Sitting of 6 November 1980

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
TYNE AND WEAR BILL [Lords]
Order for Third Reading read.

Clause 2
  INTERPRETATION
  Amendment made: page 5, line 3, leave out "331" and insert "329".—[Mr. Goodlad.]
Clause 10

  CONTROL OF DOGS IN CERTAIN AREAS
  Amendment made: page 12, line 22, leave out "331" and insert "329".[Mr. Goodlad.]
  Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (SUSPENSION)
Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [4th November] as relates to the County of Kent Bill [Lords], the Derbyshire Bill [Lords], the East Sussex Bill [Lords] and the Humberside Bill [Lords] be now considered.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Ordered,
That a message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Minimum Lending Rate
    Mr. Newensasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on minimum bank lending rate in the current economic climate.
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce the present level of interest rates.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): It is our firm intention that interest rates should come down from their current level as soon as circumstances make that possible, but the timing and size of any change will be governed by the requirements of the Government's monetary objectives.
    Mr. Newens: Does the Chancellor accept that the present penal level of interest rates is imposing a catastrophic burden on industry and is making recovery impossible for many firms at any future date? Does he recognise that unless a cut of perhaps 4 or 5 per cent. is made in the minimum bank lending rate forthwith, he will have destroyed many industries and made recovery impossible?
    Sir G. Howe: I do not accept the points put forward by the hon. Gentleman. As I have already said, it is our firm intention that interest rates should come down from their current level as soon as possible, but it would be foolish to believe that that would give rise to expectations of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has given.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Chancellor aware that his present monetary policies are just not working? Does he not know that throughout this country industry is collapsing and that even the most loyal of Tory Party Supporters—Tory businessmen—are now deserting him? When will he start to fight for the survival, not the destruction, of British industry?
    Sir G. Howe: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that probably the single

    1441
    most important cause of difficulty for British industry has been the high rate of inflation and that one of the most significant signs of success of the Government's policies is the pace at which inflation is now coming down. When we came into office it was rising at about 14 per cent. a year over the preceding six months. It is now moving at about the same pace. The difference is that when we came into office the rate was high and rising and now it is on the way down. That is a firm sign of the success of the Government's policies.
    Mr. Latham: If we are to have special factors every month, how will we ever get MLR down?
    Sir G. Howe: There is no question of special factors every month. It is our firm intention that interest rates should come down as soon as that is compatible with the requirements of our monetary objectives.
    Mr. Henley: Does not the Chancellor recognise that interest rates have now been at a record level in Britain for 12 months and that the only effect has been to push up the value of the pound and to force companies to borrow more to finance the cost of record interest rates? Does he accept the view, now widespread in the City of London, that he could cut interest rates by 4 per cent. without sending up the money supply one jot?
    Sir G. Howe: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his success thus far and express the hope that—[Interruption] The right hon. Gentleman might be generous enough to allow me to say that I express the hope that, for one reason or another, this will be the last time that he appears at Treasury Question Time in his present capacity.
    Mr. Healey: Now answer the question.
    Sir G. Howe: It is our objective and our intention to secure a reduction of interest rates as soon as that is compatible with the achievement of our monetary policies. But the right hon. Gentleman knows that a number of factors have to be taken into account concerning that. He also knows that it is not possible to dissociate entirely the level of interest rates from the level of inflation rates. He knows that there is a relationship between them in other countries, which is clear and evi-
    1442
    dent. He knows also that if one is considering the impact on the competitiveness of British industry, it is right to say that over the last 18 months competitiveness has been more damaged by high levels of pay settlements than by the level of the E. sterling.
    Mr. Healey: First, may I reciprocate the compliment and express the hope that the Conservative lobbyists are right in saying that the Chancellor is due for the sack in the next few weeks because of the failure of his policies?
    On the question of interest rates, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the question that I put to him? Does he not accept the view, which is now widespread in the City, that he could cut interest rates by 4 per cent. without increasing the money supply? Also, does he accept the view expressed by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday that the major factor now in crucifying British industry is the level of the exchange rate, due largely to the level of interest rates, which he refuses to reduce?
    Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Gentleman has apparently yet again misunderstood what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, because what she said was precisely the opposite. More than half of the loss of competitiveness since the beginning of 1979——
    Mr. Healey: Answer the question.
    Sir G. Howe:—has been due to the level of pay settlements rather than to the level of interest rates. As to the other half of the right hon. Gentleman's question, interest rates have an effect over a period in lowering the rate of monetary growth and so lowering the rate of inflation.
    Mr. Eggar: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied with the current growth of borrowing by the corporate sector? Does he feel that this growth is in any way affected by the present high level of interest rates?
    Mr. Healey: Listen to Nigel.
    Sir G. Howe: It is, of course, possible, as I have already stated, that interest rates cause additions to company borrowing in the short run; but over the medium run and longer run the level of interest

    1443
    rates reduces bank lending by the corporate sector as by any other.

    £1 Coin
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to announce the result of the Treasury's study of the possible minting of a £1 coin.
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to announce the results of his review of currency in the United Kingdom and the date for the introduction of a £1 coin especially in the light of further recent representations on this matter including that of London Transport.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on 24 July.
    Mr. Whitehead: As, under the present Government, the pound has now fallen to about a quarter of its value 10 years ago. is it not time that we got rid of the grubby £1 note and minted a coin, as 12 other European countries already have, to that value or more, which would have a lifetime expectancy much longer than that of the £1 note and would no doubt be known in public parlance—a small, almost valueless coin—as the "Thatcher"?
    Mr. Lawson: That was a rather laboured supplementary question. The reply to which I referred made clear that the. matter is under consideration.
    Mr. Janner: What representations has the Minister received from London Transport and what will he do as a result?
    Mr. Lawson: London Transport has made clear that it is in favour of the £1 coin. We have received a number of other representations. All those representations are being taken into account in the consideration which, as I have said, is being given to this matter.
    Mr. Marlow: If and when a £1 coin is introduced, will my hon. Friend take care to ensure that it is produced in metric measure so as not to give offence to our partners in Europe?
    Mr. Lawson: I note what my hon. Friend has said and the deep sincerity with which he uttered it.

    Economic Policies
    Mr. Dormandasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the progress of the Government's economic policies.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the progress of his economic policies.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Inflation is now falling and this will help to restore confidence and lay the foundation for a stronger economy in future.
    Mr. Dormand: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the fundamental point of his policy is the control of the money supply. Will he confirm this week's news that the money supply has increased by 2 per cent. up to 15 October? Will he go further and admit that there are some factors quite outside his control which affect the money supply considerably? In those circumstances, is it not nonsense to place so much emphasis on the money supply itself? Will he change his policies before it is too late?
    Sir G. Howe: No, Sir. In continuing to emphasise the importance of monetary policy for the conquest of inflation, I am echoing precisely the policies followed by my predecessor. It is one of the points on which he was absolutely clear and explicit on a number of occasions, and quite rightly. The achievement of proper control of the money supply is essential for the conquest of inflation.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Chancellor aware that over 2 million unemployed and the very many on short-time working on both sides of industry, as indicated by the CBI and the TUC, are certainly not satisfied with the progress of the economy? Is the Chancellor also aware that if other Conservative Members of Parliament spoke up like the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and criticised the disastrous policies of the Chancellor's administration, they would be putting loyalty to the country before loyalty to the Prime Minister?
    Sir G. Howe: I do not know about loyalty to any particular individual I

    1445
    know about the importance of loyalty to the achievement of policies that are consistent and necessary for the country. The most important of those objectives is the reduction of inflation. Like any other hon. Member of this House, I am concerned about the level of unemployment. But one must remember that the level of unemployment is high and rising in many other countries, and that other countries beside our own are affected by present world recessionary conditions. As Opposition Members often emphasise, it is not possible to set about conquering unemployment if one turns back from an effective policy to beat inflation.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the objectives of Government economic policy is to encourage the purchase of British goods and British services? With that in mind, can he say when we shall have an announcement to the effect that, in order to set an example in that respect. the Inland Revenue computer contract will be given to ICL?
    Sir G. Howe: That is not a question arising out of the question that I have just been posed. Questions about that topic are already on the Order Paper for answer today. In that and in every other respect, we attach importance to an enlightened and effective public sector purchasing policy, giving preference to British goods where that is compatible with the standards already enunciated.
    Mr. Healey: Does the Chancellor accept that the recent fall in the annual rate of inflation cannot be due to the success of his monetary policy, since he admitted yesterday that he has overshot by a factor of more than 100 per cent. the target which he set himself? Does not the Chancellor agree that that is due to the excessive level of the pound? Does he share the view of Mr. Frank Cassell, given to the Select Committee in July, that if the pound were at a level at which it was not crucifying British industry, inflation would be over 20 per cent. now?
    Sir G. Howe: I cannot accept any linkages of that kind. Of course it is clear that one of the factors that has contributed to the lower rate of inflation—we should not overlook this—is the present level of the £ sterling. It is equally clear—one should not gainsay this—that the
    1446
    importance of monetary policy as part of the policy against inflation cannot be unsaid.
    Mr. Body: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that he will not be satisfied with economic policies until he has succeeded in balancing the budget so that revenue matches expenditure? Will he therefore tell his Cabinet colleagues who oppose any spending cuts that the only honourable course for them to take is to stump the country and argue for a higher rate of taxation?
    Sir G. Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. The Government's view on the importance of securing effective control over borrowing and spending has been set out in the medium-term financial strategy, which was published at the time of the Budget. My hon. Friend will see the importance that we attach to progress in that direction. That is why effective control over public spending is so crucial to the control of interest rates and inflation.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: As the Government's targets for the growth in money supply have now lost any credibility as a firm and precise guide to those involved in pay bargaining, what will the right hon. and learned Gentleman put in their place to guide those now involved in pay negotiations?
    Sir G. Howe: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. Monetary targets remain important. It is equally clear that there are a thousand reasons why those concerned with pay bargaining should achieve settlements that are compatible with what employers and the nation can afford, and that are also compatible with preventing any further increase in unemployment. It is crucial to underline the link between unemployment and pay bargaining.

    Inflation
    Mr. Parryasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Biffen): The retail price index rose 15·9 per cent. in the 12 months to September.
    Mr. Parry: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Chancellor of

    1447
    the Exchequer took charge of the Treasury 18 months ago, inflation was in single figures? When will the rate of inflation be reduced to single figures? Does the Government's strategy for reducing inflation mean control of public sector wages, such as those of railwaymen, firemen, and other public employees? Will such people be the whipping boys for that policy?
    Mr. Biffen: When the Government came into office inflation was rising sharply. Inflation is falling——
    Mr. Healey: Reading.
    Mr. Biffen: I am not reading. I carry these words in my heart. Inflation is falling, but I do not wish to anticipate when the rate of inflation will reach single figures. The hon. Gentleman will realise that the Government set external financing limits for the nationalised industries and cash limits for local government and central Government expenditure. Those limits give general guidance as to the amounts available for public sector pay.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), wrote an article in July, entitled "Why inflation will not fall"? In the light of that forecast and of events since then, will my right hon. Friend be putting any money on the right hon. Gentleman in the current leadership stakes?
    Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman has not merely written to the nation giving his forecast, he has stated in debate that the Treasury forecast of 16+ per cent. inflation by the fourth quarter of this year would be exceeded. He quoted the figure of 20 per cent. On that basis, I shall make no comment. Doubtless Labour Members will draw their own conclusions when they come to make their judgments.
    Mr. Healey: As I know that the right hon. Gentleman pays immense respect to his civil servants, may I ask him to confirm the view of Mr. Frank Cassell, given to the Select Committee in July, that inflation would be 5 per cent. higher if the pound were at a level at which British industry could compete with foreign industry?
    Mr. Biffen: If the right hon. Gentleman states that Mr. Cassell said those words to the Select Committee, I accept that that is so.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend continue to impress on people that if we want to re-create the confidence necessary for investment and for more jobs, we must continue to hold that fighting inflation is the number one priority?
    Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly do my modest best, and I shall start with the levels of public spending.
    Mr. Jay: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has arrayed against his policies the TUC, the CBI, the chairman of ICI, two former Tory Prime Ministers and the Secretary of State for Defence, does he think that he might be wrong?
    Mr. Biffen: The more the right hon. Gentleman elaborated that list, the more confidence I gained in my right hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on getting the rate of inflation well below the level predicted by the Opposition Front Bench? Given the remarks made by his right hon. and learned Friend, what average level of pay settlements is compatible with the nation's economy?
    Mr. Ellen: I cannot give a reply. To do so would imply a degree of knowledge and judgment in a delicate field of economic affairs, in which Government have intruded dangerously in the past.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Given that this year's public sector borrowing requirement is likely to be about £10·5 billion, and that it might be £14 billion next year, and as the money supply is twice as high as the Government's target, does it not follow that inflation will rise before long? The Government have always maintained that money supply and borrowing requirement affect inflation.
    Mr. Biffen: The Industry Act forecast for the public sector borrowing requirement will be published, as is legally required——
    Mr. Davies: Dodging the question.
    Mr. Biffen: I am abiding by the law. I know that this is difficult for the right

    1449
    hon. Gentleman. The forecast will be published in about a fortnight's time. When that evidence becomes available, we shall have a premise upon which to judge the right hon. Gentleman's prediction.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Hicksasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any proposals to zero rate value added tax charged by hotels and guest houses in respect of accounts charged for the accommodation of overseas visitors: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Biffen: No, Sir. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State is meeting representatives of the tourist Industries on 11 November to discuss the question of VAT on services supplied to overseas visitors.
    Mr. Hicks: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that tourism operates in an international market? Does he not also agree that as a result of the strength of the pound this year, the United Kingdom's tourist industry has suffered? Given the contribution that the tourist industry makes to invisible earnings, does not the proposal merit further consideration?
    Mr. Biffen: I shall say absolutely nothing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear".] That is one's usual objective at Question Time. I do not wish to say anything in advance of the meeting at which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will discuss this question. However, I agree that it would be surprising, and a lacuna if the issue were not fully discussed at that meeting.
    Mr. Adley: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the pound earned in foreign currency by the service sector is just as valuable to the nation as the pound earned by the manufacturing sector? Does my right hon. Friend have a policy that will ensure that those engaged in both sectors have equality of opportunity?
    Mr. Biffen: I understand that my hon. Friend will be leading the delegation that will be received by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. I note what my hon. Friend has said. However, no country within the European Community operates a zero rating for hotel accommodation. We should be
    1450
    exceedingly wary about making VAT even more complex.
    Mr. Maxton: If the Minister is considering zero rating VAT for overseas visitors, will he also consider zero rating for the theatre and the arts which are more important, and which also make a vital contribution as regards overseas visitors?
    Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman's reaction confirms the Treasury's worst fears, namely, that once one kicks aside a pebble in this area, one gets an avalanche.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: If the money supply is running at 20 per cent., and if the Government believe that growth in the money supply affects the rate of inflation, does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that inflation will increase to 20 per cent. again in about 12 month' time?
    Mr. Biffen: That shows great ingenuity and might well be raised at the meeting with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. However, the narrow subject of zero rating hotels surely cannot give rise to such philosophic considerations.

