that if people become unemployed or sick—often those who are on reasonable salaries—their standard of living is drastically affected. They are entitled to the State benefit to which they have contributed. When I was in industry, I was told not to mind about contributing to such benefits but to be thankful that I did not have to claim them. When one must claim a benefit, one needs it. The vast majority of people who claim such benefits need them. There is no argument about that.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: For the first time in 17 years I have heard
      524
      someone challenge the view that such people are the most deserving in our society.
      Mr. Orme: The House will listen to what my hon. Friend says because of his experience.
      I turn to the sensitivity about the word "cut". The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security is a strong, hard-liner in these matters. She has little compassion. Her image has been badly dented. The Government prefer the word "abatement" to the word "cut". However, the Government are cutting in real terms benefits which are due to be uprated in November. In the short term there is to be a cut in the real value of child additions. That benefit is being reduced from £1·70 to £1·25. That is from the so-called party of the family, and it is a cut in cash.
      Mr. Matthew Parris: If the Government were able, for instance through subsidies to the National Coal Board, to depress slightly the price of coal so that it did not rise during a year quite as much as price inflation, and if I were to go round my constituency saying that the Conservative Government had cut the price of coal, would the right hon. Gentleman consider that to be a straightforward and honest way of presenting the position?
      Mr. Orme: That argument carries no weight at all. We are talking about benefits which are to be cut in real terms in November. Under the Bill the benefits are to be cut by 5 per cent., but the cut could be considerably more. We are talking about the living standards of people who are in need of benefit.
      Mr. Raymond Ellis: The repercussions of the Bill are likely to have a spin-off effect in that they will lead to an increase in the price of coal because the National Coal Board will have to pick up the tab for sickness benefits, and so on.
      Mr. Orme: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. He was forceful in Committee when dealing with clause 5 on retirement proposals for mine workers. I have no doubt that they will wish to pursue the issue in other directions. The Under-Secretary of State tried to slide away from the issue. We are due to debate it later.

      525
      The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), who was present earlier but has left the Chamber, is somewhat right of Milton Friedman economically. In Committee he said:
      " one does not have to wear one's heart on one's sleeve to have certain private misgivings about some of the sectors in which the reductions will fall."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 24 April 1980; col. 269]
      There are other Conservative critics. One said:
      " No sane person would ever suggest penalising those in most need in order to hold down the public sector borrowing requirement … My conclusion is that one cannot rely on the economic decisions of this Government being taken with sensible social priorities in mind. In this context sensible means concentrating the effects of cuts on those who can afford them."
      That was stated in the Conservative journal Crossbow, published in the spring of this year. In other words, sections of the Conservative Party are disturbed at the provisions in the Bill. Until a short while ago one would have associated the Secretary of State with the sentiments in that publication.
      Mr. Reg Race: Did my right hon. Friend hear the broadcast on Radio 4 this morning in which there were exchanges between the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) and others? Did he hear the hon. Member say that the Bill will increase fairness in society?
      Mr. Orme: I heard the broadcast. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) handled the matter well.
      I turn to the question of disablement benefits. What is proposed represents another attack on the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) hopes to deal with that in more detail when we discuss clause 3. Some of my hon. Friends wish to deal with that issue and I do not want to take up time by covering all aspects. That does not mean that I am not anxious about disabled people. About 600,000 people will be affected by the cut in invalidity benefit. The disablement groups wanted to see the Minister, but he would not see them until after the Committee stage had been completed. They believed that they could argue and talk with the Government and perhaps
      526
      convince them. They finished empty handed and outraged by the Bill's provisions.
      In clause 1 the Government propose to dismantle vital areas of the Welfare State. They are undermining the entitlement to benefit. They are breaking down the national insurance system. They are making cuts in real terms for some of the most deserving cases in our society. They are creating confusion and disorganisation in the whole social security system.
      The editorial in The Guardian today is close to the heart of the matter. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that at last we are getting some press coverage about issues other than clause 6. The opening paragraph of the editorial is crucial. It is headed "A dangerous real cut" and states:
      " Today the Commons has its last opportunity of cushioning the biggest reverse the welfare state has suffered for fifty years. Not since the 1930s has any government attempted to cut social security. And indeed, since prices were falling in the 1930s the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, which reaches its report stage today, is even more drastic than the cuts which were introduced in the Depression. The sick, injured, unemployed and pregnant are all due to suffer a five per cent. reduction in their benefits next November because the Bill provides for an uprating which is five per cent, below the rate of inflation."
      That brings the issue together.
      A future Labour Government will be left to pick up the pieces. They will re-examine the whole of the social security system, restore the right to benefit, simplify the system, reduce the poverty trap, and guarantee that people share in the prosperity of the nation. We shall attempt to repair the damage, but, in the meantime, I am afraid that our people will suffer.
      Mr. Ennals: I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I wish to begin my speech by registering my protest and my regret that a Bill of such importance is being debated in a rushed manner as a result of the guillotine. It is appalling that those who were not members of the Committee have had so little opportunity for debate. That is one reason why I shall be brief.
      I wish to use this occasion to make an appeal, as quietly as I can, to the Secretary of State to think again about the

      527
      provisions in the Bill that affect the chronically sick and disabled, pregnant mothers, widows, those receiving invalidity pensions and those receiving disablement injury benefit. The decision to cut back on the uprating entitlement of those receiving unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, invalidity pensions, industrial injury benefit, and maternity allowance, together with the provisions in clause 3—which we shall discuss later—makes a major attack on what, up to now, have been the entitlements of the weakest section of our society. I agree with my right, hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that not only are they the weakest section; they have paid for those benefits over the years.
      What is now being done is not only doing grave damage to the weakest in the community but is undermining the whole basis of the national insurance system that was introduced nearly 30 years ago.
      Mr. Frank Field: I am slightly puzzled by the constant reference to the weakest section of our community. Is it not a fact that they are not the weakest section, because they are entitled to more generous national insurance benefits? The Bill will make them among the most vulnerable, because they will be pushed on to supplementary benefits.
      Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. They are the people who are most entitled to receive benefits, which should be protected against inflation. This clause will take away that right, and many will be forced on to supplementary benefit.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West said, the voluntary organisation which represent the disabled are now very angry indeed. They have approached many hon. Members on both sides of the House. Some have listened, some have not. They said that they were used to a Government who always listened to them and consulted them about the needs of those who were least privileged in our society. Now, whatever their political balance, they are having to face a Government who, quite simply, have their ears closed to the needs of the disabled.
      Whatever may have been our party differences over the past 30 or more years, the paramount task of Governments
      528
      and Secretaries of State of both parties has been to protect the needs of the chronically sick and disabled, those who have suffered industrial injury, and those, in increasing numbers, who have suffered the tragedy of unemployment.
      As Secretary of State for Social Services from 1976 to 1979, with the help of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for his tremendous battle for the needs of the disabled—I realised that this matter was among the most important of my responsibilities. I believe that I proved my convictions by the acts of the previous Labour Government. No Government in our history has done as much for the disabled as did the Labour Government who went out of power at the last election.
      4.45 pm
      I had every reason to believe—as did the people of Britain—that the policies of the Secretary of State and his party on the question of the disabled were similar to our policies. On 28 October 1978, when in opposition, the Secretary of State said:
      " we regard more help for the disabled as a very high priority."
      He simply set aside that priority. The Conservative research department said, on 5 February 1979
      " Conservatives have singled out the disabled for priority within the social security budget ".
      That commitment has been torn up. The Conservative manifesto, when published in 1979, said:
      " Much has been done in recent years to help the disabled "
      I thank the Conservative Party. It was nice to see a reference in the Conservative manifesto to what had been done to help the disabled—mostly by new benefits that had been introduced during the time that I and my right hon. Friends were in office. The manifesto continued:
      " but there is still a long way to go."
      The implication was that it would be a way forward, not backward. It continued:
      " Our aim is to provide a coherent system of cash benefits to meet the costs of disability, so that more disabled people can support themselves and live normal lives."
      The Secretary of State knows that his measures will force more people on to supplementary benefit.

      529
      I do not believe that those who will be affected by this measure understand what will happen. There has been precious little publicity in the national press.
      Mr. Leslie Spriggs: It is important to understand that the right hon. Gentleman, his Under-Secretary and the local officers, have taken people suffering from heart diseases and mental sickness out of disablement benefit and forced them to sign the employment register, on the threat of losing supplementary benefit altogether if they did not sign. How can those people find employment when they are disabled? Why do the Government do such inhuman things to human beings?
      Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his passionate intervention. I know that other hon. Members have evidence of that happening. The generality of the public in Britain, especially those who will be affected by the Bill, do not understand what Parliament is proposing to do and what the Secretary of State is trying to force through Parliament. If they knew, they would stand up and speak against it.
      I do not believe that in his travels around the country, speaking to local Conservative Parties, women's conferences and so on, the right hon. Gentleman has told them exactly what cuts in public expenditure mean. Has he been spelling out exactly which people would be affected primarily by the cuts in public expenditure? He has not.
      The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Reg Prentice): Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that two hours ago I was addressing a conference organised by RADAR, at which about 400 people were present representing many disablement organisations. I set out the reasons for the cuts, the state of play on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the central relationship between the economic situation and what we can afford. That was well received and I was well applauded by that conference.
      Mr. Ennals: It may be that RADAR showed the right hon. Gentleman the courtesy that I suppose any respectable organisation would show to a Minister, but that is all that it was. I know and
      530
      he knows that RADAR and the many organisations involved with it are deeply angry at what the Government are doing. They were not surprised by what the right hon. Gentleman said, because one of his earliest utterances in office was that the disabled could not expect to be excluded. It is one thing to say that they could not expect to be excluded from the cuts in public expenditure and another thing to pick on them, which is what the Government are doing, to pay for benefits for those who are at the upper end of the scale.
      The Secretary of State has made a serious error of judgment in making the weakest, those in receipt of national insurance benefits, pay for the easing of the tax burden on the strongest. If he proceeds unmoved down the path that he has set himself, I believe that he will go down in history as the Secretary of State who began the dismantling of the rights inherent in the principle of the Welfare State, which goes way back to the Beveridge report known as "From the Cradle to the Grave ".
      There is never any disrespect in the House for Ministers who have second thoughts. I am not referring to the decision taken in the House on economic sanctions against Iran. The right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State had second thoughts on sight tests. I think that we all gave them credit for doing so. There were second thoughts on the payment of weekly payment benefit. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been committed to that proposal.
      I hope that during the course of this debate and when the Bill goes before another place he will seriously think again. Now is the right time for him to think again. That is so for three good reasons. First, what is happening to the rate of inflation? The right hon. Gentleman said two or three months ago that the Government estimated that the rate would be 16½ per cent in November. He knows that there is no chance of the rate being 16½ per cent. in November. He knows that it is now 22 per cent. and that it will increase. I accept that later there will be a small fall. I do not suggest that the rate will increase for ever. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows that a 16½ per cent. uprating would not cover retirement pensioners let alone short-term beneficiaries.

      531
      Secondly, there is something bizarre and almost ghoulish about doctors having a 30 per cent. increase in remuneration when their patients are having to accept an 11½ per cent. increase in their benefits. There is something sick about that contrast. I am attacking not the doctors but the Secretary of State for putting the doctors in that position. There is something sickening about doing so at a time when the right hon. Gentleman well knows that the Secretary of State for Employment—or is it for unemployment? I am not sure—has made it clear that unemployment will increase steadily. Therefore, the number affected by the measures in the Bill will steadily increase.
      The right hon. Gentleman should think again. I say that apart from the inhumanity of his judgment. I believe that there will be deep anger when the British people learn what the rate of inflation is in November and what the increase in benefit is to be. The right hon. Gentleman should take that into consideration as well as all the other arguments that will be advanced during the debate. The time for him to reconsider is now.
      Mr. Richard Alexander: I do not wish to go too far along the road covered by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), save to say in defence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security that I was present at the meeting to which he referred. My right hon. Friend fairly pointed out the need for some of the measures in the Bill. The challenge that was issued to him and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was that they never explained what had to be done. That was not so.
      The amendments that I have tabled seek to exempt maternity allowance from the reduction in the compulsory uprating of benefits provided for in clause 1. In making that suggestion I am not going behind my support for the principle that social security benefits that are designed to replace income should be drawn into the tax system.
      All working women now pay full national insurance contributions. When they become pregnant they may claim the maternity allowance for 11 weeks before the baby is born, and the allowance is paid for 18 weeks from the date of the
      532
      first payment. In reply to a question dated 15 April, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security indicated that in the past year for which figures were available—namely, 1978,½277,000 payments of maternity allowance were made, and that over 50,000 recipients had annual incomes not exceeding their personal tax allowances. Therefore, they paid no tax, anyway.
      The allowance is now worth £1850 and it is to be increased to £20·65 in November. The abatement of 5 per cent. represents £1 a week. That may not seem very much, but if there are 285,000 women all being made subject to the reduction of £1 per week for 18 weeks, the approximate saving is £5 million.
      I shall concentrate on the 50,000 women who draw the benefit and have earned income below their personal tax allowances. The proposals are part of the package to bring social security benefits into the tax system. However, the clause as drafted in effect taxes an allowance that was designed to replace income when that income is not taxable.
      At first sight one would think that supplementary benefit should be available for those women with earned income below tax allowances. However, a married woman is deemed to be supported by her husband, so supplementary benefit does not follow automatically unless their joint resources fall below requirements, to use the technical phase.
      If my right hon. Friend will not concede the point of the amendment, I ask him, as did the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), what will happen when the maternity allowance is brought into the tax system in April 1982. On 29 April my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State properly said:
      " when it comes to tax, subject to the availability of resources "—
      we are dealing with invalidity pension in this context—
      " we shall put it back to what it would have been had it stayed in step with retirement pensions this November."—[Official Report, 29 April 1980, Vol. 983, c. 1132.]
      I ask my right hon. Friend respectfully whether he will do likewise with the maternity allowance. Will he restore it in April 1982 to the value that it would have had if its uprating had continued in line with the other social security

      533
      benefits—namely 16½ per cent. and not 11½ per cent.?
      Without disrespect to the manner in which the Bill has been presented, and the way in which it has been handled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, these problems indicate what a jungle social security law is today.
      Mr. Field: Worse.
      5 pm
      Mr. Alexander: Each successive Bill compounds the obscurity of the previous Bill. Surely the time has come to consider scrapping the social security system as we know it, and substituting for it a national minimum income, to which all those in need would be entitled. We could pursue a means test more fairly if we were courageous enough to do so. I am not opposed to cuts in public expenditure, but there should be more rationality in our social security system.
      It is ridiculous that the child benefit and maternity grant are available automatically to families with incomes of, say £20,000 a year, without any note being taken of their financial circumstances. At the same time, without my amendment, clause 1 of the Bill will save £5 million at the expense of the lower socio economic classes who have non-salaried jobs and who are probably employed in manual work and are hourly paid, and for whom a 5 per cent. reduction is not inconsiderable. Why should all mothers be able to claim £4 a week for every child under 16? About 13 million children will qualify this year for child benefit, at a total cost of £2,585 million—according to the Government's blue paper. At a conference this afternoon——
      Mr Peter Bottomley: The reason is that the total level of child support has been reduced by 30 per cent. compared with its level 25 years ago. There has been a large cut. We may find greater agreement if we address our attention to the "waste" in personal allowances.
      Mr. Alexander: I agree with my hon. Friend.
      It is very expensive to pay child benefit completely across the board. Although I gave the figure of £2,585 million—according to the Government's blue paper—my right hon. and learned Friend the
      534
      Chancellor indicated at a conference this morning that we are now spending £3·3 billion. I am suggesting that £5 million could have been found in another way. when the cost of child benefit is of such an order.
      Mr. Field: Is there not a danger, after a period when families have been discriminated against by successive Governments, of trying to find money for projects which favour families with children by cutting back on benefits to other families with children? Should we not direct more attention to the benefits received by childless people?
      I was interested in comments about the loss of revenue in child benefits. The White Paper on public expenditure shows that loss of revenue from the two major tax allowances equals £10 billion. The group who received those tax allowances have benefited most over the last 20 years. Should we not look for money from the childless to support families with children, and not try to save money by cutting benefits to other families with children, however important the project.
      Mr. Alexander: That raises further considerations. I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman said. But at the top end, people in receipt of child benefit do not need it.
      The administration, and therefore the cost, of the present social security system is horrendous. We are taxing with one hand and, with different offices and different administrators, we are paying out with the other. When that happens, it shows that the tax thresholds should be raised still further, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already done. If it is too simple to conceive a minimum income administered by one set of civil servants only, there should be some means testing of social security benefits at the top end, and the poorly paid maternity allowance claimants should not have to suffer the abatement in this way.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend will recognise that he is piloting legislation through a jungle, and I hope that he will resolve to institute further reforms along the above lines for the benefit of genuine claimants and the nation as a whole.
      Mr. Jack Ashley: I shall make a brief speech,

      535
      lasting no longer than three or four minutes. I joined the debate a little late, through no fault of mine. I could not believe the intervention during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) by a Conservative Member who asked whether there was any evidence that disabled people were the poorest in our society. I nearly fell over the Bench. I could not believe it. It was one of the most staggering questions I have ever heard.
      I constantly move among disabled people. A sad feature is that they do not complain about their poverty to people who are well off and comfortable, because they have a great deal of dignity and the disabled do not go begging. Understandably, it is people who do not know the disabled or who are not disabled who ask such stupid questions. As the Secretary of State and the Minister with responsibility for the disabled know, the reason why disabled people are being hit is that they are powerless. That is why this action is so disgusting. The disabled are powerless. They have no one to speak for them.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) who did such a splendid job when he was Secretary of State for Social Services, spoke about the previous Labour Government's record. He spoke about the doctors receiving a 30 per cent. increase in salary. In the next few months trade unionists will fight for increases of 20 per cent., 21½ per cent. or 25 per cent.—or whatever is the rate of inflation. They will get it, because this Government simply cannot walk on trade unionists. But they can walk on the disabled without a fight. They know that, and they should be ashamed of themselves. People who cannot struggle or fight come to Members of Parliament in the most rational, dignified and restrained way. When the Minister with responsibility for the disabled said in an intervention a few moments ago that he was applauded at a RADAR conference, what did he mean? Did it mean that the people at that conference supported what the right hon. Gentleman said? What it meant is that disabled people are courteous people. It meant not only that they are courteous but that they lack confidence—the confidence to fight for themselves. They therefore lean over
      536
      backwards to be agreeable. This lack of confidence is caused by their disability and by their poverty.
      I do not like people asking for the resignation of Ministers, because that is often a cheap political gimmick. However, I want to ask the Minister responsible for the disabled whether he really feels that he should stay on in his job, given this cut—and it is a cut; he has used the word himself—in the living standards of disabled people. I am not making a personal attack. I would not do so. But, in terms of the Minister's job of looking after disabled people, I do not feel that he can stay on the Front Bench and condone the measures in this Bill.
      The Minister's boss, the Secretary of State, is an honourable man, and he helped the disabled when he was out of office. In fact, I have worked with him. He must think again, because he simply cannot damage the living standards of disabled people who are living in acute poverty and hold his head high in this House. I beg him to change his mind.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Following up for a moment the words of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), I think that it is worth noting that the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) was only phrasing in a slightly different way the points made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) about moving from insured to non-insured, from national insurance benefit to supplementary benefit. I think that the remarks of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South were, perhaps, on consideration, a little fierce. All that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North did was to ask a question, in the same way as my right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the disabled, in his intervention, was making the point that he had gone to the conference and explained the reasons for doing certain things, and that that had been, not necessarily approved of, but heard. The important point always is that cases should be made in advance.
      Most people know that it is not my habit to make speeches which have already been made, whether from one side of the House or the other. Therefore,

      537
      I should like first to assure the Government of my support, at least on this amendment I also go a stage further. If right hon. and hon. Members, such as the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and some others, are arguing that the increases which will follow the passage of the Bill will be below the level of inflation, I must ask what they will be arguing for during the coming pay round. Will they be arguing that the way in which one can reduce the impact of a 5 per cent. abatement is to try to encourage all of us to get our pay settlements—not necessarily our claims, but our settlements—abated by 5 per cent.? Or shall we be doing what some people appear to be suggesting, which is to argue that if the disabled and others are unable to maintain their standard of living, they will give every support for the lunatic policy of having pay claims, a year after the level of real incomes has risen by 6 per cent., trying at least to achieve that again or further?
      It seems to me that we need to bring our bleeding hearts out into the open and talk about the general economic effects on the groups for whom we are arguing and try to look at the impact of our policies and actions in the rest of our lives, whether as trade unionists, politicians or people in industry.
      Mr. Field Mr. Field rose——
      Mr. Ennals Mr. Ennals rose ——
      Mr. Dennis Skinner Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) rose——
      Mr. Bottomley: I give way first to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
      Mr. Field: I should like to pose a question. I am not out of sympathy with the argument that is being put forward, but when it is put to groups of workers, one very relevant question is posed, to which I have no answer. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer it for me.
      If, for example, one says to Ford workers "Do not push for the whole of the wage increase that you would like because we wish to ensure a real increase in benefits for the disabled, the unemployed and the sick", the question comes back "By what mechanism can the increase that we forgo be channelled to those groups? "
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Bottomley: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and with no disrespect to the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) or the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I am glad that I picked him. The answer is that at present this does not happen and cannot happen. The reason is that successive Governments, including the present Government, have not laid on the line what are the considerations which will affect the level of benefits in advance.
      The most important point—besides legislation, which may or may not be amended—is that if one takes the question of child benefit and the reduction of the real level of child support over the last 25 years, one must ask at what stage any Government have said what considerations they will use in advance. It is no good saying, after a year of prece-dented or unprecedented inflation "We are sorry, but we cannot afford to bring the level back to what it was in 1955." What we ought to be doing is not only talking early enough about the relationships between pay increases and growth, between pay increases and profit, or between pay increases and unemployment; we should try to lay out some of the medium-term ambitions of the Government both in terms of benefits and in terms of other areas of Government expenditure or transfer payments.
      I do not believe that this has happened. I do not believe that the previous Government or the present Government have done it.
      Mr. Ennals: Will the hon. Gentleman apply his mind to the question of benefits? When it comes to wage negotiations, levels of the RPI and so on are all part of them, as they were in the award for doctors and dentists. If the inflation rate is something totally different from 16½ per cent. in November, will the hon. Gentleman then still feel that it would be right to make a 5 per cent. cut, below 16½ per cent., for those covered by the clause?
      Mr. Bottomley: If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have noticed that there had not been any reference to the 5 per cent. issue on this clause. To be helpful to the House and, I hope, to the country, I am trying to make non-partisan points

      539
      about a far better way of approaching the whole of this subject.
      Dr. Oonagh McDonald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bottomley: No, I shall not give way. The debate will continue for only another one and a quarter hours, and the first two speakers took up a fan-amount of time. I should like to sit down shortly, having made the point that if we are really concerned about the level of increases in benefits and about the relationship between incomes from benefits and incomes from earnings, and about trying to reduce the increase in unemployment—which appears to be continuing, though not accelerating—we ought to start recognising the influence of pay settlements as well. I have absolutely no doubt that if the whole country settled for half of what it is likely to settle for during the next 12 months, or if we had all settled during the last 12 months for half of what we have settled for, not only would we now be more prosperous but we would find that we were able to do more for, or to take away less from, people who are presently getting certain benefits.
      When we start talking about free markets, let us talk about free markets and ideas, and let us try to encourage each other to listen and to find a bipartisan approach that will help Governments of both major parties.
      Finally, what I regret most of all is the whole area of child benefit being left out of this discussion. Perhaps I may make one partisan point—although I have tended to make a number. It is to say again how sorry I am that, to my knowledge, almost the whole of the parliamentary Labour Party forgot to vote in favour of—or actually voted against, on some occasions—the indexation of child benefit. That is the one benefit which is not being attacked, reduced, abated or dealt with in any way by the Bill. We did not get the opportunity of persuading the parliamentary Labour Party, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), to vote for it.
      What has happened is that over a period there has been a far greater abatement, reduction or cut in child support
      540
      that the 5 per cent. covered by the Bill. Any hon. Member who speaks today and does not recognise that ought to recognise that 14 million children and 14 million parents have been suffering even more than anyone who will be affected by the Bill.
      Mr. Carter-Jones: The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) compared the social security scheme with a jungle. However, one sometimes finds a clearing in a jungle. The Secretary of State and I have come to a clearing on perinatal care. The Secretary of State is convinced that better perinatal care will reduce perinatal mortality and handicap. Indeed, he shared a platform with me in Trafalgar Square at the inauguration of the "Save the Baby" campaign. We have both given evidence to the Select Committee on perinatal care.
      We have stressed the need for early detection, early treatment, resuscitation techniques and intensive care units. Above all, we stressed that more money should be given to pregnant ladies if perinatal death and handicap is to be prevented. If the Secretary of State supported that campaign he must have supported that, because it was one of the five points involved. Those points were made loud and clear. The pregnant lady in social class 5 is particularly affected.
      It has been argued that pregnant women in that class will receive the necessary money in 1983, when the tax arrangements have been brought to fruition. There will be a lot of pregnant ladies between now and 1983. The overwhelming majority of pregnant ladies will be in social classes 3, 4 and 5. The perinatal mortality and disability rate varies from about 26 per 1,000 in the worst areas, to about 6·8 or 7·0 per 1,000 in the better areas.
      Pregnant women will be affected by the abatement. As has been said, abatement is a polite term for cut. The severe difficulties facing pregnant women will be compounded. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) pointed out that the disabled and poor would be most affected. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) pleaded with the Secretary of State. He asked him to reconsider this provision. It

      541
      could be modified in the other place. The hon. Member for Newark tried to pick out maternity benefits. I share his concern. However, he and I may have specialised in this subject. Other hon. Members might pick out other needs.
      I urge the Secretary of State to come back and to tell me that Britain's recovery does not depend upon this provision. Is the Secretary of State claiming that our recovery depends on saving 90p a week for 18 weeks? Is that the basis of our recovery?
      Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend should not get carried away with the idea that the country is in a mess. There are about £15,000 million worth of North Sea oil assets round the corner. There would be a lot more money if Britain owned the oil. The Opposition should not fall for the idea that the country is in an economic mess. I have been involved in politics for 30 years. Every year Governments say that there is a political and economic crisis. They say that workers must pull in their belts and that the disabled must do without. They always tell us that there is a crisis. They always tell us that there will be jam tomorrow. My hon. Friend is wiser than that. He should understand that the Government are trotting out the same old idioms. Get rid of them!
      Mr. Carter-Jones: I am delighted that my hon. Friend will no longer have to consider accepting invalidity benefit. I am glad that he has recovered and that he is back to his old form. However, I am addressing my remarks to the Government. It is true that North Sea oil could assist us. However, if we are to assist the coming valhalla—the great day that is about to dawn—we must ask whether that valhalla depends on 90p a week for 18 weeks. That is what the Secretary of State said.
      In the jungle clearing, we identified one sector in which some good could be done. We have been told that the perinatal mortality rate has fallen. We must not claim too much credit. However, the reduction is due partly to the fact that there have been several debates on this subject. They have been reported in the press. As a result, people have become aware of their needs and requirements. That is great. The Secretary of State should not put a hiccough in those statistics. If there
      542
      is a three-year gap, it will result in inadequate funding, and an increase in perinatal deaths. More money should be given. If a target can be identified from which massive social benefits will accrue, we should go for that target. The Government are burning it.
      Mr. John Hannam: I shall speak briefly, but as forcibly as possible. Throughout my 10 years in Parliament, I have worked—with hon. Members from all parties—for a cause that is as worthwhile as any that I have come up against. We have sought to give a reasonable chance to the handicapped and disabled, and to ensure that they can lead lives that are as normal as possible. We have tried to ensure that they have family lives, mobility, education. We have tried to ensure that—as far as possible—they can train and work as others do. As the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) stated, we must try to prevent handicap through research and perinatal care.
      That 10-year period coincided with the development of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Successive Governments have made considerable progress towards helping the disabled. I am proud of that progress and of the involvement of both myself and other hon. Members. We started from scratch in 1970. We are still endeavouring to catch up. We have not yet created the perfect world or system of social care for the handicapped and disabled. One could give many examples of the barriers that still exist in areas such as housing, access, education and social care. However, we have managed to lift the disabled and handicapped out of the dark holes of neglect into the light of a caring society. I am committed to that cause and I make no apology for that.
      The Government have attempted to create a healthier balance between private and public expenditure. I support the underlying need to create more resources. Such resources are necessary if we are to have a healthier and more dynamic economy. I accept with regret the painful process of cuts, in the knowledge that they will lead to the creation of more resources for the disabled, the sick and the needy. They will also create more resources for the health service and for the welfare system. While the Government are reshaping their spending policies,

      543
      some essential safeguards must be applied. The Conservative Party gave a commitment to protect those who cannot protect themselves. I do not believe that a near-bankrupt industrial economy can go on indefinitely guaranteeing cost-indexed benefits and wages. The previous Administration found this out to their cost. In that context, I express overall support for the painful but necessary remedies that the Government have applied.
      5.30 pm
      However, minimum standards and priorities must be maintained, or permanent damage will be caused and the years of work and expenditure will be wasted. This 5 per cent. abatement, however integral a part it is of the overall departmental cuts programme, will fall below those minimum standards, and therefore it cannot be allowed to continue for more than one year. Many disabled people on the higher level of invalidity benefit could lose about £2 a week at a time when they are suffering and accepting local personal social services charges and cuts. The overall objective of a disablement cost allowance to cover the unavoidable extra costs faced by the handicapped will be set back even further by what is, by all accounts, a rough and ready saving.
      I make it clear to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I am prepared to accept this harsh lowering of priorities only for this year of economic crisis. In fact, I believe that the Bill provides for only one year, and in succeeding years the Minister must think again. He has already given the welcome assurance that these benefits will be uprated again in 1983 by whatever parity is lost with the retirement pension. I, and many of my hon. Friends, do not like this measure, but we accept it reluctantly for one year ahead as part of the Government's overall recovery programme for the economy. I cannot possibly countenance a continuation of this discrimination against the disabled into 1981–82 and 1982–83. I hope that in his reply my right hon. Friend will give an assurance that he takes serious note of this declaration of intent and that he will restate in stronger terms his intention, regardless of the Treasury pressures, to restore the benefit level to that of the retirement pension.
      544
      I hope that my right hon. Friend will also give close consideration to a number of other points. Invalidity benefit is a long-term benefit meeting long-term needs. It is not a short-term benefit to be treated as such. Nearly all those who receive it will never be able to work again. The benefit is one of a group of benefits for people who are disabled or chronically sick. The others are the non-contributory invalidity pension, the war and industrial pensions and the attendance allowance. All of these benefits are rising by the full 16½ per cent. But the invalidity benefit will go up by only 11½ per cent.—well below the inflation rate. Why has this split occurred? Surely we should bring all the disablement benefits together under one general cost allowance, instead of widening the rag bag of invalidity and disablement benefits.
      I conclude by putting my marker down on this issue. I hope that my right hon. Friend will exert all the pressure he can on the paymasters in the Treasury to ensure that this is the one and only year when this discriminatory abatement of benefit will occur. I expect him to restore the value of the benefit at the earliest possible opportunity and certainly within the next two years. In any case, I hope he will not go any further down this road next year. That would be too much for those of us who are involved in campaigning and fighting for the interests of the disabled. We cannot stand by and watch disabled people lose the hard-won ground of the last 10 years' campaigning.
      Mr. Clement Freud: This debate has about it an air of déjà vu. A great deal of what has been said has been discussed before, both at Second Reading and in Committee. But the fact that we have discussed it before makes it no less relevant to discuss it again.
      We must look at what is being done to the recipients of invalidity and maternity benefit in this country in the light of what was promised. It is right to look at the Conservative manifesto, which says:
      " We will honour the increases in retirement pensions."
      It is right to look at the abatement in the light of a Conservative manifesto statement which says:
      " It is wrong to discourage people to wish to work after retirement age, and we will

      545
      phase out the ' earnings rule ' during the next Parliament The Christmas Bonus, which the last Conservative Government started in 1972, will continue."
      I doubt the honesty of saying that the Christmas bonus will continue when there is an artificial retraction of two weeks to enable the Government to recoup exactly the amount of money which is being given back as a Christmas bonus. That is just like picking a man's pocket and then presenting him with ten-twelfths of what has been rifled from him and saying "This is your Christmas bonus, congratulations."
      The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) made a valid point about the perinatal situation. I believe that the Government are wrong not to take a long-term financial view. I was privileged one day last week to raise a matter on the Adjournment at three o'clock in the morning—none of us has had a lot of sleep lately. The subject that I raised was that of the problems of Down's syndrome children. I pointed out to the Minister at the time that it costs £100,000 for the lifetime of any one Down's syndrome child. The contributions that the Government make towards the Down's Children's Association is only £3,500 a year, when that association has proven success in getting children into educationally subnormal, "M" rather than "S", schools, at the relevant saving.
      I return to the amendments. I want to place on record that what is being done is being done against the Conservative manifesto promises. The disadvantaged are being further disadvantaged at a time when there is a rise in expenditure on defence, a 32 per cent. increase in remuneration to doctors, and a £4 billion tax concession to high tax payers; when our own pay has gone up without any abatement, when Princess Anne gets more money without abatement, and when Mr. Ian MacGregor gets more money. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) suggested that the Minister with responsibility for the disabled should resign. Perhaps we could transfer him for some exorbitant fee and use that money to abate the abatements. It seems totally wrong to make this section of humanity suffer when so many other sections, including ourselves, are getting away with it.
      I am not prepared to follow the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and
      546
      ask for an assurance that next year, the year after, some time or never, the Secretary of State will change his mind. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will oppose every clause in this Bill because we feel that the wrong people are suffering. Even though I do not believe that we are as disastrously off as many people insist, there are people who are better able to take cuts than those whom the Secretary of State now seeks to disadvantage by the Bill.
      Dr. McDonald: I wish to refer first to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) when he sugegsted that, if we were really concerned about the incomes of the disabled, we should be prepared to lower our own wage demands in the coming year. The hon. Gentleman's argument is fallacious. It assumes that wage increases are the sole cause of increased inflation. In spite of the hon. Gentleman's expressions of loyalty to his Government, they do not share his view. They place the blame for increased inflation solely on increases in the money supply during any one year.
      The hon. Gentleman's argument was fallacious for other reasons. He forgets that the income of the disabled has been deliberately cut by Government policy. They have not only failed to raise those incomes in line with inflation during the coming year but their actions have caused inflation, with increased gas and electricity prices and prescription charges, which fall heavily on many who claim invalidity benefit. They are not entitled to have prescription charges waived, because of the exclusive definitions. The Government impose those burdens on the disabled. Inflation does not depend on the wage earner reducing his wage demands and the money by magic being transferred to the disabled.
      The Government are making deliberate decisions on how our vast resources should be deployed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) points out. Such decisions were taken in the Budget and are being taken in this Bill. They are clear. So far this Government have used our vast resources to make tax concessions that have almost entirely benefited the better off. To help implement that policy the Government have cut the incomes of the unemployed, the sick, people injured at work, pregnant

      547
      women and the disabled in receipt of invalidity pensions. The Government's record is appalling. I do not know how the Secretary of State and the Minister can say that there is acceptance of these measures among the groups representing the disabled. We know that many disabled people are already hard pressed. We know that from our experience in constituencies and from the briefs that these groups send us. I cannot imagine how the Government expect those people to cope with an effective cut in their income when inflation is likely to be above the Government's forecast of 16 per cent.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) pointed out what underlies the Government's policies. They attack the old, young, disabled and sick, who are not sufficiently organised and lack economic power to retaliate. They hope to push their policies to benefit further those whom they truly represent. They have no shred of respectable justification to pick on invalidity benefit in so doing. Two groups are particularly affected—the disabled and the long-term sick. Those people are struggling to live on an inadequate weekly income. Their children also suffer. The Government say that they want to encourage people to work, and they therefore cut unemployment and other benefits. However, what justification do they have for attacking the living standards of children of such people?
      5.45 pm
      With even the predicted rate of inflation child support for those on invalidity benefit, widows' benefit or retirement pension will be effectively cut by 6·1 per cent. as child support is being increased by only 10·4 per cent. I shall translate that into cash terms, which are easier to understand. I hope that people will then rise in revulsion against a Government who take away money from the sick and their children.
      Mr. Alan Clark: Like they did on 14 May.
      Dr. McDonald: For a couple with two children on invalidity benefit the weekly loss will be £3·35, which is £174·20 for the whole year. A couple with four children will lose £252·20 over the whole year. A childless couple will lose only
      548
      £96·20. The Government cannot justify such mean actions, which hit people who cannot defend themselves and who sorely need the support to which they are entitled. The invalidity pension and the support attached to it should be paid at the proper rate.
      The Government talk of the need to make these benefits taxable and to bring them into line with other benefits and taxable income generally. They deliberately overlook the fact that 400,000 people currently receiving invalidity benefit have incomes that do not reach the tax threshold. They cannot justify such action merely to fulfil a principle of abstract justice. The Government wish to take resources from those who are in no position to defend themselves and to give those resources to the wealthy, who do not need them.
      Mr. Peter Griffiths: I apologise for rising to speak when I was not privileged to hear the Front Bench speeches on these amendments. I was about constituency business. Hon. Members who served on the Committee know that I was most assiduous in attendance and participation at that time.
      My meeting was valuable. Among the ladies to whom I spoke were some who were in receipt of long-term benefits, such as retirement and widows' benefit. They said that over a long period they have been disadvantaged compared with others on long-term benefits, who are listed in clause 1 and whose benefits have not previously been subjected to taxation or abatement. There is undoubtedly a strong feeling that the introduction of taxation of all long-term benefits will bring a greater feeling of equity among those who often live next door to each other in the same type of house and have the same sort of expenses even though their benefit arises from different sources which were not necessarily planned to give different levels of income.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Griffiths: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me. I was asked to make sure that I left time for the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who, I know, wishes to speak.

      549
      I should like to make a point about the choice of words of those Opposition Members who have described Government policy as an attack on particular groups. That is a highly unfortunate choice of phraseology when no one from the Government Benches, either on Second Reading or in Committee, has indicated the slightest pleasure in the task undertaken in the Bill.
      It is the task of any Government to deal with problems that arise, whether pleasant or unpleasant. Duties are undertaken with joy or because they are necessary. I do not accept the argument that the savings made by the first two clauses of the Bill are too small to be considered. I know that Opposition Members will make similar attacks on each clause. It would be fair to argue against an abatement in only one section of the Bill but Opposition Members are attacking at each point. They fail to indicate where it would be possible to make equal savings if changes were to be made in this part of the Bill.
      Conservative Members should make clear that we are tackling a problem the solution of which we believe to be unpleasant but necessary and that we are acting in a spirit of trying to achieve equity among those who live on long-term benefits, an equity which will be more nearly achieved when we reach a situation of taxation. A 5 per cent, abatement is not a satisfactory alternative, as I know my right hon. Friend recognises. It would be even less acceptable to continue with the present anomaly for the next two or three years, untouched and unchanged, at this time of economic crisis.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his help. It would be unwise for any hon. Member to pre-empt my selection. Mr. Frank Field.
      Mr. Field: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this debate. We are discussing the most significant measure that the Government have introduced in this Parliament. Indeed, clause 1 is the most significant clause that we shall see in the whole of the Parliament. The Bill marks the end of post-war politics which were based on the assumption that the Welfare State could be built on an ever-increasing national income. With or without this Bill,
      550
      Opposition Members would have faced a major challenge in deciding how to behave in a period of slow or nil growth. I hope that we should have gone about the job differently, but the challenge would have been real.
      The basis of our beliefs, I suppose, is best spelt out in Anthony Crosland's book "The Future of Socialism" where he talked about having our politics on the cheap. Everything could be done from growth. There would be no hard decisions. Growth could be used to pay for the continued expansion of the Welfare State.
      With the end of growth, the Labour Party would have needed to consider whether we were serious about redistributing existing resources or bringing in similar measures to this Bill.
      Another significant factor about this Bill is the link it makes between poverty and riches. Sixty years ago, R. H. Tawney reminded us—
      " what thoughtful rich people call the problems of poverty, thoughtful poor people call, with equal justice, the problem of riches".
      This Bill, particuarly clauses 1 and 4, cannot be viewed separately from the two Budgets that the Government have so far introduced. Some hon. Members could be forgiven for thinking that we are now in a period of considerable difficulty in which everyone took cuts. One has only to look at what happened in the two Budgets of this Government.
      The first Budget cut taxation by £4·5 billion. The richest 7 per cent. picked up £1,560 million. The tax cuts were smaller in the second Budget, but still the richest 2 per cent. took 14 per cent. of the net tax reductions. It is not true that this measure, particularly clauses 1 and 4, are necessary to pay for cuts that all are experiencing. This Bill, in particular, is necessary to help pay for the tax cuts in the first Budget and the Budget earlier this year.
      I recognise that I have only a limited time in which to speak. I wish, therefore, to be slightly controversial in saying that I welcome the use of the word "abatement". I do not use the word "cut". I use the word "abatement" because it leads the Government into much greater difficulties. When information about the Bill leaked out and somehow arrived on the desk of Adam

      551
      Raphael at The Observer, Government sources originally claimed proudly that this would be a Bill of cuts. Obviously, there was some feed-back about the public reaction. Perhaps the Bill was not quite as popular as some people in government had thought. The word "abatement" was therefore introduced and this linked as a necessary first step to taxing benefits.
      Following this approach to taxing benefits, there is now the absurd position, admitted by the Secretary of State, in which large numbers of people have their benefits abated or, as some of my hon. Friends would say, cut, when they would not have paid tax. They are therefore experiencing cuts in benefits which under an ordinary system of the taxation of all benefits they would not. If the policy is "abatement" and not "cuts", the Secretary of State will be able to give a clear undertaking tonight that, when taxation is introduced, the abatements will be made good. This has not been given on all benefits. The right hon. Gentleman has given a half commitment on benefits to the disabled.
      If these are real cuts to help pay for tax cuts to the rich that I have already outlined, there would be no commitment to make good the shortfalls—the cuts and abatements—later. If, however, it is a genuine first move to taxing benefits, it will be no problem for the Secretary of State to give a commitment that when the Inland Revenue can tax benefits—in 1982–83 or whenever the date is—the cuts made this year and in succeeding years will be made good. If that commitment is not forthcoming, we shall be debating a twofold cut in benefits. There will be cuts this year, next year and the year after, under the abating formula. Those much reduced benefits in real terms will be cut still further when they are brought into the tax net. I hope that the Secretary of State is genuine when he uses the word "abatement" as the first step to taxing benefits. Some hon. Members will rest a little more easily in our beds if that is so. However, if, as I fear, many of the clauses are closely interwoven with the Budgets in which we have seen a record redistribution of income to the rich, the Secretary of State may have difficulty in giving us that commitment.
      552
      The Bill is a massively important measure. I support the amendment to leave out clause 1, because the Bill marks the end of post-war politics. The Government have seized the nettle—that any Government would have had to seize—in a wholly improper way, by reducing the living standards of those who are most vulnerable.
      The Bill also demonstrates more clearly than any Labour Member has so far been able to demonstrate to his constituents that the problems of poverty are interwoven with the problems of riches in this country. One has only to consider clauses 1 and 4 and the Government's first two Budgets to see the truth of that statement.
      6 pm
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: As the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) said, the debate has been in many ways a rehearsal of the arguments that we had at length in Committee. As so often, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a point of great pertinence and, as we have come to expect of him one of scrupulous honesty. The hon. Gentleman made the point that, whichever Government had been in office, they would have faced difficult agonising decisions about how to cope with the burden of public spending at a time when, at least for the moment, growth has come to an end.
      Mr. Race: My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) does not speak for the Opposition on this matter.
      Mr. Jenkin: No doubt the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) will have an opportunity to speak later.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Jenkin: No. I have only a limited time available to me. I hope that hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will forgive me if I repeat on the Floor of the House something that I quoted at greater length in Committee in order to make the point that the dilemma that any Government would have faced is not confined to the United Kingdom, but is a problem facing other countries in a comparable position.
      Hon. Members who served on the Committee will recognise that I have here the report "Social Security in a Changing World".
      Mr. Race: Not that again.
      Mr. Jenkin: I quoted it in Committee, and it is relevant. It is a survey of the social security position in four European countries, including the United Kingdom, conducted by a distinguished American civil servant, Mr. Standford G. Ross, the Commissioner for Social Security in Washington. The report sets out the background against which we have to consider the clause. Mr. Ross wrote:
      " Optimistic forecasts during the 1960s and early 1970s, which made expansion of social security programmes seem possible and desirable, were dealt unforeseen blows by the oil crisis and the combination of recession and inflation. Now, limited growth is generally forecast and social security has to confront the issue of how to deal with scarce resources in the 1980s and beyond."
      He went further:
      "To help alleviate the future tax burden, countries are clearly committed to avoiding to the maximum extent possible future social security improvements that add to costs."
      He added:
      " Benefit curtailments are expected to produce some marginal savings and most countries expect to develop these possibilities to some extent."
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Which other countries are actually cutting benefits? The American researcher said only that they were thinking about it.
      Mr. Jenkin: I quoted a number of cases in Committee and, as time is limited, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Standing Committee Official Report. I referred to the Federal Republic of Germany, Holland, Italy and countries across the world including Canada and Australia. All those countries are, in one way or another, abating the uprating of benefits.
      That is what the clause is about and what all those who have spoken in the debate have referred to. The clause is made up of a series of relatively small cuts. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) asked whether everything depended on 90p off the maternity benefit. Of course, we cannot single out just one benefit.
      Mr. J. W. Rooker: Why not?
      Mr. Jenkin: We have to look at the combined effect of the clause. In the first full year, it will lead to savings of
      554
      £130 million. I have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill that the overriding purpose of the first five clauses, and particularly of clause 1, is to save public spending. If it were not for that, I have little doubt that no Government would contemplate bringing forward such difficult, unpopular and unpalatable measures.
      I was grateful that my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) and Exeter (Mr. Hannam) recognised that no one takes such decisions with joy or anything approaching it. They are difficult decisions and we have no illusions about the dismay that they will cause among those who feel themselves affected. We have to take those decisions because, as I have said many times, the social security budget absorbs a large share of public expenditure.
      Mr. Race: Why does the right hon. Gentleman not take the money from his rich friends?
      Mr. Jenkin: The social security budget has grown rapidly in real terms over the past 10 years. Ten years ago, it absorbed 17 per cent. of public spending. In 1979–80, it absorbed 27 per cent. of public spending. There was no way in which the Government could hope to achieve their overall spending objectives if the social security budget did not make a contribution.
      The benefits in the clause share one characteristic which does not apply to a number of other benefits. The five benefits in clause 1 abated by 5 per cent. are those for unemployment, sickness and injury and the maternity allowance and the invalidity benefit with the unemploy-ability supplement under the industrial injuries scheme. They are all income maintenance benefits and are intended to replace earnings. They all have the characteristic of not being subject to taxation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North stated firmly that it has been common ground for a number of years that, if the administrative obstacles could be overcome, those benefits should be treated as part of taxable income. I am grateful to have the support of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely for that view.
      Not one of the representative bodies that I have met to discuss clause 1 has

      555
      argued against the principle of taxing those benefits. The benefits are not taxed and they ought to be.
      Mr. Rooker: But the right hon. Gen-tieman is not proposing taxation.
      Mr. Jenkin: Of course the Bill's provisions are not proper taxation. I recognise that. There will be some, though even with the invalidity benefit only a minority, who would probably not pay tax if it were applied at present levels and with present allowances. However, the overall yield from the clause is £130 million—less than one-third of what proper taxation on the benefits would yield. We estimate that to be of the order of £450 million in a full year based on the figures in the Red Book.
      Mr. Ennals: Has the right hon. Gentleman estimated the number of people in the five categories who would not have to pay tax on their present earnings? How many people are due for a 5 per cent. abatement who would not have been liable to tax?
      Mr. Jenkin: The answer in the case of the invalidity benefit—the argument is here at its strongest and I accept it—is that of about 850,000 invalidity beneficiaries 250,000 people would not be liable to tax and about 150,000 people would be liable to pay less tax than would be yielded by the 5 per cent. abatement. The point was made frequently in Committee and has been fully conceded by the Government that this is not as satisfactory a way of dealing with this matter as if proper taxation could be introduced straight away.
      Mr. Race Mr. Race rose——
      Mr. Jenkin: No I cannot give way. I must finish and I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is waiting to speak. The benefits to which this section applies ought to be taxed and we cannot wait until 1982 or 1983 to secure the contribution from the social security budget towards the Government's overall spending objectives. I have been asked what I shall do when proper taxation applies. I have made it clear that, in relation to invalidity benefit to which hon. Members on both sides of the House—in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter-addressed themselves, we have given the
      556
      undertaking, subject to availability of resources, to restore the invalidity benefit to the level which would have obtained without abatement.
      That, since the benefit was introduced, has been equivalent to the retirement pension and I repeat that undertaking today. The reason why it is right to give that pledge on invalidity benefit is, as a number of my hon. Friends have made clear, that benefit is a long-term benefit. Since it was introduced more than 10 years ago invalidity benefit has, traditionally, maintained a parallel course with the level of the retirement pension. When it comes into taxation, subject to the availability of resources, we intend to restore that relationship.
      The Government are not in a position, in relation to the other benefits covered by the clause, to give a comparable undertaking. I must make it clear that the decision will be faced at the time as to what would be the appropriate level of those benefits when they are brought into taxation. The House will know that we have published proposals for consultation in a Green Paper dealing with whether the first eight weeks of sickness benefit payment should be transferred to employers on the ground that about 80 per cent, of employees are currently covered by some form of sickness pay. The relationship between long-term and short-term benefits has not been a fixed one over a number of years and it was widening under our predecessors. It is a matter for judgment at the time, in relation to available resources, the general level of earnings, what the country can afford, the borrowing requirement and all the other factors as to what is the appropriate level when these benefits come into taxation. I can add to the pledge that I gave about invalidity benefit.
      6.15 pm
      The assurance that I have given about that benefit will also apply to the unem-ployability supplement which is the long-term incapacity equivalent of invalidity benefit under the industrial injuries scheme. That is also a long-term benefit. The same relationship applies and the same assurance, therefore, can be given, Concerning the short-term benefit it must be a matter for judgment when it comes into taxation in 1982 or 1983 whether we can restore the level of the benefit.

      557
      I noted carefully what my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said about any possible repetition, under the powers in this clause, of abating the invalidity benefit for a further year. I cannot give him the categorical assurance that he sought and I am sure that he understands that. But I have no doubt at all that his point of view is widely shared by those who have had the interests of the disabled at heart over many years. I believe that any Government would be bound to take careful note of that viewpoint and I can give my hon. Friend that assurance so far as it goes.
      Many hon. Members referred to the disabled. I think that it is right to point out that the abatement is not applied to a number of the other benefits which are available to the disabled. The abatement does not apply to the attendance allowance, to the industrial disablement benefit—which will not be taxed—to the mobility allowance which, as the House knows, is taxed already and which has been increased by substantially more than the retail price index.
      Compensation and extra expenses benefits are not to be abated. They are benefits paid on top of earnings rather than in place of earnings. Nor are we abating the increases paid for children. The non-contributory invalidity pension will not be included in the abatement because of its comparatively low rate, though we shall consider whether it should be regarded as a taxable benefit when taxation comes in. We do not intend to abate the invalid care allowance. As the House knows, that allowance is already taxed.
      A large number of benefits are not covered by this clause. They are not to be abated. They will be increased by the full amount of 16£ per cent. or, in the case of the mobility allowance, by over 20 per cent.
      Mr. Carter-Jones: I take the point about the non-contributory element but is there not an indirect impact upon this benefit as a result of what the right hon. Gentleman proposes in the Bill?
      Mr. Jenkin: Not as far as I am aware, but if the hon. Member cares to write to me I will try to find out whether that is so. This clause does not affect the NCIP. The hon. Member for Eccles and
      558
      my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) referred to the maternity allowance and I understand the point that about 50,000 maternity allowance beneficiaries would have an annual income which would not exceed their personal allowances and would not be affected by taxation.
      It is important to recognise that the basis of this estimate is the fact that the beneficiaries are women who become entitled to the maternity allowance early in the tax year who have no earnings before they become entitled to benefit. However, they would have had earnings in order to have built up a contributory record and thus become entitled to benefit. For perfectly good reasons which many of us would applaud they do not go back to work after they have had their babies. That means they have no earnings for the rest of the year.
      Their maternity allowance would not fully absorb their personal tax allowance. But the overwhelming majority of them are married and are supported by their husbands. In those circumstances, bearing in mind that maternity allowance is a benefit which should be taxed and will, eventually, be taxed, it is perfectly proper that the abatement should apply to that benefit at this stage.
      I fully share the objectives of those who want to see an improved maternity service in terms both of the Health Service and of income support. As the hon. Member for Eccles reminded me, he and I shared that platform in Trafalgar Square in aid of the "Save the Baby" campaign launched by the Spastics Society. As he knows, as anyone who served on the Select Committee knows, and as the right hon. Member for Norwich, North knows, I answered many questions on this subject recently. I hope that I left my commitment to that objective in no doubt whatever.
      The level of benefits that the country can afford depends on its ability to generate the resources to pay for them. Until we have the economy generating the resources to pay for these benefits and to maintain the social security programme, there is an inescapable obligation on the Government—the hon. Member for Birkenhead hoped that a Labour Government would deal with it in some other way—to maintain public spending, which includes the social security programme, at

      559
      a level which can be sustained by the country's capacity to pay for it.
      Mr. Field: Tax cuts.
      Mr. Jenkin: Tax cuts are part of the philosophy and measures to restore incentive and to give encouragement to generate the wealth on which the Welfare State depends. The Welfare State cannot exist independently of the nation's ability to pay for it. It is because the previous Labour Government were unable to understand the link between those two matters that we find ourselves facing these difficult decisions today.
      I ask the House to reject the amendment and to allow the clause to stand as an important and significant contribution to the savings that must be made as part of the Government's overall economic strategy.
      Mr. Rooker: The Secretary of State has taken 22 minutes and not made out an argument why the clause should be kept in the Bill. He failed to do so in Committee and he has failed again, as have his hon. Friends.
      It should be made clear at the outset that these are cuts. I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that they are cuts. "Abatement" was the word that he used to hold the Government to account in two years, but these are cuts in benefits this year. There are cuts of £45 million in unemployment benefit, £30 million in sickness benefit, £5 million in the maternity allowance, £55 million in the invalidity benefit, and £5 million in injury benefit. That is a total of £140 million. That is in lieu of taxation. These benefits have been paid for. They are national insurance benefits, not supplementary benefits. They have been paid for by the contributions of people at work.
      If the Government taxed them, they would get three times that amount—£420 million. That is the Secretary of State's argument. He has told us halfheartedly that it is unfortunate that some of those who will have the benefits abated or cut would not pay tax. We got out of him the fact that there are 400,000 on invalidity benefit. He did not mention unemployment benefit, but there are 200,000 on unemployment benefit and 50,000 on maternity allowance. For some
      560
      unknown reason, the number covered by sickness benefit is not available; neither is the number in receipt of injury benefit. These are substantial numbers who will be attacked. They would be better off if the benefits were taxed. This is the crazy position into which the Government have got themselves on this clause.
      We are under the guillotine. The Government do not want to debate the Bill in the Chamber, just as they did not want to debate it upstairs. That is why they introduced the guillotine, and why debate has been curtailed. But the key question is: what will happen at the time when the benefits come into tax? In respect of this clause and others the Minister said "When resources permit, we shall do the necessary".
      In Committee, at column 681, I asked the Secretary of State what was the benchmark that the House and the country had by which to judge his performance. What is the economic performance of the country going to be when the benefit is restored to its original value? In order that we may judge whether the Secretary of State was telling the truth today, I asked what he meant when he said "if proper resources are available" or "if resources permit".
      The right hon. Gentleman said:
      " However, the yield from proper taxation will be three times what will be saved by clause 1. One is perfectly capable of looking at the accounts as a whole, at both revenue and expenditure. I do not therefore anticipate any difficulty in meeting the obligation to restore the benefits and fulfilling the pledge that I have given. When the benefits come into tax, the revenue will be there."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 May 1980; c. 681.]
      The Government will get three times that amount from tax. That is the yardstick by which we judge the Secretary of State. We judge him not only on invalidity benefit, but on all the other benefits, because on the day that they come into tax the Government will get £420 million. They will have enough money to restore the benefits to their original value. It is as well to put that on record.
      The Government have produced the Bill in a rush. They have refused to meet pressure groups while the Bill has been in Committee. That is a fact. It has been admitted. The Bill has been introduced in a rush and bounced through the House. There are so many corrections coming to answers from the Department that it is

      561
      just not true. Some of us are receiving letters and corrected answers regarding legitimate inquiries that we made about the effects of the Bill—information that we needed to do our job in Committee. The information was denied to us.
      I propose to give the House one example, because the Ministers have come clean today. I suppose that they could have left it until tomorrow. However, I give them credit for having done it today. On 21 April I asked the Secretary of State
      " if benefits payable under the new pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and miscellaneous diseases benefit scheme are affected by any provision contained in the Social Security (No. 2) Bill; and, if so, if he will give details.'
      The answer that I received from the Minister for Social Security was:
      " They are not affected."—[Official Report, 21 April 1980; Vol. 983, c. 51–2.]
      That is pretty clear-cut.
      One would have assumed that before the Bill was brought before the House it would be possible to answer that question. It is a containable industrial injuries scheme; it is well codified; and all the people in benefit are known. Yet today I received a letter from the right hon. Gentleman in which he said:
      "In my reply of 21 April to your written question about the effect of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill on benefits payable under the … scheme, I said that the Bill had no effect on that scheme. I am afraid that that was wrong for the reasons given in the revised answer which I have sent to Hansard today and of which I enclose a copy.",
      I should add that the copy was not enclosed.
      " You may like to know that 26 people in all will be affected in this way."
      The revised answer in Hansard stated that the Minister
      " gave the following further information ".
      The fact that he said they were not affected was not mentioned. The revised answer read:
      " The provisions of the Bill do not affect personal benefits payable under this scheme, but increases of those benefits payable in respect of unemployability and for a dependant wife are affected because their equivalents under the Social Security Act are affected by clause 1 of the Bill."

      Division No. 320]

      AYES

      [6.30 pm

      Abse, Leo

      Anderson, Donald

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

      Adams, Allen

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Allaun, Frank

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Alton, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      One of the central points that we have tried to raise is the way that the Government slipped in the fact that industrial injuries benefits were also under attack. That was not made abundantly clear when the Bill was published. Those sections of our work force in the mining industry will take it amiss of the Government if their benefits and pension entitlements are affected.
      Following the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, it must be made abundantly clear that no Labour Government would have brought forward a Bill to cut national insurance benefits. Those of my hon. Friends who made this point should not pussyfoot about with a Government who are attacking the fundamental basis of the Welfare State. They are attacking not supplementary benefits, not the non-contributory part of the social security system, but the contributory part—the benefits that have been paid for under an insurance scheme. If any major insurance company tried to pull this rip-off on its clients, all hell would be let loose in this Chamber—and probably in the one down the corridor—about reneging on contractual obligations once the contributions had been paid and the benefits earned.
      There is absolutely no way in which a Labour Government would have contemplated such a Bill, whatever the economic circumstances.
      I hope that the Secretary of State will take that on board and not rely on what happens to be said by hon. Members on either side of the House in respect of what may or may not have happened in hypo thetical circumstances. Whatever the economic situation, there is no way that a Labour Government would have brought in such a Bills——
      It being half-past Six o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the Order [6 May] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 282.

      Beith, A. J.

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Hardy, Peter

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Palmer, Arthur

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

      Haynes, Frank

      Park, George

      Bradford, Rev. R.

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Pendry, Tom

      Bradley, Tom

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Penhaligon, David

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Home Robertson, John

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Homewood, William

      Prescott, John

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

      Hooley, Frank

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

      Buchan, Norman

      Horam, John

      Race, Reg

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton £ P)

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

      Richardson, Jo

      Campbell, Ian

      Howells, Geraint

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Huckfield, Les

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Robertson, George

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Cartwright John

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      John, Brynmor

      Rowlands, Ted

      Cohen, Stanley

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Coleman, Donald

      Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

      Sever, John

      Concannon. Rt Hon J. D.

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Conland, Bernard

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

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

      Cook, Robin F.

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter Step and Pop)

      Cowans, Harry

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Cryer, Bob

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Silverman, Julius

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lambie, David

      Snape, Peter

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lamborn, Harry

      Soley, Clive

      Davles, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lamond, James

      Spearing, Nigel

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Stallard, A. W.

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

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton £ Slough)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Deakins, Eric

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

      Dempsey, James

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Stoddart, David

      Dewar, Donald

      Litherland, Robert

      Straw, Jack

      Dobson, Frank

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Dormand, Jack

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Douglas, Dick

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Dubs, Alfred

      McCartney, Hugh

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McCusker, H.

      Tilley, John

      Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Tinn, James

      Dunnett, Jack

      McElhone, Frank

      Torney, Tom

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Eastham, Ken

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

      McKelvey, William

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      English, Michael

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Walnwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Maclennan, Robert

      Watkins, David

      Evans, loan (Abordare)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Weetch, Ken

      Ewing, Harry

      McWilliam, John

      Wellbeloved, James

      Faulds, Andrew

      Magee, Bryan

      Welsh, Michael

      Field, Frank

      Marks, Kenneth

      White, Frank R. (Bury £ Radcliffe)

      Fitch, Alan

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

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Fitt, Gerard

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Whitlock, William

      Flannery, Martin

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Maxton, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Ford, Ben

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Wlliams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Forrester, John

      Meacher, Michael

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Freud, Clement

      Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

      Winnick, David

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Woodall, Alec

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Molyneaux, James

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      George, Bruce

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Wright, Sheila

      Ginsburg, David

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

      Young, David (Bolton East)

      Graham, Ted

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Newens, Stanley

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Mr. George Morton.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Arnold, Tom

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Altken, Jonathan

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Alexander, Richard

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Allson, Michael

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Ancram, Michael

      Banks, Robert

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      564

      565

      Best, Kelth

      Grist, lan

      Neubert, Michael

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Grylls, Michael

      Newton, Tony

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Nott, Rt Hon John

      Biggs-Davison, John

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

      Onslow, Cranley

      Blackburn, John

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Osborn, John

      Blaker, Peter

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Body, Richard

      Hannam, John

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Parris, Matthew

      Bowden, Andrew

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Hawksley, Warren

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Heddle, John

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Bright, Graham

      Henderson, Barry

      Pawsey, James

      Brinton, Tim

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Perclval, Sir lan

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Hicks, Robert

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Porter, George

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hooson, Tom

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Buck, Antony

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Raison, Timothy

      Budgen, Nick

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Burden, F. A.

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Butcher, John

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Renton, Tim

      Buller, Hon Adam

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rldsdale, Julian

      Chalker. Mrs. Lynde

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Channon, Paul

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Chapman, Sydney

      Knox, David

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Lamont, Norman

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Clark. Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Lang, lan

      Rossi, Hugh

      Clark. Sir William (Croydon South)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Rost, Peter

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Latham, Michael

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Colvin, Michael

      Lawson, Nigel

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

      Cope, John

      Lee, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Cormack, Patrick

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Corrie, John

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Costain, A. P.

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

      Critchley, Julian

      Lloyd, lan (Havant & Waterloo)

      Shersby, Michael

      Crouch, David

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Silvester, Fred

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Loveridge, John

      Sims, Roger

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Luce, Richard

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Jame"

      Lyel, Nicholas

      Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

      Dover, Denshore

      McCrindle, Robert

      Speller, Tony

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Macfarlane, Nell

      Spence, John

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      MacGregor, John

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Durant, Tony

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Sproat, lain

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Stalnton, Keith

      Eggar, Timothy

      McNalr-Wil30n, Patrick (New Forest)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Elliott, Sir William

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Stanley, John

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Madel, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Major, John

      Stevens, Martin

      Farr, John

      Marland, Paul

      Stewart, lan (Hitchin)

      Fell, Anthony

      Marlow, Tony

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Stokes, John

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Mates, Michael

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Mather, Carol

      Tapsell, Peter

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

      Maude, Rt Hon Angus

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Fletcher-Cook, Charles

      Mawby, Ray

      Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Tebbit, Norman

      Forman, Nigel

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Mellor, David

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Fox, Marcus

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Fry, Peter

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Moate, Roger

      Trotter, Neville

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Monro, Hector

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Moore, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Goodhew, Victor

      Morgan, Geraint

      Waddington, David

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Wakeham, John

      Gow, Ian

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Mudd, David

      Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

      Gray, Hamish

      Murphy, Christopher

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Greenway, Harry

      Myles, David

      Waller, Gary

      Grieve, Percy

      Needham, Richard

      Walters, Dennis

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Ward, John

      566

      567

      Warren, Kenneth

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Watson, John

      Wilkinson, John

      Wells, Bowen (Her-.'rd & Stev'nage)

      Williams, Oelwyn (Montgomery)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Wheeler, John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Whitney, Raymond

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Mr. Anthony Berry.

      Wickenden, Keith

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When Divisions take place at this time of day, when traffic is heavy, could a greater latitude be allowed in respect of the time allowed for a Division? Could instructions be given to the police to ensure that a policeman is on duty to enable hon. Members coming from Dean's Yard to cross the road? Hon. Members with offices there face a serious hazard when coming to the House for a Division.
      Mr. Speaker: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point I shall of course see that the necessary instructions are given. A day when a timetable motion comes into effect is more straightforward than most other days because hon. Members know when a Division will take place. They should make provision accordingly.

    Clause 3

      ALTERATION OF PERIOD OF INTERRUPTION OF EMPLOYMENT AND OF PERIODS RELATING TO INVALIDITY ALLOWANCE AND UNEMPLOYABILITY SUPPLEMENT.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 27, leave out clause 3.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
      No. 12, in page 3, line 43, leave out ' 6 ' and insert ' 8 '.
      No. 13, in page 4, leave out lines 3 to 6.
      No. 14, in page 4, line 23, leave out ' 6 ' and insert ' 8 '.
      No. 15, in page 4, line 23, at end insert—
      ' (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for any provision amended by subsection (1) or (3) of this section to have effect as if for the reference to 8 weeks there were substituted a reference to a larger number of weeks specified in the regulations.'
      No. 24, in page 4, line 23, at end insert—
      ' (4) Notwithstanding anything in this section, where recurrent incapacity for work arises
      568
      from the medical conditions listed in subsection (2) of this section, two resulting periods of interruption of employment not separated by a period of more than 13 weeks ("week" for this purpose meaning any period of seven days) shall be treated as one period of interruption of employment.
      (5) The medical conditions referred to in subsection (4) above are:—

      (a) multiple sclerosis and other demyelin-ating dieases;

      (b) motor neurone disease;

      (c) neuropathies;

      (d) stroke and other cerebro-vascular diseases;

      (c) epilepsy and other seizure disorders;

      (f) Parkinson's Disease;

      (g) chronic schizophrenia, affective ill-nessess and other recurring mental disorders;

      (h) ischemic and valvular heart diseases, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease and heart conduction disorders;

      (i) cirrhosis of the liver and other hepatic disease;

      (j) chronic pancretitis and other chronic pancreatic diseases:

      (k) ulcerative colitis, Crohn's Disease and other chronic gastro-intestinal diseases;

      (l) tuberculosis;

      (m) chronic bronchitis, emphysema, cystic fibrosis and other chronic diseases of the lung;

      (n) psoriasis, dermatitis and other chronic skin dieases;

      (o) chronic leukaemias and other chronic haematological disorders;

      (p) neoplastic disorders of the respiratory tract, gastro-intestinal system, breast, prostate, skin, brain and other sites;

      (q) diabetes mellitus myxoedema and other chronic endocrine disorders;

      (r) rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and other chronic rheumatological diseases;

      (s) chronic renal failure, nephrotic syndrome and other chronic renal diseases;

      (t) chronic disease of ovarian and uterine functions; and

      (u)recurrent disability due to previous physical injury.

      (6) The Secretary of State may by order add further conditions to those specified in sub section (5) of this section.".
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Morris: The cuts we are debating today are the unkindest cuts of all; for any cut in benefits for disabled people can reduce not only their standard of living but even their freedom to live independent lives. The disabled person who is denied adequate help can quickly be put at risk. While others suffer annoyance, inconvenience and some hardship as a result of lower public spending, the disabled person may suffer the

      569
      much harsher penalty of becoming a prisoner in his own home.
      Conservative Ministers make no bones about the low priority they give to disabled people compared with some other groups. Take their higher-than-average cut in planned expenditure on the personal social services. That blow was aimed directly at disabled people who are struggling to stay independent in their own homes.
      Even worse is the Government's decision to cut the value of the invalidity benefit paid to people who have been unable to work for more than six months due to sickness or disability. This is a cut which the Disablement Income Group, in a protest of extreme bitterness, has denounced to the present Minister with responsibility for the disabled as not only "appalling" but "cruelly unfair". The chairman of the conference that the Minister addressed today used those words. Today's conference, which I myself opened this morning, was organised by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR). That highly respected organisation has itself said:
      " Ministers continually repeat their concern for severely disabled people, but their actions are condemning them to increasing isolation and dependence."
      That is a grave but well justified charge against the Government.
      The Disablement Income Group and RADAR are not the only organisations which have expressed their anger at current policies. The Disability Alliance described the Bill as
      "… a most savage assault on the living standards of disabled people."
      In a striking phrase, the Disability Alliance said that the Government had come to office with an impressive record of promises to chronically sick and disabled people. In this debate we are comparing promise with performance. The organisations of and for disabled people very naturally feel very strongly about the Bill's provisions and are saying so.
      With ridiculous optimism the Government forecast that prices will rise by 16½ per cent. in the 12 months up to November. On that basis, they are increasing retirement pensions and supplementary benefits by 16½ per cent. from November. In the past, invalidity benefit has been increased in step with these other
      570
      benefits. Now the law is to be changed. From November, in order to save £50 million in a full year, people who are in receipt of invalidity benefit will receive 5 per cent. less than retirement and supplementary pensioners and, even on the Government's forecast, the same amount less than price increases. This means that for the single person the real value of the invalidity benefit, assuming a 16½ per cent. rate of inflation, will drop by £1–15 a week. For the married couple the Government's decision means a drop in benefit of £1·85 a week and £96·20 in a full year.
      That is the decision of a Government who. in their first year of office, crammed over £1,500 million into the pockets of the richest 7 per cent. of taxpayers. It is hard to understand why even this Government should want to discriminate so brutally against people whose working lives have been cut short by sickness and disability. In their election manifesto, the Conservatives promised to concentrate help on the sick and the disabled and on others in greatest need. Now they are going out of their way to cut the living standards of hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people who, in addition to being poor, have little prospect of returning to work.
      The only defence of their policy the Government have attempted is that ultimately invalidity benefit will be taxed, and that the cut in its value is a short-term measure until this happens. They claim that, when the benefit is taxed, subject to the availability of resources, it will return to what it would have been had it stayed in step with the retirement pension. That defence angers the national organisations of and for the disabled almost as much as the policy itself. Invalidity benefit cannot be taxed until after 1982. Again very large numbers of people now receiving that benefit do not pay tax.
      Indeed, in a parliamentary answer on 15 April the Minister said that there could be as many as 400,000 invalidity pensioners below the tax threshold. Many of the poorest 400,000 will die in the short term. Yet from November their incomes will be cut by at least 5 per cent. If inflation exceeds the Government's forecasts—as most people think it will—the cut will be even worse. The inflation rate may be as high as 19 per cent. or 20 per cent.

      571
      If that happens, many of the poorest chronically sick and disabled people may suffer a cut of no less than 8 per cent, in their standard of living.
      The Prime Minister said of the Budget that it
      "… protects the weak and is fair to all."
      Unless that was pure cynicism, she could not have known of its implications for invalidity pensioners. Let her listen, therefore, to someone who lives not far from her constituency:
      " My husband is 44 and disabled by Multiple Sclerosis. He is a very sick man and yet his invalidity benefit is to be cut by at least 5 per cent. I wonder if Mrs. Thatcher knows, or understands, the burden of an incurable illness on a poor family. If she does, why add to our punishment? "
      Now that the Prime Minister knows more about the effects of the Budget on such families, she should at least end the cruel farce of allowing her Ministers to talk of a "caring Government" while singling out the weakest and poorest for an attack which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), using considerable restraint, called "shabby and shoddy". He said that the Government are taking on the weak in our society because they feel that they can win. The Government should, however, be warned that there are those, notably my right hon. Friend among others in the House today, who will fight to defend what we have worked for over the years.
      In my five years as Minister with responsibility for the disabled, the Labour Government increased their cash help for the chronically sick and disabled from £474 million to £1,574 million. Our year-by-year increases in expenditure on benefits paid to the chronically sick and disabled were set out in a recent parliamentary answer from the Minister as follows:
      " 1973–74, £474 million; 1974–75, £626 million; 1975–76, £871 million; 1976–77, £1,087 million; 1977–78, £1,330 million; 1978–79, £1,574 million."—[Official Report, 3 April 1980; Vol. 982, c. 405.]
      The increase of £1,100 million over five years does not include the considerable extra cost of pensions for elderly disabled people which resulted from the link that we forged between pensions and average industrial earnings in our Social Security Act 1975.
      572
      Ministers have been more successful in providing statistics about the policies of the previous Labour Administration than they have been about providing important statistics connected with the Bill.
      I want to refer now to what I regard as an important House of Commons matter. I tabled two questions for priority written answer, which should have been answered on 24 April. The Minister of State, Treasury ultimately replied on 12 May. His reply, in parts, contradicted replies that I had received from the Department of Health and Social Security. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that a delay of that order on a matter of such importance is quite unacceptable to the House.
      I also tabled five questions to the Secretary of State for Employment for answer on 20 May. They were about the effects of clause 3 of this Bill. I asked
      " what consideration he has given to the effect on attendance at employment rehabilitation centres of clause 3 of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill; and if he will make a statement."
      He replied:
      " I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 20 May 1980; Vol. 985, c. 118.]
      The substantive reply will now arrive after the debate. I regard that as an insult to the House. We need information to ensure that our debates are well informed. It strikes me that the Government are stretching the rules that apply to parliamentary questions almost beyond breaking point.
      I am glad that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) is replying to the debate, since she herself made it clear in Committee that a parliamentary question that I tabled for reply on 14 April was not really answered at all. The hon. Lady also gave the impression that she had only a hazy idea about what the figures referred to in the answer referred to. She was forced to admit that the question was not answered exactly as it was posed. That was the hon. Lady's way of saying that the answer was grossly unsatisfactory and did not fit the question. To apply a guillotine when we are denied proper information on this scale is, in my view, the definition of a parliamentary scandal.
      The Government are not only cutting invalidity pensions directly but are making it more difficult for people to become entitled to that pension, and also easier for them to lose it if they attempt to

      573
      return to work but are unsuccessful in doing so. That is what clause 3 of the Bill is about. It is a serious blow to the disabled, especially those trying to reestablish themselves at work.
      Let us consider briefly the effect of the clause on the disabled who want to work. The reduction from 13 weeks to six weeks threatens those who suffer from intermittent illnesses and who are prone to relapse—an example is multiple sclerosis. Many such people are young and anxious to work. For them it becomes a matter of pride to carry on. The Government are aiming a blow at both their pockets and their pride. Their morale will suffer. A reduction in their incentive to work is directly contrary to the intention to tackle the "Why work?" syndrome, in which the Prime Minister takes so passionate an interest. These are the very people who reject the syndrome and whose courage in the face of disability is a rebuke to the able-bodied.
      The Government are performing a policy of social Darwinism by putting a higher value on some people, the strong and fortunate, than on others. The disincentive effect of clause 3 is obvious, as the organisations for the disabled have pointed out. Recipients of invalidity benefit will be more reluctant to attempt to return to work for fear of jeopardising their income if their attempts prove a failure. The overall effects of the changes will be two-fold. First, there will be a loss of income for those who fall sick, especially those with periodic or fluctuating ailments, and secondly, there will be reduced incentives to return to work both for the short-term and the long-term sick and for the disabled.
      The Government argue that their pro-proposals will affect only a minority. That is an especially shoddy argument. They ignore the fact that, however small the minority, they cannot legitimise policies of discrimination and injustice. The Government find it difficult to visualise the effect on individuals and on families, probably because so few of them have experienced life on the margins of poverty.
      We are concerned here not only with amendment No. 11 but with other amendments and not least amendment No. 24. In Committee my right hop. and hon. Friends moved an amendment
      574
      to reduce the period from 13 weeks to eight weeks. That was rejected. Are the Government now prepared to respond to that amendment in a way they refused to do in Committee?
      7 pm
      In turning briefly to amendment No. 24, which seeks to remove the effect of the clause from those who are intermittently unable to work, I must strongly emphasise its importance. It seeks to exempt those who suffer from multiple sclerosis and other demyelinating diseases, and people who suffer from epilepsy and other seizure disorders. It seeks to exclude from the provisions of clause 3 those who suffer from Parkinson's disease, from ulcerative colitis. Crohn's disease and other chronic gastrointestinal diseases. It seeks to protect those who suffer from chronic bronchitis, emphysema, cystic fibrosis and other chronic diseases of the lung. It seeks to help chronic leukemias and other chronic haematological disorders. It is an amendment that could be of assistance to people suffering from diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and other chronic rheumatological diseases. It also applies to those who suffer from chronic renal failure, nephrotic syndrome and other chronic renal diseases.
      I hope that the hon. Lady will look with some favour on the amendment. Humanity requires that there should be some response from the Government to the arguments that have been advanced in Committee and on Report today. I have great pleasure in moving amendment No. 11. The House may be assured that my right hon. and hon. Friends will, if necessary, vote for it enthusiastically in the Lobbies tonight.
      Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. A number of hon. Members wish to speak on the amendment and only a short time remains.
      Mr. Hannam: I take due note of that indication, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief, because of the shortage of time. I shall speak to amendments Nos. 12 to 15, which appear on the Order Paper in my name and in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). By means of the amendments

      575
      I am suggesting that rather than reduce the linking period from 13 weeks to six weeks, as proposed by the Government in the Bill, the Government should reduce it from three months to two months—in other words, to eight weeks.
      I have read the debates in Committee carefully. I found it impossible to find any real evidence that a certain linking period is the right one. It seems that 13 weeks was introduced in 1948, with no real evidence to support it. There was no challenge at that time, and there was no challenge subsequently, on whether that was the correct period. There has been no effective monitoring of the effect of the linking period. Therefore, there is no evidence to substantiate some of the fears that we have all expressed in Committee and in private discussions about the effect of the proposed change in the linking period.
      The Department confesses that it does not have an effective monitoring system. I feel that the reduction to six weeks is too draconian. I urge the Minister and my right hon. and hon. Friends to support my compromise proposal.
      Mr. Carter-Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that where there is remission, as with multiple sclerosis, 13 weeks is better than six weeks—I agree that his proposal of eight weeks is better—and that 13 weeks is totally inadequate for a progressive illness?
      Mr. Hannam: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that account must be taken of cases on the margin, wherever the line it; drawn. No one really knows what is the correct linkage period. No one knows when the deterrent will take effect. I am merely trying to achieve what I hope will be an improvement on the Government's present intention and to move towards the position that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has adopted. The problem of the marginal case will exist wherever the line is drawn.
      I feel strongly that there is rather too much hit or miss about the reduction to six weeks from the original 13 weeks. That is why I tabled the amendment. We have grave fears that those who are receiving incapacity benefit and who are trying desperately hard to return to work will feel that the risk is too great and
      576
      that they may lose their benefit or entitlement to a higher rate of invalidity allowance. The various disability groups, including RADAR, Disability Alliance, and the Disablement Income Group, have presented to hon. Members, to those who served in Committee and to Ministers some excellent evidence on the various dangers. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who always shows a deep concern in these matters, will take their arguments to heart and will consider them carefully.
      Whatever happens to my amendments and to the Opposition amendments, I hope that my hon. Friend will institute proper monitoring procedures so that we may be sure what is happening rather than having to rely on hazy charges and counter-charges from different bodies.
      I accept the figures that my hon. Friend gave in Committee. I accept that most of those claiming incapacity benefit will not be adversely affected by the reduction. However, we are not concerned necessarily with the majority. We are dealing with the disabled and the handicapped, however small the minority. I am concerned that those who may be small in number will be harmed and that some, after long illnesses, will be deterred from endeavouring to seek work. I am concerned that those suffering from diseases that allow periods of remission should be allowed to obtain morale-boosting employment.
      I support the Government's overall objective of bringing public expenditure under control. However, I must state my determination to defend the rights of the disabled and the sick to overcome their difficulties in life. The minimum linking period that the House should insist upon is one of two months, which I have specified in my amendments. I implore my hon. Friend and the Government to accept amendments Nos. 12 and 14, along with the other amendments. Having studied the clause, I realise that the regulation-making power to enable the Secretary of State to increase the linking period in future applies only to subsection (1). I shall vote for my amendments if I am given the opportunity to do so. I emphasise that priority must be given to a proper monitoring system.
      In the earlier debate on clause 1 we heard of the difficulties of obtaining

      577
      factual detail on the effect of legislation. I re-emphasise the need for a more effective system of monitoring. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with that issue when she replies. I ask the Government to accept amendments Nos. 12 to 15. They are offered as a genuine attempt to provide the right answer to this difficult problem. We want the handicapped to work if they can. We want them to be encouraged to work and not to face the deterrents that the reduction to six weeks would introduce. I do not think that the amendments will break the Treasury bank, and I press them upon the Government.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I rise briefly to support the amendments. The Bill has many rough edges. That is not a description that has been offered by the Opposition but one repeatedly adopted by the Minister. It was said so often that the Government were not doing what they intended or wanted to do and that they were having to do something else. If on looking out of the window they see that the hedge needs trimming, instead of cutting the hedge they go out and cut the flowers. The clause illustrates that approach more than anything else. To make a net saving of £20 million in 1981–82, the Government are cutting the benefits to the sick by £50 million, giving back £30 million to the unemployed, and producing the net figure of £20 million. It is clear that they do not know the effect of the linkage period of 13 weeks.
      We know that the Secretary of State is pretty good at doing things by stealth but to have introduced this clause with no real knowledge of its implications is totally wrong. It can be argued that other clauses involve large sums of money and that the Government cannot wait, but in this clause we are talking in terms of £10 million this year and £20 million next year. Therefore, there is a strong argument for the Government to delay the introduction of this measure until they can carry out effective monitoring and can consider the implication of the change from 13 weeks to six weeks. They would not lose very much money. They should consider the effect on the unemployed, the sick, and particularly people with recurrent illnesses who may suffer. I hope that the Government will accept amendments Nos. 12 to 15, which propose a period of eight weeks rather than six weeks, although
      578
      it is difficult to argue that a period of eight weeks is more satisfactory than any other period.
      Amendment No. 24 recognises the problem of people with recurrent illnesses who at present have the benefit of a 13 week linkage and who would suffer if that period were to be reduced to six weeks. I hope that the Government can make some concessions in this area.
      I understand that the Government have given assurances to people who have been lobbying on this issue that they will carefully research and monitor the position. But the Government should first get their information right, and then propose changes. They should not propose changes the implications of which they do not know. Life is getting more and more difficult for people who are unemployed, or who are in and out of jobs or in poor health. Because of the rising levels of unemployment, it is particularly difficult for people with recurring illnesses to find work.
      I hope that the Government will accept all the amendments in this group, or at least make some concessions.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Carter-Jones: If there is any alteration in the linkage period, I should like it to be open-ended. In terms of rehabilitation it would be in the best interests of a disabled person, and it would assist the medical profession. The medical profession would be able to carry out a total programme of rehabilitation without the fear of patients worrying about the financial aspect. If the monitoring is not to take place on that basis, I hope that all the amendements are accepted.
      Mr. Ashley: A short while ago I attended a meeting at which a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Security was present. I was told that when public expenditure is cut someone must bear the hardship. I did not realise the significance of that message until I read this Bill. The disabled are suffering as a consequence of these decisions.
      Both the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) have made the point that the Government do not know the true effect of linkage. The Government are operating in the

      579
      dark. In a sense, they are blindfolded. Yet they are instituting changes that will impose a real hardship on disabled people. These changes will affect people who wish to work spasmodically—those who cannot work regularly. These people are particularly vulnerable. I hope that the Minister will think again on this matter because, by deterring disabled people who are anxious to work, the Government are defying the logic of their basic economic policy, which is supposed to be incentives. I urge the Minister to try to meet some of the proposals which have been made and to have second thoughts on the important problem of linkage.
      Miss Jo Richardson: I should like to add a few words to what has already been said on this matter. Although, in some respects, this is a narrow point, it affects people in society—whether a large or small number—who are least able to bear this sort of treatment. This is a mean clause. It is mean to people who are less well off. I hope that the Minister will give serious thought to accepting these amendments, particularly as some Conservative Members also support them.
      In Committee, the Minister said that this measure would not affect many people, and various hon. Members have, said that the numbers have not been quantified. But even if it affects only a tiny handful of people—it will affect more than that—we should think again. No matter what the number, people are suffering—and the disabled are suffering. The Government expect some saving from this clause. A figure of £10 million in the first year and £20 million in the second year has been mentioned. That is not good enough. If they cannot give way on any other issue, the Government could easily give way on this, think again and accept the amendments.
      There is no doubt that there are difficulties for people who are trying to get back to work after chronic sickness or disabilities or if they have, been wounded, not only because of their disabilities, but because of loss of confidence. The thought that they will have to stick a job from day to day, week to week because they will be disadvantaged by this clause will discourage people from going
      580
      back to work. People cannot win under this clause in the way in which it is at present drafted. There is a likelihood that long-term sufferers will never receive invalidity benefit. On the other hand, it increases the likelihood of people who receive invalidity benefits continuing to apply for invalidity benefits. This clause hits out at people who can least afford it. I hope that the Minister will take into account the strong feeling on both sides of the House, and that she will consider the, matter again.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): In responding to this debate, I must say that I am glad that we have discussed clause 3, albeit for far too short a time. I was a little sorry that the right hon. Member for Manchester Wythen-shawe (Mr. Morris) spent the first 10 minutes talking about clause 1. However, never mind; we are on clause 3, which concerns linking.
      I must point out that we did not debate in Standing Committee an amendment to change the linking period from 13 weeks to eight weeks rather than six weeks. Certainly we did not discuss the eight-week period specifically in Committee at all.
      It was very clear in Committee, as the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) have said, that we cannot be certain, because there has never been a degree of statistics collected about 13-week linking periods since 1948, of whether 13 weeks was right, or whether 10 weeks would be right, or six weeks, eight weeks, or however many weeks.
      Mr. Carter-Jones: Or open-ended.
      Mrs. Chalker: Or open-ended, as the hon. Gentleman says.
      The point about this clause, which the Opposition are seeking to delete from the Bill, is that it does two things. Not only does it, in its original form, mean that two periods of interruption of employment will be separated by six weeks rather than 13 weeks from a former linking period, but it also changes the period of interruption of employment due to incapacity from any two days in a period of six consecutive days to four or more consecutive days. Our debate has been mainly on the former of those two things. I shall

      581
      concentrate my remarks, as I think the House would wish, on that.
      The reduction in the linking period will certainly mean that fewer claims will link to a previous claim. That has several different effects. More waiting days would be served. Some people who have remained on invalidity benefit through widely spaced incapacities will instead receive sickness benefit. For the unemployed, some people will more easily avoid exhaustion of their 312-day entitlement to benefit.
      To put matters in perspective, at present, 64 per cent, of all spells of incapacity do not link at all. The remaining 36 per cent, link within 13 weeks. It is estimated that 31 per cent, will still link under the proposed six-week rule. So we are talking about 5 per cent. of those spells which now link but which would not do so under the changes in clause 3, as it stands, at eight weeks.
      Obviously, hon. Members are naturally concerned, both inside and outside the House, about the possible effects. I think that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) was absolutely right when he said that there could be no one linking period which suited every person who may have recourse to invalidity benefit or any one person who, from time to time, has periods of sickness. As I have said, there is no magic about any of the numbers of weeks in the Bill. It is a matter of judgment. But the purpose of linking on incapacity benefits is twofold. First, it is to decide whether waiting days should be served, and secondly, to determine whether the conditions of invalidity benefit are being satisfied or remain satisfied. It is that last criterion about which there has been so much concern.
      At present, if a person returns to work after a spell on invalidity benefit and falls sick again within 13 weeks, he remains on that benefit. Under clause 3, it would be six weeks. Any claims which do not link will become sickness benefit claims, and the 168 days entitlement to invalidity benefit would need to be served before the higher rate of IVB would be paid again.
      We need to put that in perspective, too. The majority of invalidity beneficiaries are permanently sick and have no prospect of returning to work. For the
      582
      remainder, the medical view is that any linking period is inevitably arbitrary. There are wide variations in the length of time back at work. We regarded six weeks as a reasonable time. Figures show that for 84 per cent. of the cases that now link, the gap is less than six weeks. But we have specifically taken regulation-making powers to increase the specified period because there may be an effect which cannot be foreseen. I accept all the comments that hon. Members have made. If it were to prove a problem, that regulatory power could be used.
      What the change will do is to obviate a situation which arises and which was never intended when invalidity benefit was first envisaged. I do not think that it is a serious problem, but it needs to be mentioned. Because we have had a 13-week linking rule, some people with a series of relatively minor and unrelated ailments are able to receive a long-term benefit intended for the chronic sick and disabled.
      Mr. Field: How does the hon. Lady know, if the Department does not monitor?
      Mrs. Chalker: That is an unwarranted side effect of linking, which the provision in the clause would largely eliminate.
      Mr. Field: If the Department does not monitor how can the hon. Lady possibly know?
      Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Member knows full well that there is some monitoring, but the monitoring which has existed up to date, and under his Government, is not adequate for the purposes about which the House is now asking questions. That is why I assured the Standing Committee, and I reassure the House once more, that that monitoring will increase.
      Mr. Carter-Jones: Basically, what is intended to happen is that where disabled people have to remain at home, the advent of technology will enable them to work within their homes, and that they can get invalidity benefit which will assist them with the extra costs of disability.
      Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment. The very fact that there is a regulatory power in the

      583
      Bill will enable it to be changed it mat should prove necessary. That may well be necessary with increasing technology, which will help disabled people to do some work in their homes which they cannot do now.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has explained that 13 weeks is not a magic figure. He also went back through the history of how it came about. We accept that, for people going back to work after a long illness, two months is a reasonable time to re-establish themselves in employment—probably more so than six weeks. I also appreciate that the extension to eight weeks would help to some extent the chronic sick, who are able to work intermittently.
      The length of time that we choose is a matter of judgment, but we have been very much impressed by the arguments from expert voluntary bodies. A change from six weeks to eight weeks, which is what is being proposed, would obviously increase invalidity benefit expenditure. That is something with which the House would not disagree. Therefore, it if it can be so arranged, I shall be seeking to accept the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter—Nos. 12 to 15—to make sure that the linking period is brought from 13 weeks to eight weeks. I hope that the House will feel that common sense is therefore prevailing on this issue.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Chalker: In my last three minutes I should like to deal with amendment No. 24.
      Mr. Bennett: It is on that point.
      Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) had a word to say——
      Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
      Mrs. Chalker: No. I must answer what was said on amendment No. 24.
      Mr. Bennett Mr. Bennett rose——
      Mrs. Chalker: At present, I can well see the attraction of amendment No. 24.
      Mr. Bennett Mr. Bennett rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is not giving way. No point of order arises.
      Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that I wanted to raise was the question of whether the Minister would be in a position to move those amendments.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order arising from what the Minister is doing.
      Mrs. Chalker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I sought the advice of the Chair earlier in the day to make sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter could have his amendments moved by me, if not by him personally.
      Finally, amendment No. 24 is interesting, but it would bring a great complication into our whole adjudication system for incapacity benefits. It was presumably the intention of the amendment that the first spell of incapacity should be due to one of the conditions specified in the amendment. That alone would cause difficulties in adjudication because, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe knows, no specific incapacity is named. It is simply the first spell of incapacity which starts off the entitlement. It is not clear from that amendment whether a second period would have to be due to the same medical condition as the first, or a subsequent period, and that would provide even further scope for major adjudication problems. I could go into this issue in more detail. However, in view of the time, I shall not. I under stand why amendment No. 24 was tabled. Many more disorders could have been added to the list. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that. The job of our insurance officers would become virtually impossible. It would be very misleading if we were to have six or eight-week——
      It being half-past Seven o'clock Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the Order [6 May] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—

      Division No. 321]

      AYES

      7.30 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Freud, Crement

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Adams, Allen

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Newens, Stanley

      Allaun, Frank

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Alton, David

      George, Bruce

      Ogden, Eric

      Anderson, Donald

      Ginsburg, David

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Graham, Ted

      O'Neill, Martin

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Ashton, Joe

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

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

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Bagler, Gordon A. T.

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Park, George

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Hardy, Peter

      Pendry, Tom

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Penhaligon, David

      Beith, A. J.

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Prescott, John

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Haynes, Frank

      Price, Christopher (Lewlsham West)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Race, Reg

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Home Robertson, John

      Richardson, Jo

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

      Homewood, William

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Bradley, Tom

      Hooley, Frank

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Horam, John

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

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

      Robertson, George

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Howells, Geraint

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

      Huckfield, Les

      Rooker, J. W.

      Buchan, Norman

      Hudson, Davies. Gwilym Ednyfed

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Campbell, Ian

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Ryman, John

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Canavan, Dennis

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Sever, John

      Cant, R. B.

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Sheerman, Barry

      Carmichael, Neil

      John, Brynmor

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Silverman, Julius

      Cartwright, John

      Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Soley, Clive

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Conland, Bernard

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Staliard, A. W.

      Cook, Robin F.

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Cowans, Harry

      Kinnock, Neil

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

      Cryer, Bob

      Lamble, David

      Stoddart, David

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lamborn, Harry

      Strang, Gavin

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Lamond, James

      Straw, Jack

      Dalyell, Tam

      Leadbltter, Ted

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Davidson, Arthur

      Leighton, Ronald

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzll (Llanelli)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Davles, Ifor (Gower)

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

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

      Litherland, Robert

      Tilley, John

      Deakins, Eric

      Lotthouse, Geoffrey

      Tinn, James

      Dempsey, James

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Dewar, Donald

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Dobson, Frank

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Dormand, Jack

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Douglas, Dick

      McElhone, Frank

      Watkins, David

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Weetch, Ken

      Dubs, Alfred

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McKelvey, William

      Welsh, Michael

      Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Maclennan, Robert

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McNamara, Kevin

      Whirlock, William

      Eastham, Ken

      McWilliam, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

      Magee, Bryan

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      English, Michael

      Marks, Kenneth

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

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

      Wlliams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

      Ewing, Harry

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Field, Frank

      Maxton, John

      Winnick, David

      Fitch, Alan

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Woodall, Alec

      Fitt, Gerard

      Meacher, Michael

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Flannery, Martin

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Wright, Sheila

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

      Young, David (Bolton East)

      Ford, Ben

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Forrester, John

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

      Mr. Hugh McCartney and

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Morton, George

      Mr. Joseph Dean.

      The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 278.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Altken, Jonathan

      Fox, Marcus

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Alexander, Richard

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Allson, Michael

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Moate, Roger

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Fry, Peter

      Monro, Hector

      Ancram, Michael

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Arnold, Tom

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Moore, John

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Morgan, Geraint

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Banks, Robert

      Gow, Ian

      Mudd, David

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Murphy, Christopher

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Myles, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gray, Hamish

      Needham, Richard

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Greenway, Harry

      Nelson, Anthony

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Grieve, Percy

      Neubert, Michael

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Newton, Tony

      Best, Kelth

      Grist, Ian

      Nott, Rt Hon John

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Grylls, Michael

      Onslow, Cranley

      BIHen, Rt Hon John

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Osborn, John

      Biggs-Davison, John

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

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Blackburn, John

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Blaker, Peter

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Body, Richard

      Hannam, John

      Parris, Matthew

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Pattle, Geoffrey

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Hawksley, Warren

      Pawsey, James

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Heddle, John

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Bright, Graham

      Henderson, Barry

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Brinton, Tim

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Porter, George

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Hicks, Robert

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hooson, Tom

      Raison, Timothy

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Buck, Antony

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Budgen, Nick

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Renton, Tim

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Burden, F. A.

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Butcher, John

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      RIppon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Chalker. Mrs. Lynda

      Kimball, Marcus

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Channon; Paul

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Knox, David

      Rossi, Hugh

      Churchill, W. S.

      Lamont, Norman

      Rost, Peter

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sulton)

      Lang, Ian

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Latham, Michael

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Scott, Nicholas

      Colvin, Michael

      Lawson, Nigel

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Cope, John

      Lee, John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

      Corrie, John

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shersby, Michael

      Costain, A. P.

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Silvester, Fred

      Critchley, Julian

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

      Sims, Roger

      Crouch, David

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Loveridge, John

      Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Luce, Richard

      Speller, Tony

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Spence, John

      Dover, Denshore

      McCrindle, Robert

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      MacGregor, John

      Sproat, lain

      Durant, Tony

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Stainton, Keith

      Dykes, Hugh

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Stanley, John

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Steen, Anthony

      Eggar, Timothy

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Stevens, Martin

      Elliott, Sir William

      Madel, David

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Major, John

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Marland, Paul

      Stokes, John

      Farr, John

      Marlow, Tony

      Stradllng Thomas, J.

      Fell, Anthony

      Mates, Michael

      Tapsell, Peter

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Mather, Carol

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Maude, Rt Hon Angus

      Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Mawby, Ray

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Fletcher-Cook, Charles

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Forman, Nigel

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      588

      589

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Wilkinson, John

      Trotter, Neville

      Waller, Gary

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Walters, Dennis

      Wolfson, Mark

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Ward, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Viggers, Peter

      Warren, Kenneth

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Waddington, David

      Watson, John

      Wakeham, John

      Wheeler, John

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Whitney, Raymond

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

      Wickenden, Keith

      Mr. Anthony Berry.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven o'clock.
      Amendments made: No. 12, in page 3, line 43, leave out ' 6 ' and insert ' 8 '.
      No. 13, in page 4, leave out lines 3 to 6.
      No. 14, in page 4, line 23, leave out ' 6 ' and insert ' 8 '.
      No. 15, in page 4, line 23, at end insert:
      ' (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for any provision amended by subsection (1) or (3) of this section to have effect as if for the reference to 8 weeks there were substituted a reference to a larger number of weeks specified in the regulations'.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

    Clause 4

      REDUCTION AND ABOLITION OF EARNINGS RELATED SUPPLEMENT AND ADDITION
      Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 4, line 24, leave out Clause 4.
      Some of my hon. Friends hope to speak to amendment No. 17 as well, which deletes clause 5. If it is convenient to the House I shall move amendment No. 16 and discuss with it amendment No. 17: page 4, line 37, leave out clause 5.
      Amendment No. 16 deals with clause 4 which is entitled "Reduction and abolition of earnings-related supplement and addition." This is not an abatement or an adjustment—it is the abolition of a national insurance benefit. The long title of the Bill abolishes certain benefits. We have been trying to encourage the media to pay attention to the abolition of benefits in the Bill, but so far we have not succeeded. We are discussing here the total abolition of a benefit, and cuts in national insurance benefits which amount to £562 million—£360 million of which will result from clause 4 in a full year.
      The clause means the total abolition of the earnings-related supplement to unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, injury benefit, maternity allowance and widows' allowance—five national insurance benefits, all of which attract earnings-related supplement provided that the contribution condition is met.
      The Government are abolishing this benefit willy-nilly without any manifesto commitment to do so. They claim that they will save £360 million, but the net saving is nearer £285 million because £75 million will be used to pay supplementary benefit. By abolishing this benefit, the Government will push several thousand people on to means-tested benefits and they will have to spend £75 million extra on supplementary benefits. That goes against the grain for this Government. Those on supplementary benefits have been at the butt end of some of the attacks made by the Minister of State and now the Government are about to increase the numbers of people who will be on the receiving end of his remarks.
      7.45 pm
      Two of these benefits—the maternity allowance and the widows' allowance—are unique in that they apply to women only. The Government will cut £50 million by abolishing the earnings-related supplement for those women who are in receipt of the maternity allowance and the widows' allowance. Both these benefits have actually been paid for by national insurance contributions. In fact, contributions are being made this year and when those people come to collect their benefits in 1982 they will find that they have been abolished. The Secretary of State will no doubt say that this is a "pay as you go" system, and that the contribution year is not really linked to the time the person has to claim. But that will not wash with those people who suddenly discover that they have paid their national insurance contribution in 1980–81 but cannot collect the earnings-related supplement in 1982. They have

      591
      been short-changed and robbed by this Government.
      So far I have not received a single representation from any widows' organisation in the country about the Government taking £15 million from widows. I cannot believe that these organisations would have been silent if a Labour Government had made such a proposal. When we were in office, they kicked at the doors of Ministers claiming that we were not doing enough for them. Now £15 million is being taken deliberately from the widows. Among those widows are women whose husbands were killed at work. That is where the earnings-related supplement comes into play. That the Government should have come forward with such a proposal belies belief. The Secretary of State must be pretty ashamed of this clause.
      We spent a long time in Committee discussing what the Secretary of State said in his statement on 27 March. We all have copies of Hansard and we can look at what he said. What I am about to say casts no reflection on the Hansard reporters because the Secretary of State did not utter the words that I am about to put into his mouth from the Dispatch Box. In the brief that I received from the Child Poverty Action Group there was a quotation attributed to the Secretary of State on 27 March referring to the abolition of earnings-related supplement. He said:
      " Nevertheless earnings-related supplement does add to income out of work, and therefore, at the margin, does not encourage the return to work."
      I could not find any speech that the right hon. Gentleman made that day apart from a press conference and his speech in this House. I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman say those words, although at one time I believed that I had. We discovered in Committee that that sentence was in the right hon. Gentleman's draft statement. He told us that at length in Committee. One of my hon. Friends drew attention to the fact that the sentence was in the press notice. The right hon. Gentleman agreed but pointed out that the press notice had written on it "Check against delivery".
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The matter was raised in Committee, but I did not say
      592
      that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that phrase did not appear on the statement given to the press. However, that does not alter the fact that the previous words that the hon. Gentleman quoted were never said by me.
      Mr. Rooker: The Secretary of State made the point in Committee that press releases usually contain that caveat. That is normal on press releases. One of my hon. Friends had the original DHSS press release in Committee. It was not a photocopy. The caveat was not on that.
      The Secretary of State made it clear that he had chosen not to say those words. By implication it was clear that he was frightened to say those words in this Chamber. They imply that the removal of earnings-related supplement would drive the sick and disabled back to work when they are not fit.
      I accept that the Secretary of State did not say those words for the reasons he gave. He told us that we must judge only what he said to the House. However, I picked up a copy of his statement from the Vote Office on 27 March. That sentence appears in it. I checked again today. If an hon. Member asks in the Vote Office for a copy of the statement that the Secretary of State made on 27 March with regard to the November 1980 uprating, he will be given the statement containing that sentence. That sentence does not appear in Hansard, but it is in the statement that the Secretary of State had in front of him that day. We should like to know why the right hon. Gentleman omitted those words.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin Mr. Patrick Jenkin rose ——
      Mr. Rooker: I am not giving way. The right hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
      Mr. Jenkin Mr. Jenkin rose——
      Hon. Members: Give way.
      Mr. Rooker: No. The guillotine was imposed by the Government to curtail our debate. The right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak.
      Mr. Jenkin: This is a debate in the House of Commons.
      Mr. Rooker: The House of Commons is here to enable hon. Members to debate.