    Inflation
    Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied that the rate of inflation is now responding to the change in the money supply; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Biffen: The Government are satisfied that there is a broad and fundamental connection between the growth of monetary aggregates and the rate of inflation; but the variable time lags involved make any correlation imprecise.
    Mr. Atkinson: The correlation may be imprecise, but does the Minister agree that since he became Chief Secretary almost 18 months ago the retail price index has increased by exactly 25 per cent., of which no less than 12 per cent. has been the result of policies that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have announced to the House? How can the right hon. Gentleman have the hard-necked boldness to say that imprecise calculations of his sort depend upon money supply. the borrowing requirement and the like when his right hon. and learned Friend is already making a meal of the success which he claims in

    1451
    reducing living standards as a result of wage agreements that produce less in percentage terms than the retail price index?
    Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman's observations vindicate my having emphasised how imprecise were the relationships.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend say in which industrialised economy inflation is now increasing and in which industrialised economies inflation is now decreasing?
    Mr. Biffen: Alas, not without notice. I am sure that that is a very helpful supplementary question.
    Mr. Healey: May I help the right hon. Gentleman and tell him that inflation is falling in Switzerland, a country which the Prime Minister purports to admire? Switzerland totally abandoned monetary policy when it found that it was putting Swiss citizens out of work. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the view expressed by the director of ICI, Mr. Harvey-Jones, that every cost for which the Government are responsible is rising faster in Britain than in any of the countries which compete with us?
    Mr. Biffen: I am grateful for the confirmation that the Swiss economy is still in stout shape. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said to the right hon. Gentleman, there is still a monetary policy in that country. We have Dr. Brunner to remind us how effectively it can be executed. I am not in a position to comment upon the costs of ICI and to what extent they have related to Government policy.
    Mr. Healey: May I refresh the right hon. Gentleman's lack of memory? Mr. Harvey-Jones said that every cost upon which the Government can have an effect is rising faster in Britain than in any of the countries that compete with us.
    Mr. Biffen: One of the major factors that must be implicit in that calculation is the exchange rate. As the exchange rate, at least in substance, is deriving from the physical presence of North Sea oil, about which the Government can do nothing, I think that it was not a fair or balanced judgment.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the last
    1452
    12 months of the previous Labour Government, when the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the rate of growth of real money supply accelerated over the going rate of inflation, and that since that period, as far as we can judge, it has persistently stayed below the going rate of inflation? Is he aware that that explains the present very sharp deceleration of inflation? In the light of that sharp deceleration, is it not essential that the going rate of growth of money supply should contract sharply to remain in consonance with the going rate of inflation?"
    Mr. Biffen: I am fascinated by my hon. Friend's analysis of the policy of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman said on 20 July 1977 when he was Chancellor
    "we cannot master inflation unless we have control of the money supply."—Official Report, 20 July 1977; Vol. 935, c. 172–6.]
    Mr. Woolmer: Is it not clear that the Government are fighting inflation not by monetarism but by the deliberate creation of massive unemployment? Is he aware that in the Yorkshire region unemployment has increased by 70 per cent. and that West Riding textile towns are collapsing? Does he know that unemployment in Huddersfield has increased by 144 per cent? Is this not the destruction of our manufacturing base? When will the Chancellor stop being complacent and look after the interests of the British industrial worker?
    Mr. Biffen: I cannot accept that the Government are pursuing a conscious policy of unemployment. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does no service to himself or his party by blinding himself with that sort of partisanship. One of the major factors behind present unemployment is the severe constraint operating in the manufacturing sector of the economy, which in turn is partly related to the exchange rate, which in turn is related to the problems of the North Sea, which are not the consequence of Government-designed policies. We are seeing an economy being transformed by the North Sea. That is the signal of the exchange rate. The hon. Gentleman can acknowledge that or retreat into an ostrich hole.

    Credit Cards
    Mr. Heddleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider increasing the monthly repayment programme of credit cards to 15 per cent. of the outstanding balance.
    Mr. Lawson:No, Sir.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that greater control should be exercised over the use of credit cards? Does he accept that the greater the extent to which plastic money is more readily available the greater will be the adverse contribution to the money supply, and that the more realistic and stringent the repayment terms are the more prudent and thrifty people will be?
    Mr. Lawson: It is important to keep this matter in perspective. Bank lending is only one of the counterparts of the money supply sterling M3. Total bank lending is £64 billion while total consumer credit is about £13 billion. Of that £13 billion only about £1 billion is accounted for by credit cards.

    Economic Policies
    Mr. Dubsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied that recent trends in key economic indicators, especially unemployment, interest rates, and money supply confirm that his economic policies are proving effective.
    Mr. Biffen: I am convinced that the Government's policies offer the best prospects for a stronger economy with higher employment and lower inflation.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer effectively means "No"? Will he tell the House whether he is depending upon a decline in inflation as the only way of getting the economy into working order, or does he have other policies that he will bring forward at the appropriate time?
    Mr. Biffen: A fall in inflation and the restoration of greater monetary stability would be good preconditions for a revival in economic activity. The taxation changes that were made during the first few months of this Government are equipping people to respond to those chances when they arise. The same is true of all the other measures designed to liberalise
    1454
    the economy—for example, the scrapping of exchange control, the scrapping of price control, the scrapping of dividend control and the ending of the vestiges of pay policy. These were all deliberate attempts to place opportunities before the British people rather than have them concentrated in political hands.
    Mr. Lyell: My right hon. Friends seek to keep Government borrowing under control, but will they recall that the increase in pay in August of 22 per cent. was generally recognised to be excessive? As they come to find measures to narrow the borrowing gap, will they not be too afraid of increases in indirect taxation to make a contribution to narrowing the gap?
    Mr. Biffen: I have noted my hon. Friend's fascinating suggestion. I shall retreat behind the time-honoured formula of saying that I cannot anticipate the Budget of my right hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only things that Treasury Ministers have achieved in the past 18 months, if that is the right word, are high inflation, soaring unemployment, exhorbitant interest rates, high Government borrowing and the virtual destruction of half of British industry? In those circumstances, would it not be the honourable thing for him and other Treasury Ministers to resign?
    Mr. Biffen: No. We are engaged on a policy for the lifetime of a Government. We are determined to chance our successes against what the right hon. Gentleman asserts are our faults and failures. When the right hon. Gentleman recited his catalogue of gloom with all the authority of a Welsh valley wet Sunday afternoon preacher he omitted to mention that we now have a falling rate of inflation and the lowest level of industrial disputes for 30 years. Those factors must be put in the balance.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he has sufficient influence and/or powers to control the level of pay increases in the nationalised industries?
    Mr. Biffen: This is an area where one moves and learns by experience.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: In view of the previous answer given by the right

    1455
    hon. Gentleman to the effect that the relationship between the money supply and inflation is so imprecise that he could offer neither estimate nor prediction, does he agree that the money supply is almost useless as a tool of economic management?
    Mr. Biffen: Certainly not. The very imprecision in some circumstances can be of great assistance.

    European Monetary System
    Mr. Knoxasked the Chancellor of Exchequer when he expects that the United Kingdom will take part in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.
    Mr. Lawson: I have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor gave my hon. Friend on 24th July.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if Britain were to be a full member of the EMS, it would provide more stable conditions for those engaged in trade with our EEC partners to operate, which would be beneficial to this country? Is it not time that we seriously considered becoming a full member?
    Mr. Lawson: In the present conditions of the foreign exchange market and the factors affecting sterling, it would be wholly unrealistic for sterling to be a member of the European monetary system. Indeed, if we had been in the EMS, it would have disrupted our monetary policy or the alignment of exchange rates within the system or, more probably, both.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the Financial Secretary agree that the only sensible economic decision that this Government has taken in the past 18 months has been not to join the EMS? Does he further agree that, with the total collapse of the Government's economy policy, that decision is beginning to look like a shining beacon in a sea of darkness?
    Mr. Lawson: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is a sensible decision, but the list of other sensible decisions taken by this Government is so long that I do not have time to read it to the House this afternoon.
    Mr. David Steel: If the Financial Secretary is claiming that joining the EMS would interfere with both the monetary policy and the exchange rate policy of this Government, is not that a further reason for considering joining?
    Mr. Lawson: No, Sir. It is a reason for not joining.
    Sir Frederick Burden: Does my hon. Friend consider that the economic policy of the Labour Government was successful when unemployment doubled and in 1975–76 they even went to the extent of cancelling the Christmas bonus for old age pensioners?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. Bearing in mind their record when in office, the attitude taken by the Opposition is a mixture of hypocrisy and cynicism.

    Money Supply
    Mr. Budgenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in the money supply as monitored by the M3 in the year ended 1 September.
    Mr. Raceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the annual rate of growth of M3 money supply in the financial year 1980–81.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the movement in the official measure of the money supply in the last three months for which figures are available.
    Mr. Lawson: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said to the Treasury and Civil service Select Committee last week, we estimate that underlying sterling M3 has grown at around 19 per cent. at an annual rate since the beginning of the target period. The provisional October figures suggest that this rapid growth has continued, but we firmly expect the rate of growth to slow down appreciably in the second half of the year.
    Mr. Budgen: Does that mean that, at some time between 18 months and 2½ years from the present, the rate of inflation will be about 19 per cent?
    Mr. Lawson: What it does mean is that, if we do not succeed in getting a deceleration of the money supply, the outlook for inflation will be dangerous and alarming. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who was a distinguished monetarist Chancellor in his day, pointed out in his Budget Statement in 1978:
    "the rate of growth of the money supply is bound to fluctuate significantly from month to month."—[Official Report, 11 April 1978; Vol. 947, c. 1192.]
    Mr. Race: Is it not clear that the underlying growth of M3 money supply, which has just been reported to the House, is an absolute disaster, and that, on the Government's own estimates, must mean that inflation next year will be running at very nearly 20 per cent? What kind of policies will the Chancellor introduce to brine down that rate of inflation? How many more public sector workers will be sacked by his Government and how many more pay settlements will be made in single figures?
    Mr. Lawson: I am very glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support in our determination to bring down the rate of growth of the money supply.
    Mr. Maclennan: In view of what the Chief Secretary describes as the imprecision in the relationship between the growth in the monetary aggregates and the fall in inflation, will not the Government henceforth rely on what is quite precise, namely, the damage being done to British industry by interest rates that are penal and crippling?
    Mr. Lawson: The imprecision is not new. It has always been there. It did not deter the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) from paying great attention to the money supply when he was Chancellor. Nor will it in any way deter us.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Greyille Jannerasked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 November.
  The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to
  1458
  my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the President of the European Parliament, Madame Simone Veil.
  Mr. Janner: In view of the present tragic level of unemployment may I ask whether the right hon. Lady discussed with her Cabinet colleagues the likely increase in unemployment as a result of the further cuts in public expenditure that she and her colleagues have in dispute at the moment? If so, with what result?
  The Prime Minister: The short answer is that we never give forecasts of future unemployment, except in the Red Book that comes out at Budget time. Otherwise, we follow the advice given by the Opposition when they were in power not to give specific forecasts. With regard to the latter half of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, if we take too much out of the private sector for the public sector, we shall be positively encouraging unemployment in the private sector. Those who advocate more and more public expenditure would do well to remember that.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: In her talks with Madame Veil today will my right hon. Friend make it plain that the Conservative Party and this Government are finally committed to making a success of British membership of the EEC? Will she also make it plain that, whatever the opinion polls may say now, the Labour Party is unlikely to find that withdrawal from Europe proves a greater electoral asset than unilateral disarmament?
  The Prime Minister: I believe that this Government are making a great success of our membership of the European Community. Because we are devoted to the ideal of the European Economic Community and our partners know that we have been a great deal more successful than the Labour Government in securing budgetary settlements and other outstanding matters.
  Mr. Foot: We read in the newspapers this morning that the right hon. Lady has sent a message to Mr. Reagan. Could she tell us also whether she has had a chance to send a message to her right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)? If so, would she care to print it in the Official Report, if it is printable?

  1459
  Does she agree with the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman that now that Governor Reagan is President-elect, he would be far too intelligent to follow the policies of ruinous monetarism as they appear to be followed in this country?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is certainly right to say that I sent a message to Governor Reagan after his splendid victory in the American elections, saying how very much I look forward to working with him. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that
  "once a decision is made, once a policy is established, the Prime Minister and … colleagues should have the courage to stick to it. Nothing has done Britain more harm in the world than the endless backing and filling which we have seen in recent years."
  That was my right hon. Friend's message to the electorate on the eve of the 1970 general election.
  Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady tell us now to what she thinks her right hon. Friend was referring when he talked of ruinous monetarism? Does she think it is a good idea to continue on that course, even when the ruin is proved all round her?
  The Prime Minister: I rather thought from what I heard earlier that Labour Back Benchers were castigating us for not being strict enough on the monetary supply.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: Lest my right hon. Friend should be tempted to pay too much attention to the well-meaning, gratuitous but often intemperate advice given to her on the radio, will she bear in mind that some of us take the view that the last person to give advice to Nelson would be Admiral Byng?
  The Prime Minister: I believe that the first objective of this Government—as, indeed, it was the first objective of the 1970 Government—is the curbing of inflation. We have to put that need first. We shall continue to do so.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsendasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 November
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.
  Mr. Townsend: Bearing in mind that it was a Labour Prime Minister who committed his Government to increasing defence expenditure. in conjunction with our NATO allies, by 3 per cent. a year until 1984, and bearing in mind that since then the Russians have put 85,000 troops into Afghanistan, will my right hon. Friend make it categorically clear that her Government will continue to meet that commitment?
  The Prime Minister: We shall do everything possible to meet that commitment. So that there can be no possible misunderstanding, may I read out the NATO commitment? It was
  "to aim at making available resources which would allow for annual increases of defence spending in the region of 3 per cent. in real terms, recognising that, for some individual countries, economic circumstances would affect what could be achieved."
  In the first year we met that 3 per cent. We do not know what will be the precise outturn this year but it will not be very far short of 3 per cent., and may be 3 per cent. Next year there will be an increase in defence spending above this year, but I cannot say of precisely what amount.
  Mr. Stoddart: Before the right hon. Lady agrees to further swingeing cuts in public expenditure which will hurt our economy even further, will she bring forward legislation to deal with the tax-dodging Vesteys and others of that ilk who will not pay their way in this country. and will she make that legislation retrospective?
  The Prime Minister: The object of the present public expenditure review is to hold next year's totals to those which have already been published in aggregate. That is not a total reduction. It is to hold the total to what has already been published. With regard to the Vestey case, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made perfectly clear that he will be bringing forward legislation in the next Finance Bill.
  Mr. Peter Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend convey the gratitude of this House to the Swedish ambassador for the efforts that his staff in Tehran have been making on behalf of Miss Jean Waddell and the

  1461
  other British prisoners there? But at the same time, in communications with the American President and his successor, will she make it clear that if the prisoners are released we would hope in the future to obtain from the Americans the cooperation that we gave to the American people over their hostages?
  The Prime Minister: I shall be very happy to convey the generous message from my hon. Friend to our Swedish friends and to thank them very much for looking after the interests of Britain, particularly in regard to the four people who are detained in Iran. I am sure that we shall have full co-operation from the new American Government, as from the present one.
  Mr. Buchan: Will the right hon. Lady accept that the real significance of the failure of her policy on money supply is that she has been putting the people of this country through unnecessary and pointless suffering for the last year and a half? When will she stop listening to the advice of the mad monetarist guru in Chicago and listen to some of the wise words of her Tory predecessors in office?
  The Prime Minister: I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman for one moment. The fact is that inflation has now come down from 21·9 per cent. to 15·9 per cent.—a figure which Labour Members were telling us a few months ago it was impossible to reach.
  Mr. Ashton: Who put it there?
  Mr. Neale: Is my right hon. Friend aware of reports coming from the Pakistan Government regarding the annexation by the Soviet Union of the Wakhan corridor, running to the north of the Pakistan borders with the Soviet Union? Will she deplore that annexation, if it has taken place, and confirm that the British Government will not recognise it, and will she refer the matter to the United Nations Security Council?
  The Prime Minister: The British Government recognise the integrity of existing borders and I am not aware of any annexation. I am aware that there have been intrusions over the border, which we would naturally condemn as being intrusions upon someone else's territory.