      593
      The statement containing that sentence is still in the Vote Office. I expect the Secretary of State will have an explanation, which he can make in his own speech. I have had enough of the right hon. Gentleman's claptrap. The Government have curtailed the debate. We are under a severe guillotine.
      The Secretary of State did not have the courage to utter those words, but in that sentence he or onez of his advisers was implying that the sick or disabled in receipt of earnings-related supplement could be encouraged to return to work before they were fit and able by removing the benefit. That is scandalous. It is a fundamental attack on the Welfare State. The Secretary of State should hang his head in shame over clause 4. The Government have no mandate for it.
      People have not yet become aware of the robbery contained in the clause. In the tax year that we have just started people are paying national insurance contributions that include entitlement to earnings-related supplement from January 1982. In 1982 the sick, disabled and widows whose husbands are killed at work and who are entitled to earnings-related supplement will find that the benefit has been abolished. Conservative Members have said in Committee that people should not be encouraged to believe that national insurance is a proper insurance scheme. They said that they must rid people of the illusion that they are entitled to benefit if they have paid their contribution. They were supported in that by the Minister.
      Under clause 1, benefits will not be raised in line with inflation, or uprated. They will be cut. This clause is nothing short of robbery. I ask those in another place to do a useful job and stop 22 million people being robbed. If the House of Lords did that, I should not retract what I have said, but it would demonstrate that it was defending the underdog and was not the Government's lacky, as are Conservative Back Benchers in this House. If an insurance company took similar action there would be a major uproar and we should have retrospective legislation to protect their clients once they had paid their contribution.
      This clause contains the meat of the Government's cuts. It is a cut of £360 million out of £560 million in the national
      594
      insurance system. It is 360 times the amount that the Government will get by cutting the benefits to strikers' families in clause 6. That is the scale of clause 4. I hope for once that the media, including "Today in Parliament", will start describing the Bill as an instrument to cut contributory national insurance benefits affecting 22 million people.
      Mr. Richard Needham: I hope that in the few words that I shall say I can give clause 4 deeper consideration than the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). The hon. Gentleman could perhaps have applied his mind to the financial savings implicit in the Bill and looked carefully at the figures proposed by the Government. My right hon. Friend must be sick and tired of going through the figures with me, but I should like to take him again through the financial implications. The House deserves to have them fully explained.
      8 pm
      The Bill implies that the saving will be £360 million in 1982–83 cash prices. This is based on making up the figures, mentioned by my right hon. Friend, both in Committee and in a written answer, of £185 million for sickness benefit, £15 million for injury benefit, £35 million for maternity allowance, £110 million for unemployment benefit and £15 million for widows' allowances. The problem is that the £110 million unemployment benefit in 1982–83 compares with a figure of £96 million for 1979–80 given in a written answer to the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). According to the White Paper on public expenditure, the number of unemployed in 1982–83 is likely to be 200,000 more than in 1979–80. If £96 million was the correct figure for 1979–80, how can £110 million be the correct figure for 1982–83?
      So my right hon. Friend has revised the figure to show that the savings are not £360 million but £378 million—the difference between the figures of £110 million and £96 million, upgraded by his Department. Against this must be put the £75 million estimated as a saving on supplementary benefit. If the hon. Member for Perry Barr looked at the figures he would realise that this is at current prices. One cannot deduct £75 million from £360 million and compare like with like. To compare like with like, one has to take

      595
      figures in comparable years. That means adding 18 per cent. to the £75 million and raising it to £89 million. The total saving, in fact, is £378 million less £89 million.
      The White Paper uses the sum of £130 million. That is based on 1979 prices. One has to take the £360 million, which should be £378 million, and knock off the £75 million, which should be £89 million. That produces a figure of about £275 million. If one knocks off the increase in supplementary benefit of £75 million, the figure comes down to £200 million. If one adds the effects of the cost to employers of the scheme for paying for short-term sickness, estimated at a further £65 million, one ends up with a total saving, give or take a few million among friends, of £130 million. If, at the end of the day, the figure really is £130 million, how much of this amount will be a true saving? It will not be a saving on the PSBR. The PSBR will have to increase by the amount of additional supplementary benefit paid to those who would otherwise have been entitled to earnings-related supplement. I should like to know how that figure is arrived at, and whether it is likely to stay at that level if more people claim entitlement.
      The figure of £96 million given to the hon. Member for Barking has now been revised downwards to £88 million. Is it not possible that the figure of £128 million might also be revised downwards? These figures come about because the Government Actuary determines what will be the levels of contribution to the national insurance fund. As the hon. member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) pointed out, in an interjection on Second Reading, for there to be a reduction in public expenditure, there has to be a reduction in the terms of the settlements and not a reduction in the terms of the contributions. If there is a reduction on both sides, the books will balance. But the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, in the debate on 31 March, on the Budget resolutions:
      " Title to earnings-related supplement is determined by the benefits paid in the previous year. It is a pay-as-you-go system rather than an insurance system. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of that. There will be no contributions for earnings related supplement paid in the preceding year."—[Official Report, 31 March 1980; Vol. 982, col. 162.]
      596
      If that is the case, the contributions are likely to be taken into account, as my right hon. Friend said on another occasion, in working out what will be the actual contributions against the settlements. My right hon. Friend went on to say that he accepted that. But the problem is that this is such a tiny percentage of the total of £15 billion that it is difficult to ask the Government Actuary how he will make sure that the figure comes out right. In the past the Government Actuary has got it wrong. Because he bases the contributions on what the Government tell him will be the rate of wage settlements, the amount that the Government Actuary has had in surplus has been consistently greater than he anticipated. My right hon. Friend made this point in Committee. It is worth looking at the table showing how the Government Actuary costed the contributions for 1980. He states:
      " average earnings in the period from September 1979 to March 1980 will be 7 per cent. higher than in the period April to August 1979 and the average in the tax year 1980–81 will be !4 per cent. higher than in 1979–80."
      I do not wish to be pessimistic. I would have thought that 14 per cent. is likely to be on the low side of what would actually happen. If it comes out higher and wage settlements are higher, the amount of money taken through national insurance contributions will be higher and the surplus on the funds will therefore be higher.
      The Government Actuary, working out the settlements from the fund, was instructed to assume that the amount of price increases would be 14 per cent. but the actual amount of benefit that will be settled will be 16½ per cent. on long-term supplementary benefit and 11½ per cent. on short-term supplementary benefit. If the contributions are reduced on the one side and the abolition of the earnings-related supplement means that settlements go down, there will be no saving on public expenditure. There will only be an increase in the PSBR due to greater supplementary benefit payments. If, on the other hand, the Government Actuary gets the figures slightly wrong, as he has done previously, there will be no saving either because the contributions will stay the same. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the money that will go into the fund will be so enormous and

      597
      the savings on ERS so small that it will be a drop in the ocean. The actual figures that he says will be saved will be mirages rather than reality.
      I am concerned that the scheme for earnings-related supplements, although it may not be the best way of helping mobility, should assist unemployed people at a time when their living standards fall dramatically. The amount of money that they pay towards this earnings-related scheme amounts to perhaps a quarter of 1 per cent. of their income. If this is true, it is a tiny percentage for them to pay to get support to help them to meet an enormous drop in living standards when times get difficult and they lose their jobs.
      My right hon. Friend says that only between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of unemployed take earnings related supplement. That is true. A large number of unemployed have been unemployed for longer than one year and therefore have no entitlement, but 43 per cent. of those claiming unemployment benefit receive earnings-related supplement. That is a hefty percentage.
      This may not be the best scheme in terms of mobility, but when unemployment is rising it is surely worth trying to find ways of helping people back into jobs and over the drop in living standards. It cannot be right that when pensioners are protected and supplementary benefits rise in line with prices the only sufferers should be those who are becoming unemployed, particularly at a time when the Government's economic policy is destined to ensure that we have a shake-out in old and dying industries. Those people must be protected and helped.
      If the £130 million that we are talking about can be used with creativity and flair—it equals the amounts spent on the youth opportunities programme and the job release scheme put together—it could go a long way towards helping people to find new jobs, which would reduce Government spending on unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit.
      Mr. Field: The House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue, because no one noticed the adjustment that the Government were up to until the hon. Gentleman pointed it out on Second Reading. As he has probably done more research than anyone else on the national insurance fund and the Government
      598
      Actuary, could he help us on one point? He seems to be suggesting that however the Government present the figures and the arguments they are after making a substantial saving.
      I, and perhaps many of my hon. Friends, did not realise until today that if the Government are successful in that move it will lead to an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement. I am most interested to know how the Government will get their hands on the £360 million that was detailed in the financial memorandum when the Bill was published.
      Has the hon. Gentleman's research led him to anticipate the moves that the Government may make? Do they have power to instruct the Government Actuary not to take account of the abolition of benefits, or does the hon. Gentleman think that they may make the saving by reducing their contribution to the national insurance fund?
      Mr. Needham: The Government Actuary is instructed by the Secretary of State and therefore it is up to my right hon. Friend to tell the Government Actuary how to come to his figures. On 31 March my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that contributions would be reduced during the year to take that into account. That is why it is difficult to see how the Government will make the savings.
      The Government's answer may be that the amount involved is such a tiny percentage of the fund that it might happen anyway, because the Government Actuary is asked to take into account wage increases of 14 per cent. for 1980–81, when they may be considerably higher. The take will therefore be that much greater.
      We are uncertain about where the savings will be made and how much they will be. Indeed, it is possible that they will not take place at all. When unemployment is rising by so much, it would be of enormous assistance, even if the earnings-related supplement is not the best way of helping the unemployed, to use at least part of the money for retraining and increased mobility. When the unemployment problem is becoming more relentless and more difficult to solve, that would be a better way to proceed.
      I understand my right hon. Friend's difficulties. If he says that we have to

      599
      find savings in public expenditure from somewhere, I suggest that we should link the price of beer and tobacco with inflation, or shade the tax thresholds. Perhaps we should not have taken action on stamp duty on houses costing less than £20,000.
      With the uncertain statistics and the increase facing us on unemployment, it would surely be better to use the money to help people to find other jobs and to reduce the problem. Otherwise, in a year or two, the Government will regret what they have done. I must tell my right hon. Friend, therefore, that I cannot support clause 4 in its present form.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Charles R. Morris: I trust that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) will forgive me if I do not follow his onslaught on the Government Actuary. However, I certainly applaud the hon. Gentleman's healthy scepticism of Government statisticians in general.
      The procedures of the House are designed to ensure that legislation is fully debated, that contentious issues are identified and that the Government are provided with the opportunity of justifying and explaining their policies. For some inexplicable reason, that does not seem to have happened, to any great effect, on the proposals in clause 5 to restrict access to unemployment benefit by occupational pensioners in receipt of a weekly pension of £35 or more.
      Hon. Members who search the Hansard reports of the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage will be left with the inevitable conclusion that there has been almost a conspiracy of silence among Ministers on the proposal in clause 5 to restrict access to unemployment benefit by those in receipt of occupational pensions.
      Ministers have demonstrated what I can only describe as uncharacteristic reluctance to say anything at all on the subject. The Secretary of State and other Ministers have refused to meet objectors to the proposal. There has been no discussion between Ministers and groups representing occupational pensioners, who see their right of access to unemployment benefit being restricted. Politically speaking, one can understand why Ministers have demonstrated such reluctance to
      600
      meet those who are understandably concerned about the proposal.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I had a longish meeting this morning with representatives of the Civil Service unions and we went into the argument with great care.
      Mr. Morris: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has at least met representatives of one group of pensioners. I hope that he will now find time to meet the Council of Post Office Unions, which is equally concerned.
      The Government's proposal envisages that whereas at the moment occupational pensioners in retirement can receive unemployment earnings-related benefit, for a period of six months, in future, any pensioner who receives an occupational pension of £35 a week or more will have his entitlement to unemployment benefit restricted, with a £1 reduction for every £1 of pension over £35 a week
      I am concerned about Post Office workers on low occupational pensions. The mass of Post Office workers are obliged to retire at the age of 60 and many receive extremely modest occupational pensions of £40 to £45 a week. Under this proposal, this group of people has been singled out to be denied, pound for pound, everything they receive over £35 a week.
      Mr. Ken Eastham: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that on occasions low-paid workers accept low pay in the belief that an occupational pension is a fringe benefit to which they will be entitled in due course and that they are now to be denied that benefit?
      Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I was impressed by his contribution on this subject in Committee. This proposal by the Government is discriminatory and divisive. It is discriminatory because of the Government's refusal to lower the retiring age for men—the State retiring age—and therefore access to the State retirement pension. That means that this proposal affects men only. It does not affect women because women have access to the State retirement pension at 60.
      It is divisive because the proposal will bear heavily on those on incomes that are less than the national average and it

      601
      will turn people against making provision for retirement through occupational pension schemes.
      The Secretary of State should appreciate that the proposal is a breach of the national insurance principle. I believe that it heralds the introduction of means testing for access to unemployment benefit.
      I made a brief reference to the reluctance of Ministers to meet groups who are concerned about this proposal and I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State say just now that he has met the Civil Service unions. I can understand the reluctance of Ministers to say anything on this subject. However, they should answer these criticisms.
      The Secretary of State has not always been reluctant to talk on this particular issue. I quote from a letter of the Secretary-General of the Council of Post Office Unions to the Secretary of State. He said:
      " I write about the Social Security No. (2) Bill, clause 5. I think I need hardly remind you of the issues involved, as you gave the Council and other interested parties much appreciated assistance when the issue was last raised in 1976 (your letter to me of the 3rd December 1976 refers)."
      What did the Secretary of State say in that letter of 3 December 1976 to the Secretary-General of the Council of Post Office Unions which encouraged the coun-cil to believe that the Secretary of State—he was spokesman for the Opposition on social security matters at the time—would agree with them in their opposition to the proposals which were then before the House? The Secretary of State should be forthcoming with the House. What did he say to the Secretary-General of the Council of Post Office Unions at that time which led him to believe that the Secretary of State was with the council? The letter continues:
      " You will recall, I am sure, that the matter had been raised before (in 1966, by the National Insurance Advisory Committee) and that in subsequent consideration in 1971 the House expressed its disquiet I recall that Sir Brandon Rhys Williams characterised the proposal as a form of double taxation on people with occupational pension schemes. Our view, as in the past, is that if occupational pensioners are looking for work, then they should be entitled to benefit in precisely the same way as other contributors."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 8 May 1980; c. 932.]
      Is there any Member of this House who would disagree with that line of thought?
      602
      People have many reservations at present about the attitude of the public at large to the established political order of this country. I honestly believe that nothing is more conducive to or engenders more cynicism and frustration than politicians saying one thing at one moment and doing the opposite when they have the power and the authority to do that which they had indicated previously could not be done.
      This issue has been before the House on three previous occasions and has been rejected on those occasions. I believe that the House rejected this policy on those previous occasions in fairness and on principle. I believe that the House should reject it on this occasion.
      Dr. Brians Mawhinney: I suspect that there is a temptation for those of us who are new to the House to believe that our wisdom is greater than the accumulated wisdom of the years in this House. Therefore, I took time to go back to the introduction of the earnings-related supplement in 1966. I wished to read the arguments that were advanced at that time in support of this measure. I quote the introductory speech on Second Reading by the then Minister, Miss Herbison, who spoke of:
      " the important part which earnings-related unemployment benefit can play in promoting the mobility of labour which is very much needed to meet economic and technological change. The provision of the Bill for earnings-related unemployment benefit is complementary to the Redundancy Payments Act. Both of them are to be seen in the setting of the economic needs of this country."
      Before this Bill was introduced into the House that was still perceived to be the justification for the earnings-related supplement. In that Second Reading debate in 1966 Conservative Members indicated that they accepted the principle of the Bill and that they would help to get it on to the statute book as quickly as possible. I quote the Minister again, speaking on Third Reading. She said:
      " I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for ensuring that we got it as quickly as possible."—[Official Report, 17 February 1966; Vol. 724, c. 1627.]
      In other words both sides of this House agreed on the need for this measure, on the principle that was embodied in the measure, and the importance of it. It was important inasmuch as the measure was

      603
      rushed through prior to an impending election
      8.30 pm
      There has been no discussion in this Chamber since then about the importance of the earnings-related supplement. I had the Library do some research for me. I understand that, other than for adjustments, the matter has not been debated on the Floor of this Chamber since its introduction. That seems to be some sort of a record and an indication of bipartisan support for the measure.
      I say that by way of introduction because it sets the context for the Budget Statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26 March this year in which he said:
      "The ERS scheme itself has been diminishing in worth and effectiveness over recent years. Redundancy payments are now more generous and the development of the employers' sick pay scheme means that ERS is much less needed than formerly. Of the unemployed, only about 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. are in receipt of ERS at any one time. All in all, the Government would find it difficult to justify its retention."—[Official Report, 26 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 1461.]
      My right hon. and learned Friend, in support of the argument for abolition, said that the numbers using the scheme were small—10 per cent. to 15 per cent. The latest figures which I have—the Government may have more recent figures—are for May 1979. In that month, 176,000 people were in receipt of earnings-related supplement. The judgment whether that is an important number must be seen against the statement by the Minister who introduced the scheme in 1966. On that occasion—7 February 1966, c. 40—she told the House that about 110,000 people would be eligible for earnings-related supplement.
      The then Conservative Opposition queried that figure and suggested that it might be closer to 180,000. Be that as it may, the numbers it was envisaged would benefit from this scheme when it was introduced with bipartisan support were fewer than the numbers in receipt of benefit under this scheme in May 1979. Therefore, from my point of view, it seems hard to understand why the Government want to advance the numbers argument to justify the abolition of the scheme as the numbers today seem, if anything, to be greater than they were
      604
      When they constituted a pressing need for the introduction of the scheme in 1966.
      Right hon. and hon. Members will have noticed that in his Budget Statement my right hon. and learned Friend said that it was
      "about 10 per cent. to 15 per cent… . at any one time."—[Official Report, 26 March 1980: Vol. 980, c. 1461.]
      But he did not tell us the rate of turnover of ERS beneficiaries. Therefore, we have no means of knowing how many people per year are in receipt of earnings-related supplement. If we assume a turnover time of six months, we are talking about 350,000 people. If we are talking about a turnover time of three months, we are up to 750,000 people per year in receipt of ERS.
      Mr. Needham: I asked the Minister for these figures. The number of those who received earnings-related supplement in the last year available was 1 million. That obviously included sickness benefits as well.
      Dr. Mawhinney: Whatever that proves, it proves that the numbers are considerable. They are between 500,000 and 1 million people a year. That is important, because starting at 110,000 we have now reached between 500,000 and 1 million people a year. Yet the argument advanced is that we should discontinue the scheme because the numbers involved are not significant.
      Mr. Rooker: I have the figures before me. I extracted them from a parliamentary answer. It may be of help to the House to have these figures. They are a little difficult to follow. On sickness benefit there were 291,000 on a day—I stress "on a day"—and on injury benefit there were 27,000 on a day when the numbers were last counted. On maternity benefit there was 198,000 women per annum. On unemployment benefit, there were 204,000 on a day. Finally, on widows' allowance there were 46,000 per annum. The two benefits affecting women are given as annual totals. The others have a turnover, so the sum is probably in excess of 1 million.
      Dr. Mawhinney: The House has already heard the figures advanced by the hon. Gentleman. We are talking about

      605
      significant numbers of people. That is my point.
      We must ask ourselves whether the need for earnings-related supplement has diminished since it was introduced in 1966. On Second Reading it appeared that the measure was introduced for three reasons. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that those reasons are as valid today as they were in 1966. It is unquestionably difficult for people to cope with a big decrease in income once they lose their jobs. The earnings-related supplement was designed to take the catastrophic edge off unemployment. That is at least as true today as it was in 1966. Taking the size of a mortgage as only one example, there is a catastrophic effect of a sudden decrease in income related to unemployment. For that reason, the timing of the abolition of earnings-related supplement is especially bad, bearing in mind the substantial increase in unemployment which, for whatever reasons, hon. Members on both sides expect to take place in the coming months. We are not here to debate the reasons this evening.
      It was said that the earnings-related supplement would promote the mobility of labour. That is an important matter in this day and age. It lies at the heart of one of the main aspects of Government policy. The Conservative Government were elected because of the desire to see people moved out of unproductive jobs to productive jobs and to ensure increased mobility of labour. That was one of the planks on which we fought and won the general election. That being a main plank of our policy, I find it difficult to understand how we can introduce a measure which flies in the face of it.
      We are talking about reasonably significant amounts of money. On the basis of 1978–79 earnings, the average earnings-related supplement was £14.49 per week. Although we shall debate the size of the decreases under the other clauses, this is by far the biggest decrease proposed in the income of our citizens. The sum of £14.49 will make a considerable difference to most families facing unemployment as they seek new jobs, perhaps elsewhere in the country.
      There may well be a negative aspect to this proposal. Again, we are trying to encourage people to move out of unproductive jobs. The prospect of a large
      606
      decrease in income, not cushioned by earnings-related supplement, may mean that many people will remain in unproductive jobs who otherwise could have been enticed to change their employment into a more profitable area. In other words, the whole thrust of the clause seems to be exactly opposite to the Government's declared intention. I accept the cost argument. It was dealt with effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham). His figure agrees with the White Paper figure but it is not that which, understandably, was used by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). It is £130 million. That is a tiny percentage of the national insurance fund's expenditure—about 1 per cent. of it. For individuals it represents a good and effective insurance against unemployment.
      What disturbs me about the facts to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham referred is that the £130 million is not a reliable figure. It falls within the accepted statistical error of the Government Actuary.
      I have taught statistics at university level—
      Mr. Skinner: Like Harold Wilson.
      Dr. Mawhinney: That is one of the few things that I have in common with the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). We would not dream of making decisions—nor would I dream of teaching my students to make decisions, particularly in the medical sphere—on the basis of the type of statistical error which is involved in this computation. The Government might choose to say that the economic argument is defensible. The scientific argument is certainly indefensible.
      My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when winding up the debate on 31 March said:
      " the supplement is only about 1 per cent. of the total amount of national insurance benefits paid. So it will make an insignificant difference to the level of contributions to the national insurance fund which the Government settle on. That will be determined by the larger benefits, such as pensions. Because of the rising number of pensioners relative to the working population, the likelihood is that contributions will rise. It is a much larger factor in the equation than the relatively small effect of the abolition of the earnings-related supplement."—[Official Report, 31 March 1980; Vol. 982, c. 162.]

      607
      It seems that it is permissible to turn the argument round and say that if the contribution for earnings-related supplement is such a negligible part of the contribution to the national insurance fund, and if the Government insist on trying to save £130 million—we have already discussed whether that is ephemeral or substantive—and the cost of doing that is so small in relation to the national insurance contribution, then it is obvious that we could increase the national insurance contribution marginally. In that way the earnings-related supplement is protected.
      My right hon. Friends will continue to say that public expenditure must be decreased. I accept that without reservation. In the last 12 months I have voted for that and I shall continue to do so. However, it appears necessary to have a degree of selectivity when we reduce public expenditure. It is not sustainable to argue that public expenditure must always be saved across the board, irrespective of the implications. Government policy has other strands. The argument is that £130 million must be found out of the social security budget. I have already made one suggestion about how that could be done.
      8.45 pm
      The social security budget is, in one sense, an arbitrary beast. It has been carved out of the Budget. If it is thought difficult to save £130 million out the social security budget, it is certainly not difficult to save it out of the Budget. For example, in a full year the savings envisaged in the Budget from alcohol, tobacco and betting are £503 million. It would have been quite possible for that extra money to have been found from those.
      It may be argued that the time is never right to cut benefits. As I said on Second Reading—and my right hon. Friend the Minister agreed—there is nothing in the Bill that makes my heart leap with joy. The cut envisaged in the clause is the largest of any of the cuts. It is different because it goes to the heart of not only the provision of social security benefits, but of the whole economic philosophy of the Government. It will alienate a large body of moderate working opinion, whose support we have been seeking
      608
      through the implementation of other policies. It will militate against our policies to seek the redistribution of employment. It is of a dubious nature as far as public spending is concerned.
      The clause deals with additions as well as the earnings-related supplement. I wish that those were not necessary, but, given the economic necessity behind the Bill, I could not oppose them in the Lobby. The earnings-related supplement lies at the heart of the argument about the country's economic health. If we get that right, all the other decreases in the Bill can be reversed. In my judgment, the abolition of ERS will reduce the prospect of quicker economic recovery, and such a recovery is the best way to restore the cuts in the Bill. I shall not vote for the amendment. I implore my right hon. Friend to reconsider the clause. Depending on what he says, I may not be able to oppose the amendment.
      Mr. Skinner: It is refreshing to take part in a debate at a time when the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) has made a speech in which he almost announced that he might abstain. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) introduced a number of statistics, and indicated that he might abstain also. It is a day when the Government are talking not about doing a U-turn on wages but about beginning to turn the corner. I welcome the possible abstentions. I think that the hon. Members are very wise. They summed up the position fairly accurately.
      One of the main planks of Tory Party policy was to say "We will drive those scroungers out of our midst and get not only the white-collar workers but the blue-collar workers on our side". There is some evidence to show that because of a certain lack of ability in the previous Labour Government there was undoubtedly some support in that area. The attack upon the earnings-related payments falls into the category that has been spelt out by the Secretary of State's horrible friends.
      There is no doubt that the measure was first introduced in the halcyon days prior to the 1966 victory. It is no wonder that the Tory Party supported it at that time. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was grovelling for all the votes that he could find. At that time, shortly

      609
      before the March 1966 election, it was a positive and welcome measure for many working-class people.
      One of the problems that we have faced for decades is the great divide between blue-collar and white-collar workers. Earnings-related supplement was part of the attempt to bridge the gap. Why was it that half of the coalfields were out on the "Day of Action"? Those who ask that question need look no further than clauses 4 and 5. Some of us in the House and others outside explained their effect to miners. They are men who have to suffer injuries and sickness to a greater extent than Members of Parliament.
      We can usually get into this place if we have influenza or many other types of disease, and if we cannot the money is in the tin for us. However, for miners, engineers and many who work in the blue-collar trades there is the economic necessity of having to get to work. The introduction of the earnings-related supplement helped them to stay off work a little longer—perhaps to seek another job or to convalesce to a greater extent than would otherwise have been possible.
      I do not know whether I want Conservative Members to shoot this fox. I do in my heart, of course, but the occupants of the Government Front Bench are hell-bent on suicide. They actually believe that by cutting public expenditure across the board it will bring some wonderful results. There is always a time lag between cutting public expenditure and the change of attitude of the public. There was only a 6 per cent. swing in the local elections, but it will grow to 16 per cent. and 26 per cent. by the time that measures such as those contained in the Bill come to the knowledge of the people.
      Nearly every colliery in the country was told about clause 5 in the few days prior to the "Day of Action". Mine-workers understood only too well the vindictive and revengeful attitude of the Government against the miners. They are seeking to take away about £12 million to £15 million from miners who have retired early. I remember that when Conservative Members were in opposition they applauded measures to introduce the early retirement scheme to give those who had been down in the bowels of the earth for 40 or 50 years a chance to get up in the daylight a little earlier.
      610
      They suggest that the National Coal Board will be able to find the £15 million, but the board does not have any money. The Tories have told us for years that nationalised industries do not have any money. They say that it all belongs to someone else. The wealth creators are the miners in the pits. It is the taxpayer who has to foot the bill on occasions. When they say that they will get rid of £15 million, they are proposing to shift it out of one pocket and to put it in the other.
      What is the attitude of the press to a measure of this sort? We have a Tory rebellion—perhaps it will be minute—on our hands. The Government are taking from the poor to give to the rich. Where are the Tory Sun, the Tory Daily Express, the Tory Daily Star and all the other recognised Tory newspapers? Where are they, to comment upon this lousy and vindictive piece of legislation that the Tories have introduced?
      Another group that will not be very happy about these measures consists of small employers. They are not happy about having to bridge the gap. There are those in my constituency—I had it in mind to mention the constituent who sent me £50 during the general election campaign—who will be incensed at the way in which the Government are getting, as they put it, out of the small employer's hair. They are getting out all right, but they are saying in the next breath, and in a different tone, "You will have to foot the bill. The workers and the trade unions will demand that." The small employers will be tremendously concerned about the effect of the Bill. That is another reason why some Conservative Members have strong reservations about it.
      The Government always say that there is plenty of money in the country. However, in the next breath they say "There is no money and we cannot continue to do all these things. We must cut somewhere." The fact is that there is plenty of money. There is a bonanza around the corner. Of course, most of it belongs to the oil companies. It goes across to America and all over the world, but there is still about £15,000 million left with which we can play.
      There is plenty of money to look after earnings-related schemes and to ensure that the miners' voluntary retirement

      611
      scheme is kept intact and improved upon. There is plenty of money to ensure that hordes of blue-collar workers can retire at 60 or younger. During this period when, as a result of technology, more and more people will be thrown on the scrap-heap, why should there not be occupational pension schemes? Why should there not be a greater rapport between people who work with their hands and those who supposedly work with their brains?
      There is plenty of money in the country. There was plenty of money when Princess Anne wanted the gutters on her house mended. I am told that she has applied for another grant. There is plenty of money in the country. There was plenty of money when the house was bought for her. There was plenty of money when Mr. Blunt was sent to examine the house. The Queen asked the taxpayer to buy her daughter a wonderful house, and she sent Mr. Blunt to look over it to see that it was all right. He forgot to look at the gutters. There was a lot wrong with the house, and that is why the taxpayer had to find extra thousands of pounds.
      There is plenty of money in the country. There was plenty of money to pay the transfer fee for Ian MacGregor.
      There was plenty of money for the Prime Minister when she moved into Downing Street, after she made that so-called passionate plea about St. Francis of Assisi. Her tone was different when she went inside. It was no longer soft and dulcet. She picked up the telephone and said "Shift that Rover that Mr. Callaghan has been using from the back yard. I want two Daimlers." She wanted two Daimlers—one for herself and one for her husband.
      This tawdry Government are beset by their pay problems, and they are wondering whether they can still take on the trade unions. They used the press last week and during the weeks before. Now they want some sort of compliance from the trade unions in order to try to solve their problems. But Labour Members are not here to solve their problems.
      The Secretary of State is introducing a measure that he will not easily forget. He once told people to clean their teeth in the dark. That lasted for a while, but it did not mean very much. These measures
      612
      are vindictive. People will respond" and the so-called workers that the Government thought had moved to their side for ever during the election campaign are quickly returning to their natural fold.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I hope I shall be able to make myself heard above the echoes of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
      In your wisdom, Mr. Speaker—or in the wisdom of one of the previous occupants of the Chair—it was decided to take two amendments together, so we have been discussing clauses 4 and 5. The bulk of the debate has centred on clause 4. I shall, therefore, touch briefly on clause 5 first. I shall deal with the points that were made principally by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris), who put the case fairly for retaining the entitlement to unemployment benefit for people over 60 who have retired on occupational pensions. Unwittingly, he was not helped by his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), who intervened during his speech and referred to this entitlement as a fringe benefit.
      Mr. Eastham Mr. Eastham indicated dissent.
      Mr. Rooker: No, the pension.
      Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman did not mean that, I withdraw my remark. I misunderstood him.
      This is the fourth time that successive Governments have sought to bring this measure before the House. On previous occasions the House has not felt it to be right.
      The hon. Member for Bolsover de scribed this in very strong language, as vicious, vindictive and all the rest. The measure that we are bringing in is exactly the same as the measure brought in——
      Mr. Skinner: I voted against it then.
      9 pm
      Mr. Jenkin: That does not warrant the strength of language that the hon. Gentleman used. There is a question of a balance of justice as against the need to attain savings. The fact is that successive Governments have felt it right to bring before the House the proposition that those who have retired at the age at which they expected to retire—60—

      613
      and have retired on a significant occupational pension cannot really be regarded as any longer in the work environment and ought, therefore, not to be entitled to unemployment benefit.
      The argument of many of us who have opposed this before—and, as I have already said in the House, I opposed it before—was that the right way to deal with this is by the proper enforcement of the availability for work rule. Successive Governments have said that it cannot be done that way. One cannot apply the availability for work rule in the great majority of cases to which the clause would apply.
      I have looked at this argument again very carefully and I have been given, no doubt, exactly the same advice as was given to the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals)—that it cannot be done because large numbers of those who have retired in these circumstances are living in places where there just is not work available to offer them. If one cannot offer it to a man, one cannot decide that he has refused it and so disentitle him to benefit. Yet surveys have shown that up to 55 per cent. of those who are drawing unemployment benefit in these circumstances are not really looking for work.
      When a Government are being forced to make savings, as we are, in the social security budget, as I explained in an earlier debate, and when we are endeavouring to protect pensioners—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) was not present during the earlier debate. I spelt out how inescapable, but how unpalatable, it is, that a Government have to come forward with measures of this sort.
      Mr. Orme: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the miners' early retirement scheme was not in operation at the time about which he is talking? Therefore, there are special circumstances affecting early retirement. These affect Post Office workers, miners and other manual workers who were not under consideration when we were discussing this matter previously.
      Mr. Jenkin: I understand that. Therefore, that is a particular condition to which the clause applies which did not apply previously. But that is not a reason for not bringing forward the clause, because
      614
      in relation to the substantial savings which clause 5 produces, the marginal amounts involved in the case of the two schemes run by the National Coal Board—the miners' early retirement scheme and the redundancy payments scheme—are very much smaller.
      There is no way in which the coal industry can be protected from the effects of the benefit reductions. The terms of the two schemes mean that the miner is automatically protected during the period for which he has a guarantee of a proportion of his previous earnings, except to the extent that taxable NCB payments would replace the non-taxable unemployment benefit. But when taxation of unemployment benefit comes into force in 1982, the advantages for the mineworkers in the provision of taking unemployment benefit into account would in any case disappear. From 1982 the scheme provisions would therefore probably have to be completely changed, removing the assumption that unemployment benefit will be claimed, and the effect of clauses 1 and 4 is limited to the period between now and then.
      As to the application of clause 5 to the miners' schemes, the proposal is that it would be on the basis that the clause will apply to payments made to mine-workers under the early retirement scheme because they are retired and what they have is a pension, but the clause would not be applied to payments made under the redundancy payments scheme.
      As there is a power to make regulations, we shall give effect to that. Those who are affected by the redundancy payments scheme will have been affected on a basis other than that of retirement. They would have been expected to have had work. Therefore the clause will not apply to them. The question of financing the burden that would fall on the National Coal Board is one that concerns my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
      Mr. J. D. Concannon: If I had caught Mr. Speaker's eye during this short debate, I would have made a speech on this point. The Secretary of State is putting the onus on the National Coal Board. He must realise that the Coal Industry Bill is before the House. That Bill will change the basis of the grants that the National Coal Board

      615
      receives. The National Coal Board will therefore be unable to find such a considerable amount of money. In the coalfields, this Bill is known as "Prentice's revenge." There will be one heck of a furore when the mineworkers realise how this provision and that of the early retirement scheme will affect them. The Secretary of State should get his finger out and consider the effects on the National Coal Board.
      Mr. Jenkin: I have given a broad indication that the Government do not intend to apply the scheme to the mine-workers' redundancy payments scheme. Mineworkers are no different from other retirement pensioners who retire at 60. It would be difficult to argue that there is a privileged group of citizens to whom the law should not apply.
      I have already pointed out that we do not intend to apply clause 5 to the redundancy payments scheme. As regards the argument made by the right hon. Member for Openshaw, successive Governments have felt that it was time that the entitlement condition for unemployment benefit should be changed. The House should grasp that nettle and make that change. I have discussed this issue with representatives of the retired and I have found that they do not give high priority to the retention of the entitlement in comparison with other claims, which they felt should be given higher priority.
      Turning to earnings-related supplement, I shall give a brief answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). He devoted his argument to a non-sentence that I did not utter. He hardly made any points about the merits of the case. Indeed, the argument was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) and for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). The hon. Member for Perry Barr asked why the statement had not been made in the House. The answer is that I crossed it out before I got up to make my statement.
      Mr. Rooker: Why?
      Mr. Jenkin: I did not think that it was an appropriate sentence to put in the statement. Most people would consider that Hansard—not some press release—contained an accurate statement of what I said.
      616
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham. He has takes a great deal of trouble to reconcile the figures that appear in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill with the figure in the White Paper on public expenditure in respect of what we expect to achieve by making such savings. There are two differences. First, the figures in the Bill are based on current prices, whereas those in the White Paper are based on 1979 survey prices. Secondly, the White Paper takes account of the employers' statutory sick pay scheme on the assumption that the Government have included this proposal in their public expenditure projections. The Bill cannot do that, because it is not yet law. It is subject only to consultation.
      In the explanatory and financial memorandum the earnings-related supplement savings are given as £360 million. On the basis of the Government Actuary's revisions it would appear that that figure should be a little higher, perhaps reaching £378 million or more. There is a supplementary benefit offset of £75 million in the explanatory and financial memorandum. Again, that figure may be higher, at about £89 million or £90 million. That would give a balance figure of about £288 million. If that amount is converted into 1979 survey prices, and if allowance is made for the switch to employers' statutory sick pay, one gets a figure of about £135 million. The latest estimates by the Government Actuary suggest that the figure may be more than that, at about £145 million. That is a substantial sum that is needed to contribute to the overall savings that the Government must have.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham went on to ask how the Government would get their hands on the savings. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked whether it would be done by reducing the Treasury supplement of 18 per cent.—or the Exchequer contribution, as it is often called in the vernacular. The answer is "No". It is not intended to do that. No legislation has been introduced and that is not currently in mind. I must emphasise to the House that it is really quite impossible at this stage, in the first half of 1980, to forecast with any precision the overall effect on the contributions, on the size of the surplus and on the balance of the fund

      617
      as a result of the changes in clause 4 of the Bill. However, one can say with total certainty that if the Bill goes through and the saving is made, there will be a reduction in public spending of between £135 million and £145 million. That is important as part of the Government's overall strategy to reduce the burden of public expenditure.
      It is impossible to say what the effect of this will be on the contributions because there are so many assumptions that must be made. The Government Actuary makes his estimates on the basis of assumptions about the rate of unemployment, the numbers of unemployed, the numbers of sick and so on. All these factors are fed into his calculations so that he can work out the necessary contributions to meet the outgo. But there still remains the decision that the Government must make on whether the balance in the fund is appropriate as a working balance to support the outgo.
      We must remember that we are talking about the difference between two fairly large aggregates—currently about £15 billion and by 1982, when this finally takes effect, it might be as much as £20 billion. Against that, the variations of the Bill can be said to be within the margins of error. The savings are not uncertain. The savings are needed and they will be made. However, one cannot say whether this will be automatically reflected in a reduction of contributions, or whether it will be necessary to increase the size of the balance.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Surely the argument works both ways. Clearly, if there is a reduction in Government spending it is quantifiable at around £130 million. In the same way, the reduction in national insurance contributions is also quantifiable. If the two balance, there will be no net effect on the public sector borrowing requirement. The PSBR, which is a burden on public expenditure, is balanced by an increase in Government revenue.
      Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right in putting it in those strictly mathematical terms. But I am trying to point out that as of today—21 May 1980—I cannot now advise the House that there would necessarily be a reduction in the contributions which would match this. I understand the points that have been made, but the balance of the fund—the working
      618
      balance—has fallen in recent years from about four months' outgo to rather less than three months' outgo. It is certainly an argument, with the uncertainties of the years ahead, that the Government may consider it right to restore that balance to four months' outgo, in which case one could not expect to see a reduction in the contributions to match it.
      Mr. Field: Why does the Secretary of State keep telling the House that he does not know what is happening on the contribution side? The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as any other hon. Member that the contribution year is different from the benefit year. We are already in the contribution year for the first year in which his Department is running down benefits. The Government have already decided not to change the contribution. There is a saving in public expenditure by keeping up the level of contributions but disengaging benefits. However, that then pushes people on to supplementary benefit, which, as the hon. Member for Chippenham pointed out, will increase the public sector borrowing requirement.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Jenkin: I understand that argument, but the additional increase in supplementary benefit is part of the calculation that has arrived at the net saving of £130 million. The hon. Gentleman has a great understanding of these matters, but he has uncharacteristically fallen into the error of confusing how benefits are paid for with measuring the entitlement of the individual. The benefits are paid on a pay-as-you-go basis. [Interruption.] This year's contributions are paying for this year's benefits. That is the basis on which successive Governments have run the national insurance fund. The question of entitlement to benefit—[Interruption.]
      I must ask for protection, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Birkenhead is continually speaking from a seated position.
      Entitlement to benefit is based on the the individual's contribution record in a previous period. However, it is wrong to imagine that the contributions that the individual paid in that period are paying for the benefits that he may be entitled to in a later period. It is merely a method of measuring entitlement and determining whether an individual is entitled. It is

      619
      not a means of paying for benefits. The benefits are paid for by the contributions in those years.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the change in his Budget Statement before the beginning of the financial year. Everyone is paying contributions this year in the knowledge that those contributions will not entitle them to earnings-related benefit from January 1982.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough advanced the powerful argument that this is still an important benefit. I do not say that it is insignificant. However, over the past 10 years it has been allowed to fall by almost 50 per cent. Successive Governments have felt that earnings-related supplement is less important in the scheme of things than the other benefits paid out of the national insurance fund. For a man on average earnings, in September 1971 earnings-related benefit averaged £22·95 at today's prices. By next November the figure will be £12·69. If that is expressed as the percentage of the benefit for a single man, it has fallen from 112 per cent. to 61·5 per cent. If it is expressed as a percentage of net earnings for a single man, it has fallen from 30·5 per cent., to 16·9 per cent. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was referring to. Over the years successive Governments—the Conservative Government under my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the Labour Government in the five years from 1974—felt that it was not a benefit that needed to keep pace. It has become less important.
      Therefore when one is looking for savings in the social security budget, and is determined to protect pensioners against rising prices, maintain the safety net for the supplementary benefit, do what one can for needy families in work through family income supplement, protect the mobility allowance and so on, one seeks benefits enjoyed by those who are, perhaps, not so badly off.
      Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I take the point that my right hon. Friend makes. Will he also take on board the fact that earlier this evening the House passed a clause that imposes a 5 per cent. abatement on unemployment benefit?
      620
      The combined effect of this clause and the one that we have passed is that for a small group of arbitrarily chosen unemployed people and people on sickness benefit the cut in benefit is not 5 per cent, but, in some cases, can be up to 20 per cent.
      Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend may be right. I do not have that figure in mind. There are two factors that I must mention. Since the earnings-related supplement was introduced, there has been a great extension of employers' sick pay schemes. A Green Paper on statutory sick pay estimates that 80 per cent. or more of employees are now covered by some form of employers' sick pay scheme. It is possibly for that reason that successive Government's have felt it right not to maintain the value.
      Secondly, there has been considerable extension of redundancy agreements going beyond the statutory minimum. They are now widespread and generous in the public sector. They are increasingly widespread in the private sector. The question of mobility and technological change was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. It is more attractive to individuals that they should receive a lump sum on redundancy than have the prospect of an earnings-related benefit so long ago as they are out of work. That is what unions are prepared to bargain for. That is what is progressively happening.
      In these circumstances, the Government have concluded that as savings have to be found—it is inescapable that we make some savings in the social security budget—this is a benefit that can be more easily dropped than many others. I ask the House to reject the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Perry Bar and to support the clause.
      Mr. Orme: The House will consider the Secretary of State's reply on the amendments dealing with clauses 4 and 5 as entirely unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman has not had one supporter in favour of what the Government are doing. He did not address himself to the point on clause 5 about the miners and the postal workers. My right hon. Friends for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made the point that the early

      621
      retirement scheme was designed to assist people, not least in heavy manufacturing work.
      The right hon. Gentleman may regret saying that the miners are not a special case. The Labour Government decided that the miners were a special case and that they had a special call upon early retirement. The right hon. Gentleman cannot brush the proposal aside. He should inform the House that the Department of Energy or his own Department will take the weight off the National Coal Board. The new borrowing powers in the Coal Industry Bill will not allow the board to offset an amount of £15 or £20 million. A pertinent case has been made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. There will be no opportunity, because of the guillotine, to vote on both clauses. But the vote, so far as the Opposition are concerned, when it occurs, in five or six minutes' time will be against both clauses 4 and 5.
      I turn to the question of the earnings-related benefit. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) gave details of the financial implications and the reduced amount of savings that the Government will achieve through abolition of the earnings-related benefit. The hon. Gentleman also said that there would be a reduction in national insurance contributions, which would balance the savings on the public sector borrowing requirement.
      However, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not deny my claim in the House a few weeks ago that, for several reasons, there would be no reductions in national insurance contributions, even though the benefit is to be abated and later abolished. That is robbery. If any insurance company operated on that basis, some people would go to prison. The Secretary of State cannot get away from the fact that there is bound to be an overlap between contributions one year and the removal of the benefit the following year.
      Mr. Field: Does my right hon. Friend share my alarm that the Secretary of State should mislead the House by saying that this year's contributions are for this year's benefits? The basis of the scheme is that this year's contributions are for benefits next year, and many people who are paying benefits this year will be
      622
      denied benefit under the Government's proposals.
      Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is right. The Secretary of State has not addressed himself to that point. Millions of people believe, rightly in my view, that, having contributed to the scheme since 1966, they should receive the benefit when they need it.
      The abatement and subsequent abolition of the benefit will mean that people will have contributed to the benefit in one financial year and will not receive it or part of it in the next financial year. That is robbery.
      Mrs. Chalker: It is not.
      Mr. Orme: The Under-Secretary shakes her head. We have had no evidence that the Government's proposal is not robbery.
      Mrs. Chalker: When will the right hon. Gentleman stop misleading the country? We all know that the contribution year is the preceding tax year. The right hon. Gentleman should not mislead people into believing that they are entitled to benefits which they were not entitled to under any previous Government unless they had paid contributions in the previous tax year.
      Mr. Orme: The hon. Lady has not addressed herself to the point that, in part, people pay this year for the following year. It is no good talking about previous Governments. They did not abate or contemplate abolishing the benefit. I hope that an incoming Labour Government will replace the benefit.
      Mr. Skinner: Not "hope". We will do it.
      Mr. Orme: No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will play a major part at the Labour Party conference to see that that commitment goes into our manifesto.
      It is often not understood that the earnings-related benefit is not only for those who are unemployed. It extends into maternity benefit and benefits for the sick, widows and the disabled. Many categories are covered. Millions are eligible for the benefit and they have had just cause to welcome it. It was created in 1966 to cushion those in an unfortunate situation—for a short time only it is

      623
      hoped—and to lift them above the poverty level. The measure affords them the freedom of movement to look for employment and the maternity allowance affords some recompense and help with the family budget.
      This Government are removing a basic benefit. We deplore that. I think that the Secretary of State has not answered the case and I hope that his right hon.

      Division No. 3221

      AYES

      [9.30 pm

      Abse, Leo

      English, Michael

      Litherland, Robert

      Adams, Allen

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Allaun, Frank

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Alton, David

      Ewing, Harry

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

      Anderson, Donald

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Field, Frank

      McCartney, Hugh

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Fitch, Alan

      McCusker, H.

      Ashton, Joe

      Fitt, Gerard

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

      Flannery, Martin

      McElhone, Frank

      Bagler, Gordon A. T.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Ford, Ben

      McKelvey, William

      Beith, A. J.

      Forrester, John

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      McNamara, Kevin

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Freud, Clement

      McWilliam, John

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Magee, Bryan

      Bradford, Rev. R.

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Bradley, Tom

      George, Bruce

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

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ginsburg, David

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Maxton, John

      Buchan, Norman

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Hardy, Peter

      Meacher, Michael

      Campbell, Ian

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Hellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

      Cant, R. B.

      Haynes, Frank

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Molyneaux, James

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hicks, Robert

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Cartwright, John

      Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Holland, Siuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      Morton, George

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Home Robertson, John

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Cohen, Stanley

      Homewood, William

      Newens, Stanley

      Coleman, Donald

      Hooley, Frank

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Horam, John

      Ogden, Eric

      Conlan, Bernard

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

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Cook, Robin F.

      Howells, Geraint

      O'Neill, Martin

      Cowans, Harry

      Huckfleld, Les

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyted

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Cryer, Bob

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Park, George

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Pendry, Tom

      Dalyell, Tam

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Penhallgon, David

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

      Davles, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      John, Brynmor

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Davles, Ifor (Gower)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Prescott, John

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney Centra!)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

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

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Race, Reg

      Deakins, Eric

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

      Radice, Giles

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Richardson, Jo

      Dempsey, James

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Dewar, Donald

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Dobson, Frank

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Dormand, Jack

      Kllroy-Silk, Robert

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Douglas, Dick

      Knox, David

      Robertson, George

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lambie, David

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Dubs, Alfred

      Lamborn, Harry

      Rooker, J. W.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lamond, James

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Leighton, Ronald

      Rowlands, Ted

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Ryman, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham North Weat)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Sever, John

      and hon. Friends will vote with us against the measure.
      It being half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the Order [6 May] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already prososed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 287.

      Sheerman, Barry

      Straw, Jack

      Whitlock, William

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

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Dept ford)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Silkln, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

      Silverman, Julius

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Torney, Tom

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Winnick, David

      Snape, Peter

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Woodall, Alec

      Soley, Clive

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Spearing, Nigel

      Walnwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Wrigglesworlh, Ian

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Watkins, David

      Wright, Sheila

      Stallard, A. W.

      Weetch, Ken

      Young, David (Bolton East)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Wellbeloved, James

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

      Welsh, Michael

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Stcddart, David

      White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

      Mr. Ted Graham and

      Strang, Gavin

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Mr. James Tinn.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Alexander, Richard

      Durant, Tony

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Allson, Michael

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lamont, Norman

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

      Lang, Ian

      Ancram, Michael

      Eggar, Timothy

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Arnold, Tom

      Elliott, Sir William

      Latham, Michael

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Lawson, Nigel

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Farr, John

      Lee, John

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Fell, Anthony

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Banks, Robert

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Call, Sir Ronald

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant 4 Waterloo)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Fletcher-Cook, Charles

      Loveridge, John

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Luce, Richard

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Forman, Nigel

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Best, Kelth

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      McCrindle, Robert

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fox, Marcus

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford S St)

      MacGregor, John

      Biggs-Davlson, John

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Blackburn, John

      Fry, Peter

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Blaker, Peter

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Body, Richard

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Bowden, Andrew

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Madal, David

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Goodhew, Victor

      Major, John

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marland, Paul

      Bright, Graham

      Gorst, John

      Marlow, Tony

      Brinton, Tim

      Gow, Ian

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Mates, Michael

      Brotherton, Michael

      Gray, Hamish

      Mather, Carol

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Greenway, Harry

      Maude, Rt Hon Angus

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Grieve, Percy

      Mawby, Ray

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Grist, Ian

      Mellor, David

      Buck, Antony

      Grylls, Michael

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Budgen, Nick

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Buller, Esmond

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

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Burden, F. A.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Butcher, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Buller, Hon Adam

      Hannam, John

      Moate, Roger

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Monro, Hector

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Moore, John

      Chalker. Mrs. Lynda

      Hawksley, Warren

      Morgan, Geraint

      Channon, Paul

      Hcdclle, John

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Henderson, Barry

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Mudd, David

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Myles, David

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Hooson, Tom

      Nelson, Anthony

      Colvin, Michael

      Hofdern, Peter

      Neubert, Michael

      Cope, John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Newton, Tony

      Cormack, Patrlok

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Nott, Rt Hon John

      Corrie, John

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Onslow, Craniey

      Costain, A. P.

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Osborn, John

      Critchley, Julian

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Crouch, David

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Parris, Matthew

      Dover, Denshore

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      626

      627

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Pattle, Geoffrey

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

      Trotter, Neville

      Pawsey, James

      Shersby, Michael

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Silvester, Fred

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Sims, Roger

      Viggers, Peter

      Pollock, Alexander

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Waddington, David

      Porter, George

      Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

      Wakeham, John

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Speed, Keith

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Speller, Tony

      Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Spence, John

      Walker, Bill (Perth £ E Perthshire)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

      Waller, Gary

      Raison, Timothy

      Sproat, lain

      Walters, Dennis

      Rathbone, Tim

      Squire, Robin

      Ward, John

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Stainton, Keith

      Warren, Kenneth

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Watson, John

      Ronton, Tim

      Stanley, John

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Steen, Anthony

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

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Stevens, Martin

      Wheeler, John

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Wickenden, Keith

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Stokes, John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Wilkinson, John

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Rossi, Hugh

      Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rost, Peter

      Tebbit, Norman

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Scott, Nicholas

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mr. Anthony Berry.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 6

      SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT IN CASES AFFECTED BY TRADE DISPUTES
      Mr. Orme: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 6, line 36, leave out clause 6.
      I shall be brief, as I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak—not least those with an interest in clauses 7 and 8.
      I take it, Mr. Speaker, that it is possible in this debate to refer only to clause 6 and not to clauses 7 and 8. Will you advise me?
      Mr. Speaker: This debate is confined to the leaving out of clause 6. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I am as bound by the rules as he is.
      Mr. Orme: I understand that, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to help some hon. Members who have other fish to fry.
      I refer to clause 6. I wish to make it clear to the House that the purpose of the clause is entirely different from that of the other clauses in the Bill. This clause is not designed to save public expenditure. We are dealing with a small payment of benefit to strikers' families. The saving on a normal year would be about £1 million. However, the Secretary of State would probably say that in the
      628
      past year, with the number of industrial disputes, it could have been as high as £2 million or £3 million in public expenditure terms.
      We are discussing an anti-trade union clause aimed at the trade union movement in a vindictive way. The Government believe that it is popular politically. I acknowledge that initially it will be popular with some sections of the community, until they realise what is involved.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Did not the Minister make it clear in Committee that trade unionists and non-trade unionists will be treated in exactly the same way? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the clause is also vindictive towards a person who is not a member of a trade union but who happens to be caught up in a dispute?
      Mr. Orme: I accept that. My hon. Friend will agree that although non-unionists sometimes take industrial action they are in the minority. The clause is aimed at organised workers.
      The clause will affect lock-outs. Workers who are locked out will not be able to claim benefit for their families. The media will not carry the basic information about benefits for striker's families. The country should know that strikers, whether married or single, do not receive supplementary benefit when

      629
      they are on strike. Last year the total sum paid to strikers for extreme hardship was £6,000. The benefit is virtually non-existent. The clause is aimed at families and the children of people who are involved in industrial disputes.
      I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Employmet will intervene in the debate and that the Secretary of State for Social Services will address the House later. At least it is of some value to have the view of the Department of Employment, because the Secretary of State for Employment does not have any enthusiasm for the clause. That is because the clause is divisive, vindictive and aimed at a section of the community which will be treated worse than any other section of the community which claims supplementary benefit.
      A convicted prisoner's family can claim supplementary benefit. We do not object to that, and we want no change in that arrangement. What we object to is that a striker is to be made worse off than a person convicted of a crime. The Secretary of State argues that people take strike action of their own free will and that it is their decision, but families do not take such a decision. They can suffer.
      We live in a free society. People are entitled to withdraw their labour. Workers do not withdraw their labour lightly. I have been a shop steward and have led industrial disputes. I know how difficult it is to organise a strike unless the cause is justified. When people take part in an industrial dispute they make a sacrifice, and their families also make a sacrifice.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: Whether or not a person is a member of a trade union, his family suffers under the clause. If a person is a non-unionist, he will suffer. Even if a person votes against the strike, he will suffer. Every working-class family, whichever way they vote will suffer under the clause.
      Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is right. I have no doubt that Ministers will say that it is the responsibility of the trade unions. The vast majority of trade unions meet their responsibilities. We pay supplementary benefit to families because we live in a free and civilised society. There is virtually no democracy in the world that does not make arrangements, in one
      630
      form or another, for families who become destitute, or who face difficulties, because of industrial action.
      Mr. Tony Durant: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that trade unionists throughout the country provide in their contributions to cover the very position about which he is talking? That is something that trade unionists understand. They have given that contribution to help them in the very position that the right hon. Gentleman is describing.
      Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman knows that trade union contributions that are levied—on a weekly basis in most cases, although not in all cases—are used to meet the administrative costs of the union and the payment of the salaries of officers. In consequence, the amount of money that is needed to finance strikes is not always available. I was a Minister at the time of the firemen's strike last winter, when Conservative Members came to see me in deputations. They deplored the fact that benefit was not being paid to single strikers. They said that they had come across such cases, and were astounded that the benefit was not being paid. [Hon. Members: "Who?"]. They were Conservative Members, who came to see me in deputations. I could give the House chapter and verse on that sort of thing.
      The clause will affect industrial relations. It will alter the attitude of trade unions. The vast majority of industrial disputes are unofficial. It is to the benefit of the trade unions to get their members back to work without going through the formality of ballots, with all the difficulties that arise from that. If every unofficial dispute was made official we would find people in dispute for periods of three, four or five times longer than at present. When workers reach explosion point they walk out. That brings the management and the workers together. The trade unions help to oil the wheels, resolve the dispute, and get the workers back to work.
      The Government's approach means that more money will be levied to create greater strike funds. There is a good example from the CBI. It established a large strike fund, created from money that had been earned by the workers in the factories.
      Mr. Durant: That is not true.
      Mr. Orme: It is true. Of course it is true. If the employers are beginning to batten down the hatches, and if the Government are telling the workers that they must batten down the hatches, it will create not fewer but more disputes.
      The manner in which the trade union movement works for conciliation and the fact that trade unions do not want industrial disputes and go to great lengths to avoid them—that is what the Department of Employment and ACAS spend a considerable amount of time becoming involved in—are all indications that there is flexibility.
      The Bill is another example of future legislation, such as the Employment Bill, that impinges directly on industrial relations. It is producing written law that in many instances will not help the industry. In my opinion it will gravely damage it.
      Clause 6, which is vindictive and antitrade union, will do a great deal of harm to industrial relations. The Government seem to think that they have had some
      632
      field days. They have been crowing about the 14 May demonstration, British Ley-land and the steel industry. I warn the Government that they will not continue to have success on that scale. They think that they have had success.
      Mrs. Peggy Fenner: The people do.
      Mr. Orme: Never mind what the hon. Lady says about the people. The Government have engineered the present position. Clause 6, like clauses 4 and 5, will eventually damage the Government. I accept that there are short-term political gains for the Government in the clause. They will ride in on it, but the gain will not last for ever.
      The clause comes at the tail-end of the Bill. It is the final example that the Bill, from clause 1 to clause 6, is aimed at taking away, abolishing, or removing various benefits. Clause 6 is a vindictive provision against the trade union movement and I ask my hon. Friends to reject it.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): I am pleased to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). I immediately correct the impression that he has been trying to give, namely, that the clause is vindictive and anti-trade union. The right hon. Member used those terms frequently, as he did in Committee. The Opposition use those words because that is how they want it to be considered. They think that it is to their political advantage to give the impression that that is what the Government are about.
      We are not making any great claims over 14 May. The Government have been careful not to do so. We are happy that the general public should draw their own conclusions on the result of 14 May. In Committee there were frequent examples of Opposition Members describing clause 6 as vindictive and anti-trade union. We were told that that would be what the people would be demonstrating against on 14 May. A great effort was made to make that the form of the demonstration.
      Let us get the clause into perspective. It is not vindictive and it is not anti-trade union. We are trying to bring about a balance between the financial obligations of unions and managements to the community. It is an issue that has been widely debated over many years. Those of us who were fortunate enough to attend the women's Tory party conference heard the chairman celebrating the fiftieth anniversary and referring to a debate that took place 50 years ago on precisely this subject. No one can suggest that it has not been around for a considerable time.
      We are trying to change a trend that became apparent in 1966 and to transfer part of the cost of strike action in the first place to a trade union and, in the second place, to the small number of non-unionists involved in industrial action, to require them to make their own provision for strike pay. As I said in Committee, this has never been an issue of principle for the trade union movement. On page 181 of a TUC report of 1970, it is stated:
      "After considering the survey in detail, the General Council proceeded to draw up the following principles which unions were recommended to incorporate in their rules ".
      I shall not read the principles on strike
      634
      procedures, but on dispute benefit the recommendation is:
      " To provide for strike benefit to be paid to members involved in an authorised strike and, if necessary, to establish funds to provide such benefits."
      So there is no question of principle. The principle has been established for a considerable time. The trade unions should be interested in the way in which we examine that principle as regards different unions and the different levels of benefits. We are trying to bring a sense of reason and responsibility into the question of those who pay strike benefits to members on strike and those who do not.
      10 pm
      There is a great difference between the various unions. The Transport and General Workers Union pays £6 a week. The AEUW pays £9 a week, the General and Municipal Workers Union pays £10·50 a week, NALGO pays 55 per cent. gross of pay, NUPE pays £5 a week, ASTMS pays £15 a week, the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union pays £15 a week, and the NUT gives net pay to its members. So there is a great variation in benefits paid by unions to their members on strike. No one can argue that this provision is anti-trade union. It is an established practice, and it has varied between one union and another. During the recent steel strike, the General and Municipal Workers Union paid £10·50 a week to its members, whereas the ISTC paid nothing.
      Our central proposal is to reduce the benefit paid to a person involved in a strike by £12 a week. This is designed to ensure that all unions face the financial responsibility of the action that they call. This practice is followed in almost every other country than Britain. We are not taking this action in isolation. We are trying to bring the law in Britain into line with that of other countries. The reason is simple. As I said earlier, we are trying to correct a trend which has happened almost by accident.
      I quoted John Gennard in Committee. John Gennard has made it clear that when the supplementary benefits legislation was introduced in 1966,
      " It was certainly not the intention of the legislators that the Act should deliberately

      635
      assist the dependants of those involved in industrial disputes. The amounts paid to strikers' dependants have been a by-product of the system of humanising assistance to those in dire need."
      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Will my hon. Friend confirm that John Gennard also makes the point in his book that trade union members in the rest of Europe tend not to have to fall back on State benefits, because the benefits provided by their trade unions are sufficient?
      Mr. Lester: I am pleased to confirm that. I quoted that passage also in Committee, but I did not wish to take up the time of the House by quoting it tonight.
      Mr. Orme: If we quote John Gennard, we should quote him correctly. When he referred to the benefits being paid, he said that he was in favour of the Government making such payments. He said that that was civilised. He also said that in other European countries arrangements were made when families were in need of such payments. Is that not a fact?
      Mr. Lester: That is also true, but the salient sentence from Gennard, which I quoted in Committee, is that in other countries those on official strike
      " are often receiving financial support from their trade unions at a level which excludes them from public assistance programmes."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 May 1980; col. 1029–30.]
      That is one of the key points. Another key point is that from 1966 onwards this benefit has been paid almost by accident, and it should not necessarily be seen as of right. As a result of that, the trend has changed. Before the 1966 Act, the National Assistance Board paid out about £75,000 to strikers' families in 1960. In 1967, immediately after the passage of that Act, the figure rose to £337,000. In 1969 the figure was £748,000, and in the 1970s many different amounts were paid out, depending on the action.
      In 1971, during the post office workers' strike, the figure reached a peak of £3 million. In 1972, during the miners' strike, the figure was £5½ million. During the miners' strike in 1974 the figure was £4 million and during the recent steel strike the figure was £9 million. A total of £38
      636
      million was paid out in benefits from the beginning of the 1970s up until the last strike of steel workers, so one cannot say that this is just a minor matter of a small amount of money. It has involved £38 million, abount half of which would not have been paid if the Bill had been in operation. That is quite a considerable saving.
      However, it is not just a question of reversing the financial trend. What we have also seen in the 1970s is the changing nature of strike action. That is why I think we have such wide public support for this measure. What we have seen ½ strike action becoming increasingly a first resort and not a last resort. We have seen strikes actually aimed at the general public. We have seen strikes that have gone on for longer during the 1970s, and 85 per cent. of them have been about pay. Very often the people who have been on strike have been people who were very highly paid anyway and who were striking for more.
      This has created a genuine sense of public resentment about taxpayers' money being used to finance strike action that is directly seen to be against their own interests. I think that this is why, in the Gallup poll after the Chancellor's Budget speech, over 69 per cent. of the people were shown to be in favour of this measure. What we are after here is financial responsibility on the part of those who call industrial action.
      The right hon. Member for Salford, West suggested that this was the beginning of a confrontation, of people battening down the hatches, of conflict. That is the last thing that we on the Government side of the House want to see. Certainly it is the last thing that my Department wants to see. We want to see employers working together with trade unions. We want to follow the pattern suggested only recently by Sir Michael Edwardes—the pattern of building bridges, of profitable jobs and profitable industry. That is what we seek.
      We think that the combination of financial responsibility being transferred back to trade unions and the proper balloting procedures that we hope many unions will adopt in making changes in their rule books—those unions that do not have them already—will mean that the average chap who is involved and is

      637
      called upon to strike will have the opportunity to think carefully both of the financial consequences and of the overall consequences of his action. By balloting, we should see a different trend in the 1980s from that which we have seen in the 1970s. That is our earnest hope, and it is the purpose behind what we are trying to do here.
      Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my hon. Friend also agree that one of the effects of the clause when the Bill is operative will be that, by putting an onus on trade unions to finance their members, the trade unions and their association with their members will be strengthened? Is that not in the interests of good industrial relations?
      Mr. Lester: I hope to come to that matter shortly.
      It has been said by both Opposition speakers that this matter involves non-unionists. That is true. I think that the reason for that is that those who are not in unions and who are involved in strike action, whose numbers are very low—only 1 per cent. of days lost, according to our survey of strikes, involved people who were not in unions—do not pay any subscription to a union. Therefore, I do not think it unreasonable that they should make provision for themselves in the event of being involved in strike action.
      The same applies to lock-outs and layoffs, where, since 1911, the disqualification rules have covered all employees. In practice, we know that it is very often difficult to discover who is responsible for a lock-out or a lay-off. In any case, the question is almost academic, because only 0·015 per cent. of all workers in the period from 1966 to 1973 were involved in lock-outs.
      Therefore, the Government have wisely decided to leave the peripheral questions and make it perfectly straightforward in terms of the involvement of the DHSS.
      I am pleased to say that, in spite of what the right hon. Member for Salford, West said, there is some sign of success, because today's edition of The Guardian suggests that at the General and Municipal Workers Union conference it will almost certainly be decided to raise strike pay from £10·50 a week to £16 a week. That is a very encouraging sign, before the Bill is even on the statute book. I
      638
      gather from the same article that next month the Transport and General Workers Union will also consider plans to double its strike benefits, from £6 to £12 a week.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: The Minister wants the trade union movement to take on the burden of paying an amount towards the family of a striker when he is on strike. Will not this be a real rallying cry for any non-unionist to get into the trade union? The non-unionists will be penalised under this legislation. There is no provision in it for them, but the Government are expecting trade unionists to make provision for their families.
      Mr. Lester: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he should thank the Government and not criticise them. The moral argument is clear. It is reasonable to expect the trade unions that have called a strike to take a greater proportion of the financial burden. The issue has been widely debated for many years. We made a commitment in our manifesto. There are already signs that the provisions will work. Contrary to the final words of the right hon. Member for Salford, West, we hope that the Bill will create a new trend in the 1980s and that there will be fewer strikes, fewer industrial disputes and a greater and more productive economy.
      Mr. David Stoddart: The Under-Secretary of State said that the clause was not vindictive. He could have fooled me. The Bill is vicious. It should be torn up. It should not be put on the statute book. It is part of the Tory Party's declared strategy to shift the balance of power in favour of employers. The Bill will also shift the balance away from justice and in favour of injustice. The Government have selected one group of people—those who go on strike—and have told them that they will be treated differently. No other section of the population will be excluded from receiving a benefit that can keep a family in food, clothing and shelter.
      Mr Tony Marlow Mr Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) rose— —
      Mr. Stoddart: The clause applies only to one group of people.
      Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman spoke of injustice. Is he aware that many people, particularly trade unionists, feel that an injustice is done when a trade

      639
      union goes on strike and causes great public inconvenience? The families of those on strike receive social security benefits out of taxes paid by the very trade unionists who are being inconvenienced. We have put up with that feeling of injustice since 1966.
      Mr. Stoddart: There are many different types of injustice. Conservative Members presume automatically that it is a striker's fault if he goes on strike and that the strike has nothing to do with the employer. Those who criticise strikers conveniently forget that strikers also pay taxes and national insurance contributions. They are entitled to receive the same benefits as everybody else.
      The clause creates an injustice. It applies only to one section of the community. That is a new and abhorrent aspect of social security legislation.
      Mr. Mark Wolfson: Is it not true that benefits help those who are disadvantaged in some way? All hon. Members will agree that they require such benefits. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that only strikers are disadvantaged?
      Mr. Stoddart: I do not know how long the hon. Gentleman has been in the House or how long he has been associated with politics and social security. If he had taken any interest in the subject, he would have known that strikers do not receive any benefits. They are not entitled to benefits. In the clause we are discussing the families of strikers. They are the people who are disadvantaged and penalised by the clause. I hope that the hon. Member has learnt something from his intervention.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Field: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of injustice, will he address himself to the Minister's argument that he cannot understand the Opposition's reaction that the clause is an attack on the trade unions? If the Government are genuine, why did they not accept an Opposition amendment in Committee, to bring in the clause after a time lag? Because of the level of their dues, some trade unions do not have strike funds for this year, next year or the year after. They will need time to build up strike funds. If the Government really
      640
      want trade unions to finance their own activities, would not their argument be strengthened by bringing in this proposal after a time lag instead of introducing it this year?
      Mr. Stoddart: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I did not have the good fortune to be a member of the Standing Committee and I did not hear all the arguments. Certainly, if the Government were genuine they would have accepted that amendment. I would have thought that at least they would put a little gloss on the clause which would have enabled them to justify it to a greater degree than they have been able to do so far.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: That amendment was never moved by the Opposition.
      Mr. Rooker: It was guillotined.
      Mr. Stoddart: The Secretary of State has the advantage of me. However, I understand that the amendment was affected by the guillotine. If so, there was nothing to stop the Secretary of State from accepting the amendment if he thought it was good. Since he did not support it, it is obvious that he wants to bring in legislation as quickly as possible in order to bash the unions before next winter, which he and his right hon. Friends expect to be a long winter of discontent.
      The clause is very one-sided. There is no proposal from the Government to penalise the employer who has clearly caused or provoked a strike, either by bad management or, even worse, because it would advantage his business to do so. If the Secretary of State does not believe that that sort of thing occurs, he should move around industry a little more. Undoubtedly, there are some very good managements in industry throughout the country, but there are also some very bad ones. Bad management forces people out on strike in order to get better pay, conditions and safety measures.
      In my constituency there is a famous firm where I have seen people pushed out on strike by the management's failure to put in the most elementary safety measures for the protection of the workers' lives and limbs. Had the Government wanted to be even-handed and just, they would have found a means to ensure that workers who went on strike

      641
      in such circumstances, and their families, were not penalised.
      Mr. F. A. Burden: The hon. Gentleman suggests that workers may be forced to strike in his constituency because of inadequate safety precautions. Were those precautions inadequate under the previous Labour Government? What did they do? Are safety regulations not being enforced in the hon. Gentleman's constituency?
      Mr. Stoddart: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are irrelevant. The issue is not a party political one. There are bad employers under Labour and Conservative Governments. I would not dream of blaming the right hon. Gentleman or the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister for all the bad management in the country. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman may wish that he had not intervened.
      We should consider certain figures.
      Mr. Roger Moate: Is the hon. Gentleman not missing the point? Will he address himself to the principle? No one would suggest that there are no bad employers or that certain strikes are not justified. However, trade unions and their funds are there to protect their members. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those funds should be used to help their members if their families are in difficulty in such circumstances?
      Mr. Stoddart: I was coming on to that point. The hon. Gentleman assumes that everyone belongs to a trade union, but of 25 million employees in this country only 12 million are in trade unions. About 13 million are not covered. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches may want to deal with that.
      When the minus-£12 clause comes into operation, a striker with a wife and two children will receive £13 05 plus rent. That is to support a family of four. At present, the average sum spent on food is £6 per person per week. That family will be utterly poverty-striken. Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed when he contemplates families living at that level? The Secretary of State for Industry, speaking to the Conservative Party conference in 1973, advised it not to contemplate the public reaction if starving children appeared on television because their families were not receiving adequate supplementary benefit when the wage earner
      642
      was on strike. In the recent steel strike, steel workers and their families suffered extreme hardship. Some had to sell their belongings. I understand that one worker committed suicide. Even under the present system there is hardship. That hardship will be greatly exacerbated by the Bill.
      The Bill will hit hardest the poorest. The low paid will be especially badly hurt. They are unlikely to have savings. They will have no access to other income. As they will have paid little income tax, they will have no tax rebate. The lower paid are least likely to be in a trade union. Otherwise, they would not be low paid. They will not receive benefit from a trade union. This situation applies particularly in the South-West and in parts of the South-East.
      Low-paid workers are often frightened off joining trade unions by employers. That situation still exists. Conservative Members should get around and see what happens. Although the law is against them, there are still employers who threaten their workers with dismissal, by one means or another, if they join trade unions.
      These low-paid workers are likely to be hardest hit by the clause. I hope that when the House votes Conservative Members will reconsider their position. This is an unjust clause, a bad clause and a vicious clause. I sincerely hope that the House will throw it out.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: There are few countries that pay strikers' families. I am glad that the Government pay social security to strikers' families. I am amazed, however, to hear speeches by Opposition Members indicating that they are not anxious that trade unions should contribute to payments to strikers' families. That seems an extraordinary expression of non-comradely activity by Opposition Members. The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made clear what he thought. He believed that the Government should pay. His approach was that the Tory Government were taking money away from strikers' families.
      The Government do not have any money to make these payments. As my hon. Friends pointed out in their interventions, those who pay strikers' families are often those affected by the strikes.

      643
      They pay out of their taxes and pay also through the extra expense in which, because of the strike, they are sometimes involved in getting to work. I am a moderate in these matters. I believe, however, that the clause is long overdue. It is about time some unions matched up to their rule books. Some rule books state that the union should pay strike pay, but the rule books are disregarded. I recall talking to one trade union leader a year or two ago about the welfare benefits that trade unions paid in the past to their members. I asked why those benefits were not now paid. He replied that there was no point in paying welfare benefits when the State did so.
      I believe that trade unions should pay welfare benefits, although I do not press the issue. Any welfare payments made should be over and above what the State provides. I am glad that we have a Welfare State, but the expression of view to which I have referred, about not making welfare payments because the State would do so, is now in danger of being taken further. Some trade union leaders are asking why their unions should pay strike benefit when the State will meet the bill. The country as a whole, including many trade union members, desires that unions should pay their members who go on strike. It may be that individual unions wish the State to pay when they go on strike, but when other unions strike and affect them they ask why the State should always have to pay.
      10.30 pm
      The right hon. Member for Salford, West brought out the corny argument of prisoners' families who receive full social security. Of course, the family of a prisoner can do nothing about getting him back to work, but the family of a striker can persuade him to return to work. There is nothing to prevent a striker from going back to work, except the trade union that says that he must stay out.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the family of a striker involved in a bitter three or four-week strike should not get the benefit but that if that striker goes on a picket line, gets into a fight with a policeman and is sent to prison his family
      644
      should qualify for the benefit Where is the logic in that?
      Mr. Lewis: If the man who is involved in violence on a picket line is not the aggressor, he will not go to gaol. There is nothing in that argument.
      Mr. Burden: I have received a letter from my constituency stating that a union official went to a company and asked the workers to come out on strike. I have confirmed the details. The workers were almost overwhelmingly against striking, but the official drew from his pocket a letter that he said was a union instruction that unless they stopped work they could be fined or could lose their union cards. If that is not coercion, I do not know what is.
      Mr. Lewis: There is no doubt that some strikes are inflicted on workers who do not want to strike. I do not say that it happens every time, but a union that calls a strike cannot object to paying £12 a week to those whom it has asked to go on strike.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. Gentleman said that it was right that in the case of someone who had committed murder, fraud, larceny or some other serious crime the sins of the father should not be visited on the family, which should receive social security benefit. Does he believe that the family of a non-unionist or a trade unionist who voted against a strike that took place should be penalised and lose £12 a week, while the family of someone who has committed the worst possible crimes should be treated justly?
      Mr. Lewis: Society must look after people who are affected by the sins of the fathers or whoever has had to be locked up. A striker is in a different situation. There is no trade union of prisoners to pay any money.
      Hon. Gentlemen ask me about those who do not belong to a trade union. Strikes are caused by organisation, and it is not easy to organise when one is not a member of a trade union. It seldom happens that people who are not union members go on strike, but it does happen.
      However, I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment got it right when he said that non-union workers did not pay union

      645
      dues week by week. Therefore, if they go on strike—they seldom do, and then not for very long—they will have that much more money saved up because they have not been paying trade union dues.
      In order to deal with this situation and force the unions to pay £12 a week strike benefit to their members, the Minister was right to include those who do not belong to a union. If that encourages people to join unions, so be it. None of my hon. Friends has ever said that there should not be responsible union membership. We support responsible trade union membership.
      I think that when Opposition Members examine their comments tomorrow in the cold light of day they will wonder whether their arguments were meaningful. The truth is that the trade unions are divided into those that pay strike benefit—because it is in the rule book—and those that do not. It is time that they all paid strike benefit, and it is time that those who pay taxes were absolved from subsidising those who go on strike and cause turmoil.
      Mr. Race: The arguments that we have heard from Conservative Members have been particularly obnoxious. It is gratifying that this debate is taking place at this time of night, because I notice that the rather inadequate attention given to the Bill by the press during its earlier stages has now almost entirely disappeared. Perhaps the headlines in the press tomorrow morning will not describe the Bill as the Bill about benefits for the families of strikers. Perhaps we shall see a proper description of the Bill. The Opposition hope so.
      I address my remarks to comments made by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, who said that since the middle 1960s strikes have become longer and are now waged against the community. These points were advanced as arguments in favour of the State's taking a different view about the payment of benefit to the families of strikers. My argument against that is that it is inevitable that strikes in the 1980s will, in many respects, be strikes against the Government. That is because of the economic situation in which we find ourselves.
      This Government now talk about the implementation of a tough wages policy. If they believe that somehow they will
      646
      be exempt from industrial action simply because a Conservative Government take that view, they have another think coming. If they try to impose wage settlements around the monetary targets of between 7 per cent. and 11 per cent., with inflation running at 21 per cent. they need hardly be surprised if people resist a wage cut of nearly 10 per cent. I have no doubt that in the next pay round there will be industrial disputes against the Government's wages policy. Indeed, such action was taken against the Labour Government's 5 per cent. pay policy—and quite rightly, too.
      My argument is that industrial disputes have not been caused by the so-called largesse of the State to strikers' families. Industrial disputes arise from the objective economic and political situation. They do not arise from the chicken feed——
      Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Race: In a moment, when I have advanced my argument. Industrial disputes do not arise from the chicken-feed that is given by way of benefits to strikers' families. Therefore, it is erroneous for the Under-Secretary of State for Employment to try to persude Government Back-Bench Members that this measure will reduce the number of industrial disputes. That will not be so. The number of industrial disputes relate to the economic logic of our society and the way in which the bosses' party operates
      Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly when he is building up steam about his class prejudice argument. He said that strikes take place because people take an objective look at the economic situation. If strike payment is deemed from the unions and is not available from the taxpayer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) said, that will be another objective factor at which they can look in the economic situation. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that with the Bill bringing about the changes proposed there would be more and longer strikes, or that the unions and their supporters would consider the situation and say "We do not want to waste our money on a political strike against the duly elected Government"?
      Mr. Race: Inevitably, trade unionists will have to take action against employers or Governments on wages, unemployment or whatever. Trade unionists will no doubt take into account the fact that the State has taken these benefits away. It may mean that more industrial disputes will be official disputes from the word "go". Many trade unions, including my own, do not make disputes official until at least the third day of industrial action. Some trade unions may change their rule books to bring official sanction forward to the first day of industrial action. Some union executives may take the view that their rule books should be changed to make every strike official, no matter what the circumstances. That is already the position in one organisation. Therefore, the impact of the clause may be to sanction more official industrial action. I support the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme) on this matter.
      If official industrial action is called, it is usually more difficult to get people back to work, because the disputes procedures have to be followed and official channels have to be gone through. Sometimes it is easier to deal with unofficial action.
      Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is it not a fact that when people come out on strike they cannot claim anything for two weeks, because often they have two weeks' pay? They draw a week's pay on the Friday before and they have a week in hand to draw the second week. Until a strike has lasted for two weeks, they cannot claim a penny from anywhere. As the majority of strikes do not last two weeks, only one family in eight gets anything out of the benefit. Will not that lead to shorter, more frequent strikes? For example, instead of having a national railway strike, we may have strikes at different stations on different days, probably causing more damage than a national strike.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Race: That may well be so. The benefits affected by the clause are not automatically given to people. They can be claimed only on the basis of proof of need. That is the point. They are not given to vast numbers of people at the drop of a hat.
      648
      One of the arguments that I advanced in Committee about the illogicality of the Government's position was one that Government supporters put forward and that Ministers have stated publicly—that industrial conflict is somehow an outdated form of action. I do not believe that that is so.
      I have already referred to the kinds of problem that the Government will run into in the wages round next winter. I do not believe that the Government will be able to get away from that position. They must accept and plan for industrial conflict. The purpose of the clause is to make it less possible for trade unions to take industrial action. Whether it works out in practice is another matter.
      Government supporters say that £12 is not very much, but the combined assets of the trade unions—even if they sold their offices, sacked everybody and pooled all their assets—would not finance a national strike of all their members for more than a couple of days. Therefore, the purpose of the deeming clause is to undermine the overall assets of the trade union movement and make it less possible for trade unions to take effective national industrial action on a justified basis.
      It is important to contrast the way in which the Government are treating trade unionists with their total lack of concern about irresponsible people. Let us compare the action of someone who is striking for a fair wage for his endeavours with that of someone who wants to push up the interest rates—like those people in the City of London who, in 1976, refused to buy Government gilt-edged stock. Where are the Government proposals to deal with those people and the rip-off that they perpetrate on society?
      Mr. Marlow: Fairyland.
      Mr. Race: This is not fairyland. The hon. Gentleman may believe it to be so. These are the comparisons that people make. People will read the Bill and say that strikers who are striking for a fair day's wage are being penalised while Conservative Party supporters in the City of London, who export capital and deliberately push up the rate of interest, are given millions of pounds because that is the operation of the free market. The operation of the free market must be restricted—but Conservative Party supporters will not be affected.

      649
      The clause is part of the Government's overall objective to change the balance of power between labour and capital, which is still grossly unequal. Shop stewards and trade union officials do not have decision-making powers about companies' investments, pricing policies or investment rates. They do not have the power to sack boards or managing directors.
      Conservative Members argue that the measures are required to change the balance of power between labour and capital. That is absolute moonshine. It is a political gimmick to try to blame trade unionists and their families for the problems of our society. It is absolute political nonsense. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), understood that when the Bill was in Committee.
      Some Conservative Members know the purpose of the clause and, no doubt, they are pleased with the Government for introducing it. The Government must accept that trade unionists also understand the objectives behind the clause, and they must be prepared to take the consequences next winter.
      Mr. Dorant: Earlier in the debate I intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). I asked him what happened to the funds subscribed by union members. He said that they were used to pay the overheads of the unions. That worries me considerably. If we study the facts and figures about what happens to the money and the investments of trade unions, we find an appalling story. Many unions have invested their money in property in various parts of London. I am not opposed to that. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) talked about the City, and all the ramifications of some sinister plot. The trade unions themselves are major investors in property and also in all the other aspects of the private enterprise market. I do not decry that. It is right for them to do so. But do not let us hear any suggestion that they have put their money into some other area that is specially shielded for their trade union members.
      Most ordinary trade unionists have subscribed their money with due faith, week after week, in the honest belief that they will be helped when there is a strike.
      650
      They have always believed that. It may be welfare, help for their families or help in some other area, but they have always believed that that was the purpose of their contributions.
      Many trade union leaders have had nice holidays in various parts of the country. [Interruption.] I had my holiday in a holiday camp in South Wales, at my own expense. Let us not have any hoo-ha about where we have holidays. Nobody subsidised me. The ordinary trade unionist subscribes his money in the honest belief that his trade union leaders will look after him when the chips are down. I do not blame him for that; it is honest and decent.
      The right hon. Member for Salford, West said that the trade unions could not operate in the way suggested in the Bill because of their overheads and other costs. I must make it clear that the money is subscribed by ordinary members. We have heard a fair amount of sanctimonious talk from Opposition Members about trade unionists. Ordinary trade unionists in Britain pay their dues in the belief that their trade union officials will take an interest in them.
      I shall tell the House of my experience as an ordinary Member of Parliament. Whenever I have written to a trade union on behalf of an ordinary individual member, I have got nowhere. If I have written on behalf of 200 members, there has been tremendous action. If that is the background, everyone rushes round to see me. However, if I write, for example, to NALGO or the AUEW on behalf of one member, I have no success. The unions are not interested in the individual member. I am a Conservative because I believe in the individual, not in the block vote or whatever the system may be.
      The hon. Member for Wood Green made great play about trade union membership and political strikes. The day of action was a day of inaction, and the reason was simple. It was not a trade union strike; it was a political strike. Ordinary trade union members in my constituency did not participate, because they recognised it as a political strike.
      Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Gentleman says that the demonstration on 14 May was a political strike. The people took to the streets because

      651
      the media did not recognise the problems of the trade unions and because the causes were the Government's policies. Had it not been for those policies, the events of 14 May would never have taken place.
      Mr. Durant: The average trade unionist joins his union and pays his dues—
      Mr. Ashton: Not again.
      Mr. Durant:—so that his interests will be looked after within the works environment. It is between him and his employer. He is not very interested in the Government. He will decide at the general election whether he favours the previous Government, but he pays his dues with a view to the union looking after him if he finds himself in conflict with his employer. That is what it is about. I accept that my experience is limited, but in my constituency workers pay their union dues so that they will be looked after in any dispute with their employer. Those who take strike action expect their union to help them. In all my experience —and it is limited——
      Mr. Ashton: It is.
      Mr. Durant:—I have found that unions are interested in political power and not so much in their members. There lies half the trouble facing Britain.
      Mr. William Hamilton: The speech of the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) reveals the basic Conservative hostility to trade unions. From a time well before the election and ever since, the Conservatives have scarcely been able to contain that hostility. They think that the mass of the public is against the trade unions, and they may be right.
      The reason why the clause is in the Bill is different from the reason for the inclusion of the other clauses. It is not designed to cut public expenditure. Clauses 4 and 5 were designed to save £385 million. We are to clobber the sick, the unemployed, the old folk and the disabled to save £385 million. Clause 6, according to the Government's estimates, will save £1 million. It is a reflection on the media that whenever they have referred to the Bill in general they have almost invariably referred to it as the Bill that is seeking to impose penalties
      652
      on the wives and families of strikers. All the other clauses have been ignored.
      11 pm
      Labour Members have tabled an early-day motion congratulating The Guardian on its editorial today. Almost for the first time, a responsible newspaper has put the Bill in perspective.
      Mr. Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hamilton: No, I must get on.
      At best, the clause is not worth a candle. In Committee, the Secretary of State admitted that it would not affect the vast majority of strikes one way or the other. In any case, most strikes are of short duration. Only long strikes will be affected. The Minister for Social Security nods assent. Let me put a scenario to him. I come from a mining community, and strikes in mines are frequent. There are all sorts of local problems in pits. There could be a wet or gassy seam. The men could down tools and stop work for a day or two, but the strike could last longer, and it might eventually be declared official by the union.
      As a consequence—I am thinking particularly of Fife, where much of the coal from the Fife mines goes directly to the Longannet power station—the workers at the power station could be laid off though completely innocent. But according to the rough edges of the Bill— I use the Minister's words—the wives and children of those power station workers will have £12——
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin Mr. Patrick Jenkin indicated dissent.
      Mr. Hamilton: I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify that, because lock-outs are covered by the Bill. The Secretary of State said that in such cases wives and families of workers would be penalised. If he is now saying that the wives and children of those power station workers will not be affected, will he say where that is stated in the clause? If wives and children of the power station workers were penalised, the strike would spread like wildfire. Long strikes would ruin the trade unions, and the unions believe that that is the main purpose of the clause.
      One of the constant features of the Conservatives' election campaign was designed—legitimately, from their point of

      653
      view—to exploit the irritation and anger of the public that was caused by last winter's strikes. They cashed in on and exploited the unpopularity of the trade unions at that time, and they have been doing so ever since. The Prime Minister can scarcely contain her venom. Whenever she speaks about the trade unions, she can scarcely contain it. She could not do so today at the Conservative women's conference. She and her Right-wing cohorts are behind the thinking on the clause.
      One of the most reprehensible features of the clause is that it is assumed that in all cases trade unions are responsible for strikes. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must know that that is not true. In many cases the employer is responsible. I give one typical example, which was quoted in the press today. The nurses are incensed by the Government's agreement to award doctors a 32 per cent. increase in salary. The Minister for Health got a roasting by that most gentle organisation, the Royal College of Nursing, which has written into its rules the rule that nurses shall not come out on strike but is now balloting its members for strike action. If that ballot is in favour of strike action, who will be to blame for the strike—the Government or the nurses? [Interruption.] It has very much to do with the amendment. Let me continue the argument.
      The great majority of members of the Royal College of Nursing are women. A considerable number are married nurses, with men at home. If such nurses strike and their families claim supplementary benefit, will those nurses have £12 a week deducted from their supplementary benefit under the clause? If so, what will be the result on their morale, and what will be the public's opinion and response towards that situation?
      I pose that as a serious possibility. The Royal College of Nursing is not a militant trade union. It is not a trade union at all. The unions are NUPE and COHSE. If the Royal College of Nursing comes out on strike, we may be sure that NUPE and COHSE—I am a sponsored Member of Parliament of COHSE, and there is not a more moderate trade union in the country—will come out on strike for sure if they do not get equality of treatment with the doctors.
      654
      If the doctors are worth a 32 per cent, rise, the nurses are worth 32 per cent. If the Govenment then insist on the imposition of the clause, we can imagine what will happen in the NHS throughout.
      The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) talked about men going to prison being different from men who were on strike. Let me pose another scenario. The House will remember that as a result of the Industrial Relations Act of the previous Tory Government, five dockers were sent to prison. If this Bill had been in force then, their families would have had the £12 deducted whilst they were out of prison, but as soon as they went into prison their wives would have got the full supplementary benefit payment. When the Official Solicitor got to work and got them out, the £12 would immediately have been deducted again.
      What a lot of nonsense. What a contemptible act. It is simply not worth the candle. But it is the price that the country will have to pay for the venomous attitude of the Tory Party towards the trade union movement.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The Opposition speeches have so far been rather exaggerated and bogus. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has just waxed eloquently in indignation at this measure, but I wonder why he did not wax indignant about similar matters in the early years of his membership of this House, when no social security benefit was ever given to strikers' families. Where were Opposition Members then in pursuit of this great fundamental principle of social justice, before it was discovered in the middle 1960s that the relevant sections of the social security legislation could be used to give, for the first time, some sort of social security benefit to strikers' families? One would think that this had been a principle of trade unionism and social security since the inception of those institutions. The fact is that only recently have trade unions thought such benefits necessary. It is to their advantage to exploit the taxpayer instead of paying out of their dues.
      One would have thought, from all the venom, that we were taking away all social security benefits. One would have

      655
      thought that the poor, weak and feeble were being left to suffer. In other countries, where such provision has never been made, strikers' families suffer. Many people in Britain do not want such social security payments to be made. Understandably, they believe that if social security benefits are given to strikers' families, it will encourage those—[Interruption]—in the trade union movement who act irresponsibly, and who strike without any cause.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. It is not right that hon. Members should continually shout from seated positions. They should try their luck at intervening.
      Mr. Lawrence: If Opposition Members try to intervene, they will find that their luck is out. The public will be aware that the arguments of those Opposition Members who are seated below the Gangway are at their best ventilated from a sedentary position in their usual "yah boo" way.
      Mr. Bob Cryer Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley) rose——
      Mr. Lawrence: I have already said that I shall not give way.
      Mr. Cryer Mr. Cryer rose——
      Hon. Members: Give way.
      Mr. Lawrence: If I give way, I would deprive other hon. Members—who may have reasoned and sensible arguments—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was too optimistic in my assessment. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
      Mr. Lawrence: Provided that Opposition Members——
      Mr. Cryer Mr. Cryer rose——
      Mr. Lawrence:—encourage their trade unions to act responsibly and make payments to strikers' families, those families will not be disadvantaged. If a proper use is made of trade union funds—collected for the purpose of providing benefits to strikers' families—it will be seen that the Opposition's absurd and ridiculous exaggerations were in vain. Opposition Members must act responsibly if trade unions—for which they are spokesmen—are to follow their good example.
      656
      It has been said that this measure is vicious, and that it is anti-trade union. The proponents of that argument—including the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart)—then went on to complain that no benefit would go to non trade unionists. Opposition Members cannot have it both ways. Either this is an anti-trade union measure, or it is not. The truth is that it is a pro-trade union measure. If non-trade unionists are not going to receive payments of up to £12, many may be encouraged to join a trade union.
      Mr. Stoddart Mr. Stoddart rose——
      Mr. Lawrence: I am sorry. I must apply the same treatment to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), to whose speech I listened with interest and amazement, as I applied to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer).
      If those who do not receive £12 suffer, they may be tempted to join trade unions. The more who join trade unions and the more who take part in the sensible, responsible and moderating influence of the mass of the working people, the happier all hon. Members will be. This clause is also pro-trade union in this sense; there are people who disobey the rules of their unions. When the leadership says that a certain matter is not a strike issue, these people go out on strike in defiance of their leaders. Through their militant extremism they go against their leaders democratically expressed wishes.
      11.15 pm
      If only we could provide some means for the central, democratically-elected organisation of the trade unions to exercise some control over these wildcats we would help to solve some of our industrial relations problems. It seems perfectly reasonable that a Moss Evans should turn to one of the wildcats, tell him that the union is not striking on a particular issue and that if that wildcat goes against the wishes of the union, he will lose his union card, under the closed shop arrangements which this Government, in their generosity are still maintaining. If that is so, the wildcat striker, without his union card, will have to consider seriously whether it is in the interests of his wife and family to lose the first £12 of social security benefit. It may be that if a glimmer of responsibility were ever to return to that wildcat striker, he would go back to the fold of the union, obey the

      657
      commands of his leaders, and a strike that would otherwise be utterly disruptive of Britisht industry would not take place. That is substantially why the British people are so much in favour of this legislation.
      Mr. Durant: Does my hon. Friend know that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who mentioned the nurses, made a speech when his party was in power urging his own Government to pay the nurses an extra £1 a week because they were not prepared to go on strike? He is now inflaming them and urging them to go on strike. It seems as if he has got it all wrong.
      Mr. Lawrence: With great respect, I do not think that the hon. Member for Fife, Central will be inflaming too many nurses in this Chamber, and, with any luck, not many nurses will listen to or bother to read what he has said. Of course, that risk always exists, and it is very important that we should recognise that we are the primary organisation in the country for giving an example of responsibility to the unions.
      There are two reasons why people go on strike. People voluntarily strike because they have some sort of objective which is a matter of principle, and therefore very important. I have no objection to people striking for their principles. I have no objection to their making sacrifices for their principles. But is it ever right for those people to expect others to make the sacrifices for them? Why should I make a sacrifice for the principle of a man who is about to strike? I have no wish to make a sacrifice for him. If he is true to his principles he must be true to his desire to make the sacrifice himself. Therefore, people who wish to adhere to their principles should be responsible enough to make their own sacrifices. Therefore, it follows that if strikers with the support of their union strike on principle, the trade unions should be prepared to make part of the sacrifice for them. I would go further, and say that they should make the whole sacrifice, but I appreciate that the Government are moderate, sensible, balanced and restrained. Therefore I shall support them.
      The other alternative is when people do not strike voluntarily. Some people are forced to strike. Some workers tell
      658
      even Conservative Members of Parliament that, although they have been trade unionists all their lives, they do not like what is happening. They are being forced to strike against their wishes. When the trade unions decided that there should be a voluntary show of feeling against the Government, they organised a day of action. A leading trade unionist in my constituency said that the response on 14 May would be so overwhelming that he would not know where to put all the people. On 14 May no one turned up at Burton town hall at 10 am to join the march. Trade union leaders claim a great understanding of and close relationship with the people who they represent. I question whether that is always so.
      A bus driver in my constituency asked me on the telephone what he should do, as he wanted to work on 14 May, as did other drivers. He told me that the Transport and General Workers Union representative at the bus depot had said that, if anybody turned up for work, they would lose their union card and job. I hazard a guess that many who joined the day of action were forced to do so by threats to their livelihood.
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: Name them. Name the branch.
      Mr. Lawrence: This matter will not be allowed to rest in my constituency. People will be named in the appropriate quarters. I shall be naming them to people more influential and useful than the hon. Gentleman is likely to be in this matter.
      Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened closely to the hon. Gentleman. He is not following clause 6. He is filibustering and wasting valuable time. Other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is filibustering, but I was hoping that he would come to the question whether strikers should be paid. That is what we are debating. I remind the House that the Front Bench is hoping to start winding up at 11.40 pm, which leaves only 15 minutes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is coming to a conclusion.
      Mr. Burden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps we

      659
      would proceed more quickly if the hon. Members for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and Keighley (Mr. Cryer) did not constantly and loudly interrupt.
      Mr. Lawrence: I am flattered that the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who is leading for the Opposition, thinks so much of my argument that he finds it necessary to take a point of order against me.
      Where people are forced by their union to strike against their wishes, is it not eminently just that the union should pay for at any rate some part, of the consequences of that strike? I believe that the overwhelming majority in this country believes that the trade unions should in those circumstances pay at least £12 towards the social security benefit that would otherwise be available.
      Apart from the blatant fairness of making the trade unions pay something, there is good constructive sense in the measure. First, if we increase the responsibility of trade unions by making them have some obligation to pay some money out of their funds, obviously they will think twice about striking. Not all strikes are sensible. That is accepted even by strikers at the end of some of these long, unfortunate strikes. Even the strikers' leaders say that, perhaps, it would have been more sensible if they had not gone on strike. Anything which causes trade unions to think twice before they engage upon a prolonged strike is to the benefit of society.
      Secondly, the clause is constructive because it strengthens trade unionism. More people will join the unions and will want to centralise the democratic power and control upon the correct leaders. [Interruption.] I am sorry that this sensible, balanced, wise and restrained measure should strike this Pavo-lovian response in hon. Gentlemen. If they rage without reason, if they bellow from the Bench below the Gangway opposite or rise to a point of order merely to interrupt a speech, anyone who reads the debate will know that there is something that they feel in conscience is wrong with their argument. A nerve has been touched at the point at which it causes pain, and that helps to show, as it ought to, the arguments presented by the Government in a moderate and sensible light.
      660
      At a time when we should all be agreeing, in the House and in industry, about the methods of getting the country back on its feet it is saddening to see hon. Gentlemen raging with righteous indignation about a matter which is as relatively harmless and as sensible as this one. If we want to get rid of this attitude of confrontation and unreasonableness shown by hon. Gentlemen, this is a good opportunity for them to think, in quietness and with a certain amount of restraint, of the positive, constructive, sensible and just measure which we are asking the House to pass.
      Mr. Eastham: I appreciate the opportunity to speak, after waiting for so many hours. After listening to the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I am lost for words to describe his contribution. He would certainly never serve me in the courts if that is the kind of contribution he would make. It is noticeable that this clause has created such gusto and enthusiasm among the Conservative Benches, as it did in Committee.
      Hon. Members may be interested to know that we debated, for about 80 hours, the various clauses in the Bill. It was only on the final clause that Conservative Members came to life. Obviously, this clause is an act of vengeance, not against the strikers, but against their wives and children. The strikers are exercising their democratic right. The Conservative Party realised that it could not suppress the strikers and decided to take it out of the children.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. A. W. Stallard: Will my hon. Friend accept that one reason why the hon. Gentleman to whom he refers is never seen in Committee is that he is too busy in the mornings making money in his other profession?
      Mr. Eastham: No reference seems to be made by the Conservatives to bad employers. I have posed the question several times in Committee about penalties for bad employers.
      Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way. Time is being wasted.
      Mr. Eastham: It is often bad employers who create strikes. They pay no penalties but cause expense when families have to claim social security. I asked the Minister what he proposed to do about this situation but he chose to ignore the point. I repeat it now. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I quoted the experience in the engineering industry in the Manchester area in 1972 when no less than 36,000 workers were locked out by the employers. The employers were not honouring a national agreement. One would have thought that, in a Bill dealing with strikers, the Government would also have taken the opportunity to attend to employers.
      Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Eastham: It is well known that the CBI has been seeking the measures contained in the Bill since 1965. It wants this kind of legislation to suppress strikers. Conservative Members stated in Committee that they were not opposed to trade unions. One hon. Member stated that he did not believe that the unions had too much power. When the Conservative Party conference is shown on television, Conservatives are seen yelling and calling for blood and demanding that organised labour should be smashed.
      I am confident that the trade unions, regardless of the measures that the Conservative Government introduce, will cops with the Government. The Government, in the end, will need the co-operation of the trade unions. It was interesting to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he is ready at any time to have talks with the unions. There was no consultation on this legislation. That has been a constant theme during consideration on the Bill.
      Mr. Marlow: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will give way.
      Mr. Eastham: It is well known that good employers do not seek this legislation. They do not seek to use the stick. I say now to the Government that there is still time for them to reconsider this matter if they want to avoid a bloody confrontation with the unions.
      Mr. Michael Brown: I shall try to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a reputation in the House for trying to confine my remarks
      662
      to 10 minutes. I am aware that the Front Bench spokesmen are due to rise shortly.
      I intervene because this matter was discussed at considerable length in my constituency earlier this year, when many thousands of my constituents—members of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation—were on strike, the overwhelming majority of them against their will. Their will was never tested, although many individual members of the union asked for their will to be tested.
      Be that as it may, the strike started on 2 January and lasted until the beginning of April. Labour Members made the point earlier—they almost challenged my hon. Friends on it—that the reason why we are putting forward this proposal to deem strikers' benefit is that we want to bring strikes to a conclusion more quickly. All right—let me deal with that argument head on. I ask the House to consider the situation which obtained round about the middle of February when a clear offer was on the table from the British Steel Corporation which amounted to about 14·4 per cent. If the union had been responsible for paying its members, it would have thought very long and hard about keeping its members out on strike from the middle of February until the beginning of April for an extra 1 per cent. The hardship that was inflicted as a result of the prolonging of that strike was considerable, notwithstanding the fact that at that time benefits for strikers' families were being paid.—[interruption,] An hon. Member alleges that I know nothing about this subject. I doubt whether he would have liked to deal with the literally hundreds of strikers who came to my surgery during that period. They were on strike against their will. They pressed me——
      Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way when I had not asked him to give way. Does he agree that if social security benefit had not been payable to the families of strikers the strike would not have lasted anything like as long and the loss to the nation would have been nothing like as great?
      Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has made the crucial point which we have been trying to make and have made successfully from these Benches. As he has

      663
      rightly stated, the steel strike would have ended far more quickly and the steel workers would have lost far less money. Heaven knows, the nation lost about £1,500 million during the steel strike.—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has some excellent views on this matter.
      The crucial point about the clause is the need to ensure that strikes do not go on for an undue time and cause unnecessary hardship to strikers and their families. There is no doubt that the view of the overwhelming majority of people in the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation who were on strike against their will was that, if their union had been responsible for paying them a sum of money, the strike would have ended much sooner. The Transport and General Workers Union paid strike benefit to its members. The General and Municipal Workers Union made, in my view, a very fair contribution to its members. The hard feelings that existed within the unions involved in the steel strike in my constituency were engendered because the ISTC was bailed out by the Exchequer. Some unions made payments to their members in good faith, yet they find that they are at a disadvantage.—[Interruption.] I have to raise my voice to make it carry over the noise being caused by Labour Members.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are not being fair. Some hon. Members have been trying for hours to take part in the debate, and others have come in and are not allowing them to speak. It is very unfair.
      Mr. Brown: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that if my constituents hear of how the debate has been conducted in the past few minutes they will realise that Labour Members and their party have been unfair to trade unionists who have been on strike against their will.
      The crux of the debate is that the head of the household should be responsible for the consequences to his family of his actions. Labour Members have challenged that premise. Surely the head of a household should be responsible for his family and for paying fot the hardship that is caused by his union.
      664
      As ever, time is against me and I fear that enemy far more than I fear Labour Members. I am anxious to hear my right hon. Friend's reply. I fully support the clause. It is crucial to the Government's strategy to reduce the number of industrial disputes and I believe that it has the support of the overwhelming majority of trade unionists.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It falls to me to reply in the few remaining minutes to the points that have been raised since my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment spelt out clearly and quietly the case for clause 6.
      The hon. Members for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) and Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggested that, even if it was right to expect unions to bear a larger share of the support of strikers and their families, it would be fair to give longer notice to the unions so that they could build up their funds and be enabled to bear the burden.
      It is fair to point out that the Government's intentions were signalled clearly in the manifesto on which we fought the election last year. We made clear that we would be reviewing the entitlement of strikers to benefits for their families, with the intention that unions should bear a larger share of supporting them. The clause will not come into effect until much later this year and unions will have not less than 18 months in which to build up funds to take on the additional responsibility which, as many of my hon. Friends have said, the public expect them to take on.
      What will be the effect of the clause? My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) stated clearly that disputes often hit at the public, yet the public have been expected—
      Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that the Liberal Party has no interest in the debate, but is it in order for the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) to read the paper to find out the racing results? If he has the results, perhaps he could tell the House.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. I did not see the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) reading a newspaper.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford made the point that, increasingly, many of the strikes are aimed at the public. It is that which causes the public such indignation when they find that, through the social security system, they are supporting strikers and their families.
      I do not think it fair to draw the rigid distinction drawn by the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) between the support given to strikers and that given to their families. Of course benefit is paid for the family, but it is idle to pretend that the striker does not derive some benefit from that payment. It helps to keep him going during a strike.
      Mr. Stallard: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Does he accept that the total savings effected by this Bill and the previous Bill amount to about £560 million a year? How much do the Government expect to save by this measure on benefits to strikers?
      Mr. Jenkin: That is a difficult question to answer. The amount that was paid out in the steel strike, for instance, was over £9 million. It is estimated that if this clause had been in operation the amount paid out to the steel strikers would have been about £4½ million. The point is that savings are not the primary objective here. The primary objective is to achieve better balance and a sharing of the responsibility among the trade unions, the public and the individuals concerned.
      The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) suggested that the effect of this provision would be to make more strikes official because many strikes at present are unofficial. That view is not shared by the expert labour reporter of The Guardian, Keith Harper, who in an article yesterday said this of the Transport and General Workers Union:
      " The union is keeping a close watch on how strikes occur. In future, it may adopt a more cautious attitude towards giving official backing to strikes although unofficial action would not prevent the Department of Health and Social Security from docking £12 from strikers' families."
      That union clearly takes the view that the fact that it will have to pay more—and the extent of plans to improve strike pay has been mentioned—will lead the union to have fewer official strikes. In
      666
      those circumstances the judgment of the hon. Member for Wood Green is not borne out by the facts.
      The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) gave the example of the miners in his constituency who might be on strike with that strike eventually leading to the laying off of power workers at the Longannet power station. The rules that will be applied in these circumstances are exactly the same as those that entitle people to unemployment benefit. In those circumstances the power workers would be entitled to unemployment benefit because they would not have an interest in the outcome of the miners strike. They would have been laid off because of a strike in the outcome of which they had no interest and would be entitled to unemployment benefit. The question of supplementary benefit would not arise.
      Hon Gentlemen mentioned the nurses. I invite them to study the amendment which has been tabled to the early-day motion which will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow. That makes it clear that, in relation to the doctors' settlement, if we look at the two-year catching-up period which both doctors and nurses have enjoyed—and rightly so—the percentage increase for them is almost identical, assuming that the nurses settle at 14 per cent. The argument that the nurses are being grossly discriminated against does not stand up. There would be no question of their having to go on strike under this clause.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made the sound point that claims for supplementary benefit before 1966 were almost negligible. The change in the law in that year unintentionally brought about the result that, increasingly, trade unions found that their members were entitled to supplementary benefit. My hon. Friend asked: where was the pressure before that to get the benefit? The answer is that there was none. Therefore, the argument that it is an inalienable right that strikers' families should be entitled to supplementary benefit is bunkum. That was not intended by Parliament when the 1966 Act was passed. It has grown up largely inadvertently and unintentionally and it is time that it was changed.