  MIGRATION OF LABOUR
  Mr. Raceasked the Prime Minister what are the advantages of her policy of advocating the migration of labour from one region of the United Kingdom to another.
  The Prime Minister: Some mobility is essential if the labour market is to function properly; that has always been true and is still true today.
  Mr. Race: Does the Prime Minister accept that migration of labour from one part of the United Kingdom to another does nothing to reduce the cost of unemployment, currently running at £440 million for every 100,000 increase in unemployment? Does she recognise that it is precisely to those parts of England—and particularly South-East England which voted Conservative at the last general election that the people will be migrating? Does she also realise that people in South-East England. particularly unskilled workers, will be losing their jobs perhaps because of migrants from other industries and other regions?
  The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member comes from a constituency very near to mine, he will be interested to know that the migration between the regions in the years 1978–79 was away from greater London to the extent of about 56,000 people. It so happens that skilled people have always been used to moving in order to seek work. It can both reduce unemployment and help those employers who want skilled labour if people are prepared to move to where the jobs are.
  Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the 1930s many thousands of people left Wales for the West Midlands, where they made a great success of their lives and careers, and are highly respected?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Soley: With regard to the Prime Minister's remarks about people moving to the South-East, does she realise that they have great difficulty in obtaining housing because house building has already been severely hit in both the public and private sectors by the actions of her own Government?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will find that the new Housing Act gives very considerable help to those who are seeking work.
  Mr. McCrindle: Will the Prime Minister agree that in order to achieve mobility of labour it is necessary to make some progress concerning the transferability of pension rights under private pension schemes? Are the Government seized of the need to make progress on this front, and is she able to tell the House that we shall shortly be receiving the recommendations of the Occupational Pensions Board?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware that there are changes which still need to be made to ensure complete transferability. The matter is still being studied. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 6 November.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner).
  Mr. Jones: Why must the right hon. Lady cut public expenditure while Britain slides into the deepest recession since the
  1464
  1930s? Why does she callously sanction a massive rise in unemployment while Britain's industries collapse in ruins?
  The Prime Minister: I have repeated several times in the House that the present public expenditure review is to hold the totals of public expenditure to those already published for next year. However much one may wish to spend more, particularly on projects that all hon. Members favour, the fact is that public expenditure has to be financed by the private sector. Every increasing burden that we make on the private sector makes it more difficult for that sector to cut its costs and remain competitive.
  Sir John Eden: While there is still widespread support for the Government's economic policy—[Hon. Members: "Where?"]—will my right hon. Friend ensure that her Government take vigorous action to reduce the size of central and local government bureaucracy?
  The Prime Minister: That is most certainly our objective. Since this Government have been in power the size of central Government has been reduced by about 35,000 people. Local authorities have now embarked upon a policy of greatly reducing over-manning. The figures published for the last quarter were the best ever.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for the Arts(Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The business for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 10 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Broadcasting Bill.
Motions on the Supplementary Benefits (Aggregation, Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations, on the Remand (Temporary Provisions) Northern Ireland) Order, and on the Value Added Tax (Health) Order.
TUESDAY 11 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 12 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Highways Bill [Lords].
Resumed debate on the motion on financial assistance to Opposition parties.
THURSDAY 13 NOVEMBER—Debate on codes of practice on picketing, and on the closed shop.
Consideration of any Lords messages that may be received.
Thereafter, subject to progress of business, Parliament will be prorogued.
As already announced, the new Session will be opened on Thursday 20 November this year.
Mr. Foot: Since the business announced by the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be very thrilling on every day, and as there seems to be some difference of view about what is intended to be meant by "ruinous monetarism "the phrase of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—is it not possible to arrange a debate on that matter next week to sort the question out?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that it is not beyond the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman to fit in that matter on Wednesday, for instance, when we consider the remaining stages of the Highways Bill [Lords]. As for thrills, we look for thrills these days to activities outside this Chamber.
Mr. Adley: On the debate on the question of finance to Opposition parties, will my right hon. Friend confirm that this presumably relates to Opposition parties in Parliament? Will hon. Members be able to refer to the position that would arise should a squabble take place over who represents the main Opposition in this country, and whether it is a party inside this House or outside?
Mr. St John-Stevas: This is a resumed debate on the subject of assistance to Opposition parties to help them in their parliamentary duties. This has become an established part of our practice. It is not anyone's intention to extend this aid to activities outside Parliament.
Mr. John Silkin: In view of reports that BP is proposing to place construction orders for oil rigs worth £10 million in Japan and Korea and not in our shipyards, can we expect a statement from the Secretary of State for Industry in the near future?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have not received any application for such a statement from my right hon. Friend. I doubt whether the matter falls within his sphere of ministerial responsibility, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes I shall certainly raise the matter with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Silkin: It certainly does fall within the scope of the right hon. Gentleman, because the Minister of State himself said that he was going to encourage expenditure in British shipyards for exactly this sort of purchase.
Mr. Freud: If there should be any delay before the messenger from the other place comes along, will the Leader of the House consider a short debate on the Totalisator? Is he aware that there is considerable concern, both in the House and outside, about a nationalised industry that allows £200,000 credit to an individual? There is concern that this nationalised bookmaking industry is neither more efficient nor more profitable than the private sector practising in the same sport.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is an interesting suggestion to fill in a hypothetical gap. In view of our shared interest in the Turf, I will give it consideration.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places.
Mr. Gummer: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents expect the closest co-operation between their Members of Parliament and their Members of the European Parliament? This is made more difficult by the fact that this House has so far made no sensible and proper provision for European Members of Parliament even to have a pass to come and see Members of Parliament whose constituents they help to represent in Europe.
Mr. St. John,-Stevas: As my hon. Friend will know, the Services Committee has passed a resolution to the effect that European Members of Parliament should have certain limited access to this House. I will consider the matter that my hon. Friend raised.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Leader of (he House find time next week for a debate on the extraordinary decision to rush through a study of the Royal ordnance factories with a view to moving them into private sector enterprise? These factories have been within Government circles for over 400 years.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I will raise the matter with my right hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate next week.
Mr. Lawrence: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the debate on Wednesday, on financial assistance to Opposition parties, is intended to last for only one and a half hours, so that we can talk it out again?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: No time is set for the ending of the debate. Depending on the progress made on the previous business, it could run for longer than the time that my lion. Friend states. I hope, however, that hon. Members who are thinking of talking this measure out will remember that when this Government were in opposition they enjoyed the benefit of these arrangements and, in equity, this facility should be extended, not in the interests of the Opposition as such but in the interests of parliamentary government, to the present Opposition.
Mr. Cryer: Will the Leader of the House consider a debate next week—as
1468
we have a spare Friday—on the question of the American presence in Britain, particularly in view of the change in the presidential leadership in America, which sends a lot of shivers down a lot of spines? In view of the dissembling attitude of the Ministry of Defence and the secretive way in which the Americans operate a nuclear presence in this country without express parliamentary approval, can we discuss the whole affair and perhaps consider giving parliamentary approval to these warlike manoeuvres?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate on that subject, important though it is. There may be an opportunity to raise it in the debate on the Address. As for recent events in the United States, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is shivering and shuddering. I think that he should be more optimistic. Things may turn out better than he expects.
Mr. Latham: In the interests of implementing the Government's plans for holding down the size of the Civil Service, can my right hon. Friend spend each of the 14 days between now and the Queen's Speech studying the draft of the Speech and striking out one draft Bill between now and then?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: We have been studying that draft for some time. I have been doing exactly what my hon. Friend has commended. If there is an opportunity to strike out a further Bill, I shall be the first person to take it.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Will there be a statement next week on the Government's intention regarding the statement by the Select Committee on Welsh affairs on employment opportunities in Wales? The people of Wales reject the Prime Minister's suggestion that they should have to leave Wales to obtain jobs elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That was possible in the 1930s, but there are no jobs now elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Mr. St. John-StevasThe hon. Gentleman is not representing fairly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. The important report mentioned by the hon. Gentleman must be discussed. It is the Government's intention, at the earliest opportunity, to lay a Command Paper before the House giving their

1469
response. The report contains 40 major recommendations, and the Government must have the opportunity to be as thorough as the committee.
Mr. Marlow: Since it has recently been disclosed that European Members of Parliament, who have less than one-tenth of the relevance of Members of this House, cost the country more than 10 times as much individually, will my right hon. Friend bring measures before the House to prevent the continuation of this vast haemorrhage of public funds?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: My responsibilty is to this House. I am delighted that we are setting the example. I hope that we shall be able to do even better in economical administration in future.
Mr. Tilley: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 837 on the deportation of Filipino domestic workers?
[That this House urges the Secretary of State for the Home Department to continue to exercise his discretion and to do so more widely in order to allow the limited number of workers, chiefly women from the Philippines, who have worked in the United Kingdom for many years as resident domestics and are now held to be illegal entrants because they had dependent children at the time their permits were issued, to remain on compassionate grounds.]
Is he aware that the motion continues to attract support from all parts of the House because the deportations continue unjustly and unfairly, and involve individuals and families? For that reason, may we have an early debate?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot promise an early debate. The issue obviously raises difficult personal problems. The Government cannot disregard the decision of the courts in this matter. Before a removal is enforced the case is examined carefully. Discretion is and will continue to be exercised when there are compelling reasons for allowing a person to remain here in exceptional circumstances.
Mr. Straw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep anxiety among Opposition Members about the Government's intention to slip through sales of Royal ordnance factories to private buyers without proper parliamentary legisla-
1470
tion or even a debate? If he cannot promise a debate next week will he ensure that there will be a full debate on the Government's intentions before any firm decisions are taken by the Government.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am afraid that I cannot go further than I did in answer to the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody). I shall raise the matter with the Minister responsible.
Mr. Winnick: In view of the earlier exchanges today, will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on early-day motion 897 so that at least Conservative Members of Parliament, including the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), can give their views on the state of the economy to the House?
[That this House congratulates the right hon. Member for Bexley, Sidcup for rightly describing the present policies of the Government as catastrophic and destructive to Great Britain's industrial base; and invites other Conservative hon. Members to associate themselves with such criticism in the interest of the country.]
Such a debate might give the Leader of the House the opportunity to speak out on the state of the economy forthrightly and not in coded language as he did recently.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not know what on earth the hon. Gentleman refers to. I do not speak in coded language in the House or anywhere else; I speak out forthrightly. Having read the motion signed by the hon. Member on the recent contribution to broadcasting late at night, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), I shall give him an equally forthright observation on his motion. In view of the subject of the motion and the signatories to it, it is a case of the blind leading the blind.
Mr. Parry: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 898, tabled in my name and supported by more than 90 hon. Members, about flags of convenience?
[That this House supports the National Union of Seamen in its campaign in opposition to flags of convenience; deplores the double standards of Lord Matthews of Trafalgar House and the Daily Express, which, in August, called upon the nation to fly the flag; and calls

1471
upon Lord Matthews to practice what he preaches.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for an early debate on this important issue? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Trade and the Secretary of State for Employment to have early discussions with the National Union of Seamen and Lord Matthews, in a bid to avoid what might be a national strike of seamen?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon Member is not up to date with his information about the dispute. I understand that it has just been settled. We are delighted at that. I understand that the "Princess" will now fly the Bahamian flag and the "Countess" will remain as it is. I hope that the unnecessary dispute has come to a happy conclusion.

OFFSHORE SAFETY
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).
3.45 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Hamish Gray): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Burgoyne Committee on Offshore Safety.
I welcome this opportunity for the House to debate the report of Dr. J. H. Burgoyne's distinguished committee, and the Government's response to it.
As the House will recall, the committee was set up by the previous Administration in September 1978. Its terms of reference were:
"To consider as far as they are concerned with safety, the nature, coverage and effectiveness of he Department of Energy's regulations governing the exploration, development and production of oil and gas offshore and their administration and enforcement. To consider and assess the role of the certifying authorities. To present its report, conclusions and any recommendations as soon as possible."
I have described the committee as "distinguished", and I am sure that there will be no differences in view about that. Dr. Burgoyne is himself an eminent authority in this field, being an independent consultant as well as visiting professor in industrial safety at the City university. London. His colleagues on the committee comprised Mr. E. G. Everett and Dr. M. M. Linning. both consultants to the oil industry; Mr. B. Hildrew, managing director of Lloyds Register of Shipping; two trade union representatives in Mr. R. Lyons and Mr. J. Miller, both national officers of their respective trade unions, the Association of Technical and Managerial Staffs and the Transport and General Workers Union; Professor B. McNaughton, head of the school of mechanical and offshore engineering at Robert Gordon's institute of technology, Aberdeen; and Mr. H. G. Riddlestone, associate director of ERA Technology Ltd., formerly the Electrical Research Association Ltd. Dr. R. Week, visiting professor in the department of civil engineering at Imperial College, London, was technical consultant to the committee.
By any standards, the committee did a remarkable job in a relatively short time in what is a very complex, important and

1473
sensitive field. The committee met for the first time on 11 January 1979 and completed its work on 24 January 1980. In the space of a year the committee met on no fewer than 40 occasions; made 14 visits to various offshore installations and land-based establishments; considered 65 written submissions of evidence and formally met 13 organisations to clarify or amplify their written evidence—as I have said, a truly remarkable record, which resulted in an extensive and extremely valuable report and a list of no fewer than 62 recommendations, together with the note of dissent by Mr. Lyons and Mr. Miller.
I am sure that I speak for the whole House when 1 express deep gratitude to the committee for all its diligent work and carefully thought out recommendations.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why in the valuable document provided in the Library is there no detailed refutation of that crucial note of dissent by the two trade union representatives, Mr. Lyons and Mr. Miller?
Mr. Gray: The document which was placed in the Library deals in considerable depth with the recommendations. Since the minority report was diametrically opposed to the main recommendation, it is obvious that the Government must have considered both submissions before coming to a conclusion. I shall later try to deal in more detail with that matter.
The committee's report came at an opportune if grevious time for, as the House will sadly recollect, it was shortly followed by the tragic accident to the Norwegian accommodation rig. the "Alexander Kielland" which overturned in rough North Sea weather with the loss of 123 lives, including 24 British nationals. That disaster underlined for all of us the risks associated with winning hydrocarbons from below the sea bed in one of the worst environments in the world. We must clearly do all in our power to prevent a repetition of the "Alexander Kielland" and, more generally, to make the North Sea as safe a work place as it can possibly be. At the same time, however, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that industrial accidents can somehow be entirely prevented offshore or onshore by legis-
1474
lation, regulation or administration. All that we can hope to do in relation to the Burgoyne report is to set the best possible safety framework within which these difficult yet vital offshore oil and gas operations are carried out.
I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses a statement of the Government's response to all the recommendations in the committee's report.
Three of the report's recommendations are concerned with the organisation of offshore safety responsibilities within Government. This matter was outside the committee's terms of reference, but it has raised such important issues that the Government could not ignore them, and I welcome the fact that Dr. Burgoyne and his colleagues did not regard the limitations of their terms of reference as a barrier to making valuable and more wide-ranging recommendations in the cause of offshore safety.
These issues split the committee—the minority report or note of dissent is entirely concerned with them—and I suspect that the House will wish to devote much of its attention to them in this debate, but I should like to concentrate first on the more technical recommendations which make up the bulk of the report.
Many of these recommendations are concerned with points of detail on a wide range of offshore operations. Some draw attention to specific procedures and practices where safety standards might be improved, for example, in the matter of safety assessments during the design and construction of offshore installations, the fire protection of escape routes, and training in and qualification requirements for well control and diving. Other recommendations——
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have two hon. Gentlemen on their feet at the same time.
Mr. Gray: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister come back to the issue of diving later in his speech?
Mr. Gray: Yes.

1475
Other recommendations point to possibe deficiencies in offshore safety legislation, such as the question of the legal status of ancillary floating installations used for accommodation purposes, or the need for new regulations to cover, for example, engineering and operational safety in the construction and use of pipelines. The committee has in fact covered the whole spectrum of offshore safety operations in a very thorough and professional way.
The Government regard the vast majority of the committee's detailed recommendations as well conceived and sensible—indeed, a number merely give emphasis and support to measures we had already identified to be necessary. All the recommendations have been carefully reviewed. The statement that I have placed in the Library shows that almost all of the recommendations are accepted or that, where there is doubt about the practicability of implementing them, they are accepted in principle. Only one has been rejected entirely. Many have already been implemented in whole or in part and progress towards implementing others has reached an advanced stage.
The recommendation which we have not felt able to accept is number 6.11, which proposes that there should be a scheme of official approval of independent specialised surveyors which the certifying authorities such as Lloyd's, Det Norske Veritas and the American Bureau of Shipping may need to employ from time to time to help them with particular aspects of their task. The recommendation has been rejected on the ground that such official approval would be an unnecessary intrusion into the way that the certifying authorities manage their affairs. It would detract from their proper responsibility to decide who are best qualified to be employed by them in particular circumstances. It would also tend to confuse their ultimate responsibility to my Department for carrying out their survey, inspection and certifying role. But, as I have said, that is the only one of the 62 recommendations which we have felt it necessary to reject entirely.
Mr. Dalyell: Attendance in the House is fairly light and therefore I think that I am entitled to turn to submission 34 by the British Insurance Association on precisely this point. It says:
1476
"Apart from the obvious commercial disadvantages, this policy has the following side effects:"—
and it lists four which must be well known to the Minister. One is:
"(a) In spite of being accepted as the county's main independent source of expertise, the engineering offices have lost the opportunity to participate on offshore-technology at the construction stage, to the detriment of both their own stature and the national confidence in the industry".
I do not want, in an intervention, to go through all four, but I think that the Minister has an obligation at the opening of the debate to say why the Government object to the BIA submission.
Mr. Gray: I thought that I had spelt out fairly clearly why we have not accepted that recommendation, it being the only one of the 62 not to be accepted. I do not think that I can give more detail than I have for our not accepting the recommendation, but I give the hon. Member the undertaking that if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Speaker, I shall, by leave of the House, deal with the matter a little more then.
Mr. Dalyell rose——
Mr. Speaker: Is this a point of order?
Mr. Dalyell: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: In that case the Minister must be allowed to continue.
Mr. Dalyell rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It might be a thin House, but within the space of 10 minutes the hon. Member has risen to his feet four times. If everyone did that we should never make any progress.
Mr. Gray: There are currently three Government agencies with responsibilities for offshore safety: the Departments of Trade and Energy and the Health and Safety Commission with its executive, between them administering three Acts of Parliament.
The report challenges the allocation of responsibilities between various Departments and agencies in offshore safety. It contends that the present division of responsibilities leads to delays in preparing and amending safety regulations and that the regulations, when enacted, are at best overlapping and at worst conflicting, with divided administration and enforcement.