      667
      All the surveys show that public opinion is overwhelmingly behind this change by two or three to one. Indeed, the public take the view that this change is long overdue. Therefore, I have no hesitation in asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to throw out the amendment and to support clause 6 when the Division is called.

      Division No. 323]

      AYES

      [11.51 pm

      Abse, Leo

      Ewing, Harry

      McElhone, Frank

      Adams, Allen

      Faulds, Andrew

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Allaun, Frank

      Field, Frank

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Alton, David

      Fitch, Alan

      McKelvey, William

      Anderson, Donald

      Fitt, Gerard

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Flannery, Martin

      Maclennan, Robert

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Ashton, Joe

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      McWilliam, John

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

      Ford, Ben

      Magee, Bryan

      Bagler, Gordon A. T.

      Forrester, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

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

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Beith, A. J.

      Freud, Crement

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Maxton, John

      Bldwell, Sydney

      George, Bruce

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Ginsburg, David

      Meacher, Michael

      Bradford, Rev. R.

      Graham, Ted

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Bradley, Tom

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Hardy, Peter

      Molyneaux, James

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wylhenshawe)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openehaw)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Campbell, Ian

      Haynes, Frank

      Newens, Stanley

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Canavan, Dennis

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Ogden, Eric

      Cant, R. B.

      Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Carmichael, Neil

      Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Home Robertson, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Cartwright, John

      Homewood, William

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hooley, Frank

      Palmer, Arthur

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Horam, John

      Park, George

      Cohen, Stanley

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

      Pendry, Tom

      Coleman, Donald

      Howells, Geraint

      Penhallgon, David

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Huckfield, Les

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

      Conland, Bernard

      Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Cook, Robin F.

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Prescott, John

      Cowans, Harry

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

      Cralgen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Race, Reg

      Cryer, Bob

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Radice, Giles

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Richardson, Jo

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      John, Brynmor

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Davles, lfor (Gower)

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

      Robertson, George

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

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

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Deakins, Eric

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      Dempsey, James

      Lambie, David

      Ryman, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Lamborn, Harry

      Sandelson, Neville

      Dobson, Frank

      Lamond, James

      Sever, John

      Dormand, Jack

      Leadbltter, Ted

      Sheerman, Barry

      Douglas, Dick

      Leighton, Ronald

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

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

      Litherland, Robert

      Silverman, Julius

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Skinner, Dermis

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

      Eastham, Ken

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

      Snape, Peter

      Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Soley, Clive

      English, Michael

      McCartney, Hugh

      Spearing, Nigel

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      McCusker, H.

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Evans, loan (Abordare)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Stallard, A. W.

      Mr. Orme: As my right hon. and hon. Friends want to vote against this iniquitous clause and Third Reading, perhaps we may proceed to vote on the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 290.

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Stoddart, David

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Strang, Gavin

      Watkins, David

      Winnick, David

      Straw, Jack

      Weetch, Ken

      Woodall, Alec

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Wellbeloved, James

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Welsh, Michael

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

      Wright, Sheila

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Young, David (Bolton East)

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Whitlock, William

      Tilley, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Tinn, James

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Torney, Tom

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Mr. George Morton.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Altken, Jonathan

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

      Latham, Michael

      Alexander, Richard

      Eggar, Timothy

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Allson, Michael

      Elliott, Sir William

      Lee, John

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Ancram, Michael

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Arnold, Tom

      Farr, John

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fell, Anthony

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Loveridge, John

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Luce, Richard

      Banks, Robert

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Fletcher-Cook, Charles

      McCrindle, Robert

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Forman, Nigel

      MacGregor, John

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Fox, Marcus

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Best, Kelth

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Bevan, David Gllroy

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fry, Peter

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Madel, David

      Blackburn, John

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Major, John

      Blaker, Peter

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Marland, Paul

      Body, Richard

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Marlow, Tony

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Goodhew, Victor

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

      Gorst, John

      Mates, Michael

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gow, Ian

      Mather, Carol

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Maude, Rt Hon Angus

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Mawby, Ray

      Bright, Graham

      Gray, Hamish

      Mawhlnney, Dr Brian

      Brinton, Tim

      Greenway, Harry

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Grieve, Percy

      Mellor, David

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Brotherton, Michael

      Grist, Ian

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Grylls, Michael

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Mlscampbell, Norman

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

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

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Moate, Roger

      Buck, Antony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Monro, Hector

      Budgen, Nick

      Hannam, John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Kaselhurst, Alan

      Moore, John

      Burden, F. A.

      Hastings, Stephen

      Morgan, Geraint

      Butcher, John

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Buller, Hon Adam

      Hawksley, Warren

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Heddle, John

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Henderson, Barry

      Mudd, David

      Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Murphy, Christopher

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Myles, David

      Channon, Paul

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Needham, Richard

      Chapman, Sydney

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hooson, Tom

      Neubert, Michael

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Hordern, Peter

      Newton, Tony

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Nott, Rt Hon John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Clegg, Sir Welter

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

      Cope, John

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Osborn, John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Corrie, John

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Costain, A. P.

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Critchley, Julian

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Parris, Matthew

      Crouch, David

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kimball, Marcus

      Patlle, Geoffrey

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Pawsey, James

      Dover, Denshore

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Percival, Sir Ian

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Knox, David

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Lamont, Norman

      Pollock, Alexander

      Durant, Tony

      Lang, Ian

      Porter, George

      670

      671

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

      Veughan, Dr Gerard

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Speed, Keith

      Viggers, Peter

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Speller, Tony

      Waddington, David

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Spence, John

      Wakeham, John

      Raison, Timothy

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Rathbone, Tim

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

      Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Sproat, lain

      Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

      Renton, Tim

      Squire, Robin

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Stainton, Keith

      Waller, Gary

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Walters, Dennis

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Stanley, John

      Ward, John

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Steen, Anthony

      Warren, Kenneth

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Stevens, Martin

      Watson, John

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

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

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Stokes, John

      Wheeler, John

      Rossi, Hugh

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Whitney, Raymond

      Rost, Peter

      Tapsell, Peter

      Wickenden, Keith

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

      Wilkinson, John

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

      Tebbit, Norman

      Williams, Deiwyn (Montgomery)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Shersby, Michael

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Silvester, Fred

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Sims, Roger

      Trotter, Neville

      Mr. Anthony Berry.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after midnight, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the Order [6 May] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

      Division No. 324

      AYES

      [12.03 am

      Adley, Robert

      Butcher, John

      Fox, Marcus

      Altken, Jonathan

      Buller, Hon Adam

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford a St)

      Alexander, Richard

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Allson, Michael

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Fry, Peter

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Ancram, Michael

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Arnold, Tom

      Channon, Paul

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Aspinwal!, Jack

      Chapman, Sydney

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Goodhew, Victor

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Gorst, John

      Banks, Robert

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Gow, Ian

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Clegg, Sir Watter

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Bendall, Vivian

      Colvin, Michael

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Cope, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Greenway, Harry

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Corrie, John

      Grieve, Fercy

      Best, Kelth

      Coslain, A. P.

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Critchley, Julian

      Grist, Ian

      Bitten, Rt Hon John

      Crouch, David

      Grylls, Michael

      Bigge-Devison, John

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Blackburn, John

      Dorrell, Stephen

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

      Blaker, Peter

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Body. Richard

      Dover, Denshore

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Hannam, John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Bright, Graham

      Elliott, Sir William

      Heddie, John

      Fairgrleve, Russell

      Brlnton, Tim

      Henderson, Barry

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Farr, John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Brotherton, Michael

      Fell, Anthony

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Hooson, Tom

      Sruce-Gardyne, John

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Hordern, Peter

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Buck, Antony

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Budgen, Nick

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Sutmer, Esmond

      Forman, Nigel

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Burden, F. A.

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 239.

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Speed, Keith

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Mudd, David

      Speller, Tony

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Murphy, Christopher

      Spence, John

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Myles, David

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Needham, Richard

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Nelson, Anthony

      Sproat, lain

      Kilson, Sir Timothy

      Neubert, Michael

      Squire, Robin

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Newton, Tony

      Stalnton, Keith

      Lamont, Norman

      Nott, Rt Hon John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lang, lan

      Onslow, Cranley

      Stanley, John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Oppenheim, RI Hon Mrs Sally

      Steen, Anthony

      Latham, Michael

      Osborn, John

      Stevens, Martin

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Stewart, lan (Hitchin)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Lee, John

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Stokes, John

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Parris, Matthew

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Patton, John (Oxford)

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Lloyd, lan (Havant & Waterloo)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Pawsey, James

      Tebblt, Norman

      Loveridge, John

      Percival, Sir lan

      Temple-Morris, Peler

      Luce, Richard

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Pollock, Alexander

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Porter, George

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      MacGregor, John

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Trotter, Neville

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Macmiilan Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Vlggers, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Raison, Timothy

      Waddington, David

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wakeham, John

      Madel, David

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Major, John

      Renton, Tim

      Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

      Marland, Paul

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

      Marlow, Tony

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Waller, Gary

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Walters, Dennis

      Mates, Michael

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Ward, John

      Mather, Carol

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Warren, Kenneth

      Maude, Rt Hon Angus

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Watson, John

      Mawby, Ray

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Weils, John (Maidstone)

      Mawhlrmey, Dr Brian

      Rossi, Hugh

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

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Rost, Peter

      Wheeler, John

      Manor, David

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Whitney, Raymond

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Wickenden, Keith

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wilkinson, John

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Moate, Roger

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Monro, Heclor

      Shersby, Michael

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Silvester, Fred

      Moore, John

      Sims, Roger

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

      Mr. Anthony Berry.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Canavan, Dennis

      Dobson, Frank

      Adams, Allen

      Cant, R. B.

      Dormand, Jack

      Allaun, Frank

      Carmichael, Neil

      Douglas, Dick

      Alton, David

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Anderson, Donald

      Cartwright, John

      Dubs, Alfred

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

      Ashton, Joe

      Cohen, Stanley

      Dunnett, Jack

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

      Coleman, Donald

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Bagler, Gordon A. T.

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Eastham, Ken

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Cook, Robin F.

      English, Michael

      Belth, A. J.

      Cowans, Harry

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Benn. Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Cryer, Bob

      Ewing, Harry

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Faulds, Andrew

      Sooth, Ri Hon Albert

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Field, Frank

      Bradford, Rev. R

      Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

      Fitch, Alan

      Bradley, Tom

      Dalyell, Tam

      Fit!, Gerard

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Davidson, Arthur

      Flannery, Martin

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Davles, Ifor (Gower)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

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

      Ford, Ben

      Buchan, Norman

      Denkins, Eric

      Forrester, John

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Campbell, lan

      Dempsey, James

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Dewar, Donald

      Freud, Clement

      674

      675

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      McDonald, Or Oonagh

      Ryman, John

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Mcohone Frank

      Sandelson, Neville

      George, Bruce

      McGuIr", Michael (Ince)

      Sever, John

      Ginsburg, David

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      McKelvey, William

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

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sllkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Hardy, Peter

      McWilllam, John

      Silverman, Julius

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Magee, Bryan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Marks, Kenneth

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

      Snape, Peter

      Haynes, Frank

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Soley, Clive

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Heller, Eric S.

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

      Maxton, John

      Stallard, A. W.

      Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      Maynard, Mita Joan

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Home Robertson, John

      Meacher, Michael

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

      Homewood, William

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Stoddard, David

      Hooley, Frank

      Millan. Rt Hon Bruce

      Strang, Gavin

      Horam, John

      Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

      Straw, Jack

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

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Summerskill, Hon Or Shirley

      Howells, Geraint

      Molyneaux, James

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Huckfield, Lea

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Hudson Davles, Gwilym Ednyled

      Morris, Rt Hon Charlea (Openshaw)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Morton, George

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Moyie. Rt Hon Roland

      Tilley, John

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Newens, Stanley

      Torney, Tom

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Ogden, Eric

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      John, Brynmor

      O'Neill, Martin

      Walnwrlght, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Watkins, David

      Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Weetch, Ken

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Wellbeloved, James

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Welsh, Michael

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Park, George

      White, Frank R. (Bury £ Redcliffe)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Pendry, Tom

      Whitehead, Phillips

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Penhaiigon, David

      Whitelock, William

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Lambie, David

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Willams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Prescott, John

      Willams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Lamond, James

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham Norh West)

      Willson, Gordon (Durdee East)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Race, Reg

      Willson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huoton)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Radice, Giles

      Willson, Willam (Coventry E)

      Leator, Miss Joan (Eton £ Slough)

      Richardson, Jo

      Winnick, David

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham Norh West)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Roberts

      Woodall Alec

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Wrigglesworth, lan

      Litherland, Robert

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Wright, Sheila

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Robertson, George

      Young, David (Bolton East)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Lyons, Edwerd (Bradford West)

      Rooker, J. W.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Mr. James Tinn and

      McCartney, Hugh

      Rowlands, Ted

      Mr. Ted Graham.

      McCusker, H.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 5 July 1979 relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration be amended, by leaving out Miss Joan Maynard and inserting Mr. Frank Haynes.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

PETITIONS

  High Court Attendances (Officers of the House)
  12.15 am
  Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I beg leave to present a petition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and ask that you direct the Clerk at the Table to read it.
  The Clerk of the House read the petition, which was as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of Alan John Dale, a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature, sheweth:
  1. That the Petitioner is the solicitor representing the Reverend Elsie Dorothea Chamberlain, John Bernard Wilcox, the Reverend Neville Folland Rees and the Reverend Edward Stanley Guest.
  2. That proceedings pending in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice against (among others) the said Reverend Elsie Dorothea Chamberlain, John Bernard Wilcox, the Reverend Neville Folland Rees and the Reverend Edward Stanley Guest have been instituted by the Yorkshire Congregational Union (Incorporated), the case number being 1979 Y No. 476.
  3. That the Plaintiffs seek determination of legal issues affecting the Trusts of the Charity consisting of proceeds of sale of the Independent Chapel, Albion Street, Kingston-upon-Hull in the administrative county of Humberside following the passase of the United Reformed Church Act 1972.
  4. That the United Reformed Church Bill was referred to a Committee which heard evidence on 23 and 24 May 1972 and was considered by your honourable House on 22 June 1972 (House of Commons Debates 839 cols. 629–72).
  5. That the Minutes of Evidence of the above hearing and the Report of Debate printed as aforesaid relate directly to the issues referred to in paragraph 3 hereof, and reference is desired to be made by your Petitioner in the proceedings referred to in
  678
  paragraph 2 hereof to the said Minutes of Evidence and Report of Debate.
  Wherefore your Petitioner humbly prays that your honourable House will be pleased to give leave for reference to be made to the said Minutes of Evidence and Report of Debate and for the proper officers of your House to attend the said proceedings and formally to produce and to prove the same according to their competence.
  And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  Alan John Bale,
  Ordered,
  That leave be given for references to be made to the said Minutes of Evidence and Report of Debate and for the proper Officers of this House to attend the said proceedings and formally to produce and to prove the same according to their competence.—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

  Rampton Hospital
  12.17 am
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I have the honour and the privilege to present a petition, a similar one to which has attracted 50,000 signatures. I should like to pay tribute to Mrs. Judy Woods and Miss Jacquie Boucherat for the conscientious dedication to this cause and the enormous amount of work they have put in in organising this petition and collecting the signatures. The petition is as follows:
  To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble petition of citizens of the United Kingdom sheweth that there is deep concern at current practices at Rampton Hospital;
  Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will do all in its power toil) ensure that section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1920 should no longer apply to—
  (1) ensure that local authorities and local hospitals accept their responsibilities for patients at Rampton Hospital who have been declared fit for transfer or discharge and who no longer require the maximum security conditions of Rampton Hospital.
  (2) effect the transfer of severely subnormal patients from the maximum security conditions of Rampton Hospital;
  (3) facilitate the increase in the number of nursing staff at Rampton Hospital possessing the qualification in psychiatric nursing of Registered Mental Nurse, and in the number of senior nurses appointed from other hospitals;
  (4) enable allegations of ill-treatment at Rampton Hospital to be independently investigated rather than, as at present, by Rampton Hospital Staff;
  (5) effect the implementation of the recommendations of the Elliot Report (1973) for improving the functioning of the hospital; and

  679
  (6) ensure that local authorities and local hospitals accept their responsibilities for patients at Rampton Hospital who have been declared fit for transfer or discharge and who no longer require the maximum security conditions of Rampton Hospital.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Rampton hospital is in my constituency. Two investigations are taking place. One of those investigations has been reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Therefore, is not the matter sub judice? Surely it is out of order to bring a petition at this stage.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): I did not hear anything this evening that could be considered sub judice.
  Mr. Ashton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Director of Public Prosecutions is investigating the allegations made in the petition. The Nottinghamshire police have taken almost a year to investigate those allegations. The papers are with the Director of Public Prosecutions. It would therefore be wrong if the House were to accept the petition.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave notice to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) that I would present this petition, which concerns the special hospital in his constituency. He is wrong to suggest that the matters in the petition are sub judice. He is correct to say that there is a police and a departmental investigation in progress. There is a reference to the latter in the petition. However, the petition concerns allegations that have been made since then—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need proceed. The petition has been duly presented. It may be deposited.
  To lie upon the Table,
  Mr. John Blackburn Mr. John Blackburn (Dudley, West) rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have now finished with that subject.

SHEFFIELD (HOUSING INVESTMENT PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
12.21 am
Mr. Frank Hooley: In the first year of office of the Labour Government of 1974 to 1975, public expenditure on housing, at 1979 prices, was just over £7 billion. In the current financial year, that has been reduced to £4·7 billion. By 1983–84, public expenditure on housing will have been slashed to £2.8 billion.
It is little wonder, then, that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities recently wrote a letter stating:
" Housing has been cancelled for the next three years."
Those global figures do not make much impact on most folk until they are translated into what is happening at the grass roots level in towns and cities. I shall, therefore, refer to the position of Sheffield. The housing investment programme covers not only council house building but also slum clearance, council house modernisation, improvement grants, home insulation grants, mortgages, general improvement areas, housing action areas, acquisition of land, professional fees and many smaller, technical matters that must be met from the local allocation.
The allocation for Sheffield in 1980–81 is £21,185,000. Last year, the city spent £24·5 million. Allowing for inflation, that is equivalent in 1980 to about £28 million. In real terms, there has been a cut of 25 per cent. in the HIP. As Sheffield is a dynamic and go-ahead housing authority, it asked for £44 million. It has, therefore, suffered a cut of 50 per cent. If the figure of £24·5 million is adjusted for a rate of inflation of about 21 per cent.—it may be higher than that later in the year—it represents a cut of 25 per cent. That is serious.
What is the effect of those cuts on the building programme? I shall consider what Sheffield hopes to do this year and what it will be able to do on its reduced allocation. Virtually all the money will be swallowed up by existing commitments. There are a fair number of houses under construction and in the pipeline. Those

681
houses have to be financed. Sheffield had hoped to start nearly 900 new homes in 1981. This has had to be cut to 100 because only £533,000 is available for new stocks.
Of course, that will have a considerable impact on the housing problems of Sheffield. It will delay tackling the formidable difficulty of providing specially designed new flats, homes and sheltered accommodation for the elderly. The problem of housing the elderly is growing in Sheffield as it is in the country generally. Incidentally, this has a "knock on" effect, because it is not possible to move elderly folk from the unsuitable housing that they now occupy and provide them with specially designed flats. The pressure is then put on the geriatric services and the geriatric wards of hospitals, and this is an extremely expensive way of caring for the elderly. The pressure on public funds may be more than it would have been had there been a reasonable allocation for new buildings in the first place.
There are also the consequences for employment. The Sheffield housing chairman has quoted figures of between 1,000 and 2,000 people who have been made unemployed as a consequence of the reduction in the housing programme. By no means all these are local authority employed. Private contractors are given a fair opportunity to take part in the housing programme in Sheffield, and about 350 workers in various categories and grades could be without work as a result of the ferocious reductions in the new building programme in the current financial year.
Then there is the problem of modernisation. Sheffield has an excellent record of council house building and there are many magnificent estates. In my constituency, the Gleadless Valley estate is widely acclaimed as the finest in Europe. Estates built in the late 1920s and early 1930s are now 50 years old, and even the post-war estates are 25 to 30 years old. At the time they were built, they were clearly outstanding and of much higher quality than the slums and derelict properties that they replaced. But naturally, as a result of the passage of time, they have fallen behind what people expect in the last two decades of the twentieth century.
Thus, a programme of modernisation is necessary and desirable, and Sheffield
682
has set a target of 2,000 homes a year for modernisation. However, owing to the cuts in the housing investment programme in the current year, a programme to modernise 1,200 pre-war homes has been cut to 800 and a programme for 400 post-war houses has been abandoned altogether. Therefore, 800 families who might reasonably have expected their homes to be modernised this year will be disappointed. If national figures go the way that the public expenditure White Paper has indicated, that disappointment may extend over many years.
The problem does not apply only to the public sector. In Sheffield there are about 53,000 pre-1919 houses. These need improving and modernising even more than some of the older council estates. Of the current allocation, £1,250,000 will be taken up by improvement grants that are already firmly promised, which leaves very little money for new commitments to improvement grants for residents in privately rented houses. It was hoped that there would be 1,000 new improvements during the current financial year. That number will now have to be drastically cut back. Like the council tenants who have been hoping to have their dwellings modernised, many families in privately rented older houses, some dating back to before the First World War, will be disappointed. As the housing programme is progressively cut year after year by the Government, that disappointment will extend further into the uncertain future.
The same problem arises with regard to mortgages and loans for improvements. Sheffield has been giving about 15 mortgages a week over the past year or so and hoped to increase that figure to 20 a week. People who would have otherwise not had the opportunity would thereby have been able to own their own homes. I believed that home ownership was a key feature of this Government's housing programme. However, the chairman of the housing committee estimates that loans will drop to only one a week under the housing investment programme.
Perhaps the most astonishing feature of the allocation is with regard to energy saving. The Government announced not long ago that the scheme of insulation would be extended to public sector housing. Insulation saves the home owner

683
or occupier money and saves the nation fuel. Having announced their generosity, the Government then cut the money available to Sheffield—and doubtless other authorities have suffered similarly—from £300,000 to £145,000 in the current year, which is a reduction of over 50 per cent.
Sheffield had ambitious schemes for energy conservation and planned to spend about £600,000 in the current year on that aspect of housing policy. It is now likely to have a miserable £20,000 for that programme. It had planned loft insulation schemes for 2,800 houses and other schemes for electrically heated maisonette and high tower blocks. Those schemes have more or less to be abandoned because the financial resources will not be available.
The Government have taken deliberate action to force up the price of gas and electricity way beyond what is required to cover the revenue accounts of those nationalised industries. They have a deliberate policy of recouping from these public corporations large sums of money that will go to the Treasury. It could be argued that that is one way of urging the need for conservation. However, those on low incomes, and particularly old people, are put under enormous pressure because of fuel bills. The Government then, through cuts in authorised expenditure on housing, force authorities such as Sheffield drastically to reduce or abandon ambitious, far-reaching and sensible plans for insulation to cope with the special problems of all-electric blocks built 10, 15 or 20 years ago—long before the oil crisis.
By any standards, this is sheer economic lunacy. This is a severe cutback in what Sheffield hoped for and asked for in its housing programme. Even if the Minister says that Sheffield's claim for £44 million was beyond what was reasonable, we are still faced with the fact that, whereas last year Sheffield expended £24½ million—about £28 million at current prices—that amount is being cut by one-quarter. The severe cutback in new housing puts jobs at risk and postpones the day when many people can expect a decent, suitable home. There will be long waiting lists and more people will be dumped in the geriatric wards of hospitals.
684
The cut in modernisation and improvement will reduce the council's ability to deal with the substantial problems of modernisation and disrepair. The cut in mortgage funds will affect those at the lower end of the housing market.
I conclude with a plea to the Minister. It may be that other authorities in the country, not as ambitious, vigorous and dynamic as Sheffield in housing, will find that their housing investment programmes are more than they require, by perhaps £1 million here or there. If that is so, I hope that it will be possible, within the fixed total of housing expenditure, for a reallocation of that money to be made to deal with some of the problems of modernisation, energy conservation and new building which now face Sheffield as a result of financial constraints.
12.37 am
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I was interested to hear the points put by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) about the problems Sheffield is experiencing. He has put the case, as put to him by his local authority, very fully.
It is necessary for me to make crystal clear one thing about HIP allocations which is all too often forgotten. They have nothing to do with subsidy, grant or aid. They are concerned strictly with resources. So, given the level of resources available, it is the means of dividing the national total between the 367 individual housing authorities that we have to look at. An authority's HIP allocation is the amount it may spend on housing investment in a given year.
The determination of these allocations is carried out in two stages. First, there is the national total which is divided between the regions. The regional allocations are then, in turn, shared out between the individual authorities. At both stages, account is taken of a number of factors, including evidence of housing needs, as set out in HIP applications. In addition, special attention is paid to the specific needs of certain inner city areas, Sheffield being one of these. We look at the size of authorities' bids for resources and authorities' estimates of the extent to which expenditure for the following year is already likely to be committed by the time the allocation is received.

685
Regional offices of the Department also take into account the policies proposed by an authority in its local housing strategy, the relationship of these to national policies and the extent to which the authority has made use of the alloca-cations given it in previous years. I shall return to that in a moment. In making allocations for 1980–81, we took what account we could of authorities' existing commitments, on the basis of the estimates supplied to us by the authorities with their HIP returns.
I believe on that basis that the allocations both to the Yorkshire and Humber-side region as a whole, which, in fact, received a slightly greater proportion of the national total than in 1979–80, and to Sheffield in particular were as fair as we could make them. We also noted that Sheffield was unable to spend about 20 per cent., or £7 million, of its provisional 1979–80 allocation.
Having set the scene generally, I turn to the particular case of Sheffield, which, I am told, now says that existing commitments on their own are almost as much as the total sum it will be allowed to spend in 1980–81. This must be because the current estimate of commitments is substantially in excess of the figure the council gave my Department in September 1979. The commitment figure conveyed to us by the city of Sheffield at that time was £10,225,000, which was very much less than the 1980–81 allocation of about £21 million, plus £145,000 for the homes insulation scheme.
Sheffield now says that its commitment figure is in excess of £20 million, an amazing 100 per cent. leap upwards in a short period of time, with no explanation, and that, due to its high commitment figure, the allocation allows insufficient flexibility to implement any of the objectives given in the letter conveying the 1980–81 HIP allocations, which we sent to all authorities on 21 February.
Under the one-block system which we introduced for 1980–81, local authorities are given more freedom to decide what investment will best suit their areas. I made it clear that it is Sheffield's choice whether it spends its allocation on improvements, modernisation or new house building.
Apart from that factor, Sheffield in any case is not the only authority which, for
686
one reason or another, believes that its allocation will be insufficient. I must make clear that there is no prospect of help of any kind. There are no additional funds in reserve for 1980–81, and the entirety of the available resources has already been distributed. I make the point however, that the more council houses and flats Sheffield sells, the more capital receipts it will have to supplement its HIP in 1981–82 and onwards.
Where does Sheffield city council go from here? I am afraid that it will have to face up to the realities of the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the House on 21 February in which he said that the Government were faced with the task of setting public expenditure at levels which the nation could afford. This means that Sheffield will have to adapt to the reduced provision for public expenditure overall arising from the Government's review and the new spending priorities within that provision. This will inevitably mean that authorities such as Sheffield will be unable to proceed with some planned schemes. The Government's present policy is to concentrate the public sector effort on meeting particular local needs such as for the elderly and the handicapped and to make better use of existing stock. The encouragement of home ownership and the private rented sector are important features of the policy.
But, in reassessing its programme and priorities within the new allocation for 1980–81, and the likely level for the following years, there is much that Sheffield can do to help itself if it wants. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction made a comprehensive statement in his address to the Institute of Housing seminar on 24 April, a copy of which has been sent to Sheffield's housing department. In that, he not only set out initiatives that local authorities could take in further promoting low-cost home ownership but also explained that by so doing they would incur only small or, in some cases, a nil call on their HIP allocations.
The seven-point home ownership programme that we are asking local authorities to consider in the light of the Housing Bill is quite simple. The first is the selling of council houses to sitting tenants. The second is the selling of local authority-owned land to private builders

687
with planning permission for starter home schemes. The third is the building of starter homes for sale on local authority land in partnership with private builders. The fourth is the improving of homes for sale. The fifth is the selling of unimproved homes for improvement by the purchaser. The sixth is the offering of shared ownership as an alternative to outright sales wherever possible. The seventh is using the new local authority mortgage guarantee powers to facilitate down market lending by building societies.
The capital receipts arising from a number of the seven points which I have just set out and which will augment a council's HIP allocation for 1981–82 onwards would allow Sheffield city council to get the maximum housing value from the available public expenditure.
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I am not at all certain that Sheffield has yet realised how it will have to proceed if it is to act in the interests of its tenants and those on its waiting list. I can do no better than repeat my compliments to the hon. Gentleman on the clear way in which he put the case which Sheffield has put to him. It is a case which I think has holes in it, because he made the point about drawing a percentage reduction from Sheffield's
688
bid as opposed to the allocation. That is a rather difficult argument to sustain when Sheffield had a £7 million underspend on its previous year's allocation. So it would give one not very much confidence that it could achieve the actual bid it put in.
I say to the hon. Member and to the House that it really is time that Sheffield began to face up to the realities of the situation and took an objective look at its programme and policies, bearing in mind the wide variety of options which are open to the council and which I have set out very clearly following the speech by my hon. Friend a few weeks ago. It really is time that Sheffield stopped living in a political dream world of its own and began to live in the real world. That then would be, perhaps, more in keeping with the interests of its ratepayers, its tenants, those on its waiting list and the nation. That is what Sheffield could do to help itself, and I am sure that as a very faithful representative of his constituents and their interests the hon. Gentleman will convey those points to Sheffield. I hope that it will learn from them.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to One o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Register of Members' Interests
  Register of Members' Interests
EMPLOYMENT
  Rehabilitation centres
  Rehabilitation centres
  Professional and Executive Register
  Professional and Executive Register
  Wage Agreements
  Wage Agreements
  Heavy Weights
  Heavy Weights
  Factory Inspectors
  Factory Inspectors
  Health and Safety Commission and Executive
  Health and Safety Commission and Executive
  Part-time Workers
  Part-time Workers
  Textile and Clothing Industries
  Textile and Clothing Industries
TRADE
  British Sugar Corporation
  British Sugar Corporation
  " Pool Fisher " (Loss)
  " Pool Fisher " (Loss)
  Textile and Clothing Imports
  Textile and Clothing Imports
  Boeing 727 Aircraft Crash (Tenerife)
  Boeing 727 Aircraft Crash (Tenerife)
  Eastman Kodak Ltd.
  Eastman Kodak Ltd.
  Policyholders Protection Act
  Policyholders Protection Act
CIVIL SERVICE
  Computers
  Computers
  Manpower
  Manpower
  Government Departments (Leicester)
  Government Departments (Leicester)
  Civil Service Pay
  Civil Service Pay
  Non-industrial Civil Servants
  Non-industrial Civil Servants
  Technology
  Technology
  Day of Action
  Day of Action
ENERGY
  North Sea Gas Flaring
  North Sea Gas Flaring
  Petrol Supplies
  Petrol Supplies
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Charities (Financial Benefit)
  Charities (Financial Benefit)
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  £ Sterling Deposits
  £ Sterling Deposits
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Family Income
  Family Income
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Trustee Saving Banks (Commercial Lending)
  Trustee Saving Banks (Commercial Lending)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Custodial Sentences
  Custodial Sentences
  Mrs. Evelyn Williams and Mrs. Lee Williams
  Mrs. Evelyn Williams and Mrs. Lee Williams
  Police Houses
  Police Houses
  Prison Visitors
  Prison Visitors
  Police Establishment (Warwickshire)
  Police Establishment (Warwickshire)
  Prison and Probation Departments (Annual Reports)
  Prison and Probation Departments (Annual Reports)
  Coroners Rules
  Coroners Rules
  Junior Attendance centres
  Junior Attendance centres
  Holloway Prison (Statistics)
  Holloway Prison (Statistics)
  Fine Defaulters
  Fine Defaulters
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Inner London Education Authority
  Inner London Education Authority
SCOTLAND
  Delta Capillary Ltd, Dundee
  Delta Capillary Ltd, Dundee
  Hampden Park Limited
  Hampden Park Limited
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Planning
  Planning
  Grant-aided Secondary Schools (Maintenance Grants)
  Grant-aided Secondary Schools (Maintenance Grants)
  Church of Scotland Hostels (Alcholic Rehabilitation)
  Church of Scotland Hostels (Alcholic Rehabilitation)
  Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
  Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
  Quangos
  Quangos
  Mr. Paddy Meehan
  Mr. Paddy Meehan
PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  Redecoration Schemes
  Redecoration Schemes
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Westminster Hospital and Medical School
  Westminster Hospital and Medical School
  General Practitioners (Appointment Appeals)
  General Practitioners (Appointment Appeals)
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Foetal Development (Abnormality Detection)
  Foetal Development (Abnormality Detection)
  Health Service Units
  Health Service Units
  National Assistance Act 1948
  National Assistance Act 1948
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Disability Alliance (Report)
  Disability Alliance (Report)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Departmental Leaflets
  Departmental Leaflets
  Social Security (No. 2) Bill
  Social Security (No. 2) Bill
DEFENCE
  Contract Cleaners
  Contract Cleaners
  Service Personnel (Morbidity and Mortality Rates)
  Service Personnel (Morbidity and Mortality Rates)
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  Royal Naval Personnel (Duty-free Tobacco)
  Royal Naval Personnel (Duty-free Tobacco)
INDUSTRY
  Industrial Assistance Expenditure
  Industrial Assistance Expenditure
  Insulation
  Insulation
  Petrochemical Industry
  Petrochemical Industry
  Delta Capillary Ltd. (Grants)
  Delta Capillary Ltd. (Grants)
  Microprocessor Application Project
  Microprocessor Application Project
  Regional Development Grants
  Regional Development Grants
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Dock and Landing Charges (Grant)
  Dock and Landing Charges (Grant)
  Wheat Imports (Levy)
  Wheat Imports (Levy)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Yorkshire Water Authority (River Map)
  Yorkshire Water Authority (River Map)
TRANSPORT
  Express Coach Services
  Express Coach Services
  Road Programme Manager
  Road Programme Manager
  Vehicle Number Plates (Registration)
  Vehicle Number Plates (Registration)
  Car Sharing (Travel Patterns)
  Car Sharing (Travel Patterns)
  M23 (Hooley)
  M23 (Hooley)
  Cyclists
  Cyclists
  Road Construction (European Community Funds)
  Road Construction (European Community Funds)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Concessionary Fare Schemes
  Concessionary Fare Schemes
  British Railways (Management Flexibility)
  British Railways (Management Flexibility)
  Ports (Improved Road Access)
  Ports (Improved Road Access)
  Rural Bus Services
  Rural Bus Services
  Trunk Roads (Expenditure)
  Trunk Roads (Expenditure)
  British Railways (External Finance)
  British Railways (External Finance)
  Motorways (Maintenance Costs)
  Motorways (Maintenance Costs)
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
  Roads (White Paper)
  Roads (White Paper)
  Historic Towns (Bypasses)
  Historic Towns (Bypasses)
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing centre (Records)
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing centre (Records)
  M6-M61
  M6-M61
  International Road Haulage Permits
  International Road Haulage Permits
  London Transport
  London Transport
  Railway Pension Funds
  Railway Pension Funds
  Railways (Electrification)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Drinking and Driving
  Drinking and Driving
  Bus Lanes
  Bus Lanes
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Road Accidents (Heavy Goods Vehicles)
  Road Accidents (Heavy Goods Vehicles)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Driving Instructors
  Driving Instructors
  Advanced Passenger Train
  Advanced Passenger Train
  Motor Vehicles (Fuel Consumption and Pollution)
  Motor Vehicles (Fuel Consumption and Pollution)
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  British Railways Subsidiaries
  British Railways Subsidiaries
  Midland Link Motorways
  Midland Link Motorways
WALES
  Television Components
  Television Components
  Gwynedd
  Gwynedd
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  A55 (Conwy and Penmaenmawr)
  A55 (Conwy and Penmaenmawr)
  Young Persons (Dyfed)
  Young Persons (Dyfed)
ENVIRONMENT
  Dogs
  Dogs
  Ceremonial Flagstaffs
  Ceremonial Flagstaffs
  Development Commission and COSIRA
  Development Commission and COSIRA
  Rating
  Rating
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Local Authorities (Statutory Duties)
  Local Authorities (Statutory Duties)
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Domestic Water Consumption
  Domestic Water Consumption
  Butchers Farm Bam, Worsthorne, Lancashire
  Butchers Farm Bam, Worsthorne, Lancashire
  Witley Court, Worcestershire
  Witley Court, Worcestershire
  Porstmouth Ship Shop
  Porstmouth Ship Shop
  Local Authorities (Dog Warden Service)
  Local Authorities (Dog Warden Service)
  Building Research Establishment
  Building Research Establishment
  Norman Shaw South
  Norman Shaw South
  Commission for New Towns and New Town Development Corporations (Staff Redundancy Payments)
  Commission for New Towns and New Town Development Corporations (Staff Redundancy Payments)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Community Service Orders
  Community Service Orders
  Housing (Physically Handicapped Persons)
  Housing (Physically Handicapped Persons)
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  New Hebrides
  New Hebrides
  Ethiopian Refugees
  Ethiopian Refugees
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Regional Development Fund
  Regional Development Fund

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

PSYCHIATRIC UNITS: ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: 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, in view of their reply to his Question on 17th March last, Official Report, col. 155, that there are as yet no permanent regional psychiatric secure units, what the money allocated for this purpose has been spent on.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, it has always been recognised that until the permanent units are established, authorities would not be able to use all of the revenue allocation on secure facilities. Since the allocation derives from funds voted for health services and held back from general allocation, authorities have been allowed to use it for other non-recurrent purposes, and in particular on improving other psychiatric services. The department has recently received up-to-date information from regional health authorities of the use made of these allocations; as soon as it has been checked and collated I will send it to the noble Lord and place a copy in the Library of the House. Special capital is made available to health authorities as estimates are approved and plans develop and has been used on capital expenditure for the regional secure units programme.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that informative reply, may I ask him whether he accepts that the achievement so far— that is, the possibility of 30 places by the end of this year out of a
908
total proposed of 1, 000— after something well over £ 30 million has been allocated over the past four years, falls a little short of the highest standard of productivity? Can he give some indication of the reasons for this slow progress?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I fully understand what the noble Lord means about the slowness of the development. In fact, when this programme started and money was made available in 1976–77 onwards, there was considerable underestimate of the difficulties that would arise in setting up these regional secure units. There was local opposition and difficulty in getting staff. But the concern that the noble Lord has expressed is entirely shared by the department and by my right honourable friend.
Lord BUTLER of SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, as chairman of the Committee on Mental Offenders for three long and arduous years, may I ask the noble Lord if he realises that in April 1974 we presented a preliminary report on this very subject? The Government accepted that report. That was six years ago. So far as I am aware, excepting what the noble Lord referred to in his gracious Answer, very little has been achieved. This is a vital matter and I hope the Government will now pay some attention to it.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I fully understand that the noble Lord is very well up in this subject. I also realise how important it is. The department is also very concerned about the slowness in the development, and every encouragement is given by the department to try to press on faster and further with this matter.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, is the Minister aware (I am sure he is, but I must put this in the form of a question) that, in the meantime, many thousands of prisoners who would properly be placed in these secure units are serving— to no good purpose from the public point of view and to great inconvenience and discomfort from the point of view of staff and inmates in Her Majesty's prisons— in penal establishments which have no facilities at all for dealing with those cases?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: Yes, my Lords, although I understand that the number of such people has been somewhat exaggerated; a census was taken at the end of last year and there were 138 mentally ill prisoners, so I am told, who would have been suitable for transfer to hospital.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to say exactly what are the problems concerning staff or lack of staff? Is it the question of remuneration?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I understand the difficulty with staff is that there are many other jobs which they can do which are not anything like so difficult.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, may we have some indication of when the first of these additional units is likely to be opened?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: The first of these units is likely to be opened by the end of this year, my Lords.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, when the Home Secretary made his Statement on 30th April about the May Committee Report on Prisons he said that the Social Services Secretary
"will continue to give priority to the establishment of regional secure units".
Was that intended to be encouraging or discouraging?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: It was intended to be encouraging, my Lords.

SHIPBUILDERS AND NATIONALISATION COMPENSATION
2.43 p.m.
Lord MONSON: 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 when they propose introducing legislation to amend the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 so as to
910
ensure that certain shipbuilders nationalised under that Act are not compensated on almost wholly confiscatory terms, particularly in view of the United Kingdom's international obligations.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Tren- chard): My Lords, the present Administration are not responsible for the 1977 Act, and strongly criticised its proposed provisions when in opposition. None the less, ownership of the nationalised companies was effectively transferred to the Government from 17th March 1975— the date of the previous Administration's safeguarding statement— and the Act related compensation to Stock Exchange prices in a six-month reference period ended 28th February 1974. In the light of this, it would be wrong to call the terms "almost wholly confiscatory", however unfair the terms later became for certain companies. The Government have great sympathy with stockholders who consider that they were treated harshly on this account, but I fear that retroactive amendment of the compensation terms would raise very difficult issues, produce a host of new unfairnesses, and further delay the final settlement of compensation.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his reply, although I must say that it was very far from satisfactory. Is the noble Viscount aware that for the State compulsorily to acquire people's property for less than one-fifth of the market value and for less than one-fifth of the asset value is not only totally Marxist, but also contravenes subsection (2) of Article 17 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, together with Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Washington Convention?
Is the noble Viscount further aware that a great many of his noble friends, including several Ministers and former Ministers, have in this House described these terms as tantamount to expropriation, farcical, glaringly unfair, derisory, a serious inroad into freedom, dangerous to democracy—
Several noble Lords: Reading!
Lord MONSON: — and likely to undermine future world confidence in Britain?
Viscount TRENCHARD: I am aware of all those matters, my Lords. Certainly the Government still believe what Members of the Government said in Opposition: that the compensation terms based on the six-month period and on market values of that six-month period have proved very harsh on a number of companies. There is no doubt about that. But we are dealing with a date which was a long time ago, and since then many share transactions have taken place on the basis of the law as it was then enacted and as per the announcement and the six-month period which ended on 28th February 1974. One really would create enormous numbers of unfairnesses if, after more than five years of share transactions on the basis of the law as established at the time, one then changed it. One also has problems in regard to the fact that 14 out of the 24 companies have already settled under the terms of the Act. So the problems of such a degree of retrospection are really extreme.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether the principles applied in settling the terms of compensation were any different from those applied in earlier cases of nationalisation; or did the difference arise only because that happened to be a period of low Stock Exchange prices? If the second point is the case, can the noble Viscount also tell the House in what way this is different from the case of Burmah Oil, in regard to which shares of BP were taken over by the Bank of England at a time when the share price was at the very bottom? Would not that case be analogous to the case which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I believe that I am correct in stating that more than one basis has been used for compensation of assets on nationalisation. I believe that in some cases in the past vesting date has been used, and in this case vesting date was not until 1977. I believe that there has been more than one basis, but this basis was used in this case. With regard to comparison with the Burmah Oil case, I leave it to Members of the House to make their own comparisons on moments which are of good value or bad value in terms of assets.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, docs my noble friend recall that Labour
912
Ministers assured both Houses that the terms would be fair and equitable? Does he also recall, despite his earlier reply, that only 10 per cent. of those firms nationalised actually had share quotations, and that therefore there was no true market value? If, as is understood, it is difficult to rearrange matters and bring in a new Bill at this stage, because of what had already been done, cannot my noble friend hasten the sale back of these companies who have not settled at the value which has been determined on these rather artificially low bases?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is aware from my earlier answers that Members of this Administration are quite clear that they believe now, as they believed then, that there have been some unfairnesses. I was not aware that only 10 per cent. of the companies had a market quotation at that time— I am educated by my noble friend— although I have no reason to doubt that the market valuation in relation to those companies, which was probably related to the companies that did have a market quotation, was arrived at according to the Act, and probably fairly accurately. I think that the question of sale back in relation to these companies does not yet arise. I have no doubt that as and when it does arise we shall study my noble friend's remarks.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether it is the Government's opinion that it would be better for these companies to remain in public ownership, or whether the jobs involved and the economic prosperity of some of them would be better served by a return to private ownership?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, the position on that separate question has been stated in this House previously. The Aerospace Bill has passed through your Lordships' House, and I will not explain the provisions of it; and, in relation to shipbuilding, we have made a statement that the time is not yet right, although we intend, as soon as it is, to maximise private ownership in that area, too.

PUBLIC BOARD SALARIES
2.50 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what new guidelines they now propose to set for the Top Salaries Review Body when considering remuneration of board members of public corporations.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames): My Lords, the Government do not issue guidelines in the way the noble Lord suggests. How the Review Body carries out its work is a matter for that body itself.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, the fact of the matter is that very definite rates are laid down for the boards of public corporations. May I ask the noble Lord, without commenting at all on the merits or demerits of a recent appointment to the board of the British Steel Corporation, whether he does not find it difficult to defend one rate on the promise of performance as against an inferior rate for those board members who have proved their worth as regards both profitability and public service, and expect them to accept an inferior rate?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, while in no way disagreeing with the noble Lord as to the services which are rendered by members of all these boards generally speaking, where the particular situation of Mr. MacGregor and British Steel is concerned it was one particular man who the Government thought was right to run this particular industry and to overcome the very considerable difficulties which we all know confront that industry, and so special arrangements were made. Perhaps it is the exception which proves the rule.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that everybody thinks like Mr. MacGregor, that his own services to the community are exceptional; and that if you have an example of this kind set, then throughout the coming 12 months, if there are no guidelines or no indications from the Government as to
914
what level of settlement is acceptable, there will be far worse inflation than we have had so far, even, and the estimate made by the Treasury last November, that the retail price index would not increase by more than 14 per cent. during the coming 12 months, should perhaps be doubled or even trebled?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, in answer to the general point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, of course we are awaiting the report, and I think it would be premature to say what the report contains. I do not know what the report will come up with in terms of increases in salaries in this particular area, so I am sure he will forgive me if I do not comment on it. As to the point to which he linked his general observation, about the tendency of everybody to think that he is as good as Mr. MacGregor, I think the market place has something to do with that as well.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, which market place does the noble Lord talk about? This is a monopoly situation. He was in a monopoly situation, and there was no competition at all, so far as one can make out from the statements made. There was no competition whatsoever. He was picked out, and absolutely fantastic—
Several noble Lords: Speech! Speech!
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that the principle of comparability is going to operate?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I am not sure that I heard every word that fell from the noble Lord's lips, but I think I heard the term "market place" from him. What I was referring to was not the market place in just these particular industries. But when it comes to picking men out from the market place to put them into these industries the market place will often give you a guideline as to what those men could command within that market place.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House why it is necessary to wait for the report? Are we not being told frequently by the Prime Minister, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by other members of

915
the Government and by people in high places, whose high moral principles are beyond question, that one of our problems derives from the demand by certain people in the country for high wages? Could not those people in top management with excessively high salaries— and, as I say, with high moral principles— volunteer, without waiting for the report, to accept lower salaries in order to help the Government out of their financial difficulties?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, that, I feel, is a matter for individuals, and not a matter for the Leader of this House or the Lord President of the Council.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, may I call the noble Lord's attention to one rule which is applied relating to the repayment of fees earned from outside directorships? That rule is being relaxed in the case of the British Steel Corporation. Would he not agree that it will be very difficult to defend the relaxation there if it is maintained in every other case?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give an exact answer to that question "off-the-cuff" concerning the extent to which this limitation applies, but I think we feel that in the case of those who are executive board members of nationalised industries, as opposed to non-executive board members, it is a very full-time job, and, generally speaking, one would not expect them to be using their energies outside that particular job. However, as I say, where Mr. MacGregor is concerned this can be expressed as the exception that proves the rule. But I do not want to take it too far, if the noble Lord will excuse me, because I am not yet absolutely certain what are the guidelines.
Lord HALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what all this has to do with mounted police dashing into crowds?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, if the noble Lord will content himself for a second or two, I think we shall soon be on to the mounted police.

RIOT CONTROL: MOUNTED POLICEWOMEN
2.57 p.m.
Lord KILMANY: 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 it is normal policy to employ mounted policewomen alongside mounted policemen in riot control where baton charges on horseback are likely to become necessary.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, the deploy- ment of police officers is indeed a matter for the chief constable of the force concerned.
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind that, while many people admired very much the courage of the mounted policewoman, riding a white horse, who joined in the police charge at Hampden Park in very disagreeable circumstances, this is not really the most suitable way to deploy female labour, however courageous?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, your Lordships will know that all police work involves an element of risk, and we believe that policemen and, indeed, policewomen have time and again displayed courage in the execution of their duties, no less at Hampden Park than anywhere else. It is also the case that over the last five years the police service has been working steadily, and with a good deal of success, to extend the use of women police officers into all aspects of police duties. We think that we should continue this process and study the full effect before any changes are made.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that time after time assurances have been given as to the circumstances in which the Government will never authorise the use of mounted and baton-carrying police in political circumstances? Could he say whether any alteration is to be made; whether we are to have an equestrian branch of the Special Branch of the police to help deal with political matters— or what does this Question really forecast?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is addressing himself to another part of the United Kingdom. The Question asked by my noble friend was, I think, about mounted police in Scotland, and this is especially a part of the Strathclyde constabulary. Indeed, I understand there is a report from the police in Strathclyde which will soon be in the hands of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, is football in Scotland entirely political?
Lord LYELL: Not entirely, my Lords.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, speaking from long and personal experience, once you put 'em on a horse, the female sex are far more deadly than the male?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am delighted to learn that and the Government will note it very carefully.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the horse was female or male?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I have no specific information on this point. The Press reports refer to the "Grey Mare Tale", but the text says, "the gelding". I will leave it to your Lordships' judgment.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, accepting that under the law the terms of service in the police for men and women are the same and that there are many jobs where women are better than men, is my noble friend aware that many senior police officers in this country are far from satisfied with the present position? Would he bear in mind that women are just as expensive to train as are men, on average serve for a considerably shorter period and that the whole question of the service of women police constables alongside men is a subject which could be looked into again, possibly by the Police Advisory Board?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am sure that this could be the case; but my noble friend will be interested to know that service in the small mounted branch of the Strathclyde Police is voluntary and
918
! that applications have been received widely from officers, male and female. At the moment, I understand that there are 28 officers in the mounted branch of the Strathclyde Police of whom five are women. I presume that these policewomen are entirely satisfactory in their duties as mounted policewomen and I would assume that we had better leave it to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde in his report.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, is that Answer not irrelevant? I have already said that, for many jobs, women were better than men. It could be that they ride horses better. The fact remains that there is considerable disquiet among a number of senior police officers in the service about the present legal position. Will my noble friend look into this again?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, if my noble friend wishes to direct his remarks to Scotland and to Strathclyde, I can make sure that his comments are directed to the right quarter. So far as policewomen, generally, carry out their duties, perhaps he might put down another Question.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, when the Minister conducts his review, will he be good enough to remember the tradition created South of the Border by Queen Boadicea?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I shall be glad of that historical reminder.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in these days of sexual equality, will the noble Lord do all he can to discourage the belittling of women? Is he aware of the fact that in the days when I used to go out fox hunting, the women were at least equal to the men; and I never saw a woman jib at a jump?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, as the only bachelor on the Government Front Bench, I take note of that and shall be interested to learn more.

SOCIAL WELFARE (LOCAL SERVICES) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to con-

919
solidate certain provisions of the National Assistance Act 1948 and related enactments as they have effect as part of the law of England and Wales; and to repeal certain enactments which have ceased to have any effect. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

THE HANDICAPPED BLIND
3.5 p.m.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL Baroness FISHER of REDNAL rose to call attention to the present lack of facilities and the prospects for the multi- handicapped blind; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, to make your Lordships more aware of the existence of this group, I will try to describe what I mean by multiple- handicapped blind and the frustrations and difficulties that this category of persons suffers. I am not going to talk about the blind handicapped as that description applies to those persons who suffer blindness through injury or accident; neither am I going to talk about blind handicapped in relation to old age. What I am going to talk about is the handicapped child who grows into a handicapped teenager and ultimately into a blind handicapped adult.
We must recognise that a child who is born blind handicapped is left with very few resources by which he can grow, develop and lead his life. The courage of the individual child and the hope and despair of the parents are something of which any civilised country must take serious consideration. The advances that have taken place in modern medicine and medical science over the last 20 years have resulted in the survival of children with handicaps— blind, physically disabled and with all kinds of serious problems. These children prior to the advent of medical science, would have died before the age of two or three and in the main their length of life would have been, at the maximum, 14 or 15 years. Advances in methods of preservation of life have left us with the problems of training and managing this group of multiple-handi-
920
capped children with whom few people have had any experience at all in the past.
While, in your Lordships' House in the past there have been debates on blind persons, and there have been debates on the mentally handicapped, the category of children and young people that I am talking about today is the direct result of modern medical science. They are not what used to be called the straightforward blind persons who suffered blindness as the only affliction. The number of children and young persons involved is very difficult to come by, but my research shows that there are approximately 25, 000 people of this description in the country. I want to emphasise— because sometimes I think the Department are not aware of this— that this is a category where the visual impairment is equal to any other handicap that the child or young person has.
I repeat that this is a recent problem because the advance in medical science that I spoke about of 20 years ago meant that babies in this category were born and started to grow up, and the problem is now getting to serious proportions because no facilities are available for them. If we start with those 25, 000 (and this number is only an estimate, for it is difficult to get accurate figures) we recognise that in the hospitals for the mentally handicapped in this country there are very large numbers of these particular young people who, more often than not, are placed there because nobody knows what to do with them. Social services departments are at their wits' end to find places for this category of child. As in many other cases, we find that the mental hospitals of this country become a receiving depot for all those kinds of problems which nobody else seems to be able to solve.
Inside the mental hospitals we find that, included among the blind handicapped, there will be— very unfortunately for this category of persons— some for whom there is little or nothing that we can do; their handicaps, mental and physical (with their blindness) are so serious that all we can ask for is that dedicated care be given to them. Then there are those others that are in the mental hospitals for whom a limited amount might be done. When I say "limited" I recognise quite clearly that there are mental handicaps

921
with the blindness. That limited amount of training that can be done, along with the care and attention that is given in the hospitals, could result in training these very severely handicapped children to do their own toileting and to feed themselves. It may sound a very simple thing to do, but if one visits mental hospitals and sees this kind of child, one sees that there are great problems.
In the main, those children will live all their lives in the hospitals. But if we can give this initial training of the elementary social wellbeing that they need, feeding themselves and looking after their own toilet arrangements, then in the long run— if we want to be mercenary about it— when they grow into adults the care that will have to be spent on them will be less because there will be less need for the elementary duties of looking after them in their personal affairs.
Then we move on to those for whom further education— and I use the word "education" in a very liberal sense, I am not talking in a vocational or academic sense— of a social and practical nature would be of great help. I have said that numbers are very difficult to ascertain. I could not possibly give the numbers in the respective groupings that I have enumerated. What I can say to noble Lords this afternoon is that there are only approximately 200 special places in the whole of England outside of mental hospitals for the individuals concerned.
At Leatherhead, which is known throughout the length and breadth of the country as the largest residential home for blind handicapped persons, there is a serious problem. The maximum number that it can house— people aged from 20 until they die— is 150. During the three years 1977 to 1979 there were 70 referrals from local authorities up and down the country. Only 19 could be admitted. During the first few months of 1980 there have been referrals at the rate of two a month. They cannot stretch the walls any further; there are not the facilities. It is a deplorable situation in a civilised country like ours.
I want to emphasise that blind people need special help to learn basic and self-care skills when they are faced with other disabilities, which include deafness, physical or mental handicaps. Their
922
problem can be ameliorated by training techniques and staff skills which are presently available in in-service training courses. Here I should like to mention Dr. Simon of Lea Castle Hospital at Bromsgrove. He has been doing pioneering work in in-service training for staff in mental hospitals. There is also the Southern and Western Regional Association of the Blind. They, too, are in a position to develop a programme of staff training if further financial aid can be provided.
May I draw to the attention of the Minister the fact that the impetus for training is coming from the nurses and the professional staff in the hospitals concerned who want to do a better job of caring than they are doing at the moment, but who are under the greatest difficulties because they do not know how to tackle the blindness problem along with the mental handicap. It is from that source, from the nursing and professional staffs, that the push is coming for in- service training.
Over the past three or four months I have been putting to the Minister Questions for Written Answer about the blind handicapped. I must say to the Minister that I found those Answers very evasive and non-commital. I am not blaming the Minister for that. I would accept that he is a very kind man. Only last week, when I was talking to him about this debate, he told me of his own personal involvement in a charity regarding talking books. The department itself has little or no knowledge, little or no statistics, on this grave difficulty of the blind multiple handicapped.
May I quote from the comments that were made at a seminar which was organised by the Southern and Western Regional Association of the Blind last July at Jesus College. One of those speaking at the seminar was a principal at the Department of Health and Social Security at the Elephant and Castle district. I read from what he says:
"I am the only principal in the Elephant for services for visually handicapped people; and I have other responsibilities as well, … and they take up much more than half my time … I have two full-time members of staff. One is slightly less than half-time on visual impairment. The other deals always with other matters. My full- time assistant on blind matters is a trainee administrator, and I get a fresh one each year ".
Is it any wonder that the Minister, when he comes to answer questions, is in the gravest difficulties? The department itself seems not to take the problem of visual impairment as seriously as they might do. I say to the noble Lord the Minister that if any cuts have to come into the particular department of the DHSS to do with blind impairment, I hope he will resist them, otherwise we shall get a quarter of a principal, and a quarter of a half-time woman and perhaps a third of a trainee administrator, which is not good enough.
I shall not talk about the blind-deaf because I see that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, has his name down to speak. As a patron of the Rubella Association, I fee! sure that he will cover the points regarding the blind-deaf. I see on the list of speakers the name of the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. I know that she has an interest in the Wilberforce Home which is for the blind physically handicapped. I will not say anything about that, except that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, wrote to me and said he had hoped to be here to join in the debate but that he was unable to do so. He drew my attention to what the Dutch are doing in the field of small hospital units for this category of persons. I want to emphasise the smallness of the units in hospitals because many parents are disturbed when their children have to go into what they call the big old-fashioned mental hospitals, with all the connotations from the past that they have. The parents are obviously protective about their children, and obviously the children take to the smaller annexe much more easily.
May I now refer to the blind mentally handicapped in the community generally, living at home. They often have no back-up services at all from local authorities, hospitals or anybody. Parents try the best they can to cope with very serious problems. These handicapped people cover a wide variety of intellectual ability, and many of them find themselves in adult training centres. Unfortunately, the adult training centre service does not yet cover the whole community. However, I do hope that local authorities will also take up the training facilities which are necessary when the blind go into the normal sighted situations that are found in the adult training centres. I want to emphasise the point about training, be-
924
cause it is so easy for a sighted person to visualise a problem and it is much more difficult for handicapped blind persons to assess quickly what is demanded of them.
Turning to the last group that I emphasise, these are boys and girls who have hand the benefit of the education system at various schools throughout the country: Condover Hall is the most famous of them all. They find themselves at school- leaving age going through a vocational training test. This normally takes place at the Queen Alexandra College in Birmingham or Hethersett in Surrey. Unfortunately, not all the children who take the vocational test satisfy that test and therefore we must ask: what happens to this group? The Vernon Group specified in its report the need for a special type of centre for this particular group. They did not specify what kind— it would not be vocational or academic— and a centre of that nature has been set up in Liverpool for 12 young women. It is being run by the Catholic Institute for the Blind at Christopher Grange. That is a start but it is being run chiefly by a voluntary organisation. I understand that the Queen Alexandra College in Birmingham are particularly concerned to try to help this group of people. Unfortunately, residential places cannot be provided and with no hostel no training can be given to them. They need a period of further education— and I emphasise again not academic or vocational— for self-help, self-care and training. In other words, they need further education following the education they have received up to school-leaving level. If we can provide further education for the more able people in the community, I think it is incumbent upon us to provide further education for the less able people in the community. Many of these people may be able to live at home, but for those who are not able to live at home perhaps the most ambitious part of the project would be the provision of sheltered housing so that people in this particular group would be able to learn how to cope with day-today living and looking after themselves, although they will not be gainfully employed.
I am aware that the Birmingham Royal Institution for the Blind have recently extended their day care facilities for the blind multiple-handicapped, and already at the Elizabeth Gunn Centre at Harborne

925
in Birmingham, a new hostel has been provided and is now ready to accept people. This hostel has been provided through the good offices of a housing association, working with the governors of the Birmingham Royal Institution for the Blind. I do not want to boast about what Birmingham does— though, being a "Brummie" myself, I am proud of the place, and rightly so— -but the activities of Birmingham are perhaps best known to me through being a citizen of that great city. I believe that Birmingham is the only city and the only region in the country where specialised care has been developed for the multiple-handicapped blind, and it has all taken place at Harborne under the Birmingham Royal Institution for the Blind. It is the enthusiasm of the staff there and the encouragement and support they get from their governors, who have dedication, tenancity and lots of spare time and who work so hard at their job as governors, that makes the whole thing tick.
I should like to ask the Minister— I do not ask him to give any details today— whether there is any possibility that he could advise voluntary bodies on how to try to get money for hostel accommodation and for sheltered housing accommodation so that we can plan for the future. It is important that if people are not to spend their days in mental hospitals when their parents have died, there should be somewhere they can go. Perhaps the long-term solution will be sheltered housing. Can the Minister say whether there is any possibliity of the EEC Social Fund perhaps being able to help in this respect?
Drawing now to a conclusion, there is a fundamental need— I say this to the Minister quite seriously— to develop an administrative strategy which ensures that those who are blind and handicapped and who require special training are identified and guaranteed access to the appropriate training. We know that under the National Assistance Act 1949 it is incumbent upon local authorities to compile and maintain classified registers of persons. I do not think that the DHSS really puts any pressure at all on local authorities to do that. I suggest that, with the best will in the world, if you do not count your numbers, you do not know your problems and you do not have to do anything about them. That might sound
926
very cynical, but it is normally the reason for not taking numbers.
Therefore I would say that registration is a major issue in this connection; it means that a child who is suspected of suffering from blindness and other physical or mental handicap is known to some authority, and it is known what is happening to that child. In that connection I would ask the Minister whether he can give us any information regarding the progress of improvements to form BD8. I know there have been problems about that. I wonder whether he can also tell us anything about the issue of the new NVH— the form for notification of a visually handicapped child. Is it available for distribution and is it being used?
May I say that I believe it is important that Government support is asked for to recognise the problems, to give financial support for special training facilities, to extend further social education facilities to set up assessment units and staff training inside hospitals, for local authorities to provide residential and care facilities and for the provision of future sheltered housing. I do not deny that that is a formidable list; but this is a handicap and we are starting from scratch where there are no real facilities in the country— a follow-on procedure from the time the child is born until the child reaches manhood.
I do not mind where the money comes from— whether from the DHSS or the DES— as long as it is forthcoming. Moreover, I think it is justifiable to expect that, even in times of financial stringency, it should come from somewhere, for it is the price we all must pay to help those who are less fortunate in the community. The amount required is a pittance compared with that which we in this country spend on armaments and weapons of war. I would advocate that perhaps we should spend more on letting these people enjoy themselves and less on destroying things.
Those are my final words, and I thank your Lordships for listening so intently to what I have had to say. The children, the teenagers, the young people and their parents— and noble Lords will know families of this description— are daily facing difficulties, frustrations and disappointments. They lose the hope and

927
the courage which are daily necessities for them. What I am asking noble Lords, and the Minister in particular, today is that the Government and local authorities, working alongside the voluntary bodies, recognise that courage by increasing financial aid and giving greater facilities. I thank your Lordships again for listening. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.31 p.m.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, I am happy to say a few words in this debate, as patron of the National Association for Deaf Blind and Rubella Handicapped. I will explain that in a moment. First, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, for initiating this debate and for making such a moving, thoughtful, eloquent speech on a very grave topic indeed. I thank her, too, for opening our centre in Market Deeping some weeks ago. The noble Baroness devotes much of her life to helping the less fortunate, and I wish her well in all that she is doing in this field.
The association that I have mentioned was founded, as are so many of the societies which help the handicapped, by parents of handicapped children; in this case, children who are both deaf and blind. They are born deaf and blind, because their mothers had rubella or German measles during their pregnancies. This little association has grown steadily over the past few years, always hampered by lack of finance in doing what it dreamed of doing.
Then, last year, fortunately, a miracle happened. There was a "Magpie" appeal on Thames TV and 45, 000 people sent in gifts which totalled nearly £ 250, 000 for this voluntary body. As a result, it has been able to set up two training centres, one in Ealing and one, which the noble Baroness opened, in Market Deeping. There children will be cared for by dedicated experts who try to improve a child's ability to receive communication, despite the grave handicap of not seeing and not hearing.
The goal is a great one; the achievement will be very difficult. I pay warm tribute to those devoted teachers up and down the country, inside our association and in many hospitals, who dedicate themselves
928
to this formidable task, and I hope that, when voluntary centres like ours have been set up, local authorities will assist in their maintenance.
The pattern of progress of societies for the handicapped is always the same. First, devoted parents and friends get together, share their problems, seek to raise funds, find ways of helping each other and arrange conferences to be addressed by experts and then, when they are sufficiently well-established the State steps in and the State and the voluntary body co-operate. That is the history of almost every voluntary charity in this country, and it is certainly true of this association. I pay tribute to the Department of Health and Social Security for its co-operation and help in tackling this problem, as I do to doctors, parents and friends for their devoted voluntary work, year by year, in this field.
Vaccination of the nation's mothers can reduce the incidence of rubella and is, perhaps, the key to eliminating this handicap for all time for all our children. Both the association and the Ministry publicise to parents the need for the immunisation of expectant mothers, and even of all female children, as the long- term answer. But the immediate problem is that of helping the afflicted child to cope with life, to get in touch— and it is especially "touch"— with those around them and to open little windows on an otherwise darkened life.
It is estimated that some 400 rubella deformed babies are born in the United Kingdom in a non-epidemic year— there was an epidemic in 1978 when the number was greater— and that is some measure of this problem. Both the association and the Government are stepping up vaccination campaigns. I am informed that some 70 per cent. of schoolgirls between the ages of 11 and 14, have been immunised. Many doctors and health centres are playing an active part in the campaign, and the General Medical Services Committee is negotiating with the department for the payment of doctors for screening tests, with the ultimate aim of getting every fertile woman vaccinated.
Let me give your Lordships two sad examples from the number that I know through reports by parents. First, when Jayne was born she weighed only 3 lb. 7 oz.

929
was blind and had a heart condition. For four months she clung to life with little chance of surviving. But today she weighs 101b. 4 oz. and gurgles happily as her parents play with her. Her mother said:
"The doctors say that Jayne's heart is like that of an old man and it might give out at any time. Now we pray that as she gets older there will be no sign of brain damage. So every day with us counts as a bonus ".
That is because rubella children are in danger of other complications, such as a heart condition or a brain condition, to add to their great problem.
The second example is James, a boy with partial hearing and with only one eye. The other had to be removed because of glaucoma. An artificial eye was made for him. After an anxious three months in hospital, James was back at the centre, looking very handsome with his new eye. His mother said:
"He is far better without the glaucoma eye. He has stopped crying and banging the right side and is a healthy happy boy ".
He is progressing at school, understanding far more and has shown signs of trying to form sounds. A recent visit to the audiologist recorded that, while wearing hearing aids, James had some useful hearing in his right ear. We were never quite certain before; unfortunately, what the brain does with messages received is still unknown. He is now being encouraged by his teachers to verbalise when he requires something, as well as to try to use signs.
To me, one of the notable features of this House is the number of your Lordships who support one or more societies which cater for the handicapped. I can think of hardly anyone more deserving of voluntary and State support than those associations which care for the multiple-handicapped— for those who are blind and mentally ill, or deaf and mentally ill, or those who have a heart condition and are blind and deaf. In all these fields we have achieved a lot in my lifetime. I hope that this debate will be fruitful and will stimulate the Government and public opinion to further interest in those who suffer from multiple handicaps. Especially would I like to see more people taking up the training to which the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, referred, and making their life's work the task of communicating with those
930
who can hardly ever be communicated with.
I end up by paying tribute to the nation's hospitals which are already doing so much. And, as always, I pay tribute to the parents of handicapped children for their love and to handicapped children for their magnificent courage.
3.41 p.m.
Earl GREY: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, for initiating this debate to-day because I believe at this time, with rising inflation and the prospect of worse to come, that it is going to be the less fortunate members of society who will suffer most. There are more than 118, 000 blind persons registered in the United Kingdom, of whom 70 to 75 per cent. are over the age of 65, and it is well known that a large proportion of persons who are blind suffer from other forms of disability.
When one researches the various forms of handicap, the list is quite formidable and alarming, ranging from mental disorders through to blindness and deafness, and physical disabilities. One has to define the meaning of "handicap" to help understand the term. It can be described as follows:
"The long-term disadvantages which adversely affect the individual's capacity to achieve the personal and economic independence which is normal for his peers ".
The problems that the handicapped blind face are many, but two categories are of importance: employment and finance. There are between 20, 000 to 30, 000 blind registered for work, but only 13, 000 of those are in employment, and I would think that the majority of those out of work are suffering further handicaps, apart from being blind. I understand that as yet there has not been a well-conducted comprehensive Government survey into the numbers of people who are in the category of blind, handicapped blind or disabled and blind. I shall be grateful if the Minister is able to shed some light on this matter.
There are provisions laid down to help the blind. There are elementary schools for the blind, which are mainly charities with grants from the Government, and the Royal National Institute for the Blind runs two or three schools for blind

931
children with additional disabilities. I should like to ask the Minister, when he replies, to say whether the cuts in public expenditure will affect the programme for the blind. Will there be any cut-backs in this area, and if so— though I hope there will not be— why?
It is vitally important that each child who is handicapped and blind is treated and trained with the view that he or she will be able to fulfil a satisfying, rewarding and constructive purpose in life. The stronger the emphasis on that aspect, the smaller the financial burden that will be incurred in future years.
Many multi-handicapped blind persons are singly housed, with a staff on call 24 hours a day to care for their needs. This results in enormous expense, costing many thousands per year. Would it not be beneficial to the patient, and to the state, if in these cases two or three patients were housed together? I am told that the cost per patient per year can amount to more than the cost of a heart transplant.
The allowance system is in need of a realistic review. I understand that a blind person in receipt of supplementary benefit will receive a further £ 1.25 per week and, if in employment and paying tax— and I should think that there are few in that category— there is a further allowance of £ 180. When one considers the hardship and extra expense that a blind person has to contend with, does the Minister not agree that these allowances are too low and need increasing? Also, would the Minister outline the benefits and state what future proposals there will be, and what is being done to inform people about their benefits? I know that in some areas the local authority will grant free bus travel, and that if they are travelling by rail and need a guide to accompany them they can travel for the price of one person.
The disabilities of a great number of the multi-handicapped blind are the result of rubella in the mother, but thanks to inoculation the number is now decreasing. The problems they face during adolescence are high, but it is when a child passes adolescence that the real problems, finan- cial and practical, begin. The parents suffer a great emotional and financial burden which is very hard to bear. In
932
many cases, a parent has to give up employment in order to take care of the child. If the parent is unable to fulfil this need, then the burden rests with organisations, both charities and the State. Are there facilities that are granted to such a parent, in the form of financial grants?
I am told that a blind person is not able to qualify for the mobility allowance, partly because of the physical ability to walk. His or her problem with regard to mobility is just as great, and J believe that the mobility allowance should be extended. Also, the organisations and people who are involved in caring for the multi-handicapped blind are very critical of the attendance allowance. I should be very grateful if we could have an assurance and a satisfying answer about this problem.
One cannot praise highly enough the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the National League of the Blind and Disabled, the National Association for the Deaf/Blind and Rubella Handicapped, and people like Dr. Margaret Agerholm, and other associations, including Government departments, who do so much in this field.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I from these Benches express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, for bringing up this tragic subject and for putting it in such an excellent way. I am also very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, joined in the debate, because lie and I so often spoke on these subjects in the other House. I was also pleased to note that the noble Baroness mentioned the Cambridge conference, because I opened it. I think that it was very successful and did a lot of good in pointing the way to further progress.
There are some extremely intelligent blind-deaf children. Regrettably, they are often considered to be mentally retarded because they get so frustrated and because they have no means of giving expression to their feelings and desires. However, many noble Lords must have read The Life of Helen Keller, the most remarkable story of a woman I was privileged to meet who overcame all these difficulties. She became deaf and blind at the age of 19 months. In her book The Story of My Life, she wrote

933
that one day she found out the use of a key. She locked up her mother in the pantry, where she was obliged to remain for three hours. This woke up her parents to the fact that she should and that she could be taught, so they obtained a governess for her. The first thing that Helen Keller did was to lock up her governess in the cupboard and to hide the key. Her father, Captain Keller, had to get a ladder and the governess had to climb out of the window.
This remarkable governess obtained complete control over Helen Keller over a number of months and years, and I am delighted to say how well she did. She was also trained at the Perkin's Institute and went in for college examinations. On the first day she took Elementary Greek and Advanced Latin, and on the second day she took Geometry, Algebra and Advanced Greek. Then she learned French, German, English Literature and Composition. This was taught to her by spelling it out on her hand, and also by means of braille, and she had a special kind of typewriter. This meant that she could get full enjoyment out of life.
There was another young person called Poh Lim, whom the society for which I worked discovered in Singapore. This girl, the daughter of a Chinese washerwoman, went blind and deaf at the age of eight years. She was a very intelligent person, and she also was able to go to the Perkin's Institute in the United States. In 1962, I had the pleasure of showing her round both Houses of Parliament. She felt everything with her hands, and she really did understand, by putting her fingers here, what I was saying. She herself is now teaching in the school for the deaf, blind and others in Singapore. Also known to some Members of this House is Mr. Kinny who was one of the outstanding people in this organisation.
I understand that there are 2, 086 blind people between the age of 0 and 15; 869 are multi-handicapped; 40 are blind and deaf; 221 are blind and physically handicapped, 315 are blind and mentally handicapped and 289 have two other handicaps. Out of the 152 at Condover Hall, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, I think about 108 can be educated. This place is run by 90 per cent. official funds, but money for capital projects has to come from voluntary
934
organisations. Sadly, one of the reasons why there are deaf blind is accidents, and by that I mean baby battering. It is very sad to realise that in this day and age and is particularly tragic because these children were born quite normal.
The noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, has mentioned the question of rubella vaccine. Unlike the whooping-cough vaccine, that is considered to be a very safe vaccine, and I think we should get into contact with all the health visitors. I understand that it is not a good idea to have rubella vaccine at the time of pregnancy; it should be before. A quarter of the people at Condover Hall had rubella and a quarter had injuries at birth and others were battered in some way or other, or fell out of their cots
I understand that next year— 1981— is to be the year of the handicapped, and I also understand that it has been proposed to Geoffrey Lloyd, who is a trustee of Leeds Castle, that a conference of disabled persons should be held there. He has been extremely helpful and is discussing the project with the Government. This suggestion has been welcomed by WHO, UN1CEF, ILO and by the IYDP— which is the International Year of Disabled Persons, and the NGOs. I understand that it is hoped to bring together a small multi-disciplinary group to look at a possible international strategy for the prevention of disablement, as distinct from the prevention of individual disablements.
As the noble Baroness mentioned, there are fewer than 200 specialised places in the whole of the country, and therefore far too many of these people are inactive, in hospitals. Regrettably, too, as was touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Grey, the disability allowance in this country is very low and the supplementary benefit is not adequate. What interests me and I think must be looked into is that there are more handicapped children among the families of unskilled workers than there are among others, and nobody quite seems to know the reason for this.
I should like to mention, also, the Warnock Committee's recommendations. Here 28 persons gave up time and produced a document (Cmnd. 7212) which regrettably has not been debated. I think we should have a full day's debate on the proposals in that document. I also regret

935
that under the recent Local Government Act quite a lot of local authorities are not facing up to looking after the blind, as they did previously. As was mentioned by the noble Baroness, there is a need for up-to-date statistics and also to look into the question of the multi- handicapped young people in the way in which she put it, which I will not repeat because it was so excellently put. There is also a need to co-ordinate the services for the placement of the multi-handicapped blind school-leavers and I want to suggest that it should be run by a national agency and perhaps we could ask the RNIB to undertake that work. I agree with the noble Baroness that not enough trained staff are available; there should be more assessment of children in hospitals and also more sheltered homes.
I should like to express my sincere thanks to the people who do this work, because day in and day out they are dealing with some of the most difficult problems in connection with these young people, and also of course with adults. I am on the EEC committee which deals with this and I should like to find out whether we could get something from the Social Fund for training purposes. I think we might put that forward at one of our meetings. Therefore, I should like to thank the noble Baroness very much for raising this matter today and wish her success in the future for improving the status of life of these people.
3.55 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, in initiating this debate has deservedly highlighted a comparatively small number of people in our society who nevertheless are individuals who merit our help in every posisble way. In the case of the mentally handicapped blind who have been in special schools, there are few places which they can go to when they leave school, other than mental hospitals, where really many of them ought not to be at all. This needs sorting out because it is unfair both on the hospital and on the hapless individuals.
A further problem is that the nurses, through no fault of their own, are not necessarily trained in dealing with blind patients. The British Institute of Mental Handicap, helped to some extent by
936
regional associations for the blind, offer short introductory courses on blindness to hospital staff. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, has said, some in-service training is already available at Lea College, Bromsgrove. Perhaps some nurses could volunteer to train and could be released on a part-time basis, just like day release schemes elsewhere. I realise that this involves expenditure, but surely it could be met from existing resources.
In York, near where I live, is the Wilber- force home for the multi-handicapped blind. It is the only institution of its kind in the country. I visited it specially last Saturday at the invitation of the chairman. Originally it was the Yorkshire School for the Blind, then it became the Workshops for the Blind, and some 10 or 12 years ago the local authority took over their work. A Government department was asked how the Wilberforce Trust could help the blind and it was suggested that they should help those blind people who were also physically handicapped and for whom no other separate specialised provision existed. It is in this way that it is unique.
It can accommodate 28 now, but one vacancy is kept, if possible, against emergencies. The fees for each patient are paid by the local authority from which the resident comes. It is a wonderfully happy place and nothing that I could say would be praise high enough for the staff of the home. It is run as a happy family. Of the present 25 residents, 20 receive the mobility allowance. It is not clear to me why the other five do not receive it. They appear to be able to walk, sometimes with difficulty and not very far, and they are certainly not capable of getting on a bus. Two of them were assessed at the Condover Hall School and turned down for the mobility allowance; two were assessed when they were already at the Wilberforce Home and they also were turned down, and I am not clear about the fifth.
One of the five is a spastic who, if he has a turn of spasticity on the pavement, may have to be held by a nurse or whoever is accompanying him for as long as 10 minutes before he is mobile again. Perhaps one might say that when he appeared before the medical board he appeared to be a blind person who seemed to be otherwise normal, who could walk across the

937
room, and not until later did he have his bad turn, which of course was not seen by the doctors. It seems to me, as it does to the superintendent, that this situation leads to some distress because it is discriminatory. These five simply have pocket money of £ 4.65 a week, which all the residents get. Out of this they pay for clothing, toothpaste and other necessities, and they have their own tuck shop. They are all quite happy with this.
However, as I have already said, 20 of the residents also have the mobility allowance, so whenever there is an outing to be paid for such as riding for the disabled— which they all greatly enjoy— these five are sometimes overheard saying, "Can I afford it this week?" They go by taxi, three at a time, which costs £ 7.20 for the return trip, shared between the three. For those who have no mobility allowance this is where the distress comes in, because for one or perhaps two out of the three, £ 2.40 is a lot of money when one only has £ 4.65 pocket money a week. There is also the question of taxis for a visit to the dentist, which has to be paid for out of their pocket money.
Is there no way in which these five can be brought again before a medical board and sympathetically re-assessed? And perhaps for future assessment there could be some form of appeal if they are turned down the first time.
4 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if we ever needed evidence that these short debates which we have from time to time in your Lordships' House are justified, I think the short debate we are engaged upon this afternoon more than justifies them, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Fisher for introducing this debate. I think the fact that it has to be kept within a defined period makes each of us think very carefully about what we are going to say; we say the important things and we cut out (shall I say?) the supporting material.
I am glad to have an opportunity of participating in this debate from the Opposition Front Bench because I have had some experience of what we are discussing this afternoon. When I was a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security I had the good fortune
938
of spending a fair amount of time visiting hospitals and institutions, and my wife and I did in fact go to Lea Castle Hospital, which is one— I say, one— of the many progressive hospitals that we have in this country. I have always accepted that saints do walk this earth; I have always accepted that fact. I do not think one meets them only when one leaves this earth. It is in this field where I think they are to be found. I gladly pay tribute to Dr. Simon, who in my view is one of them, and to a good many of the members of the staff there who are looking after multi-handicapped people. It may well be that some of your Lordships have not had the experience— because it is an experience— of seeing a multi- handicapped child lying on a very comfortable mattress and being told that if you never went near that child again it would never move. When you try to make contact there is not a chance of making any contact. My wife spoke in the face of some of them and got no response at all. They are completely out of touch. They are looked after for 168 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, year in and year out.
They are not all as bad as that. This is one of the important things about this debate, because it does remind us that there are three groups. There are those so severely handicapped, mentally and physically, that we have got to face the fact that nothing can be done for them. That means that somebody has got to do everything for them, and they do tend to live quite an appreciable number of years. Then there are those for whom only care and attention is possible. They know and respond— how they know, I do not know— to care and attention, and you can see that they obviously like it by the sounds that some of them try to make and the expression that others have on their faces. But this is as much as can be done. But there is the small group that are able to benefit from some form of education, of a social and practical kind, and society, my Lords, owes it to that child, who never asked to be born but who is alive and who can benefit from some form of education of a social and practical kind. It is the responsibility of society to provide it.
My noble friend Lady Fisher said that there are only some 200 special places

939
available. We need three, four and five times this number of places, if only to relieve the parent or parents for a week or two, or three or four weeks. Many of us, I certainly, have no conception of what it means to have to look after a multi-handicapped child day and night, month after month and year after year. I am surprised that ordinary people can stand up to it, but they do stand up to it. They have a sense of vocation, but they do stand up to it, and I think they need to be helped from time to time to escape— and I make no apology for using the word escape— from that kind of responsibility. If for no other reason, we ought to be able to provide these additional places.
I have not discussed it with my noble friend the Minister, but were I in his place I should have to be honest and say, "Well, it is all a question of money". The only difference between us on this side of the House and the Government— I see the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft knows what I am going to say— is that we do not agree with the way in which the Government are saving money, and the regions in which they are applying cuts. But this is not the time to discuss these matters; this is not a political occassion. All I want to say is that there is never going to be enough money, not next year, or the year after, to do all that I believe the majority of people in your Lordships' House and in the country as a whole would want to do for the benefit of the community as a whole.
So what are we going to do about it? Well, we have enjoyed in this country for a good many years— more so in this country, I believe, than in any other country in the civilised world— a vast and comprehensive network of voluntary social organisations which is the envy of the world. I think it may well be that we have got to look at what they are doing. What I want to say to the Minister is this: I am not asking a question, but I should like to leave this with the Minister in the hope that perhaps his right honourable friend could do something about it. Has not the time come when it might be possible to reconsider the allocation of monies ' that we give to some voluntary organisa- tions. I shall be misunderstood, having said that, but I do remember a very
940
substantial sum of money being given to a national voluntary organisation that went immediately into the reserve. It is a very big national organisation. It is true it has a right to say, "We must have a reserve, so that we can see the way clear for the next 18 months or two years". This is a perfectly proper thing, but I am wondering how many have more money on reserve than they need for (shall I say?) the next two or three years.
I am wondering whether it would not be possible to undertake some kind of organisation of grants so that we could make more money available to those organisations which have obviously not only a concern for but a good deal of experience in, areas in which some sort of development is necessary. We are talking about the multi-handicapped blind. I am sure that there are many organisations that can come forward and say, "Well, there are other organisations that could do with more money". That is perfectly true and it may well be that we must have a system of priorities, and this is an extremely difficult area in which to start having priorities. However, I am wondering whether, with some sort of reorganisation, it might be possible to make more money available.
I think that today we are talking about the situation in an area which is of supreme importance to the community and to those who are looking after these people. I wish to finish by saying merely what I have already said in one respect— namely, that we ought to be providing more places in this area if for no other purpose than to enable parents to leave their child for a few weeks while they refresh themselves for the next period ahead. I am sure that we shall receive a sympathetic reply from the noble Lord, the Minister, but I hope that it can be translated in some way into something concrete being done, because I believe that the amount of money that needs to be released for this particular purpose is infinitesimal compared with what the department— which is very generous— gives every year to voluntary organisations.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS- BRIDGE: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he put forward a figure with regard to this matter? I entirely agree that it is very small, but I

941
think that if one could put a figure on it— whatever it may be— it would be helpful to all of us who are prepared to support the point of view which my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal and my noble friend on the Front Bench have put forward.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that it would be wrong for me to hazard a guess, because I have not thought in terms of capital expenditure— that, of course, as my noble friend knows, takes the money. But, if there were a few hundred more places, I think that they could be provided with a comparitively small sum, but I would hesitate to specify it. If my noble friend presses me and asks what I mean by "a comparatively small sum", I should have thought that if something in the region of perhaps £ 200, 000 was made available almost immediately, it would be helpful to start by providing alternatives so that parents who are looking after children in this condition could at least get some relief.
4.13 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I should like to begin by agreeing entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Wells- Pestell, that this has been an extremely interesting debate, with most moving and illuminating speeches. I certainly trust that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, will feel that it was well worth having the debate. I personally am very grateful to her for having raised the matter because it is of great importance and concern to so many of us. It is a subject on which the noble Baroness is particularly well-informed as chairman of the Committee on the Multi-Handicapped Blind, and it is an indication of the noble Baroness's high standing among organisations of and for disabled people that she was invited to open the new hostel at Market Deeping which is to be run by the National Association for the Deaf/ Blind and Rubella Handicapped, to which the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, referred.
I can assure the noble Baroness that the Government are well aware of and have every sympathy for the problems faced by multiple-handicapped blind people. No Government can afford to be complacent when confronted with the needs of people with such problems. The par-
942
ticular disadvantages of blindness have long been recognised in the special provision in the social security system, the personal social services and the special employment services offered through the Manpower Services Commission; but, clearly, those blind people who suffer additional handicaps have special needs and present special problems.
What has emerged this afternoon is that even if the Government had unlimited funds— and the noble Lord, Lord Wells- Pestell, made it quite clear that we never do have unlimited funds for these purposes— to spend on services for this comparatively small but tragically disabled group, no one easy solution would at a stroke improve their quality of life. The multi- handicapped blind are not a readily identifiable, easily labelled homogeneous group. They suffer a common visual disability (although even in that respect the degree of visual impairment itself will range from poor sight to total blindness), but their other disabilities vary considerably. For example, some people may have mobility problems, may be suffering from crippling diseases, perhaps being confined to wheelchairs; others are deaf, sometimes without any speech. Some are mentally handicapped or mentally ill. A number, thankfully small, have a combination of mental, physical and sensory disabilities. Even within these broad groups, needs vary from individual to individual.
The noble Baroness pointed to what she saw as a lack of knowledge on the Government's part about the numbers of multi- handicapped blind. In fact, the noble Baroness did not much like the Written Answers which I gave to the Questions that she sent to me. I hope that she will not find the answer this afternoon equally unacceptable. I accept that there is a lack of knowledge, but that is inevitable. One source of figures is registration with local authorities but that is, and must remain, voluntary. We cannot compel people to register if they do not wish to do so. Thus, while there are some 105, 000 blind people registered with local authorities in England, almost 24, 000 of these notified to us as having additional handicaps, it is generally accepted that this is an understatement.
The overall aim of services for all disabled people must be to encourage and help them to live in the community as

943
independently as their disabilities allow. Local authorities and voluntary organisations do a great deal to assist in this by the provision of social work support, home helps and personal aids— which have such an important part to play in helping people to live as normally as possible. For disabled people, the ability to live at home is so often dependent on the physical and emotional strength of the person caring for them. There are no simple solutions to the problems that can confront those caring for a disabled relative. But a fully co-ordinated approach by social services departments, health authorities, housing departments and voluntary organisations is crucial when the needs of individual disabled people are being considered, and can go a long way towards relieving the stress experienced by many of those who look after handicapped relatives.
In many instances a little practical help from the right people at the right time is all that is required. The Crossroads Care Attendant Scheme Trust realised this some years ago when their first scheme was set up in Rugby in 1974. Their conviction that seemingly insoluble problems can be relieved by a regular injection of practical help with an all-important personal touch have led to the development of 20 schemes in England today with many more in the pipeline. Crossroads schemes are a relatively low-cost way of providing a caring service to disabled people and their families. With as little as £ 10, 000 a year a scheme helping 25 to 30 families can be set up— £ 10, 00 well spent to keep 25 to 30 people out of homes or hospitals.
The care attendants are trained to undertake the role of a relative and to act as a prop by taking over the duties of the carer at a time when help is most needed— early in the morning, late at night or, in some instances, all night. And they aim to copy as far as possible the routine and pattern of caring which is normally given by the relative they temporarily replace. In recognition of the value of this scheme the department gives a grant towards the administrative costs of the trust, which provides a superb example of an effective partnership between the voluntary and statutory sectors.
In many cases, even with practical help from local authorities and voluntary organisations, a person's needs are best
944
met in residential accommodation. In the case of multi-handicapped blind people it has often been suggested that specialist residential centres should be provided, perhaps on a regional basis. However, because of the range of disabilities involved, this is not necessarily the best way forward. The multi-handicapped blind person in residential care, be it provided by the NHS, a local authority or a voluntary organisation, should be placed in accommodation most suited to whichever of his disabilities needs particular care and attention. To the individual, blindness might not be the major disability.
I am sure that your Lordships will be interested to learn of two innovatory developments in providing specialised residential accommodation for one group of the multi-handicapped blind— the deaf/ blind— whose dual handicap poses special problems of caring, particularly because of the difficulty in communication. The first, Manor House Hostel in Market Deeping, is a specially adapted house which will become the home of 12 young adults. The emphasis there is on independence, and as well as the main house, there are flatlets within the grounds which will provide a unique opportunity for young people to develop confidence in caring for themselves. There is also a workshop and a gymnasium to supplement the teaching essential to the social development of these youngsters.
Manor House Hostel represents the fulfilment of a number of years hard work and epitomises what can be achieved by co-operation between voluntary organisations themselves, and the voluntary and statutory sectors. The Deaf/ Blind Helpers League purchased the property and the Association for the Deaf/Blind and Rubella Handicapped raised much of the money required to convert it for use as a hostel. Considerable help was received from the viewers of the television programme, "Magpie", about which the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, told us earlier, which in itself helped to focus attention on the special needs of rubella handicapped children. Help was also received from the Mental Health Foundation. The Government provided some £ 40, 000 and in addition both the DHSS and the local social services department have given professional advice when called upon. Already three young people have moved

945
in and are benefiting from living at the hostel.
Another important project, into which residents should move early next year, is the complex of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf at Poolemead which, with substantial help from the Government, will offer eight places to deaf/blind young adults. Here again, much emphasis will be placed on independence, the residents living in specially adapted bed-sitting room accommodation. The opening of Market Deeping and Poolemead will enable us to learn more about the different methods of care required to meet the individual needs of these young people. It is too early yet to assess demand for the places they will offer, but the Government hope that local authorities will bear in mind the availability of such placements if suitable facilities are not readily available locally.
I should like to turn to the special problems faced by those multi-handicapped blind people whose disabilities include a degree of mental handicap. A substantial number of children handicapped in this way are cared for by their families, and others are in hospitals or homes for mentally-handicapped people; the local authority registers undoubtedly underestimate the size of this group and we do not know how many people fall into this category. It is clear that people so handicapped have special needs: but let me stress again that they do not constitute a homogeneous group. Each individual is differently affected. Comprehensive and regular assessment, as recommended in the 1971 White Paper, Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped, is needed to find out each individual's particular needs and the help he could be given.
I come now to the quality of care provided for multi-handicapped blind residents in mental handicap hospitals. The National Development Group for the Mentally Handicapped published in 1978 a report on these hospitals entitled, Helping Mentally Handicapped People in Hospital. This contained valuable advice on the environment and training of multi-handicapped blind residents, and on how specialist advice, including the provision of training manuals, could help staff to care for their special needs. This report has been widely disseminated to
946
staff working in mental handicap hospitals and units. Two chapters of the report, which include the section on visually- handicapped residents, have been reprinted in a more easy-to-handle booklet which many hospitals have found very helpful in trying to improve the quality of care they provide.
The major burden of caring for mentally-handicapped people in hospital is laid upon the nurse. The syllabus of training for nurses working with mentally-handicapped people is wide- ranging, and it would be unrealistic to expect basic nurse training to cover in depth the particular problems of the multiple-handicapped blind. It is obviously desirable, however, for staff who are working with these people to have some training in their special needs. The British Institute of Mental Handicap, in conjunction with the Southern and Western Regional Association for the Blind, recently organised a four-day workshop on the needs of the visually and mentally- handicapped, and is prepared to visit hospitals on request and conduct two-day workshops on the same theme. The aim of these workshops is to give an understanding of some of the difficulties faced by this group of handicapped people, to offer suggestions for techniques of management and appropriate training activities, to consider staffing requirements, and discuss the suitability of alternative placements.
The National Mobility Centre for the Blind mounts courses for staff working with blind people and some nurses working in mental handicap hospitals have attended these courses. Although the organisations concerned must be congratulated for their initiative in arranging these workshops and courses, I could not for one moment pretend that what they are doing meets the total need. I hope that the professional organisations responsible for post-basic training will recognise the lack of training in this area, but there is a shortage of people who are expert in this field and can pass on their skills to others.
Some health authorities have set up special units for the mentally-handicapped blind— these include the Mary Sheridan Unit at Borocourt and the deaf/blind unit at Lea Castle. At the latter, the

947
DHSS is funding an important three-year research project aimed at assessing current levels of competence and functioning of multiple-disabled blind and deaf/blind adults and adolescents, and from that evaluating the effectiveness and development of training programmes. The results will be incorporated into a handbook for the guidance of families and of hostel, hospital and training centre staff. An extension of this project, which could include compiling information on the numbers of visually-handicapped people at centres for the mentally-handicapped and on the staff who work with them, is currently being considered.
To many disabled people, of course, independence means not relying on state benefits, but being employed. The Government, through the Manpower Services Commission and with the help of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, are actively seeking to improve the employment opportunities of multi- handicapped blind people, although the numbers seeking employment in open industry remain relatively few. There are a variety of special schemes and facilities to help severely disabled people obtain employment.
The schemes, administered by the Manpower Services Commission, include the provision of aids to employment where special tools or pieces of equipment needed by disabled people are loaned to them. These include aids for multi-handicapped blind people; for example, a closed circuit television has just been ordered for a thalidomide girl with an additional sight defect, to enable her to make the best use of her residual vision. Also an optacon (a sophisticated tactile reading machine) has been loaned for assessment to a girl who is blind and suffers with severe arthritis. Much has been done to emphasise to employers the abilities of disabled people— -this was the thrust of the excellent "Fit for Work" campaign, and I am sure that the Manpower Services Commission's continuing efforts will benefit all disabled groups but in particular more severely disabled people.
Crossroads schemes and innovations like the Market Deeping hostel are really only the tip of the iceberg when talking of the contribution of the voluntary sector in the disablement field. The Government
948
are determined to continue to support and encourage the growth of an effective and vigorous voluntary sector. The DHSS has already announced that the total of grants it makes will be maintained in real terms this year— something over £ 7 million— a fair proportion of which is paid to organisations of and for disabled people and which, in terms of the services provided and the innovatory developments it helps, represents money very well spent. In that connection I shall certainly speak to my right honourable friend as to whether we could, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, suggested, have another look into that matter.
I was asked a number of questions, which I shall do my best to reply to. The noble Baroness asked about financial help for voluntary organisations who wish to establish special hostels or further education centres. I shall certainly investigate whether the EEC Social Fund can help, and write to her, although I understand that the fund is mainly concerned with open employment. However, my noble friend Lady Vickers probably knows the answer to that question, and I shall confer with her also.
The Government have helped on an exceptional basis with two hostels at Market Deeping and at Poolemead. While the Government are always prepared to consider assistance to voluntary bodies I must, in fairness, warn that resources available for such developments are strictly limited and demand considerably outstrips supply. The noble Baroness also referred to adult training centres and mentioned the lack of provision of these centres. I accept that we do not yet have sufficient of these, but nearly all local authorities who are responsible for this provision have at least one ATC, although the number of places varies widely up and down the country.
The noble Baroness asked about progress on the revision of Form BD8 and the introduction of the new Form NVH for children. Here I regret to say that the work that the department has been doing on the introduction of these forms has regrettably had to be suspended for the time being. I shall write to the noble Baroness on this point when I know more about it. At this moment I do not.