1477
The committee came to the conclusion that one agency should take the lead.
The question of divided responsibilities and the need for change has been very carefully considered within the Government ever since the report was published. I believe that I can speak for all interested parties when I say that the need for change had been amply demonstrated by Dr. Burgoyne and his colleagues. The Government were, however, concerned that changes in administrative arrangements should not be rushed, because we simply had to get these arrangements right this time so as to meet the overall objective of contributing materially to the improvement of safety in the North Sea. So I make no apologies for not having come to the House before now on these important and difficult matters.
The main report and the note of dissent agree on the need for a single agency to oversee offshore safety and on the many detailed technical recommendations and I welcome that wide measure of agreement. But they are diametrically opposed on the question of which organisation should take the leading role. The main report comes down strongly in favour of the petroleum engineering division of my Department, whilst the note of dissent equally strongly advocates the Health and Safety Executive. Clearly no solution could entirely satisfy both points of view. But, as I shall try to demonstrate, the totality of the solution which has been decided upon has much to recommend it and should avoid the main criticisms which have split the committee.
In their approach to those questions, the Government have had a number of factors very much in mind. First, there is the nature of the North Sea environment itself and the nature of the installations required to carry out the hazardous and highly specialised business of exploring for and producing oil and gas offshore.
I do not need to tell the House that the wind and wave forces encountered, particularly in the northern North Sea where most of those activities take place, can be among the worst in the world. The structures have to be designed and built to withstand the sort of extreme natural forces which may occur only once in every 100 years. They are supporting many thousands of tons of com
1478
plicated equipment, some of which operates constantly at pressures up to and even exceeding 5,000 lb psi—pressures very rarely encountered in other industries. All the facilities and equipment which, in a comparable operation on land, would be separated and well spaced out, are necessarily closely packed together on an offshore platform. Moreover, the platform is a place where men have to live literally on top of their work place. So I hope that the House will understand when I say that offshore oil and gas operations are unlike anything encountered on land, and that they are of a highly specialised nature.
Secondly, and arising from what I have already said, it is clearly necessary that those who are responsible within Government for administering safety requirements in the offshore industry should have an intimate knowledge and experience of the complicated and specialised processes being carried out; of the facilities, equipment and particular hazards involved; and of ways of guarding against and dealing with those hazards.
We are fortunate in having a nucleus of such experts in my Department in the shape of the petroleum engineering inspectorate. Nowhere else in Government is that particular type of expertise to be found. And beyond the hardware and the processes, my inspectors must have immediate and continuing access to other experts who are trained in the relevant geological and geophysical sciences and in oil and gas reservoir engineering, which are all part of the general picture. Again, the only Government experts in those fields are in other parts of my petroleum engineering division. We do not have as many of those experts as we would like—they are generally in short supply—and they must be retained in my Department to advise my right hon. Friend on oilfield developments and operations more generally.
Mr. Dalyell: I am puzzled. Surely if someone other than the sponsoring Department was responsible for safety those very same experts would be available to that organisation. We are not arguing about the experts.
Mr. Gray: The argument that I am developing, and which I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, is that one of the important reasons why

1479
we decided to accept the majority report—and let us not forget that it is the report of a substantial majority of the committee—is that my petroleum inspectors frequently require detailed information about safety and about the reservoir technicalities of the field. We believe that it would be a great mistake to divorce those. It is important that they are considered together, not in isolation.
We recognise that however specialised are those offshore operations we cannot afford to allow safety policy for them to develop without regard to what is happening on safety policy generally on land. I ask the House to bear those points in mind in considering the new structure for offshore safety responsibilities that I shall now explain.
The Prime Minister has agreed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will assume full responsibility for offshore safety, save for the safety of ships and seafarers engaged in offshore work. That responsibility, as the committee recommended, will remain with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. My right hon. Friend will add to his existing responsibility for offshore structural safety and the technical safety aspect of fires and blow-outs the responsibility for offshore occupational health and safety under the 1974 Act previously held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
In all the matters to fall within my right hon. Friend's sphere of responsibility, however, he will rely on the Health and Safety Commission—whose members include representatives of employers and trade unions—to provide him with advice on the making of policy, that is, the development of legislation and guidance to the industry, in so far as those are relevant to health and safety at work in connection with offshore installations. In addition, the commission will be made more clearly responsible for administering and keeping under review other relevant legislation for which my right hon. Friend has responsibility, such as the 1971 and 1975 Acts that I have mentioned.
In turn, and in all these aspects but one—which I shall come to later—the commission will look to the petroleum engineering division of my Department for advice rather than to the Health and Safety Executive. The exception is diving
1480
safety. Here, the PED and the executive will continue to act jointly in providing advice to the commission on policy. That is because the two organisations have worked together for some time now to produce unified diving regulations covering both on and offshore diving. Those regulations are due to be issued shortly and accordingly it seems sensible to keep them in harness for the time being, although the arrangement will be kept under review.
Mr. Dick Douglas: I apologise to the Minister for intervening, but I think that it may help with the progress of the House. Will the Minister indicate the exact nature of the liaison between the PED and the Health and Safety Commission? Many of us are not clear on that point.
Mr. Gray: Currently there is considererable liaison between the PED and the Health and Safety Commission. The difference is that in future, when my right hon. Friend assumes complete, overall responsibility for safety, we shall make use of all the possible advice that we can obtain. The Health and Safety Commission will be involved at each stage, especially when any advice on legislation is required.
The head of PED will continue to attend the executive's management board to present to it his division's proposals before submitting them to the commission, and also so that he may participate in the board's consideration and endorsement of those proposals from the executive concerned with occupational health and safety in other industries which could have relevance offshore. The Health and Safety Commission will continue to have an industrial advisory committee in that area, either a reformed oil industry advisory committee or a new offshore oil and gas industry advisory committee. The commission will be putting the question to the present advisory committee.
As regards enforcement duties, PED will continue to be responsible to the HSE under an agency agreement for enforcing the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in its application to offshore installations. In addition, responsibility for enforcing the Act in respect of pipe-laying offshore will be transferred

1481
from the Factory Inspectorate to PED. The PED will continue to enforce the provisions of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971 and the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Act 1975.
To strengthen PED on both policy and enforcement matters in the area of occupational health and safety, four experienced inspectors will be transferred to it from the HSE.
To summarise, we shall have a unified structure with the PED reporting through the management board of the Health and Safety Executive to the Health and Safety Commission, which in turn will advise my right hon. Friend. The cross-fertilisation which will take place at commission level will be further strengthened at the working level by liaison between the PED and the specialist and relevant areas of the Health and Safety Executive. These arrangements will very largely meet the recommendations of the main Burgoyne report. The rationalisation of the three organisations in question—the Health and Safety Commission, the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Energy—will enable ministerial responsibility to be more clear-cut and direct.
Sir Albert Costain: Perhaps my hon. Friend will clear up one point. Who will be responsible while these structures are being constructed in the shipyard? Which Department will have the responsibility of vetting them before they are sent out?
Mr. Gray: The Department of Energy will be responsible only for the offshore aspect, and the Health and Safety Commission while they are being built.
As, I said, the rationalisation of the three organisations will lead to clearer ministerial responsibility. I stress that the role of the Health and Safety Commission will be greatly strengthened by giving responsibility to my right hon. Friend for advising on policy and legislation across the whole spectrum of offshore safety. The Health and Safety Commission has been consulted and has accepted the arrangements, although I know that the members nominated by the TUC were inclined towards the solution proposed in the note of dissent, which took the view that for a Department sponsor
1482
ing an industry also to be responsible for its safety could lead to a conflict of interests.
I do not accept that. On the contrary, far from this being the risk, we must weigh very carefully the evident risks of doing the opposite—in splitting responsibilities unduly, having regard also to the limited numbers of experts available to us in this particular area.
Mr. Dalyell: Earlier in his speech the Minister said that the majority of the Burgoyne committee had come down against the trade union representatives who dissented. On this subject, it is not only important that everything is seen to be whiter than white, and in no way to be incestuous, but also that it should be quite clear to everyone that appearances are enormously important. In these circumstances, and on this subject if on no other, would not it have been right to give weight to the view of the trade union representatives rather than the view of the rest of the committee, even though it was the majority? Those of us who have dealt with North Sea accidents in our constituency work know only too well that it takes a hell of a lot of convincing that mistakes did not occur and that blame was not attached where, in the opinion of relatives, it might well have been attached.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman, unintentionally perhaps, is being a little unfair to the inspectorate. I have made frequent visits to offshore installations, and that point of view has not been put to me. Like the hon. Gentleman, many of my constituents are employed in oil and oil-related work, both on shore and offshore. I must admit that I have not had that experience. That has not been represented to me. Most of those who work offshore are reasonably satisfied with the conditions in which they work as well as with the safety standards that are observed. I agree that it can never be perfect, and we must do everything that we can to try to ensure that we make it as near perfect as possible. We believe that the steps which we are taking will be an improvement.
Mr. J. Grimond: The Minister has been generous in giving way, and I do not want to divert him too much from his speech. Perhaps he will go a little further with regard to his

1483
answer about responsibilities offshore and responsibilities if a rig or platform is being repaired. As I understand it, if a rig or platform is brought in to, say, Lerwick harbour for repair or maintentance, it will come under supervision of a different Department compared with if it is at sea. If it is under repair in a yard it will come under the Health and Safety Executive, but if it is at sea it will come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry's inspectors. Is that satisfactory?
Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because that enables me to emphasise the point that I made earlier. I think that it is satisfactory, because one of the main reasons why we have argued for the Department of Energy inspectorate looking after the offshore installation is that conditions in the northern North Sea are totally different from anything which can possibly be experienced in a yard or harbour. That is why we believe that those who have been directly involved in our own inspectorate are the most suitable people to be responsible for the offshore inspection.
Mr. Harold Walker: The same argument can be applied to a whole range of industries, not least coal mining. Coal mining is a unique experience underground. Work on nuclear installations can be a unique experience. One could go through a whole list. Surely it is absurd to argue that, because a particular type of employment is different, it should be the responsibility of an entirely separate body. That absurdity had long been recognised until this fix was set up by the Department of Energy.
Mr. Gray: I cannot accept what the right hon. Gentleman said. It simply is not so. The safety of the workers in a yard where an offshore structure is under construction is the responsibility of the Factory Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive. The structure itself, either under construction or repair, will be under constant review by the certifying authority acting for the PED.
Our solution is not a novel one. A number of different structures are in operation for safety at work in particular industries. For example, the safety of the workers in rail. sea and air transport—all special environments in their different ways—is organised differently from safety in the general run of manufactur-
1484
ing industry. These differences reflect the particular needs of the circumstances in those industries, and I am sure that that is right.
I believe that the proposals we have made for streamlining the Government machine should contribute significantly to bringing the detailed recommendations to fruition. But I should be deluding the House if I did not make the point that a great deal of work still remains to be done. It may take another year or two before we can finally close the Burgoyne file, but that is a measure of the wealth of detail that has come out of the committee's work.
We are pressing ahead as quickly as we reasonably can, and it is no disservice to Dr. Burgoyne and his colleagues to say that there will undoubtedly be room for fresh initiatives as new safety needs in this fast moving and technologically advanced area develop. We have designed the new administrative machine with this very much in mind. I am sure that it will respond in the most effective and efficient way.
Later, and by leave of the House, if I catch the eye of the Chair I shall try to answer any questions that hon. Members may raise with me during the debate. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Before my hon. Friend sits down, there are two questions which perhaps he could answer now so that the debate is better informed. Can he say whether at the end of the day this new apparatus of inspection, which I support, will cost more or less? Can he confirm that in no way shall we be removing the prime responsibility for safety in all circumstances, which must, of course, rest with the operators of the rigs?
Mr. Gray: On my hon. Friend's second point, I confirm that the operators will always have prime responsibility for safety. On his first point, we do not anticipate that there will be any significant difference in exercising the function, because what is removed from one body and taken over by another should be self-balancing.
4.20 pm
Mr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devon-port): I beg to move, to leave out from

1485
"House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"believes that the only way to safeguard against future accidents is for responsibility for all aspects of offshore safety to be held by the Health and Safety Executive."
The House is debating an important subject for this country. There is no more important industry for this country's wealth and prosperity than the industry operating on the United Kingdom continental shelf, bringing oil and gas ashore to these islands, providing us with self-sufficiency in energy, and with revenues that, if properly used over the next 10 to 15 years, could be possibly the only way of reviving our industrial base. How we maximise our offshore oil is an issue of immense importance. In the discussion of that, it is also right that we should concentrate on the safety and health of the workers who work in an environment that all hon. Members will agree is exceptionally dangerous.
The figures in the Burgoyne report show that an offshore worker is twice as likely to have an accident as a worker in general manufacturing, and about half as likely to have an accident as a miner—an occupation that the House has long considered to be one of the most dangerous. An offshore accident is more likely to be fatal. That is particularly exemplified by diving. It is further clear that the major serious accidents occur in diving, drilling and construction in dealing with boats and cranes.
Many people believe that the figures in the Burgoyne report are a minimal estimate of the number of accidents, and there has been some criticism of the way in which those statistics have been compiled. Many people believe that accidents are more common than the figures show. But we must consider the whole of the Burgoyne report. I welcome its scope, and we can all join in congratulating Dr. Burgoyne and his colleagues on its overall comprehensive nature.
The "Alexander Kielland" disaster raises issues that are somewhat peripheral to the Burgoyne report, but it is important, in the light of that disaster, to analyse the Burgoyne report as it relates to it. Chapter 5 of the report discusses the coverage of the existing legislation and the different definitions of offshore platforms. The legislation is clear on the
1486
vast majority of installations, but there in some doubt about the status of certain types of ancillary structures that have come to be used in recent years. The report recommends a review of this legislation, which I welcome.
The "Alexander Kielland" fell within the scope of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971, and was duly registered by its owners. In the light of the disaster it is also to be welcomed that the report has recommended increased research into protection from deterioration of wire and other ropes in the marine environment, which is probably contributing to many accidents involving cables and cranes, and is of particular concern to the trade unions, and to fatigue endurance of welded joints, which most people think was the probable cause of the "Alexander Kielland" disaster. I do not wish to prejudge the report on the disaster, but I gather that the Norwegian Government hope to publish it soon.
The use of flotels has grown considerably in recent years, and most people would agree that there is a legislative grey area in that respect which should now be covered. Recommendation 6.10 of the report covers notification. There is a need for close inspection of structures of this sort, which are frequently converted into accommodation units from their former use as production platforms, especially as many of those units have recently reverted to drilling because of the shortage of rigs. In April Offshore Oil Weekly stated that
"their performance and structural integrity would need to be carefully monitored from now on."
I have some doubt about whether the Department of Energy's petroleum engineering division has adequate resources to do so. I shall return to that matter later in my speech.
I am not satisfied that the Government have done everything that they should to check British rigs in the wake of the "Alexander Kielland" disaster, especially in comparison with what the Norwegians have done. Immediately after the disaster the Government asked the operators of structures of the Kielland Pentagon-type to carry out checks for cracks, and later several installations were called into the Firth of Forth for checks by the certifying authorities. I should be interested to

1487
know what action has followed those checks. There does not seem to be anywhere near as much activity in this country, in marked contrast to Norway, where stability conditions of the Pentagon type were tightened and a second type of rig was later ruled to have failed to meet the new tougher standards because it had too high a centre of gravity.
British attitudes have been different from those adopted in Norway. I know that in the case of BP's Drillmaster rig there was an independent inquiry under Professor Sir Hugh Ford, and BP invested extensively in modifying that rig. But do the Government believe that the BP Drillmaster would now satisfy Norwegian regulations? For example, Norway's maritime directorate asked for modifications to be made to a similar vessel, the "Henrik Ibsen", but it appears that British officials have been content to rest with the alterations made to the Drillmaster and did not request further changes along Norwegian lines. Obviously the Department of Energy is aware of some of the findings of the Norwegian inquiry into the "Alexander Kielland" disaster, and I gather that it took those into account when allowing the Drillmaster to resume production. In the light of the anxiety that exists I hope that the Minister will make clear what has been done about the Drillmaster and whether it would satisfy Norwegian regulations.
I hope that the Minister will also deal with the considerable anxiety about BP's future ordering programme for oil rigs. Is it true that BP is considering giving orders for two oil rigs worth £100 million to either Korea or Japan? We know that British Shipbuilders has the capacity and capability, that it is modern and efficient, and that labour and space are available at Scott Lithgow on the Clyde and Cammell Laird on Merseyside. It would be a scandal for BP to place those major orders overseas.
Mr. Bob Cryer: One has been placed.
Dr. Owen: Yes, but there is some anxiety on the question whether there are two further orders, which must be placed in Britain. That is also related to safety. If we do not have a regular ordering programme and do not keep the expertise within this country we shall find that when we are asked to increase
1488
production, many of the skills will have been lost. We are talking about welding skills. The last accident was probably caused in that area. We have highly skilled welders, and they need to be retained in British yards. Their expertise needs to be retained. It is of considerable relevance to safety.
Let me turn to a number of the other recommendations. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has already said that the Government have rejected recommendation 6.11, despite the views put by the British Insurance Association in submission 34. We need more of an explanation about that. The Minister passed over it cursorily. The recommendation has won considerable acceptance. I imagine that cost is the argument against it. We shall have to look at that much more closely. I am not ready to accept the Government's rejection.
There appears to have been a grudging acceptance of recommendation 6.38, on the systematic collection of information on the reliability of equipment. The Government's reply states:
"The acceptability and practicality of such a scheme will be discussed with the Offshore Industry."
That is inadequate. The Government will have to make clear whether they intend to treat the recommendation merely as a subject for discussion with the industry or whether they will urgently implement it. They should not be talking about acceptability. If they have accepted the recommendation, that is it. We need clarification on whether it is a qualified or a clear-cut acceptance.
Recommendation 6.50 is dealt with on page 9 of the Government's paper and is discussed in paragraph 25 of the minority report. It accepts the extension of the Safety Representation and Safety Committees Regulations 1978, but those regulations have still to come into force, and the Government are still talking only in terms of proposed extension. I hope that I am not being unduly suspicious. but I have to ask whether the intention to implement is definite. What do the Government mean by "proposed extension"? I should like much greater clarification of that.
The Government have accepted recommendation 6.64, that more consistent standards need to be drawn up in relation to

1489
training. They must tell us whether they will ensure that the operators have enough inspectors and whether, given the number of inspector posts advertised in trade papers, they are confident that present inspectors have adequate experience. This is a theme running through the whole subject. We all recognise that there is not a large number of inspectors, and their skills have to be used in the most effective way.
The major question of principle, on which our amendment is based, is whether one can allow the sponsoring Department to be responsible also for safety in the industry. That is an important principle, which the House has debated many times. When the Health and Safety Executive was established I thought that there was widespread agreement on both sides of the House that the principle would be that the sponsoring Department was not responsible for safety and that it would be deliberately taken away from that Department. That was the result of considerable experience over decades and many debates in the House. We knew the proven value of inspectorates that were divorced from the sponsoring Department.
The mining industry is a classic example. It is the most hazardous of working environments, and no one has suggested that the mining inspectorate should come under the Department of Energy. Everybody believes that it should be divorced from the National Coal Board. It has built up a massive amount of understanding, sympathy, expertise and, above all, independence in the mining industry, and is respected for that.
The Minister seemed to say that the petroleum engineering division in his Department had a great deal of skill in the offshore industry. No one denies that. But the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate had similar skills, and it was transferred to the Health and Safety Executive. No one is asking for those in the PED to be sacked. They will not even have to change from being civil servants. We ask that they should be transferred to the Health and Safety Executive and no longer be responsible to the Secretary of State for Energy. There is no question of their losing their expertise. The question is where responsibility should lie.
1490
The first matter to be faced openly—it is well argued in the minority report—is that Norway has already made such a transfer. We do not have to follow everything done in Norway, but that was an important decision. The Norwegian Ministry of Energy lost its responsibilities for offshore safety on 31 December 1978. Since then, the Ministry of Labour has been responsible for occupational and structural safety offshore.
It is also noteworthy that one operator with experience in both the Norwegian and the United Kingdom sectors gave evidence to the committee that the Norwegian inspectorate was much tougher than the weaker United Kingdom system. The majority report recommended that responsibility should rest with the Department of Energy, but it said in a revealing statement in appendix 13:
"Nevertheless we gained the impression that Norwegian regulations were more detailed than those in the United Kingdom and that they were more rigidly and less knowledgeably enforced. The consequences were often time-consuming and expensive for operators."
That is our basic anxiety. We all know that there has been massive pressure from the industry and the Civil Service for responsibility to be given to the Department of Energy. The reason is that people are afraid of extra expense. I make it clear to the House that that is not an argument that should carry any validity. The industry is making massive profits and earning substantial revenues. No one should be using cost as an argument in this context. It will not work.
Another revealing part of the evidence that needs to be taken into account was supplied by the International Federation of Chemical, Energy and General Workers Unions. Its detailed memorandum said:
"It is particularly regrettable that the guiding principle for the application of occupational health and safety controls in the oil industry appears to rest upon paternalism—i.e. upon the assertion or hope that the company will do 'what is best for its workers'. The rights of workers themselves to decide under what conditions and to what guidelines they should work should be enshrined in legislation in any democratic society"—
hear, hear—
"Operation and safety decision-making in the United Kingdom sector fall very far short of this standard, although the oil companies already have to abide by these regulations in the Norwegian sector."

1491
The more that one reads the detailed submissions to the committee the more one sees built up a strong case arguing against the recommendation accepted by the Government and put forward by the majority on the committee.
I have had ministerial responsibility directly relating to safety only as a Health Minister. There was never any question of leaving the safety of drugs to be decided by the Department of Health and Social Security. The whole basis of legislation rests on the Medicines Commission, an independent commission divorced from the DHSS and making judgments on drugs.
Many of the Medicines Commission's recommendations carry considerable costs, which have to be accepted either by the pharmaceutical industry or by the National Health Service. I had no doubt then that to have taken those issues of safety into the Department of Health and Social Security would have been an outrageous decision.
The Minister used as his precedents aviation and merchant shipping safety, and he also thrust in the railways. On re-examination he may wonder whether the railways example is clear. I am not an expert, but I think that he will find that the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive legislation covers a substantial part of the railways. Both the aviation and merchant shipping industries operate in special environments, but for a substantial portion of the time they operate outside the legal jurisdiction of the laws of this country. That is not the case with the United Kingdom continental shelf. 'Therefore, when we talk about offshore oil we talk about people who still operate under our legislation. Those are extremely poor precedents against the movement of hiving off safety from the sponsoring Department and putting it into the Health and Safety Executive, which is working extremely well.
We do not find the Minister's arguments satisfactory in principle, so we are left with his detailed arguments on how to produce this new arrangement. In some ways the hon. Gentleman may find that he has produced the worst of all worlds—a hotch-potch of advisory committees and committee structures with one section advising this and joint work being
1492
done in certain other sectors. The Minister called it cross-fertilisation. A dog's breakfast would be a more apt description of what he produced. Instead of a single unified authority for health and safety, we are getting an extraordinary amalgam of committees.
When a rig comes into harbour or on to the shore it comes under the Health and Safety Executive. A week later, when it is offshore, it is under the Department of Energy. Six months later it may come in again, and come under the Health and Safety Executive. In these periods there will be examination of and responsibility for weld fractures, wires, and other major issues.
The trade unions have a good record of taking an enlightened interest in health and safety. Therefore, we must take seriously their view on this issue. They fear that, unlike the Factory Inspectorate, many of those involved in the petroleum engineering division, who have considerable knowledge of the environment offshore, will not have the same degree of knowledge of the standards and specifications of cranes and wires that comes naturally to the Factory Inspectorate. The offshore industry is not so different in its detail from the criteria that have to be looked at by the Factory Inspectorate.
Mr. Gray: We see the separation of the two issues as a real danger. The inspectors of the Department of Energy have specialist knowledge not only of the equipment on the offshore installations but of what happens in the exploration and production of oil. We think that it is extremely dangerous to separate the two issues. We believe that it is dangerous to say to people "That is not your responsibility; somebody else has to worry about safety." That is why we see great advantage in what we have suggested.
Dr. Owen: They would still have that knowledge of the offshore industry if they went to the Health and Safety Executive. Their prime responsibility would have shifted to being prepared to ask for a cost from the industry if they thought that health and safety were in jeopardy. In the Department of Energy they wear another hat—to get as much oil ashore as possible to maximise revenues. That is asking a man to divide his loyalties. In those divided loyalties, the danger is

1493
that health and safety will take second place.
In submission 11, from Shell UK Exploration and Production, four lines up from the bottom of page 137 we see the statement:
"The Department of Energy Inspectorate has grown up with the offshore industry".
That is a revealing but true statement. Some of its skills and knowledge have come from having grown up. The submission goes on to state that that factor is of help in dealing with safety. Many people fear that this intimate relationship that has developed will inhibit it from making criticisms and from imposing costs and other matters. That is Shell's view. It is entitled to want the Department of Energy to continue.
Sir Albert Costain rose——
Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman will have his chance later in the debate.
The facts are clear. No one denies that most of the oil companies want the responsibility to stay with the Department of Energy. What we are saying—I hope that we shall be joined by a few Tory Members, because this is not an issue that should divide us on party political lines—is that a fundamental principle is being breached in an industry that is of great concern to the House because the Department of Energy is to be solely responsible for health and safety. It has many other responsibilities for the offshore industry—to get out as much oil as possible, to get the revenues and, under pressure from the Treasury, to consider the interests of the oil companies. We categorically and emphatically say that making health and safety its sole responsibility is insufficient.
Mr. Gray: I listened with interest to what the right hon. Gentleman quoted from the report, but it should be put in context. In page 137 there is the statement:
"The Department of Energy Inspectorate has grown up with the offshore industry and has acquired valuable knowledge and experience. In our view this level of expertise is not to be found in other Government Departments involved in offshore work. It would be of benefit to all parties if the Department of Energy's role were to grow."
Dr. Owen: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is pretending to be stupid or really is stupid. No one has denied that these people have the expertise. We have said that they should go to the Health and Safety Executive, stay in Government employment and remain as civil servants. That is what happened to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. Its members used to be in the old Ministry of Technology. When they were transferred to the Health and Safety Executive, they did not lose their expertise: they remained knowledgeable about the nuclear industry. Exactly the same thing would happen with the petroleum people. We are not saying that they should disappear overnight. They will have the same pension rights, salaries and other arrangements as now, but they will turn up at a different office in Whitehall. That is not asking too much, to try to get a better record of safety in this industry.
I believe that the Minister has been misled by his officials, or he has allowed himself to be persuaded by the industry to make a wholly false and wrong decision. We hope that the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although he seems intent on intervening. Perhaps his interventions are more revealing than will be his speech later.
Unfortunately, we shall feel driven to divide the House if the Government stick to their present course, and we hope to be supported by some Conservative Members. We hope that, even if the Government win the vote, having lost the argument they will seriously think again about this question. In my judgment, they will place themselves in an extremely vulnerable position if this industry's safety record continues to be as bad as it currently is. It is pretty bad. It involves double the risks of manufacturing industry. It is improving, and we have every right to expect it to improve a great deal more. But also, hauntingly in the background, is the danger of another disaster, such as that which happened to the "Alexander Kiel-land".
The Government should have bent over backwards to meet the justified objections of those who wish to see health and safety somewhat divorced from the commercial pressures that are bearing right through the Department of Energy by

1495
transfering it and giving sole responsibility to one authority—the Health and Safety Executive. If we do not get more satisfaction from the Minister this evening, we shall feel it very important to divide the House.
4.50 pm.
Sir Albert Costain: I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) should have finished his speech by saying what he did before he had heard any arguments from Conservative Back Benchers, especially those amongst us who have had practical experience in the oil industry. I cannot claim to have had practical experience on North Sea rigs. I can claim to be responsible for the formation of a construction firm immediately after the war, when there was no British technology in the oil industry and the American firms were sweeping the board. I was responsible for forming a company which has built four refineries and has developed tremendous expertise in welding. I agree with the right hon. Member that welding is the issue here.
I have worked in the Persian oilfield and I have seen the oil industry develop. Let us get this matter right. We are dealing with an industry which is at the edge of our known technology. The right hon. Member based most of his argument on the assertion that, if a Department is responsible for production and safety, it will be so worried about production that it will ignore safety. Having worked mainly with British Petroleum I can tell the right hon. Member that as an oil company—not a Government Department—BP is just as conscious of the need for safety as any "Department of Safety" or whatever we call it. That is because it is working with men who are highly skilled technicians. If the element of commercialism is to be discussed in the debate, I mut say that it is in companies' commercial interests to see that these highly skilled and highly trained men do not take unnecessary risks.
I had something to do with Government inspectors during the laying of pipelines in the middle of the war. I was brought back from the Middle East to work on that. Government inspectors become part of a team. That is the point which the right hon. Member for Devon-port and other Opposition Members over-
1496
look time and again. They do not quite understand how one gets teamwork by having mutual trust. Where one is dealing with extremely dangerous tasks, one produces a team, just as teams of people are produced to rescue people trapped in coalmines. They work together and understand each other's language. If these inspectors get swept off into another Department, I believe that we shall lose their expertise and specialised knowledge. This is where the Minister's proposal appeals to me.
Some years ago, the most amazing little things happened. Cathode protection had to be developed at a certain stage, depending on the salt content of the water. We had the problem of electronic corrosion, which I think was part of the cause of the recent tragic accident, because people had not had that specialised experience.
Something has been left out in this situation, and in the Minister's statement, about which I should like to hear more. When these oil platforms were first built, the previous Government encouraged the building of sites, and those of us who were on the Public Accounts Committee—as two Opposition Members present were—did a good deal to encourage the international building of platforms. However, not enough has been done in their construction to give them the international Al. I should like to see much more general agreement amongst nations—Norway, ourselves, the United States and other nations—to the effect that we should have a standard of development and more interchange of safety knowledge. In that regard, not enough is being done now.
Dr. Owen: I have listened to the hon. Member's comments. He has great experience of the construction industry, as the whole House knows. However, did he oppose the transfer of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to the Health and Safety Executive? With his experience of the nuclear industry, does he think that that has been a good change, or is he opposed to that?
Sir A. Costain: I do not have experience of the nuclear industry, although in my constituency I have a nuclear power station being built which has had a number of disastrous complications. I am not qualified to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. I do not speak

1497
often in this House. I try to confine my remarks and speak only when I know what I am talking about. When it comes to oil industry construction, I know what I am talking about.
It is teamwork. First, we have an industry which is responsible not only for profit but for production. We have got teams together who are able to understand each other. One chap might say "Bill, if I neglect that bit of inspection, Charlie might get killed, and Charlie has a nice wife." The people involved acquire a family spirit and they come together. Once one separates the specialists into the other Departments they become diluted and lose enthusiasm.
Equally, safety is so important on these rigs because the ordinary chap who wants to work on a rig, because the pay is good and there are good prospects, may have a wife and family who are not very keen that he should work on a rig if unnecessary risks are involved. What the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate on the commercial side is that it is in the commercial interests of the firms concerned to have maximum safety precautions.
Mr. Douglas: Some of them.
Sir A. Costain: The hon. Gentleman says "Some of them." Let us look at it practically. Let us suppose that the hon. Gentleman spent £30,000 or £40,000 training a man. Would anybody in his senses—leaving out the humane aspects—put that man to unnecessary risk? Let us leave politics out of this.
Mr. Douglas: I would not want to be unduly contentious. I said "some". The concentration in this House has all been on the oil companies in terms of North Sea safety. We are not really talking about the oil companies; we are talking about the contractors. Let us be frank about it. There are some cowboys around among the contractors, particularly in relation to the diving companies.
Sir A. Costain: I accept that, with all humility. However, I do not think that we are discussing certain contractors. We are discussing how the Government are to control contractors. As I understand it, that is what the debate is about. If it is not, I have got it wrong.
1498
All I am saying is that if the responsibility is in one Department, the Minister can be attacked. If production goes wrong, he can be attacked. But if production goes wrong for lack of safety, he can say "I wanted to get oil production up, but the other Department wants to have belt and braces on safety, and that is holding up development."
I suggest that we accept the proposal, but I ask the Minister for some assurance about the international situation and international vetting of these constructions.
4.59 pm
Mr. J. Grimond: The House will have listened with attention and interest to the words of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain). He is an acknowledged expert on such matters.
Before I could support the Government, I should like to be reassured on three points. First, not only must the inspectorate be independent but it must be seen to be independent. Will the Minister reflect on the remarks made by the Royal Commission on atomic energy, which pointed out that, although certain bodies that advised on atomic energy were independent, the fact that they recruited people from Harwell and that their address was Harwell might give the public the impression that they were biased in favour of the industry. That might not be a compelling argument, but the Minister should consider it. Not only should the inspectorate be independent, as no doubt it will be, but the public and those who work in the industry must have faith in it. That means that it must been seen to be independent.
Secondly, the Conservative Party rightly criticised the previous Labour Government for their complicated legislation. Since coming into office, the Conservative Party has produced some of the most complicated legislation that I have seen in my 30 years as a Member of Parliament. I am not sure that such legislation simplifies matters in the North Sea. I acknowledge that there have been many serious and sad accidents in the North Sea. However, as the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe reminded us, the oil industry stands on the boundaries of modern technology. As the Minister said, the industry operates in one of the