949
The noble Earl, Lord Grey, spoke about cuts in local authority spending. I should like to point out that expenditure on social services has virtually doubled since 1971. The Government are budgeting for an increase of about 2 per cent. a year for the years 1981/82 and 1982/83. As we have hitherto frequently said, the Government have urged authorities in making reductions to protect the services for the most vulnerable, including the severely disabled, and how they meet their spending targets must be for them. We hope that they will find areas for economy other than in the services for the disabled. We believe that the necessary reductions can be made by further pruning of administrative costs, by adopting more efficient and cost-effective methods of providing services, and by making greater use of the voluntary sector and the resources of the community itself.
The noble Earl also raised the question of a blindness allowance. Organisations of, and for, the blind have long campaigned for a special blindness allowance to reflect the additional costs, like transport, incurred as a direct result of blindness. The Government have made clear that, while there is a strong case for such an allowance, the money is simply not available for the introduction of any new benefits. In any event, Ministers are presently opposed to the introduction of any further benefits for special groups of disabled people as these complicate the system, raise problems of demarcation, and lead to pressure from other groups for similar treatment. The long-term aim is to move to some form of general disablement benefit which would simplify the present system.
The noble Earl and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, mentioned mobility allowance. Mobility allowance is payable to people who are unable, or virtually unable, to walk because of physical disablement. Thus, blindness of itself does not qualify one for mobility allowance. I regret to say that there are no plans at present to extend the current qualifying conditions. My noble friend Lady Vickers highlighted the importance of education if multi-handicapped blind children are to realise their full potential.
In education too it is essential to look at the special needs of the individual child. This was, of course, the central recom-
950
mendation of the Warnock Report to which my noble friend referred, and the Government have announced their intention to introduce legislation to provide a statutory framework essentially on the lines recommended in the report. I can assure your Lordships' House that the legislation will safeguard the interests of children with complex special educational needs, such as have many of the children we have talked about today. If there are any other questions to which I have not properly replied, if I may, I will write to noble Lords.
I am sure that today's debate will be of great value in drawing the needs of the multi-handicapped blind to the attention of an even wider audience, and the constructive contributions we have heard will be very useful in helping to formulate policies at national and local level to ensure that the multi-handicapped blind are given the opportunity to realise their full potential. Much of what has been said today has concentrated understandably on the disabilities of the multi- handicapped blind. These people need our sympathy and our help, but let us not paint too gloomy a picture. Many multi-handicapped people live fairly independent lives— at home, in sheltered housing or hostels, in residential care— and they deserve our fullest admiration for the way in which they have overcome or minimised their difficulties.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he will be kind enough to further the point— I do not want him to do it now because I think we have had long enough on this debate— about plans for the Year of the Disabled, because it is in 1981 and it is very important? Perhaps he will write to me about that.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: Yes, my Lords, I will.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and I shall read his observations in Hansard. I also thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, made an important point when speaking about vaccination. Rubella and the disabilites of the deaf blind can be overcome so

951
long as the vaccination programme maintains its impetus. I wish to reiterate that cuts are being made which have no need to be made, and the vaccination programme falls into that category. If we can overcome Rubella and keep up the impetus of the vaccination programme, much will be achieved, and it should be outside the cuts that any Government may consider.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Gray, for pointing out that there are difficulties among different categories. What worries me more— indeed, the Minister himself made this point— is that nobody seems to want to categorise people when one is talking generally about them, but when it comes to individual cases and the question of paying somebody some money, how easy it is then for the DHSS to categorise and say that this or that person does not fit this or that little bill, or does not come within this or that category. On the other hand, when we ask for places for people they say, "We want to know exactly what you are so that you can be put into this or that slot". It is rather a contradiction in terms and I thank the noble Earl for drawing attention to this problem.
As we know, the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, has concerned herself for many years with the less fortunate in the community. She made an extremely valid point when she said we need a national agency of some description, be it Government sponsored or through the RNIB, for the placement of school-leavers. That is vital, because at present the real problem is that of how to place these children, where to put them and what is to happen to them.
It is not simply parents who are asking this question; directors of social services are writing in querying these matters. For example, the Southern and Western Regional Association for the Blind receives many such queries, and I quote briefly from a letter from a director of social services:
"I would be most grateful if you could let me know of any establishments known to you which might consider Stephen as a resident ".
Let us remember that directors of social services are some of the most competent people we have dealing with this sort of handicap, yet they do not know what to
952
do with the people who are drawn to their attention. Local authorities cannot do anything to be helpful if the provision is not there, and the directors of social services do not know what to do. Indeed, the same applies to parents, and I quote this extract from a recent letter we have received:
"I am worried about my son. He has had an accident … the Royal National Institute for the Blind cannot offer mc any help. Can you please tell me"—
the word "please" is underlined—
"who I can get in touch with?"
More often than not we cannot give more information as to whom such an inquirer should contact, because there are no people to get in touch with, and that is the problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, therefore made a very valid point when she said there needs to be a central co-ordinating organisation which would be able to make this information available. It would then be shown clearly to the department that the facilities are not available. At present this responsibility is pushed on to many people's shoulders, all of whom arc trying to do something, but to no avail.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. brought out clearly the effects on the blind physically handicapped. Certainly Wilberforce is a small home compared with others, but it is a home, and that is the point she emphasised. If we can get more organisations like Wilberforce, small groupings, we shall have real homes for these people, and that is what their parents are asking for. The worry of the parents of these people can be summarised in this way: "I will try to cope while I can, but I shall not live forever. What will happen then?" Wilberforce and homes of that description provide a lovely homely atmosphere, and that is what we are aiming at, and I thank the noble Lady for bringing out that point so vividly.
I always find the contribution of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell extremely moving on subjects of this kind, and this afternoon was no exception, particularly when he gave an insight into what goes on at Lea Castle in Bromsgrove. I thought his remarks moved noble Lords in all parts of the House as he brought clearly to mind the difficulties and frustrations that are encountered. My noble friend's contribution showed how easy it

953
is for certain phrases to slip off the tongue, and I feel that the Minister was himself guilty of that to-day. It is so easy to say, "Parents should take note of the resources of the community." In many cases that does not mean anything because there are no resources in the community. It is a lovely sounding phrase, yet we have directors of social services and the RNIB saying, "Sorry, we cannot help". Too often parents are told, "Draw on the resources of the community". It is such hypocrisy to use phrases of that sort.
As my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell pointed out, parents will draw on their own resources and on those of relations and even next-door neighbours, but the point is reached when they ask, "Please, could we have a break, just a little rest? We have a problem and nobody else wants to know about it". They get fed up with talk about an extra £ 1 they might get from some department because they can prove something else is wrong with their child. Eventually, all that becomes of no consequence— they are left on their own— and they say, "Please, give us a rest". My noble friend's comments showed what a matter of grave importance this is for parents who are told, "Look after the children yourselves because we cannot do anything to help you."
When it comes to considering the financial implications, with which my noble friend dealt, perhaps because I am a woman I prefer to over-estimate costs. I am one of those who likes to double-up on what something really costs so that one makes a profit, as it were, in the long run. Possibly that is a feminine trait. If you tell your husband something will cost £ 50 and it turns out to cost £ 25, you are £ 25 better off. The figure which my noble friend gave was not over- generous. I would have said that we could accept a lesser amount for a start, especially on extra training facilities, but the capital investment we would be making for hostels is a different proposition. We could start with the figure that my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell mentioned, and then we could come down a little if necessary.
I listened very intently to what the Minister said. I believe that the handicapped, whether they be blind or have some other disability, always come very low in
954
political priorities, and in this respect I do not criticise this Government any more than any others. There is no glamour at all in looking after mentally handicapped blind people. It is a life of dedication as my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell said; so it can never compete with other news items. It will never hit the headlines in the way that heart surgery or kidney transplants do. It will never be in that class. The only satisfaction here is that which is derived by those who work with this category of handicapped people. They experience a small degree of satisfaction, or a thrill, when they see that a handicapped child can pick up his own spoon and feed himself. That is the thanks they derive. There is nothing glamorous, nor anything to hit the headlines.
I appreciate what the Minister says; there is a conflict regarding definitions in relation to any particular handicap. Some people consider that labelling is dangerous, yet in my view it is the only acceptable way in which to assess the numbers involved, from which we can ascertain what special provision is needed. I could not accept the Minister's words when he said that we have a homogeneous group—
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I said that we have not a homogeneous group.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: I apologise most sincerely to the noble Lord. Perhaps what he said was not so clear because of bad acoustics. All these children are individual and separate. They cannot be defined exactly— I think that this is what the Minister was saying— and that causes a problem. They are all individual and are all different, but some of the differences are only slight; and this must be accepted, as it is accepted in any school where one child may be rather backward while another is a little brighter.
So we accept that there must be a mixing, and one might add a merging; but bearing in mind this merging, we must remember that blindness, as well as deafness, is a serious handicap. There is no means of communication, other perhaps than by bodily signs or touch. If we do do not provide special training, we condemn the blind and deaf more than is necessary. Our plea is that the problems of blindness and deafness, and all the other handicaps, must be tackled with con-

955
centration of effort. There are techniques that can ameliorate and help.
I wish to thank all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. I should point out to noble Lords that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, spoke to me earlier. Her work with Dr. Barnado's and the Invalid Children's Association is very well known, and she greatly desired to join in the debate. We all listen with great interest when the noble Baroness speaks on these matters, but unfortunately she had to attend a meeting at Dr. Barnado's this afternoon. I thank your Lordships for your kind attention. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ANTARCTIC MARINE LIVING RESOURCES: CONSERVATION
4.54 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER Lord RITCHIE-CALDER rose to call attention to the need for conservation of antarctic marine living resources; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the spirit of short debates I shall keep my speech as short as possible, and I hope that that will be an example to other speakers, too. I set down this issue for debate because I regard your Lordships as the trustees for posterity, because I regard Britain's historic South Polar role and the responsibilities which go with it as being of manifest importance, and because perhaps uniquely in any Parliament of the world, we have colleagues personally and directly concerned with Antarctica. I am especially gratified that my noble friend Lord Shackleton is to take part in the debate.
The timing of the debate may be awkward for the Minister who is to reply, because the Canberra Conference of the 13 Antarctic Treaty powers, which was called to finalise a convention for the conservation of the living marine resources of the Antarctic, finished yesterday— and the signing was to take place then— and the Government may not have had an opportunity to evaluate the outcome. On the other hand, the Minister may be able to give us a stop-press report, and perhaps even some insight into the skulduggery which I gather went on behind the scenes.
I apologise for the inconvenience of the timing, but it was due to the luck of the draw in the ballot, and it serves as a reminder to the Government that Parliament and bodies with legitimate interests have had no insight into, nor opportunity to discuss, the terms of the convention which, I wish to point out, has been in process of drafting since 1977. In that year the Antarctic Treaty meeting recommended to the treaty Governments that a definitive conservation regime should be established before the end of 1978.
The negotiations have proceeded in complete secrecy ever since. In fairness to this country, I ought to say that in 1978 we proposed that the draft should be publicly available, but we were barred by the other members. The latest version was leaked by a delegate, from, I think, West Germany, and appeared in the international law journals, and, making a virtue out of necessity, our Government conferred with interested non-governmental bodies on 2nd April this year— too late for any effective input. On 30th April in the other place Mr. Douglas Hurd answered a series of relevant questions by my honourable friend Mr. Tarn Dalyell, the Member for West Lothian— much too late to modify the British case, had we so wished.
Your Lordships may feel, as I certainly do, that such conspiratorial methods of dealing with issues which concern the whole of mankind— I repeat, the whole of mankind— and not just the club of states which claim squatters' rights in Antarctica, are to be deplored. I contrast that with the regular availability of negotiating texts and with the open sessions of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference. All right; I, too, have been exasperated by the long-drawn-out negotiations on the law of the sea— partly due to a right of intervention— but at least all countries, representing all peoples, and the intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations as well, have had their say in how the "common heritage of all mankind" should be managed and safeguarded.
That is not so in the case of Antarctica, which is equally, and crucially, a part of the common heritage of all mankind— crucially because it is not just a hunk of ice, albeit one-and-a-half times as big as the United States, but because it is a

957
powerhouse of climatic forces and oceanic currents and a reservoir of life systems which affect our entire planet.
That crucial role of Antarctica's was recognised in the programme of the International Geophysical Year (1957–58) which was, I may point out, the greatest international scientific enterprise ever undertaken. During the IGY 12 countries— the seven countries with formal territorial claims to Antarctica: Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom; plus Belgium, Japan, South Africa, the USA and the USSR— carried out Antarctic scientific programmes of unprecedented scope. All states working in Antarctica were allowed to place scientific stations anywhere on the continent, irrespective of territorial claims. Over 40 scientific stations were established. The result of this co-operation and exchange of information was highly gratifying and scientifically rewarding. So much so that the United States, in a euphoric mood at that time, 1958, proposed to the other participants that they should join in a treaty to preserve the continent as an international laboratory for scientific research and to ensure that it would be used for peaceful purposes only.
The resulting Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959 and became operative in 1961, when all the 12 signatory powers (called "consultative members", as the people originally involved) had ratified it. Later, in 1977, Poland, after establishing a scientific station in the South Shetlands, was admitted as a consultative member. Only consultative members have full voting rights, but (without voting status) Czechoslovakia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Romania, East Germany, Brazil, Bulgaria and West Germany have since acceded to the treaty, and others are trying to get in.
My Lords, let me be clear. Although it is a club— and I emphasise that invidious term, if you want to put it that way— pre-empting a common heritage and exclusively administered by the 13 consultative members, the Antarctic Treaty regime over the intervening period has a creditable record of having ensured genuine scientific co-operation— I know of no breaches— with, incidentally, the right of access of all parties to the activities
958
of the others, and giving a high priority to the protection of wild life.
My Lords, one also recalls gratefully the provisions of the treaty that Antarctica was to be used for peaceful purposes only, and that all measures of a military nature, including the testing of weapons, all military manoeuvres and all questions of the establishment of bases, were banned. Nuclear explosions and the disposal of nuclear wastes were expressly banned; and, interestingly, the USSR and the USA, in this case for the first time, agreed to on-site inspection of the installations as an insurance against unauthorised military activity.
Two developments now threaten the intentions and the integrity of the Antarctic Treaty, and both, if I may say so, are inherent in the convention which has been negotiated in Canberra. One— krill— is explicit; the other— oil— is implicit. The third— exploitation of mineral resources; that is to say, hard mineral resources— lurks round the corner. One of the main concerns of this convention is in fact the krill. Krill is a fascinating subject. I hope it will be developed by others in this debate, but if you want to know all about it and a great deal more about what is happening in the Antarctic, I recommend to your Lordships a fascinating book, The Management of the Southern Ocean, by Barbara Mitchell and Richard Sandbrook.
Krill is a small, shrimp-like creature which abounds in the Antarctic Ocean. It is a base food of whales, seals, penguins and fish. Of its nutritive value, there can certainly be no doubt. Just look at a 100-ton whale! Indeed, in my first enthusiasm for krill, coupled with my concern for the hungry world, I proposed a mechanical whale; a submarine with gaping jaws which would scoop up krill shoals by the ton and digest them into edible protein. It will not be as Jules Vernesean as that, but present-day catchers and existing catchers can supply mother ships which can process krill into table delicacies— krill-tails, like lobster tails; krill-sticks, like fish sticks; krill-mince and krill-paste— and also into krill-meal, which is a highly regarded form of animal feed.
The Eastern European countries have the means of fishing for krill in large quantities. In 1977 the Soviet Union

959
had 133 mother ships of over 10, 000 gross registered tons. New models have been launched and gone into service since. With the difficulties of the 200-mile limits, which have happened in the meantime, and which are restricting their activities in conventional fishing, there would be relatively little difficulty in converting ships of that kind to krill- fishing in the Southern Ocean. Indeed, last year, 1979, 80 Eastern European ships of that kind were known to be operating in the Southern Ocean. Japan's dietary tastes (apart from the requirements of feeding stocks for animals) — Japan's table tastes, if you like— make her an obvious bidder for krill; China is building up a considerable distant-water fishing fleet; and Korea and Taiwan are already active and, indeed, are seeking greater access to Antarctic capabilities. They have in fact applied to be admitted to the club, as I would call it.
With the world population increasing by 170, 000 new mouths to be fed every day— that is the equivalent of 20 divisions of Martians arriving every day without their rations— obviously the need to increase world food supplies is growing and is increasingly urgent. The desperate shortage is in the Third World, and the Third World is not in the club of 13; nor has it the technological capacity to harvest and process the krill of Antarctica. So once again it is a case of "Unto them that hath shall be given", with the developed countries moving in and the really rich countries (including ourselves, whatever we may say about it) getting the krill-meal as their animal feed, as is done with the disappearing Peruvian anchovies, in order to feed their cattle, their pigs and their poultry— to get an additional food value, it is true, but also an additional price for these enhanced commodities. There is no organised way yet in which the Third World can participate now, nor share in the common heritage of krill; and the club of 13 is not accessible to the Third World, so that they can have no share in the management.
Anyway, just how abundant is the living resource of krill? That it is huge cannot be gainsaid, but the estimates vary by orders of magnitude, and the con- centrations and the distributions are considerably speculative. It is assumed
960
that the krill population has increased— and there is some evidence that it has— with the decline of the whale population as we kill them off, but its other predators, I would point out, have increased. In other words, the whole ecology has to be taken into account. It is the balance of the species, not the identification and protection of individual species. One of the commendable features of the new convention was its recognition, at least in principle, of the ecology of this question, but I am afraid to say that that has become dangerously blurred in the draft and, indeed, in the convention, which was signed yesterday. I hope that I can leave others to develop such implications. My concern with the convention in general is that through its proper and desirable efforts at living resource management, it may be opening up the way to other forms of exploitation, managed or un- managed; for instance— and nobody has mentioned the word— oil.
That there are hard minerals in the land-mass of Antarctica is a geological certainty. Indeed, on the Nimrod Expedition (1907–09) which was led by the famous father of my noble friend Lord Shackleton, coal was found and burned by the expedition. But these hard minerals are inaccessible— until we get desperate for them. Not so offshore oil. It surely exists and is scarcely less accessible than the Arctic oilfields. The Daily Express as recently as Monday had a headline "Oil Island Under Siege" and said:
"The stark, windlashed, Falkland Islands, 7, 000 miles from Britain, is surrounded by Russians, Poles, Finns, Japanese and Americans ".
You have to read deep into the article to know that what they were talking about was fishing and how they were
"coming away with catches which are said to be twice the size of all the rest of the world's hauls".
But what the Daily Express was emphasising was that they were not there for the fish but for the oil.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to interrupt? There is as yet absolutely no proof of any kind that there is oil in the Antarctic. There is a possibility of favourable structures. That particular article was totally inaccurate.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that information. It reassures me, and I hope that it will also reassure others. Anyway, as I pointed out apropos the terms of reference, the Falkland Islands is not in the jurisdiction of the Antarctic Treaty. I want to point out, however (and my noble friend has conceded this), that potentially there is oil in the Antarctic and on the Antarctic off-shore.
I want to emphasise in advance of these potential discoveries that last year a conference of scientists concerned with Antarctica met at Bellagio in Italy and considered the impact that oil extraction might have on Antarctic wildlife. I make no aplogy when I say this, because I think that the more foresight we exercise in these debates the better: and, after all, my noble friend was my predecessor as chairman of the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution at Sea which, I hope with foresight, is concerned with these things. At that conference, it was generally agreed that there would be little impact in the exploration and testing stages, but that there would be threats in the production stages from oil spillages, from tanker accidents, from incidents like ruptured oil pipes and from blow outs. This would affect the population of penguins, petrels, albatrosses and skuas. It would also affect the marine life, including the krill that we have talked about; and, if there were a possibility of development onshore, there would be flaring gas.
The scientific significance in these terms of Antarctica as a pollution-free environment, which the Antarctica Treaty anticipates, would be imperilled. I am not anticipating what the noble Lord will tell us in reply about the outcome of the convention which was signed yesterday; but I hope that the convention has been amended (although I suspect that it has not) in certain important particulars. Above all, I hope that the convention will succeed. I hope that the Club of 13 will be extended to include those who will have to be constrained to protect the living waters of Antarctica; and, whether we have a convention or not, that includes all the people who by the terms of the treaty itself have right of access to the high seas around these parts. We want them in. It is the only way to get control. I hope that we will see some recognition
962
in the extended Club of 13 (by whatever means we can achieve it) of the Third World whose peoples ought to be the beneficiaries of the common heritage which is Antarctica. Above all, I want to see the Antarctic base secured against smash and grab by those who have come to regard it as a desirable piece of real estate, real estate with living and material wealth to be exploited and squandered. I ask your Lordships in the name of posterity to have regard to the subject that we are debating today. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.16 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for drawing our attention to this important subject and, in the process, inventing a new tongue- twister, "She sells krill shells on the sea shore". Indeed, it is true that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, turned our minds southwards to the great wastes of the Antarctic just in time. If it is too late the blame will lie at our door and not at his. I say "at our door" because it will now be up to us to urge the importance of conservation in this area. It will be up to us to urge a proper scientific control of development in the southern ocean and the continent of Antarctica; it will be up to us to urge mankind to behave as mankind has never behaved before and allow reason to control greed. No longer shall we be able to claim ignorance of the danger which faces us because thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, we ken noo.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I initiated a debate on this subject in this House in 1959.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I personally was not aware of that. I had not at that time joined your Lordships' House. But once again we have had brought to us the information which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, first brought to our attention and it deserves the thanks of all of us. Those of us who like me have joined in this kind of debate at a later stage will ken noo.
We know now what the problems are, but I doubt whether many of us are sufficiently well-informed about the problems confidently to suggest solutions. Even the experts are divided over the

963
question of krill. Opinions seem to differ— opinions over exactly what quantities exist or what potential yields can be taken from the species. In the publication which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, The Management of the Southern Ocean, the authors claim that,
"Without deliberate action, it will be a long time, if ever, before the international community, in the widest sense, benefits from the Southern Ocean ".
They also claim that,
"In effect, the rapid growth in fish meal production in the sixties and early seventies is at an end despite some recovery in Peruvian output. The increasing need for fish for food will tend to limit the industry from finding supple- mentary sources for meal production ".
At the same time we learn that at least 11 nations have planned, or are planning, an experimental programme of krill fishing and Japan, Poland and the USSR are already fishing regularly for krill. Experts also differ on what should be the sustainable krill catch and upon what addition this could make to the world supply of available protein. It is therefore at this point that we— as concerned politicians— should enter the argument and draw the attention of the world to the historical lessons which are there to be learned. We have seen what has happened to the herring shoals in the North Sea. I may not have been old enough to have been in your Lordships' House in 1959 but I certainly am old enough to remember the herring boats packing the harbour at Wick so that one could have walked across their decks, and also the barrels of salted herring going off to the Baltic to supply the Scandinavian taste for salt herring.
Our folklore and folk songs are full of references to the herring. It was the staple supply of protein for the Highlander and for many of the poorer people of Great Britain in the last century and the early part of this one. Yet we have managed with all our political sophistication to fish the herring out of being. We have managed to kill off these enormous shoals which even in my lifetime were around our shores. We have not managed among ourselves to achieve sufficient agreement between nations to restore herring shoals to anything like the sustainable capacity that existed at the beginning of the century.
964
Are we going to let this happen to krill? Are there not lessons there which we should learn before we turn our greed towards the southern ocean? I suggest also— and people more scientifically qualified than I can comment on this with profit— that krill is too far down the food chain to be the most suitable catch. If we catch it in great quantities we affect the whole food chain which develops from it. We have already heard that it supports seals, fish, squid, penguins, whales, sea- birds and so forth that live around the southern ocean. If we seriously affect the survival of this ingredient in the food chain, we also seriously affect the ability of all these other creatures to survive.
I for one feel that it would be preferable, if we are to predate upon the southern ocean, for us to predate upon a species higher up the food chain like some of the fishes that exist in that ocean, or, by establishing fish ranching on the lines now being done with the Pacific salmon on the West Coast of America and Canada, arrange a means of taking the sustainable yield from this source of protein supply. If we get it wrong and we are taking something higher up the chain, we do less damage than if we harvest something low down at the base of the chain and get the sums wrong.
If we are going to develop the southern ocean, I feel that we should at the same time take the opportunity of developing the communities which live around it. We should not as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has pointed out, allow this to be a place where the rich get richer and the fat get fatter. There are communities around the southern ocean— in particular the Falkland Islands— which could well be developed by increasing fishing and fish processing and possibly even some modest harvesting of krill for the support of fish-producing industries. No doubt exactly the same considerations apply to the southern tips of the African continent and the South American continent and also to Australasia. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, that if people are going to benefit from these resources, the Third World should be included in the benefits. The Third World should be in our minds as these sources of food are developed.
Then there looms the threat to the Antarctic eco-system of possible oil and

965
mineral finds. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has told us that the article in the Daily Express which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, is ill-founded. But we know that there is oil in the seas not far from the Falkland Islands and there is thought to be oil—
Lord SHACKLETON: We do not.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, on the continental shelf near to the Argentine people are actually bringing up oil. So we know that in that very large area there is oil. It would be splitting hairs to argue that it is unlikely that there is any oil in the continental shelf which stretches from around the Falkland Islands to the southern tip of South America. But there is a threat that there might be, and there is a real possibility that ways and means of finding it and developing it will be found.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. The noble Viscount is aware that the Falklands are not in the Antarctic. Indeed, they are the same latitude south as London is north.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I feel that in some of these respects we are splitting hairs. There is no Antarctic Ocean. In the northern hemisphere it is simple, the Arctic Ocean is surrounded by land. One talks about the Arctic Ocean. In the southern hemisphere, the Antarctic is a land mass surrounded by ocean, and around that land mass there exists what is broadly referred to as the southern ocean. For the purposes of this debate, I am talking about the South Atlantic, the South Pacific, the South Indian Ocean and the south of other oceans. If one looks at the world from the bottom upwards, as it were, one sees the area of water surrounding the Antarctic. That is what I am referring to as the southern ocean. I may be totally wrong, and no doubt when the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, speaks later in the debate he will demolish my remarks completely. That is what I am talking about at the moment.
There is a possibility that in that area oil will be found. That is thought by many people to be a possibility. If oil exists, and if minerals exist in that continent and in the areas round about, I fear that we shall not succeed in stopping their
966
development once that becomes an economic proposition. Therefore we must find a way to set higher standards for oil developers and for miners before such development takes place. Every day in this country sea birds are dying in large numbers around our coasts and we do not seem to be doing much about it. If that is all we think about our own sea birds, what hope would there be for the penguins? If large supplies of important minerals are shown to be available in Antarctica and it is shown that they could be mined there economically, can we really believe that we shall leave that continent unravished? History leads me to doubt it.
Therefore if we feel sure that predation of Antarctica will take place and if we think it is unlikely to be preventable in the long term, surely the least we can do is to try to control it and to subscribe to conventions and agreements which attempt to control it, so that not only is the least possible lasting damage done but that renewable resources like fish and krill are harvested in sustainable quantities only. Let us also try to use the process of developing these resources as a means of developing the islands and the continents which surround the southern ocean, if such an ocean exists.
5.31 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I join the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, on having raised this important and topical subject. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, in hoping that we may receive "hot news" of the Canberra Convention, which was signed yesterday. I join with him also in anticipating what may be said by noble Lords in their speeches during this debate, though I feel it would be invidious to say whose words I shall value above all.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has asked us to speak as concerned politicians. From the very back of these Back- Benches, I wish to speak not so much as a concerned politician but as a concerned biologist with a deep interest in the biology of conservation. At this juncture there appears to be an opportunity for the United Kingdom to participate in an international programme of planned management of this important world resource represented by the living creatures

967
of the southern oceans. I wish to add my voice to those who are urging the Government to pledge in full the necessary scientific resources from this country and to endeavour in all ways to ensure that this time, in these waters at last, the living resources are not over-exploited by man to their perpetual detriment.
I have no particular opinions on the political aspects of the convention which has just been signed. I would only ask your Lordships whether you consider it likely that 80 heads— perhaps I should really say 80 bodies— are more likely ! to agree on policy than 13. Speaking as a scientist, and having consulted other scientists working in the region, I have no evidence that there have been scientific disadvantages in the existing practices which have worked under the control of the Atlantic Treaty Powers. I feel that we can welcome an international body if it provides for co-ordination of scientific effort and if provides additional resources. I am less welcoming to the formation of yet another international body if it proves in the end to create dissention and to diffuse, rather than concentrate, the effort.
Conservation interests are focused particularly on the larger baleen whales. The noble Lords who have preceded me have spoken in some detail about the small organism, the krill, on which the baleen whales are totally dependent for their diet. Both, of course, are elements in an extremely complex ecological system. The baleen whales, because in effect they graze on the large shoals of krill— which, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, is an easier way of putting it than trying to say "krill shoals"— are exceptionally susceptible to over- harvesting of the krill. Speaking as a scientist, in an aside, I might mention to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that actually in energetic terms it is more efficient to exploit the lower end of the food chain than the higher. Nebuchadnezzar was a better user of his resources than are those of us who eat the grass after it has been converted to a cow!
I stand liable to rebuke for being pedantic and so perhaps I may continue, in my role as a biologist, to emphasise the problems that I see as likely to emerge— the purely biological problems. To
968
start with, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie- Calder, has pointed out, the management of the marine resources of Antarctica must be based on the recognition that man has already made a very serious impact on the animal communities of these oceans. The virtual removal of the large baleen whales— because, by overfishing, these whales have been reduced to very low numbers in comparison to their original populations— and this alteration of the animal community has led to compensatory population explosions among the smaller kinds of animals that also rely on krill as the chief item in their diet.
Some of these animals are small only in comparison to the giant whale. The crab- eater seal is now the top predator of krill and has enormously increased in numbers, as have the penguins and as has the lesser rorqual or the Minke whale, which is the smallest of the baleen whales. There has in fact already been a very serious perturbation of the pristine eco-system of the Antarctic ocean. There is no indication that the present situation in any way represents a new equilibrium. Any intensified exploitation of the krill will further disrupt the balance and it is difficult to predict what will happen. Even if the Antarctic seas were now to be declared an inviolate area, the large whales are at a serious competitive disadvantage compared with other predators of krill, all of which have much shorter generation times and hence greater powers of rapid increase in numbers— they can build up very quickly in terms of bio-mass so that they replace and deny space to the larger whales.
Other factors also are operating. There is good evidence that among Minke whales, to which I referred just now, the average age of sexual maturity has been reduced to less than half what it was in the state of pristine ecology as we first knew it: that is to say, they are now breeding at about six years old as opposed to 16 years old. The obvious consequence is that these small whales— they are about 9 metres long— have shown a striking increase in fecundity.
These are the points I wish to emphasise to your Lordships. First, total protection of this environment at this moment is not necessarily to the general advantage of all living creatures in the region. It may even be disastrous for the larger baleen

969
whales— that is, the right whale, the hump-back or the blue whale. At the very least, the situation requires continuous biological monitoring. To date, the United Kingdom's contribution to scientific research, notably through the British Antarctic Survey, has provided useful input. I consider it is vital that levels of participation by British scientists should be maintained, if not enlarged, under the new arrangements.
The difficulty arises if, in the light of scientific evidence, the authorities are forced to take specific action to control certain populations. I believe that the authorities must nonetheless be ready to do that. Such actions may include the requirement for a controlled cull which, in simple terms, is just killing off large numbers of one or more selected animal species, to reduce the populations of one kind so that those of others may survive or increase at least to numbers where they have a hope of survival. In this way, killing one animal can provide for a balanced composition of the total animal assemblage. Such a recommendation, I envisage, might be effected either by direct action of the scientists concerned or through licensed commercial harvesting of an appropriate prey.
Being more political, we must face the fact that if, as is likely, it is penguins, seals or Minke whales that need to be fewer for scientific reasons, there is bound to be strong, if not violent, opposition from sectors of the public to any culling action. As I said just now, conservationists recognise that there are cases when the removal of selected individual animals can be of benefit to the general community of species. In so far as the two aspects can be compared, conservation attaches greater value to the prosperity of animal communities than to the lives of single individuals.
Although I recognise the truth of this approach, I must say that, like, I imagine, all of your Lordships, I cannot deny a strong personal distaste— and this distaste is undoubtedly shared by the scientists who are concerned— for certain methods of killing, especially some of the methods which are used at present on marine mammals. For instance, I understand that it is normal practice to capture the Minke whales by means of the so- called "cold" harpoon; that is to say,
970
an unarmed harpoon which does not explode in their body. It is, more or less, simply a means of attaching them to a rope and hauling them in. The International Whaling Commission has supported research into the assessment of harpooning as a humane method of killing whales, and documents are available publishing this research. They attempted to assess the suffering involved by measuring death time. It is fairly gruesome reading and I rather doubt that this particular line of research is worth pursuing further. But some research is required and the problem must be attacked.
In summary, I stress to your Lordships that the present very low number of large baleen whales throughout the world serves to emphasise all too clearly the effectiveness of selective culling as a means of reducing wild populations. If the same method proves to be needed in a programme of positive conservation in the Antarctic, I am sure, first, that the decision must be supported by scientific evidence which is irrefutable, which is well publicised and which achieves the acceptance of the public at large. I also feel very strongly that, as a further prerequisite, it will be essential to carry out appropriate research into more humane methods of killing large marine animals.
5.43 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I feel very humble, following the speech which we have just heard from the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, because it was so full of the detailed knowledge of a scientist and biologist which few Members of this House can claim. I can only say, as a layman in that field, that I was fascinated by what he told us. I shall, before I conclude, be referring to the necessity for international action, and I am glad that he stressed that in his speech.
Those of my generation are peculiarly fascinated by the Antarctic. I remember that at school my science master told us of the heroism of the expeditions which, for the first time, had spent their winters in the Antarctic. One can remember, 69 years ago, the excitement of the race to the South Pole between Amundsen and Robert Scott. Since that time during the first half of this century, there has been

971
great rivalry in the Antarctic between different powers for territory.
But a tremendous step forward was taken in 1958, the Geographical Year, when the Scientific Committee on Atlantic Research— generally known as SCAR, because of its initials— was set up. That committee was composed of representatives of 12 nations claiming territory in the Southern Antarctic, and experts nominated by the International Council for Scientific Union. It extended further than the Treaty Powers, later decided for North to 45 degrees South latitude, to the meeting point of the cold and warm oceans. It was this beginning of co-operation which led to the formation of the Atlantic Treaty organisations in 1959.
The treaty, as my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder has said, emphasised very strongly that the Antarctic should be used only for peaceful purposes, and banned all military equipment. This is very important for marine development, because the ban on nuclear explosions and on the disposal of radioactive waste give much greater opportunity for marine life. Unlike SCAR, the Atlantic treaty was limited to the area beyond the 60 degrees South latitude. This meant that there was no conflict between the powers over territory. But North of that area there was dispute between the different powers about sovereignty over the islands, exampled in the conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands.
This leads me to put my first question to the Minister. I appreciate that the conference at Canberra ended only yesterday, and one will not expect him to reply in detail; we shall have to await further opportunities for putting questions to him. But I should like to ask him this: It is reported that the Canberra conference agreed to extend the Antarctic Treaty area from 60 degrees South latitude to the convergence of the warm and cold waters at 45 degrees. Can the Minister confirm this, and can he say how the disputes over the islands in this extended area are likely to be dealt with? One does not press for an answer to-day, but perhaps he will have that in mind for consideration in the future.
972
The 12 original nations in the Antarctic Treaty organisation have since been extended to 15 by the addition of Poland and East and West Germany. All 15 Governments were at the Canberra conference which has so recently been held. Its area was enormous: 14 million square miles. According to reports in the press, it called for the establishment of a convention for the conservation of Antartic marine living creatures. The main object of the conference was to prevent the overfishing of marine life, from the shrimp-like krill to the massive whale. Success is reported today in the press. A convention has been agreed to prevent overfishing by regulating exploitation, and an international commission of experts is to be estabished to study the food chain of Atlantic fish and bird life— a welcome addition, that— and to recommend measures to protect the species. I do not know whether the Minister can confirm those reports in the press. When he has detailed information, we shall have an opportunity to press him further.
Finally, may I make a plea that the Antarctic Treaty organisation and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research shall be broadened and given greater international authority. As my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder said, the Antarctic Treaty organisation is today a club of states. It tends to be exclusive. At Canberra this month the Netherlands and South Korea were excluded as observers from the conference because it was held that they were not engaged in substantial research in the area. At the same time, 30 conservation agencies were forbidden attendance, including Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund. Experience at the United Nations has shown how valuable the contributions of non-governmental bodies can be.
The problem is not one for 12 or 15 Governments. It is a worldwide problem. If, for example, the present convention regarding fishing is extended to minerals or to oil— I shall not enter into the controversy as to whether they will be found there, but it would be a very bold man who said that they will not— it will inevitably involve non-Treaty countries.
As my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder has pleaded, the Third World is involved. The rich food in the Antarctic could be

973
used to meet the hunger of millions. I suggest, therefore, that international status should be given to the Antarctic Treaty states by making their organisation part of the United Nations establishment, throwing its membership open to other nations, including those of the Third World. Similarly, I suggest that it should be linked with the World Food Organisation and the United Nations World Development Committee so that its food potential could be used to meet the demands of the hungry.
So far as the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research is concerned, surely it should be associated with UNESCO so that the splendid work now being done at Cambridge can be supplemented by wider resources and additional expert personnel. I make these suggestions for the consideration of the Minister so that he may reply, not necessarily today but after further thought. We are only at the beginning of the adventure of the Antarctic. To realise all the expanding possibilities of this vast continent, we must establish world responsibility and world dedication.
5.56 p.m.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for raising this very timely subject. Unlike other noble Lords, I shall not be speaking of the little birds and the little fishes. I shall be speaking of another much more important animal; namely, man. I intend to restrict my observations to the conservation of United Kingdom interests in the Antarctic, interests which are directly affected by the subject which is being debated today.
I am deeply concerned that in concluding the Canberra Agreement Her Majesty's Government have, almost by default, agreed to agree, albeit subject to ratification by Parliament, to abrogate control over the Falkland Island Dependencies, the South Sandwich Islands, the South Orkneys, South Georgia, and also Southern Thule Island, to an international committee. I am puzzled and concerned not only about the fact but also about the way in which Her Majesty's Government came to that agreement— and, indeed, about the effects of the agreement.
May I state at the outset that, as we have heard, the major resource we are
974
talking about is krill. As a result of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation's research study, called the South Ocean Fisheries Survey Programme, it was established, in round figures, that in the southern oceans there are about 150 million tons of krill. That is over and above the amount needed by whales. I hate to throw figures at noble Lords, but the value of this krill is approximately 600 dollars per ton, which, when extrapolated, comes out at 90, 000 million dollars. So in every sense of the word we are hardly talking about chickenfeed.
Article VI of the Antarctic Treaty provides that:
"The provisions of the present Treaty shall apply to the area south of the 60° South latitude, including all ice shelves, but nothing in the present Treaty shall prejudice or in any way affect the rights, or the exercise of the rights, of any State under international law with regard to the high seas within the area ".
Furthermore, by virtue of Article IX of the same treaty:
"Representatives of the Contracting Parties … shall meet … at suitable intervals and places, for the purpose of exchanging information, consulting together on matters of common interest pertaining to Antarctica, and formulating and considering, and recommending to their Governments, measures in furtherance of the principles and objectives of the Treaty … ".
These two articles bring me to two questions, and the two questions are these. First, has the agreement that has been signed redefined the definition of Antarctica for the Antarctic treaty purposes? As I understand it, the draft convention, which has been agreed to, defines the Antarctic as such:
"This Convention applies to the Antarctic marine living resources of the area south of 60° South latitude and to the Antarctic marine living resources of the area between that latitude and the Antarctic Convergence which form part of the Antarctic marine ecosystem ".
My second question is: What is the nature of the agreement signed? Does the agreement have treaty effect? That, of course, must lead to the question as to whether there is any decision regarding ratification of this agreement. I believe that Parliament should know at least what Her Majesty's Government have agreed to agree.
Further, I ask my noble friend whether he is in a position to make a statement on this subject. How far down the line have they committed themselves in eroding

975
our sovereign territories and their waters in the South Atlantic? Furthermore, I understand that the legislation affecting this area (namely, the Dependencies) lies squarely on the Governor of the Falkland Islands and his Executive Council. Were they in any way consulted in this matter?
Am I right in thinking that the borders of Antarctica are to be extended to include British sovereign territory? I should be grateful if the Minister could inform me. How come that his honourable friend in another place answered, inter alia,
"the conference in Canberra is about the Antarctic region, of which we are a claimant state. It is not about dependencies. They are not included in the subject matter for the conference".— [Official Report, Commons, 14/5/80; col. 1478.]
If I am right in believing that they have extended the area of control in Antarctica, then I should have thought that they were. However, I am delighted to observe that further on he said:
"We do not have a claim to the dependencies; we have sovereignty over them ".
This appears to be a strange way of maintaining one's sovereignty, of developing the economic potential of one's sovereign territory, and, above all, of maintaining one's influence for defence purposes by internationalising it, and internationalising it into a body which contains more Warsaw Pact countries than I care for. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, while never taking his eyes away from his brief, will bring in the question of cost. He knows better than I do that the cost of setting up these international commissions is extremely expensive, and I shall be grateful if he can indicate in some way how much Her Majesty's Government will be involved in the setting up of this international commission, and indeed how much the policing of that area costs us.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, time is rather marching on. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for interrupting, but I suggest that we should keep our remarks as short as we can, otherwise some noble Lords may be deprived of the right to speak.
6.5 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Lord is speaking to somebody
976
who almost never speaks for more than 10 minutes, and last night it was only eight minutes. My Lords, Britain has played a leading part in conservation efforts in the Antarctic over the years, and it is important that we should continue to use our influence to good effect. After a long period of exploitation, Britain led the way towards the control of whaling and the conservation of living resources ! in the area has become the concern of an ever-widening group of nations ever since, consisting of the Antarctic Treaty Governments. There is therefore now some degree of control and order of harvesting, both from the sea and on land in the form of minerals, among the signatory nations; but this does not stop non- signatory nations from doing as they please in the open seas and challenging the right of the treaty nations to rule the continent.
One matter now of concern, which has been raised by several noble Lords, is the krill, which at the moment is in great abundance owing to the reduction in numbers of the baleen whales through over-fishing. Krill is only marginally viable to harvest on present technology, but the position could arise when it might become cheaper for a shipowner with an empty ship to harvest krill than to lay up his ship. Or a socialist country might decide to catch krill as animal feed, regardless of cost.
As was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, overfishing could very soon distort the feed chain, severely affecting the numbers of many of the animals and fish that feed upon it. Between 1927 and 1931 huge whaling fleets were built to chase whales, and the result was a gross over-supply of whale oil, a drop in the price, and an over-supply of ships, which, when subsequently employed, almost annihilated the whale. Likewise, if krill fishing was thought to have become economic, the harvest could soon be severely over-fished and the short-term benefit to one fishing group or fishing country could lead to the long-term destruction of the cycle of nature in the area.
Indeed the USSR, having helped to wipe out the baleen whale, are large takers of krill, and it is thought that the Japanese and other countries are stepping into the krill fishing in spite of the enormous investment involved. It is necessary,

977
therefore, that the Antarctic Treaty should be ready to cope with any new threat to the ecology of the area, either from its own member nations or from non- signatory nations outside the treaty. It is therefore of particular interest to see the progress made in each of the consultative meetings, the latest of which, as has been mentioned, has just finished; and we look forward to hearing from the Minister in his reply what happened. Previous meetings have covered mineral and marine resources, scientific research, the establishment of a conservation regime, man's impact on the area, oil contamination, and so on.
One thing that is noticeably absent in the Ninth Antarctic Meeting recommendations is any mention of the reduction in cruelty. The thought of the cruelty involved in harpooning a large whale is one that most people prefer not to think about. Great efforts are put into reducing cruelty to animals in this country. There is no reason why it should be more acceptable just because it is on the high seas and out of sight of people who might complain. But it happens— and the cruelty and suffering must be horrendous. The same may not apply to such an extent with the slaughter of seals, as at least their death is quick.
Surely, the Antarctic Committee could pay some attention to finding more humane ways of killing whales. By the cold harpoon it takes up to 30 minutes for a whale to die; by the explosive harpoon it still takes up to 25 minutes, and it is on record that it took five hours and nine explosive harpoons before one whale was finally killed. The aboriginal whaling in the States is worse, and of every 24 struck, only some 18 are landed. The others go away wounded. The British Veterinary Association is reported to have said that, on the information available, whaling is utterly inhumane and that this country should put a ban on whale products.
Can the Minister confirm the cruelty involved; and will he have this item brought up at the next consultative meeting? If there is really no way of avoiding this cruelty to these animals, we should use our best endeavours to influence other countries to cease whaling and we should support a ban on whale meat into this country until some totally new and humane method of slaughter can be found, and,
978
of course, also until numbers can be built up to ensure survival of all the species.
My Lords, that is five minutes.
6.10 p.m.
Lord BUXTON of ALSA: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, both for giving us the opportunity to debate this vital subject and also for the broad sketch he gave us of the current situation affecting the Antarctic Treaty. I hope my views are not regarded by some as excessively conservation-minded or unfashionable, but if that is so it is because, through my experience in television in this country and around the world, I believe that Governments are tending to lag behind public opinion where conservation of wild paradises and wildlife are concerned.
The blind presumption by so many Governments that everything should be exploited that can be is becoming increasingly untenable to the common person. To a growing extent this short-sighted view is not held by the mass of ordinary citizens, and I have plenty of evidence for this from the response to the programmes for which I am responsible which are shown not only here but all over the world. Twenty-five years ago if you walked up to somebody in the street and said, "Conservation", he would not know what on earth you were talking about; whereas today if you said it, whether to young or old, and particularly to schoolchildren, you would probably get a long lecture about the destruction of rain forests or marine pollution. I think that the time may even come one day, if we can persuade the members of the club, the treaty powers, to be a little more open about what they are up to, when perhaps if you go up to somebody and say: "Antarctic Biomass programme" you may get a long lecture about krill.
It is essential, in my view, that matters relating to the Antarctic become under- stood by the public worldwide. Unless public concern and sympathy for conservation is expressed, Governments will be cocooned in secrecy and may reach the wrong conclusions and follow the wrong policies. If ever we needed an example of that, we have Russia, where people do not know what is happening most of the time, particularly over the recent disasters that we are all aware of.

979
The Antarctic Treaty powers have achieved in scientific co-operation a remarkable achievement since the war, and an example for the world in cooperation. But the member states apparently suffer from secrecy mania. No doubt this is due to one or two notable members. This must somehow now be tactfully overcome. It is not very easy in times of economic uncertainty to question the traditional assumption that natural resources are simply there to be exploited, and to suggest that perhaps for once they might be left alone unless scientifically managed. It usually seems inconceivable to Governments and industry that if there is something to be won and exploited that anybody should ever hesitate to do so. Yet in the case of the bottom part of the globe, which so far has not been seriously interfered with, there seems to be a very good case for at least questioning every case that is made for exploiting the natural resources.
I am not suggesting that the human race should never in any shape of form exploit that part of the world, because I believe that, in the long term and in the interests of our descendants, there are far better ways of doing so. Conservation is never incompatible with rational management, which includes harvesting, based on research. What has to be resisted is what has been referred to as "smash and grab". For future generations— and this is the point I want to make— wildlife and unspoilt scenery will prove to be of far greater economic value as an amenity and as a spectacle because of its scarcity value: a far more precious asset on an ongoing basis than the region can ever be simply as something to be used up and devoured in the short term, leaving a sterile void for those who follow.
I have a nasty feeling that of all generations we are likely to be the most despised in future centuries. What would we have thought of our 19th century ancestors if they had used up all the Old Masters by chopping up the frames for firewood and using the canvases for lagging the pipes? But that is exactly what Governments and industry the world over are doing with precious natural assets, unaware that natural wilderness or an un-spoilt paradise will be priceless assets in the future, a thousand times more valu-
980
able probably than the limited harvest of oil or minerals that can be grabbed in the short term, or the krill and lobster krill that can be scooped out wholesale, with disastrous consequences for the natural communities which depend on them. It may seem as absolute fantasy, my Lords, but I believe that we should endeavour to think of the Antarctic as the first great international park, as opposed to a national park, and thereby of unique value to generations of the future. I am a businessman, not an ecology "nut", and I do ask: are Governments unable to read a balance sheet? Do they only understand the P and L account for the current period?
It is significant and rather alarming to me that the emphasis of interest in Antarctica is tending to swing very noticeably from scientific research to resources and their exploitation; vested interests, as always, have woken up to an opportunity and are sitting like vultures waiting to pounce. Our own position is rather interesting, if somewhat delicate, and perhaps we should capitalise on it. For 150 years the British Government have taken negligible interest in the Falkland Islands, for example, and successive Governments have sought to unburden themselves of the responsibility for them. But now that we are all gripped with oil mania the Falklands have suddenly become headline news. Of course, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for pointing out that all these press stories, in the Daily Express in particular, about oil being available in huge quantities are— I am only too glad to accept his assurance— probably pure speculation. But that, of course, proves the point. It is the mere prospect of exploitation that commands attention today, not the obvious existence of a natural paradise, which already has a vast potential and which could be an incalculable asset to Britain for centuries to come. Frankly, Governments everywhere, in my view, make lousy businessmen.
I realise that it sounds cranky to suggest that a segment of our exquisite planet might ever be spared unscientifically-based exploitation, and I would not expect the idea to be taken seriously in a hurry. But I am far from being unhopeful, because paradoxically the complex and unique political overtones in the Antarctic seem

981
to me to make this a runner. It seems, compared with any other part of the world, to offer a unique opportunity for arriving at a stalemate, with no nation finding it easy to make obviously undesirable exploitation moves in the Antarctic without incurring the displeasure of the remainder. Those outside the club are very suspicious.
There is a long way to go before there is universal accord. This derives from the situation of the claimants and the non- claimants. The claimants are not recognised by the non-claimants, and when the treaty is due for review in 1991 the chance of universal acquiescence in any plan whereby individual states embark on unilateral exploitation, is fairly slim. It seems conceivable that the present reasonably satisfactory scientific blanket imposed on Antarctica might be continued in default of an attractive alternative. If there is the remotest chance of that being available, even if it is only a chance in a million, then leadership is absolutely vital, and the lobby should be started now, with 10 years to go; and this country with the British Antarctic Survey is in the best and strongest position to take the lead. Conservation interests in other nations might then follow the lead, certainly the public will, provided the treaty partners do not keep the whole business under wraps and play it so close to the chest.
Our Government, through the British Antarctic Survey, could take the initiative by paying the minimal costs involved of adequate PR and publicity services. I regret again having to bleat about cuts, as I had to do in the face of the BBC's overseas radio broadcasts, but I am only concerned with cuts applied overseas. The Government have my support in their efforts to reduce public expenditure at home, but it is unsound and illogical, in my view, to apply the same yardsticks and disciplines to expenditure outside in the rest of the world. These are two totally different sets of circumstances; on the one hand there is the viability of the domestic economy, while overseas the future of Britain is at stake in competition with other nations which are not applying the same criteria. If we apply the same rigid restraints, say, to Antarctica as are applied to domestic expenditure, we shall lose out altogether as competitors on innumerable fronts and may never recover our position again.
982
At this critical point in the history of the human race and this planet— I do not want to put it in too fantastic terms— it is unthinkable that the leader in Antarctic conservation and research, that is to say the British Antarctic Survey, should have its budget cut. The quite inadequate shoestring budget of £ 3.5 million may be cut by up to £ 500, 000. I repeat that I support the Government's measures to make the domestic economy viable, but applying these disciplines in a case like this makes no sense at all, particularly when it could have critical consequences for an entire area of this planet.
This cut will result in less time for research, less information, less surveillance by British Antarctic Survey vessels, and less British leadership. Cuts could endanger the BAS's vital effort and even the year-round safety of those invloved. This can in no possible way be equated with the stirring momentum sustained by our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in enhancing so successfully Britsh influence around the world.
Our activities overseas should be judged. by different criteria from those applied at home; and if that is so, let this Government take the initiative by setting up and paying for a proper information and PR service, because the United Kingdom cannot take the line that we are seriously interested in exploitation prospects when in the past we have failed to take the slightest interest in any prospects at all, other than scientific research. It is odd, really, that we are not more interested in fishing prospects when all of our vessels are today laid up in our own fishing ports, and the fishermen mostly on the dole, while the Russians, Poles, Germans and others— as has been mentioned in the debate— are busy fishing and scooping up blue whiting and krill wherever they wish, and doing their shopping in Port Stanley in the Falklands, where I saw them only the other day.
The strength of the British position in Antarctica resides in the impressive role of the BAS, and this should be turned to advantage. BAS enables us to take the lead in a scientific and conservation movement which has great significance for the next century and longer. Antarctica will not save the human race, even if its resources can make a quick "buck" for somebody. And perhaps the protection of

983
Antarctica could do something to restore man's image in the history books of the future, by perhaps creating the first international park.
Finally, there must be no cuts, therefore, in this flea-bite shoestring area. In fact, the BAS budget of £ 3.5 million should undoubtedly be doubled— so vital is its research and its role— in the best interests of the British people and the world. BAS must remain the dominant influence, and this would be a fatal moment to dilute its influence, even if we were hell-bent on ruthless exploitation, which I trust we are not.
My personal view is more realistic and commercial than it may sound. I believe in building and conserving assets. I am more interested in the balance sheet than in just making a quick buck. It is quick- buck mania which has tended to ravage the environment, usually with no advantage for the populations of the whole in the long-term.
6.24 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I should like to join with others in thanking my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder for initiating this debate. I am not sure how convenient or inconvenient the timing has actually proved to be. However, we shall at least have the opportunity to hear from the Minister some fairly up-to-date information; and had the debate taken place a few days earlier, I have the feeling that we would have received a more frustrating reply at the end of it.
I should like to turn first to something which my noble friend mentioned right at the very beginning of his speech at the start of the debate— namely, the input, or at least the lack of effective input, from voluntary organisations in this country, the NGOs, to the process of drawing up the convention. Following the meeting which my noble friend mentioned at the beginning of April, which was held between the Foreign Office, the Nature Conservancy Council and interested voluntary organisations, in my capacity as chairman of the CoEnCo Wildlife Link Committee, I wrote to the noble Lord's honourable friend the Minister of State putting forward the views of the voluntary bodies.
984
I wanted to take an opportunity, publicly if I could, to thank the noble Lord and his honourable friend very much indeed for the long and extremely prompt reply which I received to my letter. I have a feeling that it must break a number of records for both comprehensive- ness and speed. I was extremely grateful and would be grateful if the noble Lord could pass that on to his honourable friend, and could also say how grateful the voluntary bodies were for the speed of the reply, if not for everything that was said in it.
My noble friend Lord Brock way mentioned the appalling circumstances at Canberra, where it appears that a number of voluntary organisations— and in particular the Antarctica and Southern Oceans Coalition (ASOC) — were excluded from the discussions. I should like to ask the Minister a question which is really even more disturbing than the circumstances which my noble friend Lord Brock- way outlined. There were three Governments which were particularly opposed to ASOC playing some part in the proceedings; namely, the USSR, Chile and— I understand— the Government of the United Kingdom. I very much hope that the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite will be able to tell me that the information which I have received from Canberra has been scrambled in the very short time but long distance that it has had to travel. However, I am afraid that the lack of consultation and discussion— for which this Government are no more responsible, I hasten to add, than the previous Government— with voluntary organisations in the process of negotiating this convention, has left a very bad taste in the mouths of many people and the events at Canberra will certainly not have improved matters.
Besides apportioning blame fairly equally between both Governments, I think that is only fair to say that the voluntary organisations themselves might have been a little better organised earlier on, and the Nature Conservancy Council might have taken a rather more active role in discovering the views of the voluntary organisations and ensuring that they were impressed on officials at the Foreign Office at an early date. The voluntary organisations have an enormous amount to contribute in this country and so do the NGOs

985
around the world. The book— The Management of the Southern Ocean — by Richard Sandbrook and Barbara Mitchell has already been referred to in the debate. There is a great deal of expertise and knowledge available in the NGOs, and I have the feeling that a great deal could have been gained both by the United Kingdom's delegation and internationally, had NGOs played a rather more prominent role during the negotiation of this convention.
Having said that on a rather critical note, I wish to reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord's honourable friend for his detailed reply, and in particular for his offer at the end of his letter of a further meeting between the NGOs in this country and the team of officials that represented the United Kingdom in Canberra. I know that the voluntary organisations concerned would be most anxious that that meeting should take place, because I think that all of us feel that now that the convention is settled— if not yet ratified or in force— we should look to the future. Indeed, it is in that vein that I wanted to make some brief remarks about the scientific committee and the work that that committee in particular will need to do in interpreting the articles of the convention— especially Article II.
As the noble Lord will no doubt know, the voluntary organisations were extremely concerned that Article II contained an inherent contradiction between subparagraph 3(b) and sub-paragraph 3(a).Sub-paragraph 3(a) sets an acceptable harvesting strategy for predators, and sub-paragraph 3(b) sets an acceptable, or at least an adequate, strategy for key prey species such as krill. But, unfortunately, sub-paragraph 3(a) is not itself acceptable with regard to the harvesting of prey species, because it talks of harvesting to the maximum net productivity point for both predators and prey species. That is an internal contradiction, because if the one is harvested to the most efficient point, the other will have to be excluded altogether. For example, in order to maximise prey harvesting it will be clearly necessary to exterminate all the predators; and if the predators are keeping the prey at below their maximum net productivity point themselves, harvesting by man would further reduce their yield.
986
I hasten to say that the Government, as I understand it, fully accept and recognise this difficulty, and the noble Lord's honourable friend said in his letter to me that the United Kingdom delegation would do its best to secure amendments on this point. As I understand it— and, as I say, my information may not be accurate— the United Kingdom delegation was not successful in securing amendments on this point. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could either confirm that or encourage me with some contrary information. Nevertheless, clearly, this will be a very important and complicated point— indeed, a vital point— for the whales, krill and other species which have been mentioned this afternoon. I suggest to the noble Lord that it will be the first task of the scientific committee to sort out.
If no amendments have been made in the final text, the Scientific Committee will immediately come upon an extremely difficult and serious problem. It is in that area that I would very strongly support the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, about the input which the United Kingdom ought to be making in the scientific field; and I should also like to support what my noble friend Lord Brockway said about the importance of non-governmental organisations being involved in the work of the scientific committee.
As I understand it, the IUCN are likely to be admitted as observers to the Scientific Committee, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to confirm that, if not today at some future date. I hope that they will be admitted as speaking observers, as, for example, they are on the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission. However, I hope that the United Kingdom Government, in this vitally important area and vitally important committee, will work to see a role for the NGOs from this country, and from other countries round the world which have an interest. I hope that they will ensure that NGOs— not only through IUCN participation but through direct consultation with the Government— play a major part in ensuring that the scientific committee resolves this question in the way in which the United Kingdom Government have already said they wish to see it resolved— and quite rightly in my view.