1499
roughest areas in the world. Indeed, it is surprising that there have not been more accidents in the North Sea. Some credit should be given to those who operate there, not only for their courage but also for their care. Nevertheless, the North Sea is a dangerous area and safety measures should be not only adequate, but simple to apply.
Will it not complicate matters if two bodies are responsible, one for offshore sectors and the other for building and repairing rigs and platforms? Will the Minister clarify the diversion of responsibilities? If rigs, platforms, or modules go—as they frequently do—into, for example, Lerwick Harbour, either because they are in passage or because they are in need of repair or maintenance, will the responsibility change? Will they come under a different safety authority? If accidents involve employees of a contracting company who are repairing a rig, will a different body be responsible?
Many platforms, rigs or modules are towed round the shores of my constituency on very long towropes. We should like to know who is responsible for safety.
Perhaps I might draw the Minister's attention to evidence given by the Grampian police. No doubt the Minister will have read page 123 of the report. It draws attention to the difficulties that the police experienced over a barge with a complement of 186. It was registered in Panama, owned by a Dutch company and skippered by a Dutch master. It was on charter to an oil company. It was some distance from any platform or rig when trouble occurred.
The Grampian police drew attention to the difficulties it had experienced in establishing responsibility. The report has not dealt with that. The Minister might say that this subject was outside the report's terms of reference. However, the terms of reference were fairly wide. This evidence was accepted and printed. Are steps being taken, either internationally or in relation to the Continental Shelf Act, to remedy such troubles? No doubt the Minister knows, from his constituency experience, of the troubles involved in taking action. Such action can be complicated because of the interlocking of international companies.
Thirdly, how will the inspection of pipelines be carried out? As pipelines
1500
grow older, many changes occur. As the Minister knows, fishermen have complained about the dangers involved. There was a curious incident. A pipeline made of solid steel and coated with concrete rose to the surface near Shetland. That would appear to be contrary to the laws of Galileo and to all the laws since then. It was sunk with considerable difficulty. Are pipelines regularly inspected? If so, how, and by whom? Are reports published? It must be a difficult job. Can we be satisfied that there will be some regular supervision of pipelines? As they age and as the sea bottom changes problems may occur. Not only should the pipelines at sea be supervised but also the installations involved in the delivery of oil, both to inshore terminals and to tankers and other craft at sea.
This is an important report. The House is right to probe the Minister on such issues, because we do not often have a chance to discuss them. I hope that the Minister will respond to those points.
5.5 pm
Mr. David Crouch: I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that the report is important. I have been prompted to speak as a result of the points made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, (Dr. Owen). He questioned whether it was wise for the Department responsible for getting such wealth out of the North Sea as quickly as possible, and almost regardless of cost, be responsible also for safeguarding the health and well-being of those who work there. High prices and wages are involved. The sky is almost the limit when it comes to paying divers and others who work on rigs, because the work is dangerous. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is probably the most dangerous work to be found in any industrial enterprise. There will therefore be a temptation to go to the limit when it comes to safety. I cannot speak from experience as an engineer, but I was briefed by the Royal Navy at Portsmouth about the dangers involved. In commercial operations, divers are going to depths in the North Sea that are beyond the limits to which Royal Navy divers are put. I realise that divers in the North Sea have largely been

1501
trained by the Royal Navy. There is some interaction between the Royal Navy and the contractors who use divers in the North Sea. They receive great help from the Royal Navy in that respect.
Divers are entering into the realms of the unknown. We do not know what the effect will be on men over the age of 35 or 40 who are forced to work for long periods at great depths. We are discussing a subject that touches the fringes of medical and scientific knowledge. The right hon. Member for Devonport is right to ask us to pause and consider whether we should do something more than take note of such an important report. Perhaps we should say "No". Perhaps a Department that is engaged in such expensive and important exploration and is the promoter of such activity, is nut the right body to hold the reins of safety.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the knowledge that he had gained as a Minister in the Labour Government. I, too, am familar with health problems, because I am a practitioner. I am not a medical man, but I am involved in the production of pharmaceuticals. As such I welcome the restraint that is put on that industry so that it does not go too far, too fast. That is in the interests of consumers, customers and patients.
The right hon. Gentleman made an important and telling point, but he did not do it as fairly as the Order Paper does. The Government ask us to take note of the report, but the Opposition say that the only way to safeguard against accidents is for responsibility for all offshore safety to be held by the Health and Safety Executive. That is not a drastic amendment, and I am in two minds. It may be that on this occasion the Opposition are the wiser of the two sides of the House.
The Government invite us to take note of the report. My hon. Friend has taken note of the conclusions that are set out in chapter 6 of the Burgoyne report. The principal conclusions are in paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6, and the first of those says:
"The Government shall discharge its responsibility for offshore safety via a single Government agency whose task is to set standards and to ensure their achievements."
1502
Paragraph 6.6 says:
"We consider that the Department of Energy is capable of discharging this responsibility effectively, provided it is suitably strengthened".
The Opposition are saying "Let us strengthen it a good deal more and say that the single agency shall be the Health and Safety Executive".
I return to paragraph 6.6, which states that the Department of Energy
"is capable of discharging this responsibility effectively, provided it is suitably strengthened and seeks advice from other bodies on matters of common concern. The strengthening is to provide the ability to monitor and where necessary set safety standards in relation to the selection, training and qualification of offshore personnel."
It lists where that advice could come from:
"The principal sources of advice to which we refer are the Department of Trade on marine safety, the Civil Aviation Authority on aviation safety and the Health and Safety Executive on occupational safety."
If we are taking note of the report, I shall take especial note of paragraph 6.6. That paragraph must be emphasised, otherwise I shall be unable to support the Government's request that the House takes note of the report. If I am asked by the Government to support the concept that the Department of Energy will seek oil and at the same time will take on board responsibility for safety, that will not be good enough, but if they say "We take on board seriously what is stated in paragraph 6.6 of the Burgoyne report in detail", I shall agree with them. If that is not the Government's approach, I shall be impressed by the note of dissent by Mr. Lyons and Mr. Miller, which appears on page 58.
Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman should not overlook what the Minister said. His speech followed carefully the wording of the note that was helpfully placed in the Library. On the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, the Government go a long way beyond merely taking note. The note states:
"The Prime Minister has decided that the Secretary of State for Energy should take over the present responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Employment for occupational health and safety offshore … This means that the Secretary of State for Energy will in future carry sole ministerial responsibility for all aspects of offshore safety save for responsibility for the safety of ships at sea and seafarers engaged in offshore work. They will remain

1503
as the report recommends, with the Secretary of State for Trade."
The Government have gone a long way beyond merely taking note.
Mr. Crouch: The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) is helpful to the House as always. I sometimes find the procedures of the House difficult to understand, even after 15 years. I go by what is written on the Order Paper. I am not sure how far I am required to go beyond what is set out on the Order Paper, whatever might be said. If my hon. Friend has taken us further than the motion that appears on the Order Paper, I can only take into account that he has the intention to persuade the House to go further.
The note of dissent by Messrs. Lyons and Miller does not incorporate a grave disagreement. It is an interesting approach to the problem. They feel prompted to say in the third paragraph of their dissenting note:
"Whilst we would be willing to accept the recommendation for a single Government agency, this must be based firmly on the principle that a Government Department substantially responsible for the direction and control of an industry should not in any way be responsible for the standards and enforcement of occupational health and safety in that industry."
I am left in some difficulty. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that there are parts of the report, including the note of dissent and the recommendations, that are worthy of debate.
I speak with a loose knowledge of the history of the nineteenth century. The building of the railways was rather similar to the exploration and the activities that are now taking place in the North Sea. Many people lost their lives in the building of the railways, and that happened in conditions that were not as hazardous as those in the North Sea. Surely we should draw some lessons from that episode. Perhaps we should have had more concern for the dangers that faced the original navigators, or navvies, the Irish immigrants that came to England to work. They came to build the railways across the Pennines, where there was so much loss of life and injury.
In the latter part of the twentieth century we should be doubly careful to indicate that Parliament is concerned. We should show the greatest possible concern
1504
for the health and safety of those who are involved in work in the North Sea, which is the richest opportunity before us. Whether that is best achieved by one Department, or by another, is a matter for debate. If it is decided that the Department of Energy should be the one Department, we should take into account the recommendations that appear in the Burgoyne report, especially the recommendation that the Department must rest strongly on the advice of the other agencies that have been mentioned.
5.18 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and his support, albeit tacit, for the Opposition's amendment. I think that it is fair to say that in general terms we have come to the view that the Government have taken on board the excellent Burgoyne report. However, there are substantial key areas that are the subject of disagreement across the Floor of the House. That is because in these key areas the Government's response reeks of complacency. It is not unfair to say that that displays the general cavalier attitude of the Government towards the trade union movement. There has been no real attempt to answer the issues of principle raised by Mr. Lyons and Mr. Miller.
The Minister has growing experience of these issues. I apologise for the fact that I was not present to hear his earlier remarks. He must recognise that the attitude towards the safety of the men at the sharp end depends on a positive attitude and in their confidence in the organisation that enforces the regulations. That organisation, whatever it is, must display independence, intelligence and integrity in a way that is beyond dispute. That must be beyond dispute among those who embark on difficult operations in the North Sea.
I think that we are right to say that the responsibility for safety must rest primarily on the operators. Having put that responsibility where it should lie, on the licence holders and those on the operating committees for the various fields that are under exploration and development, the House knows only too well that we are talking of mammoth operations and developments and investments of £3 billion and more. No operator can engage in such programmes on

1505
his own. Operators have to employ subcontractors, which involves a variety of organisations that may or may not have the same degree of concern for the safety of personnel. I shall refer later to a particular area of concern—diving.
I wish first to follow up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) concerning the Kielland issue, which greatly disturbs me. I recognise the professional calibre of the authorities that certify the rigs in the United Kingdom. The Kielland disaster resulted in the loss of 123 lives. At this stage I would not place any responsibility for that loss on the design of the rig or the constructors. I have an intimate knowledge of the French company that made the rig. I am not competent to judge the design. However, following that, Det Norske Veritas has required Peutagone rigs like the Henrik Ibsen and the Gulnare to conform to new requirements for residual structural strength, but Lloyd's, with eight such rigs on its register, has not so far found it necessary to require such modifications. That strikes me as a disparity of approach to these complicated structures, when they are operating in a similar environment. The Department of Energy has the responsibility in this debate to at least give its view on that occurrence. If the Norwegians find it desirable to ensure that the same design of rigs are structurally strengthened, why has one of the certifying authorities approved of by the Department of Energy not sought to do so? That is an important consideration. I hope that the Minister can deal with that point.
The key area is the relationship between the Department, the Health and Safety Commission Executive and the Petroleum Engineering Directorate. We require much more detail about the interplay of the staff. If the Government's view is that it should be as they propose, we need much more information about the staff and the numbers and expertise deployed.
We have had discussions about the onshore petroleum industry. When that is involved in a detailed survey like the Canvey Island survey—a hazard and safety audit—the people concerned are related to the Health and Safety Executive. There is not much difference in
1506
these complicated, onshore petro-chemical operations and those offshore.
I find the cosiness of the relationship between the Department of Energy and the oil companies disturbing. My point here is not unrelated to Kielland and concerns certifying authorities. Recommendation 6.8 states:
"We firmly uphold the principle of independent certification of critical features of offshore structural and operational safety. In conformity with this view, we recommend that the responsibility of the Certifying Authorities be extended, as far as is practicable, to cover the complete oil and gas pressurised system from the down hole safety-valve to shore or tanker connections. We believe that the present Certifying Authorities are sufficient in numbers and have, or can acquire, the skills necessary to undertake this extension of their responsibilities."
In its response the Department says "Accepted in part", but it is not accepted at all.
"The principle of independent certification will be maintained."
It could not be otherwise. It goes on, however:
"The adequacy of shut down systems both for wells and for the pipeline attached to the platform, will in future be considered by the Certifying Authorities. Approval of individual well pressure systems and of pipelines will however, remain the responsibility of the Department of Energy's Petroleum Engineering Inspectors."
The only argument that the Minister can advance to support that case is that of confidentiality. On the Burgoyne committee were people who had operated in the North Sea, such as Matt Linning, who is well respected. They would have taken that into consideration, and they overruled the point. That is an indication of the cosiness of the relationship.
The body further recommends that there should be an appeals procedure when certification is not allowed. We are told that there is already an informal appeals procedure. We may or may not welcome that, but what is the nature of that procedure? What organisation does the Minister have or propose to second guess the certifying authorities? I respectfully suggest that we also need answers here.
Recommendation 6.28 deals with occupational safety. The suggestion is that some arrangement should be made in two years' time. The recommendation is that:
"Regulations should be made as soon as possible for the control of occupational safety during offshore construction."

1507
The Department's response states:
"The need for Regulations will be reviewed in the light of experience in two years' time."
We have been constructing offshore rigs since 1964–65, yet it will be another two years before we have detailed regulations on that important aspect.
Regulation 6.42 concerns radio and radar sparking, and I recognise that the matter may have come to light because of public inquiries in my constituency. Will the Minister indicate what progress has been made in that direction? The tests involved are bound to be complicated and have a bearing on the installations taking place at Moss Morran and Braefoot Bay.
Recommendation 6.59 concerns languages. The point that I wish to make may seem trite, but it is important. A number of different nationalities are employed at sea and there is difficulty in getting the regulations read and understood by all personnel.
One aspect of the matter arose in our discussion about flags of convenience. I am not saying that it takes place in the North Sea, but it is possible to have people officering ships who are not conversant with the English language. That is highly dangerous in an emergency. A supply boat may be tied up and unloading, and key personnel may not be conversant with the language used in communication. It may seem to be a small point, but in an emergency it is crucial. We should not allow companies to use flags of convenience and particularly be officered by nationalities not conversant with the language used in emergency procedure.
The Minister, in order not to extend the debate, has not said very much about the progress we have been making about the five-zone approach to safety. He has not said how many of the vessels called for maintenance and fire fighting are on station. It hurts me particularly, because of my association with shipbuilding, to know that not one of the vessels so far on station has been built in a United Kingdom yard. Happily, we shall rectify that soon by the commissioning of the BP/BNOC vessel that is being built by Scott Lithgow.
I return tangentially to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport about the expertise gained in building semi-submersibles and production platforms. If we are entering upon
1508
a period in which the rig market will be buoyant, although I should not like to predict day rates too far ahead, I am sure that we shall see not far short of $100,000 a day next year. These are substantial sums of money and argue for the construction of semi-submersibles irk the United Kingdom.
For good or bad reasons—because of Government interference or lack of Government interference—we missed the opportunity last time. We cannot afford to do that again. We have lost one BP order to the Koreans, of all people; and the terms of the order ought to be examined. This is and order placed in a yard which says, putting it colloquially, "If you do not like the ship that we are building we will take it back and give you credit terms that will beat anything that you can be offered elsewhere."
We cannot allow this to happen. My right hon. Friend rightly suggested that there are some prospects, and I hope that they will improve. I hope that the Minister will feel able to respond positively to the feeling within British Shipbuilders and British shipbuilding that the building of another generation of semi-submersible rigs should take place in the United Kingdom. It is a scandal that not one of the rigs operating in the North Sea at present was built in a United Kingdom yard. That reflects on my own party when it was in government, as well as on the present Government.
With regard to diving, I have some information from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who apologises for being absent. His union has been actively pursuing these matters. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment knows that we had a very fruitful deputation to his Ministry on 30 July. My hon. Friend's union supports the minority submission and is anxious to obtain information—as I am and as are my hon. Friends—about the Government's attitude towards the certification of divers.
This is a key issue. I refer to the letter of the Underwater Training Centre of 14 July 1977 to operators. It is worthy of some analysis by the House. The chairman of the board of control said:
"The Centre was formed specifically so as to minimise the chance of accidents occurring, particularly with mixed gas diving in the North

1509
Sea. Despite constant approaches to the diving contracting companies and despite Government grants to employers, a total of only 46 mixed gas divers have been nominated for courses at Fort William in the last 12 months. It is obvious that the contracting companies are either hopeful of obtaining foreign divers, who may or may not have the right qualifications, or they are holding back in the hope that someone else produces the necessary qualified divers. Surely the contracting companies, if they continue in this vein, are not acting in the best interests of their diving staff nor of the major oil companies A serious accident occurring during mixed gas diving could not be hushed up, following the Ekofisk blow-out. Because of your joint legal responsibilities with the diving contracting companies, I believe that the oil companies themselves must ensure that the quality of training received by the sub-contractors' personnel and by the divers operating in the North Sea is of the highest possible order."
That was in 1977.
Hon. Members who have read the report of the Public Accounts Committee will know about the disastrous and scandalous happenings at Fort William. Obviously, the Minister is intimately concerned with this matter. What happened at Fort William is a national scandal. The House is entitled to know how the Government propose—with the oil companies and with the Association of Diving Contractors—to rectify the position, but, most pertinently, how they intend to ensure that the training of divers and their supervision will end with certification. The Norwegians and other nations have this, and with our background of diving experience in the United Kingdom, there is absolutely no reason why we cannot have it as well. We have a responsibility to ensure that these matters are adequately dealt with in this House.
I trust that the Minister will endeavour to respond. I apologise to my colleagues for raising so many points, but obviously I am intimately concerned with these issues. I hope that the Minister will realise that, if we are to have safe operations in the North Sea, we have to have the confidence of the people involved. We must not have the sort of offhand attitude to the trade unions that is characterised by the Prime Minister. They have to be involved. If they feel that they have trust in the Health and Safety Commission and in the Executive, we have to listen very carefully to them, and to deploy better arguments to refute their case than those which have been deployed by the Government this evening.
5.36 pm
Mr. Ernie Ross: I should like to take the opportunity to make a brief intervention in the debate. It is a very important debate, for a number of reasons. One of the saddest features of it is that many Labour Members will be taking part in it without being able to question the Minister or to press him very closely on the extent to which safety regulations are broken in the North Sea and the extent to which safety regulations are the concern of the Government.
It is interesting to note a statement made recently by the Secretary of State for Energy at a Texaco dinner. He went out of his way to congratulate the multinational oil corporation, Texaco. He gave the game away to many of us when he said:
"The development of our North Sea oil reserves has taken great skill and massive investment, and has probably been achieved faster than in any other oil province in history."
That is exactly what concerns Labour Members in this debate. We are concerned about the speed with which the oil companies wish to extract this vital resource from the North Sea, and with the direct involvement that the Department of Energy has with them in ensuring that the rate of extraction is maintained. We are concerned that they should be responsible for safety in the North Sea. That is why we would certainly support the recommendations in the minority report calling for a separate organisation. We feel that that organisation should be the Health and Safety Executive.
Many of us on the Labour Benches would argue that the real total figures of deaths and injuries in the North Sea are being concealed from this House. I have asked the Minister's Department over 20 questions in an effort to elucidate the facts about the accidents which have occurred either in the North Sea or in the rig yards. There is one thing that is common about the answers to those questions. It is that the Department never gives a straight answer. It will use any excuse rather than answer correctly and allow hon. Members to press it on these matters. Some of the answers that I receive say that the information is not available. When one contrasts those answers with the information that is available on technology and commercial matters one cannot accept that the information is not available.

1511
Another method by which the Government seek to evade giving information is to pass the matter from Department to Department, thereby hoping to lose the inquiry. A matter can be passed from the Department of Energy to the Department of Employment and then to the Department of Trade—anywhere, in a circle, in the hope that the hon. Member will give up. Time and again, an answer states that separate figures for a category are not available.
One has only to look at the answers to find that the Department eventually catches up with itself and starts to give away the fact that the information is available. In a reply I received on 24 July 1980, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment told me:
"I regret that separate figures are available for fatal and serious accidents to persons working on the construction of oil and gas reception facilities in the United Kingdom from 1969 to 1979".
In two similar answers the Minister gave just about the same answer. It is interesting to note, however, that he makes the one mistake of saying "I regret that separate figures are available" in two separate answers on the same day. I have waited for those figures to be made available, but they have not yet arrived.
Opposition Members are worried that there is a cover-up in the Department of Energy. Unless responsibility for reporting and investigating accidents is taken away from the Department, hon. Members will not be able to ascertain the truth about what is happening on oil rig yards and in the North Sea. I argue that answers given by the Department of Energy underestimate the extent and seriousness of accidents that occur in the North Sea.
Reference has been made to divers. Inshore divers are never included in any list of North Sea accidents. It is essential that the Minister gives an assurance that hon. Members can question him and get answers about accidents that occur in the North Sea. If he fails to give that assurance, the Opposition will have to divide in support of the minority report. The Department of Energy cannot be the relevant Department for dealing with accidents in the North Sea. The Health and Safety Executive is the relevant organisation. It is time that this subject was taken away from the Department whose concern in the first
1512
instance is ensuring that the rate of extraction from the North Sea keeps up with the wishes and aspirations of the multinational oil corporations.
Mr. Harold Walker: I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that we are not debating whether responsibility should be taken from the Department of Energy and given to the Health and Safety Commission. Following a decision by the then Prime Minister in 1976, this responsibility already rests primarily with the commission. The issue that now arises is that the Burgoyne report and the Government want to take back responsibility from the Health and Safety Commission and put it with the Department of Energy.
Mr. Ross: I thank my right hon. Friend for reminding me of the situation. We would wish to support the minority report in this debate. This matter cannot to be left with the multinational oil corporations and with the Department of Energy which are so closely linked. It must be kept within the Health and Safety Executive. I hope that this will be confirmed by the Minister.
5.44 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: This debate on offshore safety is one of high importance and one that has evoked speeches to which the Government are bound to give close attention. The speeches have been made by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have an intimate knowledge of the industry. I speak as an hon. Member who has many hundreds of constituents involved in the offshore oil industry, travelling over some of the most difficult waters of the North Sea in conditions of great hazard. They exemplify the kind of personal courage that is characteristic of the pioneers of this new industry.
The record of the industry to date has been one of remarkable achievement. High safety standards have been established. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has indicated, we are fortunate that the industry has not suffered the sort of disasters which, in such hazardous circumstances, it might not have been wholly surprising to see come about. There is, however, a great issue of principle at stake in the debate. It arises

1513
not only in connection with the exploitation of the offshore oil resources but in connection with any great productive industry.
The issue is whether it is appropriate that the sponsoring Department of the industry, whose prime concern must necessarily be the maximisation of production and the protection of that industry as it perceives its interests, should be responsible for safety. This issue is not confined to the offshore industry. It has been considered in the case of the nuclear industry, which others would consider at least potentially a hazardous industry.
In taking the decision that safety matters should not be left with the Department of Energy in the nuclear industry but should be reposed in the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of the Environment, the last Labour Government did not cast any doubt on the competence of the Department of Energy or any doubt upon the rigorousness with which safety matters had been considered while responsibility remained with that Department. It was, however, recognised that the work or reconciliation of different interests had to take place from time to time. Whether it was more important to reach certain levels or standards of training quickly or to give extra weight to considerations of thoroughness of training were questions that had to be resolved, but should be openly resolved, on the basis of debate between those whose specific responsibility was for safety and those whose specific responsibility was for training.
There are other areas in which the questions of safety arises. It seems that the Burgoyne committee, notwithstanding the general acceptance that can be given to its specific recommendations on the areas that need to be tightened up, tended to doubt the general principle that it is embodied in the Opposition amendment. This principle was firmly laid down in the minority report. I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) that the minority report is extremely compelling in this matter. Paragraph 3 of the note of dissent points to the principle that I have outlined in general terms. It states:
1514
"Whilst we would be willing to accept the recommendation for a single Government agency, this must be based firmly on the principle that a Government Department substantially responsible for the direction and control of an industry should not in any way he responsible for the standards and enforcement of occupational health and safety in that industry."
The House should take that seriously and assent to it tonight. I hope that the Minister will feel compelled to reconsider the issue.
The main report recognises the startling structural inadequacy of the Department of Energy to take on the single agency task of safety. It recognises that there would have to be substantial changes in any event, whatever solution the Government decided upon. It is difficult to argue that the upheaval necessary in the Department of Energy to carry out the recommendations of the main committee would be any less than that required to strengthen the role of the Health and Safety Executive.
The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) rightly stressed the importance of employees and employers being regarded as the first line of defence against accidents at sea. No one would quarrel with that. The hon. Gentleman will not doubt that Government and public agencies must have responsibility for setting realistic standards for judging whether employers and employees are meeting the safety standards. I do not wish to diminish the necessity for agreement between employers and employees. The debate is about where ultimate Government responsibility should lie.
Sir Albert Costain: I must have expressed myself badly. I was saying that specialised workers and employers create a team with Government officials. We are considering whether Government officials should be in the Department of Energy or another Department. I say that the Department of Energy produces the better team.
Mr. Maclennan: Government officials and the industry must come together. However, the officials involved in promoting commercial interests will not necessarily be the same as those involved in safety matters. From the industry's point of view it is perhaps a matter of

1515
marginal importance whether the individuals involved in safety are housed in the Department of Energy or in the Health and Safety Executive. There will be two teams, one of which will deal with safety. For the reasons argued in the minority report it is appropriate that that team should be firmly outside the ambit and control of the sponsoring Department, the prime interests of which are not necessarily or clearly related to safety.
5.55 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I pestered the Leader of the House in May, June and July for this debate, so I am grateful to the Government for finding time for it. In no curmudgeonly spirit I say that we might want to return to the subject once again when the Norwegian inquiry has been published—which I believe will be in December. It was helpful of the Minister to place in the Library a guide to his acceptance or otherwise of the recommendations.
I make no apology for returning to the topic, which was so eloquently raised by the Opposition Front Bench and by my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas), Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). I refer to the minority report, which was discussed at Question Time on Monday. The Minister should understand that some of us feel deeply that an improper relationship is involved. Indeed, it is an incestuous relationship. The sponsoring Department has no business getting involved with health and safety.
I make no apology for going into this matter in some detail. Let us consider the Minister's argument. He said "Ah, we must understand that the majority of the Burgoyne committee was of the Government's view." I have friends on the Burgoyne committee, of whom Matt Linning is one. Each member of the committee is associated with the oil industry. Dr. Burgoyne is an oil industry consultant. Mr. Hildrew is managing director of Lloyds Register of Shipping. Professor McNaughton, Mr. Riddlestone and Dr. Weck are also experts in the oil industry.
There was no lay member or umpire on the committee. I am not insinuating that there necessarily should have been, but in the absence of a lay element it is doubly important that in a matter that
1516
overwhelmingly affects the trade unions special heed should be paid to what the trade union representatives said.
If the minority report had been accepted, would the arrangements affecing the civil servants involved be different? For example, if the minority report were accepted—not to put too fine a point on it—would it mean upheaval for certain civil servants living in the London area? The answer might be "No." I want a clear statement from the Government that they have not been suckled into rejecting the minority report because of the convenience of civil servants.
All I want at present is an assurance. My question is not rhetorical but genuine. There is a suspicion that part of the reason why the Government have not accepted the minority view and why pressure was put on the Burgoyne committee is that it did not suit civil servants to be inconvenienced.
The Minister said that workers on rigs live on top of one another, and that this presented difficulties. That is another reason for having a change of responsibilities.
I make no apology for going through certain points made by Mr. Miller and
Mr. Lyons. In paragraph 3 they state:
"a Government Department substantially responsible for the direction and control of an industry should not in any way be responsible for the standards and enforcement of occupational health and safety in that industry."
We are entitled to ask for the general philosophy on this issue. I understand the Government's opinion on this subject to be contrary to what is almost a central belief. I am surprised that Ministers from the Department accepted the contravention of that principle.
I come next to paragraph 7.
"Secondly, the Bingham report on Sanctions Busting records that one of Beckett's assistants. Alan Gregory (later Chairman of BP Trading) asked Shell if information received on sanctions busting could be passed to the Under Secretary of the Commonwealth Office 'on a purely personal basis', so that if 'there were any further signs of Ministers wishing to sound off on this subject the appropriate discouraging noises could be made'. The suggestion here is that top civil servants failed to pass vital information to Ministers."

1517
Paragraph 8 states:
"The possibility of shared values and membership of closed groups amongst offshore managements can have tremendous implications for the independence of inspectors involved. It is our view that any unification of responsibilities under the auspices of the Department of Energy, as the sponsoring Department, entails a continuing risk, to the possible detriment of safety standards. With the certain growing economic and political significance of oil, this danger is unlikely to be reduced in the near future."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and others have quite often said, there is a very quick transfer between the Department of Energy and outside bodies. I have had cause, in a case in my constituency, to be grateful to Ministers in relation to my constituent, Alan Blackshaw. But there are quite a number of civil servants, not only at permanent secretary level, who make a move out of the Department of Energy. I do not want to personalise this issue, but we have all seen the reports about Sir Jack Rampton going over to a key position in industry within a very short time.
It is in those circumstances that the Department, to protect its flank, must be seen to be whiter than white. I assure the Minister that, as he must know from his constituency of Ross and Cromarty, there has been enormous dissatisfaction about injuries in the North Sea and what has happened about them. There was a long case in the mid-1970s of a diver from Bathgate who lost his life. His family were far from satisfied about what happened after the accident. They may or may not be right, but it is insufferable that such dissatisfaction could be intertwined with the feeling that perhaps those in the industry in the North Sea are all in it together. Even if there was no cover up—I am not saying that in that case there was—it is of the utmost importance that it should be seen that there is a separate judgment by an outside organisation, as is taken for granted in the mining industry. In that industry it would be unthinkable to have this degree of cosiness.
I repeat that I am not saying that there was anything underhand or that there was a cover-up in that case. I say only from personal experience that it must be doubly clear that the organisation that is passing judgment on what did or did not happen
1518
in a tragic accident should be seen to be separate. There has been reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I know that he and his union feel that equally strongly. I hope that he has a quick return to the House.
I come to paragraph 12 of the minority report, which states:
"No offshore safety committee visited by us has ever seen a PED inspector. PED told us they have never needed to meet safety committees or safety representatives offshore, or advise them of their visit offshore."
That needs some explanation. I find it astonishing in the context in which it is put, and it provides another reason why the Government should handle this issue with kid gloves.
Paragraph 15 states:
"The vast majority of offshore accidents, including even many of the most technologically-celebrated ones, arise out of circumstances which would be perfectly comprehensible to an ordinary Factory Inspector. Indeed, the ' unique' aspects of offshore operations are frequently overstressed, a tendency probably exacerbated by the retention of direct and agency responsibility within a specialised Department."
What was the Minister saying in his opening speech to the effect that this was all so complicated and technical that others could not pass judgment? My position here is like that of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I have visited Alverstoke, which is the naval diving establishment, and I have also visited the establishment at Loch Linnhe, Fort William. I will pass on judgment on the latter, because I was impressed when I went there on 4 January 1979. I was totally surprised.
I just do not accept that all these judgments are so technically advanced that the Factory Inspectorate is not in a position to make the necessary kind of judgment.
Paragraph 18 states:
"One operator having experience in both Norwegian and United Kingdom sectors gave evidence to the Committee. This leading trans-national corporation found the Norwegian Inspectorate much 'tougher' than the 'weaker' United Kingdom system. Norwegian inspectors, for example, make sudden inspections, with legal rights to seize seats on helicopters without notice, unlike the United Kingdom situation where advance notice is given to the operator for access, with all that that implies. The operator, of course, prefers the United Kingdom system; especially the close relationships' enjoyed with the Department of Energy."

1519
The fact that in an official report both trade union representatives should state their belief that that was the situation, regardless of whether it was true, seems to me sufficient reason why the Government should be quite clear about separating the various organisations. On this, therefore, I simply say that the purpose of a second reading debate is surely to allow the Government to think again. There would be no loss of face. Ministers have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and several other Labour Members. They have heard the hon. Member for Canterbury, who has considerable industrial experience. How is it that we are all reiterating the same point? On this sort of matter the opinion of the House of Commons should be taken into account, so I leave the matter there.
I should like to go through other points that have been raised, and I quote here from page 2 of the briefing that was placed in the Library.
"In addition the pressure systems and well head equipment of each well are designed to take account of the particular geological specifications of the well. This information is made available in confidence to the Department of Energy by the operator and could not be passed on to the Certifying Authorities".
I wish to know why it cannot be passed on to the certifying authorities. People at Heriot Watt want to ask the same question. At the bottom of the page it states:
"The Certifying Authorities are being asked to draw up minimum requirements for notification."
The question arises of when that will be done, as it is an urgent matter.
Paragraph 6.11 states:
"Consideration should be given to a scheme of official approval of independent surveyors qualified to undertake specialised surveys, if required, on behalf of the Certifying Authorities."
The Minister will recollect that that was one of the recommendations that he rejected. He said:
"It is considered that this would not be appropriate. Official approval of independent specialised surveyors to be employed by Certifying Authorities would detract from and confuse the latter's certification responsibilities."
The experts on the Burgoyne committee did not think that there would be any confusion. They said:
"It … was suggested that the work of the Certifying Authorities could be facilitated if the Secretary of State were to grant and
1520
publish approvals of suitable specialist organisations to undertake specified surveys for the Certifying Authorities."
I must return to the point on which I interrupted the Minister in his opening speech, namely, the evidence from the British Insurance Association. It states:
"Apart from the obvious commercial disadvantages, this policy has the following side effects:

(a) In spite of being accepted as the country's main independent source of expertise, the engineering offices have lost the opportunity to participate in offshore-technology at the construction stage, to the detriment of both their own stature and the national confidence in the industry.