987
Therefore, the conclusion of a final text is by no means the end of the story in this difficult, and what has already been a fairly long, negotiation. I hope that with the conclusion of the final text the Government will be able to look to the future, bearing in mind the importance of a very much closer and more open relationship with NGOs in this country; and I would hope very strongly supporting internationally a stronger and more forceful role for the international NGOs, and in particular umbrella bodies like ASOC, which bring together the views of voluntary organisations in a large number of countries and which, therefore, represent in one way or another enormous expertise.
The judgment on this convention and the work of the United Kingdom Government and other Governments that have been party to it will, I suspect, await events and await the outcome. In particular, people will be looking to see what happens to the level of krill harvested between now and when the convention comes into force; because as noble Lords may know, no interim arrangements, as I understand it, have been arrived at to ensure that there is any protection— indeed, any reliable information— regarding the level of krill harvested until after the convention comes into force.
It would be an appalling tragedy, just at the time when the International Whaling Commission— with, I am glad to say, some very useful and helpful things being said by the British Government (although at this stage not a great deal of action being taken) about conservation of whales— may be reaching the position where whales will be safeguarded and the species which are on the verge of extinction or declining very rapidly (as almost all whales are) will be protected by that Commisison, that the unrestricted harvesting of krill led to the extinction of whales.
6.37 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to those who have already thanked the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for allowing us to talk about this subject tonight. I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who has done such sterling work as the chairman of the CoEnCo Committee, bringing together, perhaps for the first time in
988
this country, virtually all the nongovernmental organisations which are interested in natural history and allowing them, for the first time, to speak with one voice. We are very proud in CoEnCo to have him as the chairman of this committee.
This vast fragile area cries out for every form of conservation and control— soils, vegetation, fauna of the land and inland lakes and their communities; littoral life- forms and the oceanic ecosystem. Technological advance and pollution by man will bring serious problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said.
But there are vast possibilities. I mention only one that has not been mentioned today. The Antarctic contains 99 per cent. of all the usable fresh water on the earth. If we could tow only 10 per cent. of the annual yield of icebergs to places where the water could be used, it would satisfy the demands of 500 million people. We are talking about a very large area.
We are talking today about marine resources. I am perhaps the first to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on doing so much to advance the cause of conservation in this remote part of the globe. The record of the Antarctic Treaty and our role in it is a fine one. Now we have the new conservation convention. To get as far as this is no mean achievement. The second draft is a particularly important milestone. For the first time a so-called "multi-species approach" to conservation and harvesting is built into the legal text.
I understand from my conservation colleagues that the United Kingdom delegation— and in particular Dr. Richard Laws, Director of the British Antarctic Survey— were the inspiration behind this approach. Some noble Lords present may have heard Dr. Laws speak in July 1977 to the all-party Conservation Committee of both Houses of Parliament under the title "Conservation Problems in the Antarctic".
It is Article II that concerns us when it comes to the practical problems of making such a convention work. In the past most fisheries, and indeed the exploitation of the great whales, have been based on the notion of harvesting no more than that which ensured the so-called "maximum

989
sustained yield" principle. Take too much and the annual replacement by breeding declines; take too little and man loses his catch to increased natural mortality. This basis for management— that is, maximum sustained yield— is arguably sound for top predators in the marine eco-system, but it is an insufficient basis for the prey species, because the predators are also equivalent to fishermen. So, if man takes the maximum sustainable yield and the predators continue to feed, the resultant mortality among the prey is far too high.
The results of this can be disastrous, as in the case of the capelin stock in the North-West Atlantic. Here man and the cod, the predator of this tiny little fish like a whiting, have taken too much, with the result that the capelin stock has now crashed, and the cod will be affected. This must not happen in the southern ocean with respect to krill. It is probable that before large-scale commercial whaling began at the turn of the century, the system was in some form of balance, with the baleen whales fishing, if you can excuse the term, krill to its maximum sustainable yield. Now that man has so decimated the whales— my figures are that blue whales, of which there were 200, 000, are today 2, 000— there should be a lot of spare krill about today. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook talked about the increase in seals and the age of sexual maturity of Minke whales having dropped, so there is no reason for me to make those points again. It is clear that at least some of the so-called surplus of whale food has been taken by the competitors in the system.
So what is the practical problem? It is to find out how much is now left in surplus for man. We must be very conservative here, so that mistakes in our mathematics are guarded against. The consequence of too much krill-harvesting in the wrong places could be the extinction of the whale species. The new principle embodied in the convention effectively says that man should take no more of the krill than is excess to the needs of the predators. That is a sound and very far-sighted principle. But to make it work we shall require a major research effort into the dynamics of the southern ocean system.
One key to this research is the data available to us from whaling, the statistics of how many whales have been caught,
990
their weight, their age, and so on. They are all invaluable to our understanding. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned the World Wildlife Fund. They have not been deterred. They and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, which are two voluntary bodies, have, with the help of Dr. Beddington at York University, built the first computer model of the southern ocean system. They are doing a great deal of work. But more could and should be now done. I would recommend, as did the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that the Government explore ways of supporting such work in British institutions. As the International Whaling Commission has headquarters in Cambridge, along with the secretariat of the internationally-based Scientific Committee of Antarctic Research, we have indeed here at home a real opportunity of exploring and then putting into effect this exciting new article.
I was, and I am sure your Lordships were, a bit worried to hear what my noble friend Lord Buxton said about cuts, but this is something we must look at. Finally, I must finish on a note of caution. We are always going to be short of all the relevant facts. Therefore, whatever follows in terms of krill harvesting in the southern ocean must be accompanied by safeguards as a hedge against our uncertainties. An example of such a safeguard would be the establishing there of areas free from any harvesting at all of whales and krill. Only in this way can conservation include, with safety, rational use.
6.43 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for introducing us to this subject. I was rash enough to refer to an earlier debate. I have searched in the records, and I find that in 1960 a number of these points were made. Perhaps I was a bit optimistic because I said that I hoped that the Antarctic would become entirely international under the United Nations. We have not quite gone as far as that. It was gratifying to see the enthusiastic support of Lord Lansdowne speaking for the Government, in regard to conservation, scientific work, and the peaceful use of the Antarctic.

991
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, with his admirable memory, for recalling the contents of that Antarctic Treaty, which was one of the really great breakthroughs. I remember even when I was in the Commons urging that the Antarctic should be internationalised and meeting a very unfriendly reply from the Government, which was a Labour Government, as they were afraid that this would bring the Russians down there. Of course the Russians came down and are playing a full, honest, and co-operative part in the Antarctic Treaty.
I am a little bothered by the use of words like "skulduggery" and "conspiracy", as if there is some wicked cabal meeting in Canberra to do the rest of the world down. This has been one of the most strikingly successful scientific and international examples of co-operation to be found in the world today. I should like to deal with it at some length. May I say that I am in entire agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said in the tributes he paid to British Antarctic surveys.
I would say to my noble friend that I do not understand why the non-Government organisations did not start taking action earlier. It has all been published. They could have read the BIOMASS programme; the report of the British Antarctic Surveys. There is a reference to the 1978 meeting in Buenos Aires to draw up a convention, with a number of people like Dr. Laws, and Dr. Everson (who probably knows more about krill than anyone else) and bodies like the Scott Polar Research Institute, and organisations which are not Government organisations but are serious leading scientific bodies, and which have all been involved.
If only those noble Lords who have now discovered this had bothered to go to Lord Craigton's meetings— I cannot remember what they were called; they were meetings of the all-Party conservation group— or attended the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee going back to the international geophysical year, they would have had this material exposed to them. If I have a criticism of the debate, it is that it did not pay tribute to the really excellent and far-sighted leadership that has been given by British scientists in the
992
Antarctic, co-operating with other countries.
Nor I think has justice been entirely done to the detailed studies contained in this report of Barbara Mitchell and Richard Sandbrook. I picked it up and read it— it is only the short report— with a good deal of nervousness because it might contain aspects dealing with the issues with which I would find myself in disagreement. For the most part I find myself in agreement. Here, again, they could have paid more of a tribute, because most of the biological and scientific work was not originally done by them; this is not a reflection against them, but it was done by British Antarctic surveys and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. I do not understand why the International Council of Scientific Unions, which is responsible for SCAR, should not be regarded as a respectable international body, to which serious scientists have access.
Having made those remarks, I feel strongly that we ought to give credit where there is some success. On this occasion, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, it is not that Governments have been behind public opinion; in this instance they have been far ahead of public opinion, including many people in your Lordships' House who seem not to have been aware of the work that has been done in the past by successive Governments. But I take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, made that it will be a tragedy if this Government deny the resources for continuous work.
How arc the Royal research ships to be replaced? There is one called "Shackle ton" which is getting a bit long in the tooth. We have heard about the obsolescent Shackleton aircraft, and now we have the ship, but it will probably last for a few more years. There will probably be £ 20 million to spend on a replacement for "Discovery". We are in an area where we have successfully pioneered and given the lead, even if there are defects. I take the point; it is very frustrating for non-Government and Government organisations who want to go to a party not to be invited to that party. But if you compare the work on this convention (and I think my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder referred to their somewhat irritating nature) with some of the discussions

993
that take place on the law of the sea, it is quite striking how effective it has been.
Nor is it a closed club. Access is provided in the convention for those who wish to take part in research, or in harvesting. There is no reason why they should not. What I find sad is the lack of appreciation of the idealism behind what has been done in the Antarctic.
Devoted efforts have been made to conserve, to keep peace and to provide a better order, and those of us who have been interested in the possible harvesting of krill have not been thinking in terms of providing fishmeal for this country. That is simply not true. I believe there was some suggestion that we were harvesting krill now, but alas the British are not harvesting any krill, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, knows. The long-term view— this was the view of my advisers on the Falkland Islands Study— is that this is a major source of protein for the starving world, and there is room for man in the ecosystem of this world. I apologise if I have been rather more healed than I should have been. As noble Lords know, occasionally I "blow my top" a little. However, we should give credit to those who have given such leadership, even though there may be imperfections.
I come to the matter under discussion; namely, the building up of a proper area of conservation, which is an extremely important issue. What is so interesting is the geological feature of the convergence. The Antarctic convergence— this will be known by noble Lords who by now will have looked it up— is the point, not a fixed point, in the ocean where the cold northward-moving currents dip under the warmer south ones, and you will find a complete change of climate. If you go from the Falkland Islands with the same latitude as London— and perhaps I was a little unfair to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, because the Antarctic goes far outside the Antarctic Circle— to South Georgia, 700 miles away, in the same latitude south as Manchester, you go into a different climatic region. The Falklands are like the noble Lord's territory in the north of Scotland— wind, some rain and some sun; very healthy. In South Georgia you find glaciers coming down to the sea. It is a most marvellous
994
and beautiful island, which I hope will also be conserved.
On the south side you have perhaps the richest sea in the world, full of krill, and it is necessary to distinguish between the kinds of krill. As the noble Lord knows, we are talking about euphansia superba, which is quite different from a number of other types of krill, like munida, which I remember blocked the intakes of one ship I was in; it is a sort of lobster krill which is to be found on the other side. The convergence is not on a specific geographical point; it is to be found further south or further north in certain areas, and what they have been seeking to do in this convention is to define these areas and introduce a regime of conservation.
I congratulate the authors of this report in other respects. Some of the economic thinking is extremely interesting. There are certain areas— incidentally, they are swarms of krill, not herds or coveys, or whatever we might call them— where they are to be found in much greater numbers than others. Here I wish to comment on the quantities we are talking about. There may be— as an order of magnitude I do not think it is wrong, although it is not precise— as much as between 500 million and 750 million tons of krill, maybe the figure is even as high as 1, 300 million tons. Birds alone consume approximately 20 million tons of krill, and we are talking— this is what is so interesting in the report— about a maximum, building up over a number of years from the present, something under 200, 000 tons of krill which is taken, to possibly 5 million tons.
I rather share the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, about the killing of whales, and I have been tempted (although noble Lords would perhaps not support me) to say that I would rather take the krill— there are biological reasons for this, which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, gave— because they are a better source of food than whales, if it meant that we no longer slaughtered those intelligent animals as brutally as we are doing, and it is a horror that this should take place. The whales themselves when at their height— and there were over 1 million, it has been estimated— probably consumed about 190 million tons of krill, 12 million tons of squid and nearly 5 million tons of other fish.

995
With their reduced numbers, it has been estimated that they are taking about 40 million tons of krill, but as the noble Ear! said, the crab eater seal has increased in numbers. If you feed animals like human beings they become fertile rather younger, and of course the Minke whale has also increased in number. Thus, we do not know what the surplus is and I shall, if I have time, quote from the report the passage in which they advocate a steady, very cautious build-up in the amount of krill that is taken.
I shall be very sorry if we deny the world, and particularly those parts of it which are starving— I am sure this will appeal to my noble friends Lord Ritchie- Calder and Lord Brockway, as well as others— the opportunity of a source of protein which could be very valuable. Nobody has found a really satisfactory way of processing it and those who have read the report will know that it spoils quickly, and so on. Nevertheless, I believe that those of us who are interested— and the Food and Agriculture Organisation have been particularly concerned with this— are thinking of this as a source of food for feeding some of the starving people of the world.
I wish briefly to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said about the Falkland Islands. I believe it a pity— and this perhaps chimes in with the complaints of the NGOs— that there was no consultation or publicity in the Falkland Islands. In effect, it would appear that they may be losing access to a very valuable resource indeed. I doubt whether in practice they are, but none the less that is at least arguable. This is an area to which the Government might give a little more thought and the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, who knows the Falklands, will understand that well.
I promised to give the Minister 21 minutes, so I shall restrict myself to only a few more points. The question of sovereignty— I do not propose to go into this matter in regard to the Falkland Islands— is a very difficult area for settlement and, as we know, we do not see any signs in this respect. After all, if you look at a map, you will find the economic zones which would be available— only a proportion of the area of the Biomass in the Antarctic— and I should
996
rather see a proper conservation regime and, as the noble Lord knows, there are other things which I believe the Government should be doing about the Falkland Islands.
The decision-making procedure in the present convention is consensus, and provision for objection rather than three- quarter majority voting, and neither decision-making procedure will of itself force a State to refrain from doing what it wants to do. But of course the argument for keeping the so-called club was that they knew what it was about, and we have seen examples in international organisations that people do not know what it is about. There is nothing to stop people acceding to the treaty, and that is laid down in the report. I do not believe the membership restriction provisions are in the slightest more restrictive than in the majority of other fishing conventions; they may appear to be so, but practically, I do not believe they are if one really looks at the criteria.
The great point is that the convention and the British and the Antarctic treaty have provided a reliable, peaceful regime, as my noble friend has pointed out. One has always been nervous about the possible exploitation of minerals in particular. One is nervous about tourists as well. One is, if I may say so, even about the noble Lord when he makes his splendid television films, in that he may indeed be encouraging people to go and pollute the Antarctic, though I do not say that he makes them for that purpose. The fact is that man is going to move into the Antarctic, and we simply cannot waste time bringing into effect strong rules which we hope are to be drawn up under the convention. That is the basic case for the convention now.
I should like to end by repeating my tribute in particular to those who developed the biomass programme, which I commend to noble Lords. There is a whole train of names, right back to the pre-war discovery investigations— men such as Mackintosh and others— and it is essential that the British should continue to play a role in which they are in the lead, and for which I believe they are particularly well fitted. If any noble Lords wish to know anything more, they can join the noble Lord's group, and I am quite sure that he will arrange for a repeat. I am very

997
grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie- Calder. This has been a worthwhile discussion, and I believe that we should be prepared to congratulate those who have in fact done something constructive and useful in a fairly uncomfortable world.
7.1 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I confess to experiencing some degree of surprise when I found myself making ready to answer the debate, having regard to the fact— which several noble Lords have mentioned— that the conference in Canberra ended only yesterday, and of course in the short time since then it has not been possible to make a full appreciation of the proceedings there. I appreciate the vagaries of the short debate procedure, in which we are subject to the ballot, but all the same my hands are rather tied.
It is, I fear, too early to assess the full implications; but according to a first report that I have received from our delegation, the conference may be described as a success and the draft convention has been adopted. At this stage, I do not wish to go further into the details of what was said and done in Canberra, but I welcome the opportunity to make clear the Government's position on the matter that we have been discussing. This may be summed up as follows. We support of course the continuance and development of the Antarctic Treaty system; we wish to see appropriate measures for conservation in the area, and to be sure that any exploitation is conducted rationally and with care; and we wish to assist in the recovery of whale stocks.
Your Lordships will be aware that, since it came into force in 1961, the Antarctic Treaty, to which the United Kingdom is a consultative party, has been remarkably successful in achieving its laudable aims. The treaty encourages scientific co-operation, requires the exchange of information about activities, and promotes the free availability of scientific information. It declares that Antarctica may be used only for peaceful purposes and that the area should not become the object of international discord, and it prohibits any measures of a military nature. It provides for the freedom of any of the consultative parties to inspect the Antarctic facilities of any of the others in order to ensure compliance with the
998
treaty. It prohibits the disposal of radioactive waste, and above all, it sets aside, or "freezes", the question of territorial sovereignty for the duration of the treaty (that is, until 1991) by means of its declaration in Article I.
The treaty also provides for the holding of consultative meetings to make recommendations about
"measures in furtherance of the principles and objectives of the treaty",
which become effective when they have been approved by all the consultative parties.
Twelve countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union, were original signatories of the treaty, and 10 have subsequently acceded. The regime established by the treaty has been remarkably sucessful— this has been commented on by several noble Lords— and the area is currently a demilitarised continent devoted to scientific research. The consultative meetings have led to a series of international agreements to conserve the environment of the area; notably the agreed measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Flora and Fauna (in 1964) and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (in 1972). It is noteworthy also that the convention so recently concluded in Canberra owes its origin to a recommendation made at the Ninth Consultative Meeting of the Antarctic Treaty powers in London in 1977. In all these developments, as in the formluation and negotiation of the Antarctic Treaty itself, the United Kingdom played a leading part.
I should like to turn now to what we mean by conservation, and, equally important, what we do not mean. We do not mean the abandonment of an area to the forces of nature, so that no benefit may be obtained by mankind. That would be an abdication of our duties. We prefer to follow the definition given in the world conservation strategy prepared by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature— namely,
"The management of human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations, while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations.".
These are eminently sensible and practical objectives, and we believe that the convention concluded at Canberra is in full accord with them.

999
I recognise that much interest in the subject under debate derives from the danger that uncontrolled fishing for the shrimp-like krill, the staple food of the baleen whale— as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said— may present for the whale's recovery. However, Britain's record in this regard is a good one. Even before there was a realisation of the effect that extensive whaling might be having, or before it became morally repugnant to butcher these leviathans, Britain, through Falkland Islands legislation, had taken steps to ensure that full use would be made of whale carcasses and thus avoid unnecessary slaughter. In 1937 we played a leading role in the creation of the sadly ill-fated Whaling Convention, which was revised in 1946. Britain stopped all whaling in 1963, and in 1973 banned the import of virtually all whale products. I think I was asked about that by my noble friend Lord Gisborough. We are working for a ban on the import of all primary whale products throughout the European Community, and indeed the Commission has recently published a draft regulation to that end.
It is important to remember that through the 19th century a market developed for the very many useful products to be derived from the whale. Later it became irksome and expensive for the users of those products to find substitutes, and thus dealers had a vested interest in the continuation of the trade. Even today, I understand, some manufacturers are hard put to find a substitute for sperm whale oil for softening certain kinds of leather. However, no such market has developed based on krill. Indeed, although it is fished by the Russians, the Japanese and the Poles, there is some doubt as to whether it can be rendered more generally acceptable as a foodstuff. Not only is it difficult to process (as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, reminded us); it also, I understand, tastes rather nasty—
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but if he is leaving the question of whales and sperm whale oil, I hope he will accept that for a number of years now the Americans have had a complete ban on the importation of sperm whale oil, and effective substitutes for all the uses to which that oil was put have been found by companies in the United States; and so that excuse
1000
for the continuing slaughter which the noble Lord deprecated no longer exists.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, what the noble Lord says may well be right. I am not informed on the position of the American Government in this matter, but I shall certainly look further into that proposition and see whether I can be more helpful to the noble Lord.
On the matter of krill, as I have said, it does not taste very nice. Furthermore, the expense of its harvesting makes it an unlikely candidate for anything other than a foodstuff. I am sorry that I must pour a little cold water on some of the finer flights of fancy that have been suggested as to the scope and scale of its use. At present, the amount of krill taken is not large. It is estimated that in 1978 129, 000 tons were caught. However, we would not be living up to our standards if we were simply to ignore a possible threat to the recovery of the whale, which now brings me to this new convention.
The Canberra Convention contains several important and novel features. It takes as its limits the Antarctic convergence— that is, the northern boundary of the cold Antarctic waters— thus including the entire Antarctic marine ecological system. It sets out to conserve resources within the system as a whole (not simply a particular species or group of species). Parties to the negotiation include both countries that are engaged in exploiting the resources and countries that are not. But it is not exclusive to the present parties. Any country which is interested in engaging seriously in research or harvesting activities related to the living resources of the Antarctic seas may join. It requires that data be published on the catch and fishing effort, on the marine populations and on factors affecting the harvested species and dependent or related species. It requires that regard should be given to the restoration of depleted species, and that co-operative working relationships should be sought with, among others, the International Whaling Commission.
I am well aware that, while welcomed in general terms by those with a close and in some cases professional interest in conservation, there is criticism of some details of the convention. I do not wish to go too deeply into these criticisms, though those of your Lordships who are interested

1001
may wish to know that a number of detailed points were in fact raised and answered in another place on 2nd May. There are, however, two particular questions about the convention which have been asked several times in various forms. They are, briefly: Will the decision-making procedure make the convention ineffective? And: Are the criteria for membership of the commission and the links with the Antarctic Treaty likely to put some potential fishing states off joining?
On decision-making, the convention envisages a consensus procedure. This has been attacked as a weakness by those who believe a three-quarters majority procedure would have been preferable. We should ourselves have preferred a majority system, but we do not see a consensus procedure as a fatal flaw. It is, after all, the method that has been used successfully by the Antarctic Treaty parties for 20 years. I should also remind your Lordships that the International Whaling Commission operated with a three-quarters majority system for 30 years or more, and, sadly, this did not save the whale. Nor, we believe, should the International Whaling Commission, with its large membership, many of them concerned exclusively with conservation, become the pattern for fishing conventions. The usual type of such convention limits its membership to states in the proximity of the area of the convention or actively involved in the fishery. We believe it is right for the membership of this convention to be similarly relevant. We also welcome the links with the Antarctic Treaty, which has been responsible for preserving peace and good order in the area for 20 years. It is only right that states becoming active in the area should accept some of the restraints observed by the Antarctic Treaty powers.
Perhaps I may now turn as quickly as I can to some of the points which have been raised by noble Lords. First, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, asked me (and I think at least one other noble Lord referred to this) why it was that there was so much secrecy attached to these proceedings. Indeed, the British delegation suggested last year that the text should be published, but this met with little support among Antarctic Treaty countries, although, as the noble Lord mentioned, I think it was eventually leaked in any event. But it is usual for
1002
the draft texts of international agreements to be kept confidential while they are under negotiation.
Perhaps I will be excused from commenting in detail on the most interesting and fascinating exposition by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. It would be presumptive, I think, to comment on the remarks which he made, but they certainly contributed much to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Morris, also, referred to the point about the misconception— and it is that— that the recent convention somehow extends the Antarctic Treaty area. I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, explained this fairly effectively and clearly. In fact, the Antarctic Treaty area— that is, the treaty that has existed since 1961— extends from the South Pole to the 60 degrees South parallel, while this new convention extends slightly further, up to the area of the Antarctic convergence, which the noble Lord explained. But there is no question of any change in the sovereignty arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, said— and I made a note of his words— that we are abrogating control of the Falkland Islands Dependencies. I must tell my noble friend that he is quite mistaken about that. There is no question of any change in sovereignty arising from this convention. Furthermore, the Falkland Islands fishing rights in the seas around the dependencies remain unaffected by this new convention. My noble friend went on to give some figures for krill population and krill fishing. My information is that these figures are all considered somewhat unreliable, and I would not wish to confirm or press any of them.
My Lords, I think I have dealt with the main concerns of my noble friend Lord Morris. He asked me about the cost of the commission. During the first two years of its existence, the commission is not expected to cost more than £ 10, 000, and thereafter contributions will be limited to the catch of fishing states. My noble friend also asked me, finally, about ratification procedure. I cannot be precise as to how long it will take the United Kingdom to ratify the convention— there are a number of parliamentary and logistic procedures which have to be gone through before this can be done—

1003
but it is hoped that we shall be able to ratify the convention within 12 months.
The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, mentioned a number of points, some of which referred to public expenditure. I am sorry to tell him that I really have nothing new to tell him about public expenditure following the debate we had, at his instigation, about the external services of the BBC. I must tell him once more that no area of public expenditure is exempt from scrutiny, and I am afraid that that must include the Antarctic survey. But I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord and, indeed, other noble Lords have said.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, put to me a number of detailed points about the convention. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not answer those in detail at this moment, but I will study carefully what he said and will do my best to write to him in due course on this matter. However, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, put some points to me which perhaps I can help him with now, in particular about the omission of nongovernmental organisations from the proceedings in Canberra. There are literally scores of non-governmental organisations concerned directly or indirectly with the recovery of the whale. It was decided that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, which has done such valuable work on the world conservation strategy, should be invited to represent the views of all these non-governmental organisations. The IUCN accepted this invitation, and did so effectively.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I make one point? Of course, SCAR itself is non-governmental, although some people think it is.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for pointing that out, and of course he is entirely right. Several noble Lords, particularly, again, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asked me why Britain was alone in voting against the admission of the Antarctic and Southern Oceans Coalition to the conference. I understand that the reports on this matter are in fact not correct. There was indeed no vote at the conference on this issue, but there was a consensus that non-
1004
governmental organisations, including ASOC, should be represented by the IUCN.
Several noble Lords referred to the report on the Management of the Southern Oceans by the International Institute for Environment and Development which made some reference to the question of the krill. The report by this Institute takes the view that it seems unlikely that the economies of krill fishing will ever lead to the development of a major industry in the area. The southern oceans are remote and hostile and the krill needs prompt processing, as I and others have already pointed out, in order to be used effectively. Another interesting point brought to my attention is that the shell has a high fluorine content, making it a potential health hazard. How much one is to make of that I am not sure. As an animal feed stock or an agricultural fertiliser, it is uncompetitive with traditional materials.
In conclusion, the main point I want to emphasise is that at Canberra and at the six rounds of talks, we were in negotiation with some countries already fishing the area who are not as responsive to public concern as we are in such matters. We have achieved a convention which, like all other international conservation measures, depends on the goodwill of the participants for its success; and one which we believe will work. To have pressed for further and more rigorous measures would have placed the whole negotiations in jeopardy. As so often in international affairs, we have had to balance the best against the good. In this connection, we have achieved the very good; and that is what we set out to do.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Earl Cathcart): My Lords, the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed. Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his Motion?
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TREES (REPLANTING AND REPLACEMENT) BILL [H.L.]
7.22 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.— (Lord Somers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl Cathcart in the Chair.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Lord SOMERS Lord SOMERS moved Amendment No.20:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
(" Exception for thinning of trees
This Act shall not apply where, in wooded areas, thinning of the trees is necessary.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this clause is obvious. Anybody who knows anything about forestry will realise that any wooded area needs thinning out from time to time. It should not involve the necessity to replant. I beg to move.
Lord BIRKETT: In supporting this amendment I should say that I do so only because I think that the Bill will be better with it than without it. Since I have not spoken on this matter before, I should declare not an interest but a widespread concern. The Department of Recreation and Arts of the Greater London Council, of which I am the director, controls a very large number of trees. It controls all the parks within the Greater London Council's control in London and a good deal of open space besides, including a large amount of Green Belt area which is now farmland.
Having said that, I should like to say that it is not on behalf of the Greater London Council that I speak, but on my own behalf. Then I should like to say that my rather grudging remarks about this amendment contain an inkling of my own view of the Bill which, I gather, rather coincides with that of the Government: that it is unnecessary. I do not like to say unkind things about a Bill which is designed to be friendly towards trees but I cannot like it much. I think that this amendment will improve it. I was going to say, unkindly, that I could not imagine why it had not been included in the Bill in the first place; but I recalled that only at the last sitting of this Com- mittee an amendment was agreed whereby the schedule of trees should be removed thereby including (need I say more?)
1006
sycamores. That means that the thinning provision (which I think should have been there, anyway) is all the more important.
My only question in specific terms about the amendment is whether it was necessary to add the words "in wooded areas". I am not sure what is a wooded area and how many trees one needs to make a wooded area. One is not enough. Does two make a wooded area? I ask that question for a particular reason; it is whether an avenue would be considered a wooded area. If one plants an avenue, sometimes, for the good of the public, one plants it double thick knowing full well that after a certain number of years— well after three years— one will cut down half of them in order to encourage the growth of the remainder so as to produce eventually, one hopes, a mature and lofty avenue. If, every time that happens, one is obliged to plant two more trees then that amounts to another avenue; and this goes on mathematically to absurdity.
If it should be said that the Bill says two for one because of the fall-out of new trees planted, it is worth remembering something which I think has not been mentioned in this debate before: that if you plant trees mature enough and with enough care about their protection— as, in many London areas, we must because of the vandalism involved— you may find that two are not necessary to replace one. If "B" and "C"-sized trees, large ones, with good protection, are planted, this may not be necessary. There are other places where you can plant trees, especially if you are a large authority like the Greater London Council, but I can imagine a circumstance in which avenues, if not considered as wooded areas, can be an embarrassment. I wish therefore that the words "in wooded areas" had not been included. Nevertheless, I support the amendment.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I should like to say that I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has said. I think that my noble friend Lord Somers has a good point in this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, made the point for him: that where you plant an avenue expecting one or two to be not so good, you expect them to be thinned out. This is what this does. It enables the local authority to thin out woodland

1007
without the felled thinnings needing to be replaced. As far as I can see, this is a sensible amendment.
Lord SOMERS: I was persuaded at the first part of our Committee stage to include this amendment, but I realise that it has its shortcomings. On the other hand, the question of an avenue is a different one; because if a single tree in an avenue is felled or destroyed I should have thought the obvious intention of whoever is responsible for the avenue is to replace it by planting another of the same species. However, if your Lordships think it is necessary to include "avenues" after "wooded areas", we can do so at the Report stage. Meanwhile, I should have thought that the clause as it stands would be satisfactory.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Somers, whether there is any definition of "thinning" of trees— how thin? This is not an entirely frivolous intervention. I wonder if thought might be given to that between now and Report stage. I do not know whether any definition is possible; but I can imagine people having different ideas of thinness in respect of a woodland. It might be a convenient way of avoiding what the noble Lord has in mind by over-emphasising how thin the thinness should be.
Lord SOMERS: May I point out to the noble and learned Lord that thinning is not the same thing as slimming? He may have got the two mixed up. I should have thought that in the circumstances "thinning" would be an obvious word to anyone responsible for wooded lands.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I should say that I might have given your Lordships the wrong impression. When I took the case of the avenue, I was taking the case of, say, sugar beet, where one plants more than one intends to keep at the end of the day and one thins out, leaving only the best. I was not intending to take avenues as the acme of what Lord Somers was saying. I take his point about wooded areas and thinning. I still think it is a sensible amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Lord SOMERS Lord SOMERS moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
(" Exception for engineering works.
This Act shall not apply where areas of more than one acre are being cleared for the purpose of engineering works.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is equally obvious. This is simply to make way for the many engineering organisations which are destroying trees in their own interest and, one must assume, in the interests of the community as well, and obviously do not want to have to replant them. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I would have thought that this was a very sensible amendment. Local authorities might be in difficulties if they had engineering works taking place in their area and had to fell trees because of it and then had to have a replacement for trees. If a major new road is going through an area where there are trees, where does the local authority put the replacement trees? This is what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, is aiming to deal with.
Lord BIRKETT: I, too, support the amendment, again rather grudgingly. I wish that it had not said over one acre. I cannot see that the situation is any better in three-quarters of an acre than it is in an acre. I wish I were surer of what "engineering works" are by definition— of where engineering stops and building begins, or indeed any form of beneficial works begin and engineering works stop.
Lord SOMERS: Again, I think it is merely a matter of choice. I chose the area of one acre simply to ensure that the provision referred to major engineering works such as the noble Lord referred to— road building or something like that. I do not think that just clearing a small area should be included.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On Question, Whether the Schedule shall be agreed to?
Lord ELWYN-JONES: I am puzzled by a series of asterisks against numbers on the Marshalled List. I must not

1009
disclose my ignorance in the field of tree felling any further, but I do not think it has anything much to do with tree felling. No doubt the noble Lord who is dealing with this matter from the Government Front Bench will explain exactly what this series of stars indicates.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I thought it was a very interesting pattern. It looks like a forest or orchard grove. I would have thought that the noble Lord had amendments down which have now been withdrawn. But I think they make a very pretty pattern.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS
7.35 p.m.
Lord HOOSON Lord HOOSON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that the Home Secretary's undertaking to invite a senior member of the judiciary "to review on a continuing basis the purposes, procedures, conditions and safeguards governing the interception of communications … and to report to the Prime Minister" fulfils the United Kingdom's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, having regard to the opinion of the European Court delivered on 6th September 1978 on the subject of German wire taps. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have raised this Unstarred Question because it is clear to every lawyer— and to every non- lawyer for that matter— who has read the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Robert Megarry, in Malone's case, and the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Klass v The Federal Republic of Germany, that we have for some years in this country been— and we continue to be— in breach of our international obligations because of the manner in which telephone and mail interceptions are carried out.
Last month the Home Secretary undertook to do something about it by appointing a senior member of the judiciary to oversee the conduct of these interceptions. I welcome the concern which has led him to take such a step, but I seriously doubt whether the reform that he has in mind will in fact satisfy our international
1010
obligations. Rather than have the United Kingdom Government once again found to be at fault by the court in Strasbourg, I would wish the Home Secretary to seize this opportunity to get the matter right once and for all so that the citizens of this country may be accorded their full right to privacy and to the individuality of their domestic life in so far as that may be guaranteed to them, in a way which gives proper weight to our interests in combating crime and terrorist activity.
Let there be no doubt about the ambit of this debate. I am not suggesting for a moment that the use of telephone tapping, mail interception and methods of electronic surveillance should be stopped. These methods of crime detection obviously have a part to play at a time when the sophistication of international criminals requires police and security authorities to adopt sophisticated methods to uncover and to combat their activities.
The problem is that the unrestricted and particularly the unaccountable use of such methods does put innocent people at risk, risk of having their privacy, their family life and their intimate communications rifled and then put in storage by the State. The problem is to get the balance right: to permit the police to conduct serious investigations untrammelled by petty interference; but at the same time with due regard for the rights of possibly innocent people. How is that balance to be struck? I suggest by allowing the police to use these devices, but by restricting the cases where they may do so to those which are genuinely serious ones, and by providing a system of safeguards to ensure, so far as is humanly possible, that their use is not abused.
One can ask the question: How does our present system measure up to this standard? The answer is that it does not. The White Paper makes clear that the Home Secretary may authorise interception to investigate any crime which would probably on a first conviction carry a sentence of three years' imprisonment. I would hardly describe that class of offences thus defined as "really serious". But worse is to come: these methods may also be used against offences of lesser gravity— that is, really minor offences— whenever large numbers of people are involved or violence is apprehended. As I read that part of the White Paper, it offers a blank cheque for the use of

1011
telephone tapping to monitor legitimate political protest and legitimate industrial action. We all know that violence may flare up on a picket line quite spontaneously, and that minor offences of obstructing the highway are committed by almost every public protest meeting. It would be quite wrong to permit surveillance devices to be used against genuine protest movements.
What is more, our system has no legal safeguards at all in this context. That was the finding of the court in the Malone case to which I shall refer in a moment. An innocent person, who has had his private conversations recorded, circulated and then put in storage cannot sue for damages. He cannot obtain an order of the court whereby they must be des- troyed. He has no redress at all.
Let me explain what I mean by "legal safeguards", by reference to the measures which are enforced in West Germany. These measures were approved— but I think only just— as adequate by the Euro- pean Court in the Klass case, which is referred to in my Question. They amount really to a "bottom line", the very minimum protection which a citizen should be afforded by a government which is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.
There are seven safeguards. First, the class of case in which intercepts may be ordered is narrowly defined. They must be cases which threaten an imminent danger to public order. That is the definition. Secondly, if no legal proceedings ensue after an intercept has been installed all the evidence of it must— and the word is "must"— be destroyed. There is no storage of transcripts, no ' information internally recorded on computers. Thirdly, the operation of the intercept is closely controlled by a person who is described as— and here I quote— "qualified for judicial office". He does not merely sit back and read reports. He decides whether an intercept is proper. He reads the transcripts which result and he decides whether, and to what extent, the information obtained in it should be turned over to the police or to the security service. In other words, he ensures that only material which is relevant to their inquiries should be made available. Fourthly, the whole process is supervised by a parliamentary committee
1012
on which Opposition parties are proportionately represented. This ensures that there is a real democratic oversight of electronic surveillance.
Fifthly, the subject of an intercept must be notified of the fact after it has ended if that notification would not jeopardise continuing security operations. Sixthly, anyone who suspects that he is the victim of surveillance may complain to the constitution court, which has power to investigate and, in proper cases, to order the discontinuance of any unjustified surveillance. Seventhly, any victim has the right to challenge the legality of the surveillance in civil proceedings and to bring an action for damages and for the destruction of records.
Those are just seven of the safeguards offered by West Germany. There are in fact several others, but clearly they offer the sort of protection which British common and statute law has never yet contemplated. Your Lordships may think they are over-elaborate, but let me stress again that they only just passed muster in the European Court in its judgment of 6th September 1978.
We are a signatory to this convention. How is the judgment on West Germany going to apply to us? This was the matter which was considered by Sir Robert Megarry in his judgment on the case of Malone, delivered on 28th February last year. He found it abundantly clear that our system is a breach of Article 8 of the convention which guarantees individual rights to private life and personal correspondence.
Let me read a few sentences from his judgment and, for the purposes of the record, they are taken from Volume II All England Reports 1979, at page 648. I want to read a few sentences from that judgment. After going through the West German safeguards, the Vice-Chancellor said:
"Not a single one of these safeguards is to be found as a matter of established law in England, and only a few corresponding provisions exist as a matter of administrative procedure ".
He went on:
"At the same time, it is impossible to read the judgment in the Klass case without it becoming abundantly clear that a system which has no legal safeguards whatever has small chance of satisfying the requirements of that court, whatever administrative provisions there may be ".
Then he discusses the German position, and goes on:
"In England, on the other hand, the system in operation provides no such independence and contains no provision whatever for subsequent notification. Even if the system were to be considered adequate in its conditions, it is laid down merely as a matter of administrative procedure, so that it is unenforceable in law, and as a matter of law could at any time be altered without warning or subsequent notification. Certainly in law any ' adequate and effective safeguards against abuse' are wanting. In this respect English law compares most unfavourably with West German law: this is not a subject on which it is possible to feel any pride in English law ".
These are very serious words from the Vice-Chancellor. He goes on:
"I therefore find it impossible to see how English law could be said to satisfy the requirements of the convention, as interpreted in the Klass case, unless that law not only prohibited all telephone tapping save in suitably limited classes of case, but also laid down detailed restrictions on the exercise of the power in those limited classes ".
Then he went on— and I shall quote two sentences from a later paragraph slightly out of context here—
"I would only add that, even if it was not clear before, this case seems to me to make it plain that telephone tapping is a subject which cries out for legislation ".
Later he said:
"I would have thought that in any civilised system of law the claims of liberty and justice would require that telephone users should have effective and independent safeguards against possible abuses ".
The Vice-Chancellor then went on to make it clear that only legislation would satisfy the convention's requirements. The common law cannot assist; nor can the addition of some extra-legal device. There must, he stressed, be some effective and independent safeguards which must be laid down by Parliament. This is what really concerns me about the announcement by the Home Secretary. He will not legislate. Instead, he will invite a senior member of the judiciary— and here I quote—
"to review on a continuing basis the purposes, procedures, conditions and safeguards governing the interception of communications and to report to the Prime Minister ".
This, I think, is just not good enough. It is a rejection of the judgment in the Ma/one case. It is a slap in the face for the Vice-Chancellor and his demand for effective legislation. It is a woeful and deplorable attempt to ignore the lessons of both the Malone and Klass cases, and
1014
to defy the letter and spirit of the European Convention on Human Rights. It may buy a few more years for this country, until the Malone case reaches Strasbourg, where it is undoubtedly going; but we will once again have been found in breach, and knowingly and deliberately in breach, of our obligations.
The Home Secretary's judicial monitor has no power to control or to remedy. His task is merely to review and report. He has no authority to correct abuses or even to publicise them. He is not accountable to Parliament; he will merely write secret reports to the Prime Minister. The convention surely requires a system of safeguards which both restrict and control. The Home Office suggests a personage who has no legal basis, no authority and no power. The proposal seems to me contemptible: at least it is in contempt of the European Court.
There are other problems, too, and very important ones. I am not in favour of embroiling members of the judiciary in politics, and the idea of using a sitting judge to deflect criticisms of the police and Government fills me with foreboding. Supposing he does approve a telephone tap on, say, trade unionists planning a strike, and then finds himself a few days later in his normal capacity hearing an injunction application designed to abort that very strike. And how is he possibly to keep tabs on 500 continuing telephone intercepts while at the same time carrying on his normal judicial caseload? Is it seemly, I ask your Lordships, for a judge who must uphold in court the tradition of judicial independence from Government, to have secret access to the Prime Minister and the security services? I think it is a misuse of judge power.
I appreciate the viewpoint of the Government that judges are thought to be entirely independent and to enjoy warm regard in this country but, quite frankly, the German system avoids these difficulties by legislating for a full-time position occupied by a person qualified for judicial office, not a part-time extra-legal job, sloughed off on to a sitting member of the judiciary. It puts the judiciary in an impossible position. One know that judges have their own political views before being appointed— they never express them when appointed— but I can imagine individual judges having different views on what is

1015
proper or not proper in telephone tapping, and I do not think judges should be placed in this position.
It is not a matter for judges. It is a matter for Parliament, and we should be shirking our duties to allow a Home Secretary to get away with what I regard as an improper and hamfisted attempt to avoid the obligations of the European Convention. We must have legislation, not promises about judicial monitors. We need a statute which narrowly defines the class of permissible intercepts, which provides remedies for abuse and which sets up an independent authority which not merely monitors but actively controls. More importantly, the statutory system must be accountable to this Parliament.
Decisions to tap telephones, to open mail and to install bugging devices may be directed against bank robbers and terrorists, and we should all approve and applaud. But they may also be directed against political protesters, against trade unionists and against members of groups which are perceived by some, but not by others, as subversive. These decisions must be made in secret, but the only way to satisfy the public that they are made fairly and responsibly is to give Parliament some means of reviewing them. I commend to your Lordships the West German system, whereby an all-party parliamentary committee reviews the operation of that country's bugging apparatus.
I ask the Government not only to legislate, but to set up as a matter of urgency a small committee— say, of two members of the Government, two members of the Labour Party and one Liberal or something of that kind— to fill the role so improvidently given to a judicial monitor. The committee would oversee the system and report not in secret to the Prime Minister, but in public to Parliament. I am amazed that the Home Secretary, who was, after all, in receipt of a very detailed, publicly delivered advice by the Vice-Chancellor in the form of his judgment in the Malone case, has chosen to ignore that advice from a highly respected judicial figure, and is simply inviting condemnation by the European Court in a few years' time. That is why I have raised this Question. I think it is a matter which should be publicly debated and I hope that it will also, after the debate here, be debated in another place.
7.53 p.m.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for initiating this debate on the Question whether the Government's White Paper on the interception of communications in this country, and the announcement of the Home Secretary concerning the proposed use of a senior member of the judiciary to monitor what is happening, fulfils the obligations of the United Kingdom under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly, as the noble Lord has said, in the light of the decision in the Klass case.
I myself have up till now resisted the incorporation in our law of the European Convention on Human Rights, but on each occasion I have stressed how important it is that our law and our practices should comply with the provisions of the European Convention and, where they do not comply, that Parliament should remedy the defect. For my part, I should greatly have preferred speaking after the noble Lord who is to reply on behalf of the Government, so that one might know what answer the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who is always generous with information and in wishing to help the House, will have to the serious points that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson.
I think, as he has said, that there is not only the judicial concern expressed in the Chancery Division— not always notorious for plunging into the public and political arena— and it is a very grave matter indeed that the Vice-Chancellor has said that the British practice in this field fails to measure up to the standards of the Convention, but there is also public concern about the use of telephone tapping and the interception of letters.
Of course, in these days of sophisticated, and sometimes internationally inspired, crime and terrorism the state, our Government have the right to defend the people of this country by appropriate means against the sophisticated actions of the villains, who seek not only to undermine the authority of the state itself by terrorist action but also to commit grave crimes against our people. However, the use of intercepts should be undertaken only if it is strictly necessary to protect national security or public safety, and when

1017
adequate safeguards exist against abuse of the procedures that are available.
I am bound to say that I share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, about the criteria for the grant of an interception warrant set out in paragraph 4 of the White Paper, which reads:
"'Serious crime' is defined as an offence for which a man with no previous record could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to three years' imprisonment, or "—
then follows the words—
"an offence of lesser gravity in which either a large number of people is involved or there is good reason to apprehend the use of violence".
What has the Home Secretary in mind in that field? What kind of situation is contemplated there? The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has conjured up the fear that that extension may be directed against public demonstation, and those who exercise democratic rights in assembling a large number of people together in lawful protest. I think we are entitled to know what is in mind in that extension of the criteria for the grant of a warrant.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has read out the seven safeguards which exist in Germany in respect of the use of this executive power to interfere with the citizen's right of privacy. Perhaps it is not surprising that Germany, which suffered under the Gestapo with all the terrible powers of an oppressive police state, should have been determined that nothing of that kind should happen again. It may well be that the safeguards which have been thought right to be introduced in Germany are not exactly what is required here.
But one comes against the response of the Government to both the Megarry judgment and the Klass judgment; namely, the proposal that a senior judge should be given monitoring powers in this field. It is only fair to say that the Klass judgment itself commends judicial control as offering the best guarantee of independence, impartiality and proper procedure. It may well be, therefore, that the Home Secretary and the Government have thought that this was the answer. But, of course, that is only part of the safeguards and the supervisory control which the Klass judgment had in mind.
In any event, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, about the use
1018
of a High Court judge, not a retired one, to perform duties which inevitably, I think, will involve political value judgments. The less we plunge the judiciary into such fields as that, the better, I believe, for the independence of the judiciary and the better for the relationships between Government and Parliament and the judicial Bench. I am bound to say that I wonder, if this work is to be done thoroughly, how it can fit into the carrying on of his normal duties by a judge of the High Court or the Court of Appeal. I suspect that the arm of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would have to be twisted pretty sharply to get his consent to making available a judge for what, if this procedure were to be even remotely effective, would involve an almost full-time commitment.
The concerns which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, are well founded and the House will want to hear what the Home Office has to say about the matter. I shall not detain the House any longer, save to say that I share the concern and the doubts which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. We shall await with impatience what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has to say. This is only the beginning of the discussion in Parliament. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, it calls for serious and deep thought. It is a difficult and delicate field. As I indicated, we are dealing on the one side with a lot of powerful and dangerous men whose activities we want to check up on, while on the other we are dealing with the fundamental right of the subject to privacy, a right which has long been safeguarded in this country.
8.2 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for asking this Unstarred Question this evening, because he has expressed concern about the publication of the White Paper on 1st April by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I believe that I can meet many of the points of concern which the noble Lord has expressed.
The provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the particular case to which the noble Lord

1019
refers in his Unstarred Question formed a substantial part of the plaintiff's argument in Malone v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, which was heard before the Vice-Chancellor last year— a case to which both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord have referred. As your Lordships will probably be aware, following the Vice-Chancellor's judgment in that case, a study was put in hand by the previous Administration and was continued by the present Government. The issues to which the noble Lord has drawn attention were much in the mind of the Government in carrying out that study, the outcome of which was reported by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in his statement on 1st April accompanying the publication of the White Paper to which I have referred.
The Vice-Chancellor in his judgment said that it was not his responsibility to give a ruling as to whether our arrangement would be considered to meet the requirements of the European Convention. And, of course, nor is it within the Government's power or responsibility to do so. Only the Strasbourg institutions can do that. But it is of course our belief and contention that our arrangements do satisfy the European Convention, and if necessary we would make good that contention before the competent tribunal in Strasbourg.
A matter which neither the noble and learned Lord nor the noble Lord has mentioned is that Mr. Malone has made an application under the convention, and the proceedings are now pending before the commission. In these circumstances, I hope the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord will agree with me that it would obviously not be right to expect me to go into detail on the arguments arising in the case.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, may I say that I had no knowledge that there was any matter further pending, and I can quite understand any reticence which in those circumstances the Minister may seek to exercise.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I must admit that I was advised about this only recently before the debate in your Lordships' House this evening.
1020
In case the noble Lord feels that therefore I wish to finish my speech at that point, I should like briefly in response to the spirit of the Unstarred Question— I think the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, made his general case clear at the beginning of his speech before amplifying it as he went along— to try to remind the House of why, in the Government's view, our arrangements, as described in the White Paper, reinforced as they are now to be by the introduction of a continuing judicial monitor, fully protect the liberty of the subject. That, of course, is the purpose of the European Convention.
First, there is full public knowledge of the principles, procedures, conditions and safeguards under which interception is carried out. The arrangements were first set out in the Birkett Report of 1957 and they were fully explained in my right honourable friend's statement on 1st April. The White Paper, published on that day, brings up to date, so the Government believe, comprehensively the arrangements which were described in the Birkett Report.
Secondly, the arrangements ensure strict control by Ministers of the process of interception. Every case has to be personally authorised by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary or, in Scotland, by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made clear on 1st April, he considers every application extremely carefully before he puts his signature to it. The Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for his actions and I think it is a well recognised and accepted convention that Parliament places a great deal of personal trust in the Home Secretary of the day, on the understanding that he is personally accountable to Parliament for the way in which he discharges his responsibility. This, to my mind, is the reality behind parliamentary control over interception.
But there is a third point— and it is, I think, of immense importance in our system— that is based on what I would call the separation of powers. The agencies that require the product of interception— the Post Office which carries out interception and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State who authorises interception— are all independent of each other. The agencies cannot carry out

1021
interception on their own account. The Post Office will not act without the authority of the Secretary of State because, if they did, they would be in breach of the law. And the Secretary of State, as I have said, will not authorise interception otherwise than in accordance with the principles, procedures, conditions and safeguards laid down.
Fourthly, as my right honourable friend said in another place on 1st April, the Government are committed to informing Parliament of any changes made in these principles, procedures, conditions and safeguards. There is a final and a fifth point, which I should like to put to the House. It is the appointment of a senior member of the judiciary to act as an independent monitor. I think that this will provide an additional safeguard, an extra assurance, if one is needed, that this power is exercised responsibly and in accordance with the agreed principles and procedures by all concerned with it.
The noble Lord in his speech made various assertions about the position of the independent monitor, and the noble and learned Lord also expressed certain disquiet about the position of the independent monitor, so may I make clear the Government's view of this appointment. The judge's terms of reference will be wide-ranging. His first report will be in effect a comprehensive review of the arrangements, and it will be published and Parliament will be informed of any subsequent findings of a general nature. The learned judge will have the right of access to papers, as I think I made clear in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in this House on 3rd April. The judge will be a continuous and independent check that interception is being carried out in accordance with the established purposes and procedures. His function is to reinforce the arrangements and provide an additional safeguard. That will reinforce and not weaken or substitute for the personal responsibility of the Home Secretary.
Thus I submit to the House that our arrangements are, as the Vice-Chancellor concluded in his judgment in the Malone case, in accordance with the law of the land. They provide proper protection for the liberty of the citizen and they incorporate what is, in our tradition, the best possible guarantee of that, in the shape of the ultimate responsibility of my right
1022
honourable friend the Secretary of State to Parliament.
Lord HOOSON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening, will he address his mind to the question which has been raised by my noble and learned friend and myself about the probability of the judge involved becoming in the course of years the butt of political criticism?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, in the light of what I have endeavoured to say to the House this evening I do not think that is a practical proposition and I do not accept the proposition which the noble Lord has put to me in that respect.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is concluding his speech at that point, but may I ask him to comment on the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and myself; namely, the criteria set out in paragraph 4 of the White Paper, which includes intervention in respect of an offence where either a large number of people may be involved or there is good reason to apprehend the use of violence? That troubles both of us.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, all that is actually new in paragraph 4 as compared with the Birkett Report is the reference to cases where:
"there is good reason to apprehend the use of violence".
Those words are new. The prevention of violence must always be a primary concern of the authorities. That is why those words have been injected into the White Paper.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening again, what troubled me, at any rate, is this: "an offence of lesser gravity" in which a larger number of people is involved, and where apparently there is no element of violence or apprehension of that in the picture. That may be wrong— I do not know.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think if I start to cross swords with the noble and learned Lord I shall get into deeper and deeper water. All I think that I ought to say and can say is that these

1023
criteria must be read together with all the criteria which are laid out on page 2 of the White Paper. If one takes the criteria together I think they make sense, and just sense, which the Government believe the White Paper makes.
Lord HOOSON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening again, this is very important. In paragraph 4 of the White Paper, it says:
"could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to three years' imprisonment, or an offence of lesser gravity in which either a large number of people is involved or there is good reason to apprehend the use of violence".
It is not "and there is good reason to apprehend the use of violence".
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether we are straying from the bounds of order. I am not trying to protect myself in saying that, but we are on an Unstarred Question and I had finished my speech. All that I think I ought to say to the noble Lord in case, as I said, I get into water in which I am out of my depth, is that the words which I read out originally in reply to the noble and learned Lord— because I was reading from a note which I had in my hand— I think hold good in reply to the final question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. It was for the reason which I gave to the noble and learned Lord that the words which are new in paragraph 4 have been injected into the White Paper. I am sorry, my Lords, but I really do not think I can go further than that this evening.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported form the Joint Committee without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
  WALES: PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
  WALES: PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
  RE-EMPLOYMENT: BENEFIT TO THE EXCHEQUER
  RE-EMPLOYMENT: BENEFIT TO THE EXCHEQUER