(b) This in turn inevitably makes competition for future work both home and overseas all the more difficult.

(c) Because of their long-established activity in the in-service/statutory inspection field, the engineering offices present an invaluable source of expertise which should be called on in the interests of safety in offshore installations. Lack of prior involvement at the pre-commissioning stages makes effective contribution in the in-service phase more difficult.

(d) This continuing failure to draw on the country's main source of appropriate expertise must throw doubt on the efficacy of a system intended to ensure the operational safety of our installations in the face of an increasing public demand for greater measures to prevent losses.

We support steps which might lead to the imposition of specific requirements on Certifying Authorities to stipulate the need for independent inspection and certification of certain items by approved UK inspecting organisations. The engineering offices would be glad to cooperate in drawing up advice and guidelines to the Department both on the degree of inspection required and on the criteria for approval of inspecting organisations."
I do not apologise for having read that, because it is crucial. It is a case that must be answered when the Minister replies tonight and not at a later stage.
Paragraph 6.13 states:
"UK civil and criminal law should be applied to vessels engaged in pipeline works and the problems of its application to attendant vessels should be thoroughly investigated".
The Government replied:
"This will be examined in the wider context of consideration of the Law Commission's Report on the Territorial and Extra-Territorial Extent of the Criminal Law. There are however formidable difficulties in the way of extending UK law in general to foreign flag vessels.
During the summer I talked to a number of people in the industry. They think that it is unacceptable that foreign

1521
flag vessels should not come under British law. Difficult though the lawyers may be, I do not believe that it is beyond the ingenuity of the Foreign Office lawyers—Sir Ian Sinclair and his colleagues—to find some way around that difficulty. I am asking Energy Ministers to tell their advisers and the legal Department of the Foreign Office "This is a must. It is a requirement from Government." We must be able to alter the law to cover foreign flag vessels.
Paragraph 6.19 states:
"Guidance should be given to Employers and Offshore Installation Managers on reconciliation of the conflict regarding their responsibilities introduced by the application offshore of the 1974 Act."
The Government replied:
"These recommendations are being considered, but it may prove difficult to draw a clear distinction between the responsibilities of Employers and Offshore Installation Managers."
What is the difficulty in drawing that distinction? There may be some difficulty, and I look forward to the Minister's reply. Some of us do not see any difficulty.
I return to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline. Paragraph 6.28 states:
"Regulations should be made as soon as possible for the control of occupational safety during offshore construction."
The Government replied:
"The general duties of the Health and Safety at Work Act already apply and HSE has issued Guidance Notes. The need for Regulations will be reviewed in the light of experience in two years' time."
I ask the question a second time—why should that take two years? Perhaps we have twice the chance of an answer.
I return to the central issue. I repeat my question: as it is almost the unanimous opinion of those who have spoken, other than the Government Front Bench, will the Government not think again, without any embarrassment and without any loss of face, and accept the view of the two trade union representatives on those issues on which the trade unions have a special right to have a determining say?
6.17 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I wish to emphasise the importance of the Burgoyne minority report. It was instituted not because of satisfaction with the safety
1522
standards in the North Sea operations but because of dissatisfaction and concern. The Minister exuded complacency about the whole situation.
My hon. Friends have emphasised that the minority report favoured an independent body to supervise safety aspects. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has read out paragraph 18, I shall not trouble the House with reading it again, but it makes it clear that the minority members of the committee pointed to the cosy relationship that exists between the oil companies and those responsible for the present safety arrangements through the Department of Energy.
I must emphasise the concern felt by the public about the way in which senior civil servants from the majority of Departments linked to industry nip swiftly from their highly paid senior Civil Service jobs into the boardrooms of the big corporations with which they have been dealing. They never join a trade union or a charity as an adviser. They always go into highly paid jobs in the boardrooms. The link is too close for comfort, and too close for the satisfaction of the public.
It may be that affairs are conducted with absolute probity, but when senior civil servants during the course of their employment are in close contact with the big corporations, and then join their boards, people say "What were they doing during the course of their employment on behalf of the Government? Were they lining themselves up for a job? When safety is at stake will a senior civil servant, because of that relationship, take the weaker position in view of the possibility of later joining a company?"
The Minister will say "That is absolute nonsense. We have total and utter confidence in all our senior civil servants". We have a lot of confidence in civil servants, and they often operate assiduously and with great competence, but as long as there is transfer on retirement, or part way through a Civil Service career, into lucrative jobs, a question mark will remain over the attitude of some of those people.
I emphasise that in principle the idea that the supervision of the safety of the offshore oil and gas industry should come under the Health and Safety Commission is right. It is right to take it away from the sponsoring Department. We have

1523
done it in relation to all the other sponsoring Departments, such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The example of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has already been mentioned. It has been moved from the Department of Energy. The Mines and Quarries Inspectorate has been moved, and no one for a moment would contemplate its going back to the Department of Energy. No one would contemplate the idea that factory inspectors should go back to the Department of Industry. Why not follow that pattern and move responsibility for safety to the Health and Safety Commission': It seems a sensible conclusion.
The report points out the difficulties of the present legislative enforcement pattern. It says on page 136:
"The division of regulatory authority causes confusion and practical problems for an offshore operator",
and it goes on to give illustrations. Its analysis that duplication causes problems is right, but its conclusion that all administration should be allocated to the Department of Energy is wrong, because there should be a body of expertise concerned solely with safety. My hon. Friends have emphasised repeatedly that it is not a question of discarding the expertise that exists. The experts would be transferred to a body concerned with the imposition of standards of safety.
The Government's atttitude is not at odds with their attitude to safety in other areas. Not long ago the House debated and voted on the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980. They were introduced by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment. It seems to me that when a major, or, indeed, a minor corporation is bent on increasing profits, safety is placed at risk. Safety comes second to profits. That is why there is a regulatory system—to try to prevent such occurrences causing loss of life and injury.
We have a system of sanctions, under which firms that act in that way are prosecuted. That sanction is there to ensure that safety and human life and limb come before profit. In evidence to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which considered those regulations, a member of the Department of Employment said:
"'The major purpose in these regulations is not to prosecute but to encourage and exhort
1524
and persuade compliance with the regulations".
That is the attitude of the Department of Employment, and it fits in with that of the Department of Energy. Rather than placing safety at a higher level of importance, it diminishes it. It produces a lower level of safety in all its various aspects, which is a matter of grave concern to the House.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): As the hon. Gentleman has referred to me and to the regulations that I introduced, perhaps he will accept that the attitude of the Health and Safety Commission and of the Executive is that it is far better to educate and exhort than to prosecute, although in an extreme case one must prosecute.
Mr. Cryer: I was about to point out that the notion that transferring responsibility to the Health and Safety Commission would produce an instant solution is not necessarily right. As the Burgoyne committee points out, further facilities are required. These should be made the responsibility of the Health and Safety Commission, and the commission should be beefed up.
I have been a critic of the commission for adopting the very attitude that the Minister mentioned in his intervention. As he knows full well, the general drive of the Health and Safety commission comes from the sponsoring Department—the Department of Employment—and, if it were to breathe down the neck of the Health and Safety Commission, the commission would respond accordingly. Many members of the commission, such as the people on the ground and those who carry out the inspections, want to institute prosecutions for breach of regulations, but they are inhibited by the attitude of the executive, and that springs from the attitude of the Department of Employment.
All that I am saying is that the desire to inhibit the pursuit of higher safety standards springs direct from Government Departments. The criticisms that I have raised about the commission and the executive derive from the present attitude of the Department of Energy.
Sir Bernard Braine: I am following the hon. Gentleman's remarks with the closest

1525
of interest. I agree with him that the Health and Safety Executive's attitude should be toughened up. I have had long experience in my constituency of a residential population being exposed to industrial hazard. However, to be fair to the executive and to my hon. and learned Friend's Department, I must tell the House that during the past year the HSE has instituted one successful prosecution and served three enforcement notices against the hazardous installations with which we must live. I suggest that that is a movement in the right direction.
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is right. All that I am suggesting is that the transfer to the commission and executive should be accompanied by a few digs in the right direction. The hon. Gentleman agrees with me on this matter. It is a question of constant scrutiny. He has usefully pointed out that there are some good moves in the right direction. However, the principle is right.
I conclude by making two further points. The first relates to the principle of putting safety one stage removed from the sponsoring Department. That principle is right. Whatever our criticisms of the commission and the executive—and they will always exist because this is an evolving situation—it is part of our job in the House of Commons to exercise scrutiny and to bring some of our reservations to the attention of the public. The more that we debate and examine, the better will be the implementation of safety standards. I have strong reservations about the Government's notion of maintaining the application of safety standards through the sponsoring Department.
My final point relates to cost. The question of cost is always raised as a sort of spectre in the application of safety. We must say again and again that higher safety standards do not increase costs. In fact, they reduce them. The cost of accidents is enormous, and not only in the short term. There is the cost of recovery of both people and materials. The cost of pollution in the industry about which we are talking can be open-ended, The cost in terms of lives and strained industrial relations can go on for years
1526
after the accident. It can involve relatives. There is the cost of legal actions, not to mention the tattered and frayed relationships that result. They are all costs on industry, and if we avoid accidents we avoid those costs.
In both the short and the long run, the improvement of safety standards reduces costs. The question of costs is a misnomer. Higher safety standards will not cause greater expense; they will save money. On all counts, Labour Members want the implementation of the minority report—it seems to be the more practical section of the report—and we hope that the Government will take action. I hope that my hon. Friends will indicate their strength of purpose and feeling about this matter by dividing the House on the amendment, which is right in principle.
6.30 pm
Mr. Gordon Wilson: I apologise to the Minister for not being present during most of his opening speech. I support the demands and persuasions from many hon. Members that the minority report of the Burgoyne committee should be considered again by the Government. I agree that this is not a question of political confrontation. We are involved in a process of persuasion. The Minister would gain more politically if he were prepared to accept the views that have been expressed and the arguments that have been deployed.
I think it is important that health and safety should be divorced from the Department of Energy, because of the particular position of the Department. As I understand it, its main strategy, within the limits of its new depletion policy, is to try to get as much production as possible. Financial penalties are visited on contractors and oil companies if a major flaw is discovered relating to safety, because drilling or production may have to be shut down. For the contractor, a decision whether to shut down is serious. The financial pressures faced by enforcement of the regulations are greater for the oil and gas industry than in manufacturing, where the incidence of danger is less likely.
The Department of Energy should think again about this matter in relation to what happened in the early days of oil development in the North Sea. The Offshore Supplies Office, which had been

1527
given the job of attracting contracts to the United Kingdom, had the first duty of helping the oil companies to make progress with their work so that oil could be produced in the interests of the State. If that is the case with procurement, if there is too cosy a relationship between the Department of Energy and the oil industry the Department may have to accept some pressures without accepting some of the allegations that were made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer).
For instance, if there were a major shutdown of oil supplies in the Middle East and a serious safety hazard was likely to develop in the Forties platform, and the United Kingdom was facing the problem of the supply of oil, where would the Department place the emphasis? It might have to accept the risk and keep Forties in production, regardless of safety. The Health and Safety Executive, having the primary task of looking after safety, might take the contrary view. I am deliberately exaggerating the circumstances in order to put the matter into perspective, because many of the accidents occur to individuals, as in the case of the "Alexander Kielland". Nevertheless, that exaggerated example points to some of the pressures that can be put on individual officials in the Department.
For those reasons, I support the view that the minority report is more acceptable for those who work in the offshore industry. The emphasis should be put on protection, and I hope that the Government will sensibly and sensitively agree to the change that has been suggested by the House.
6.35 pm
Mr. Harold Walker: For the first time, I am beginning to feel some sympathy for the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has just passed me a note saying that in addition to the Minister there have been eight speakers in this debate, all of whom I have listened to, and I cannot recall one who supported the Minister's argument. It is true that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) made some half-hearted remarks if not of support of at least not in opposition to the Minister. At this stage we are 71 to 1 against the Government, and I intend to make it at least 8½ to 1
1528
now. I hope that the Government will take account of and reflect the attitude of the House today.
This debate is part of what has been a long struggle to give decent standards of protection to men and women at work. There has been a slow advance in the 200-year period since the Industrial Revolution, marked by the Factories Acts, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, and so on. But we have had our setbacks as well as our advances. I am afraid that the Government are trying to give us another little setback today, but I hope that the Minister will take account of the views of the House and that they will be reflected in his reply.
The report is long, highly complex and technical. I expect that many people thought that it was not within their understanding. But at root, as the debate has shown, it is essentially concerned with one straightforward, important and serious question. Where should the responsibility lie for ensuring the adoption and maintenance of standards that will apply in a highly dangerous industry?
The Burgoyne committee was not asked to examine that. Indeed, the minority report pointed out that that lay outside its terms of reference. Those terms of reference were:
"To consider so far as they are concerned with safety, the nature, coverage and effectiveness of the Department of Energy's regulations governing the exploration, development and production of oil and gas offshore and their administration and enforcement. To consider and assess the role of the Certifying Authorities. To present its report, conclusions and any recommendations as soon as possible."
I find it difficult to understand why we have spent a whole afternoon debating a matter that fell outside the committee's terms of reference.
I should like to take up some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas), because it gives me an opportunity to talk about a matter that is before the Public Accounts Committee and to say something about the origins of the underwater training centre at Fort William, with which, as a Minister, I was involved at the time. I was involved in setting up that centre. I do not know whether to feel proud or whether to hang my head.
Reference has been made to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), because before

1529
he was in the House he was extremely concerned, as we all were, about the growing fatality rate in the North Sea, particularly among divers. We were absolutely convinced that something must be done about this. We decided to begin by requiring every diver who was diving in the British sector of the North Sea to be properly qualified. This would mean that he had to have a certificate of competence which meant passing the necessary medical examination, reaching the appropriate standard of fitness and maintaining it and undertaking an appropriate course of training. But there was no appropriate training facility available at that time and if we were to make that a condition of issuing a certificate we had to ensure that the would-be diver had access to the appropriate training facilities. That meant that we had to provide those facilities. My view about that at the time was recorded in the documents at the Department of Employment. I refreshed my memory about it recently when I visited the Department and looked at the documents. It is all there.
In 1974 I set out instructions about the way in which these facilities should be set up and how they should be financed by the oil industry, preferably through appropriate levies administered through the petroleum industry training board, but that if it was not possible, it should be done by the establishment of an agency operated by the BNOC that was being set up at that time.
That is the way that we envisaged the operation. In order to dive in the North Sea, people would need the appropriate training, according to the depths to which they were diving. They would have to pass the medical examination, we would have to provide the medical facilities, and the whole thing would be financed by the oil industry.
I am hesitant about commenting in advance of the report on the work that has been done by the Public Accounts Committee, but it did issue an interim report that seemed to indicate that I had some responsibility for matters that had been misjudged and had not gone well. I very much regret that, and I do not intend to go further into these matters this afternoon. However, I hope that the Committee will take account of what I
1530
have said to the House and of what I put in a letter to it.
I return to the main issue before the House. I shall say something about the historical background behind the setting up of the Burgoyne committee. We begin by looking at the Robens report to Parliament and the recommendation that led to the creation of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The central theme of the Robens philosophy comes down against the fragmentation of responsibility for occupational health and safety and its division between different Government Departments. That report pointed out that the Department of Energy was responsible for coal mining and oil, and so on; the Department of the Environment had the responsibility for noxious and toxic emissions into the atmosphere and for the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, and so on. The report said that all this fragmentation was nonsense and that these various responsibilities should be brought together under one independent body, which would not have divided loyalties and obligations to the basic work of any Department. It suggested the establishment of a single body to administer the whole area of occupational health and safety and to bring forward recommendations that would eventually lead to one comprehensive and codified statute law and regulations.
Of course Parliament embraced that report and we turned it into legislation—the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dr. Owen), who said that this was not a party issue. It is not. Conservative Members have perfectly good credentials in these matters and the main work of drafting the Act fell to the then Conservative Government. I was very happy to take it over and make some modifications, which the whole House endorsed.
That Act was not achieved easily. The Department of Energy did not readily surrender its responsibility for the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate. It fought like a tiger, because it did not want to see its empire diminished. The Department of the Environment fought like a tiger against surrendering the Alkali Inspectorate. The Ministry of Agriculture vowed that it would not give up its responsibility for agricultural safety. The battles were

1531
fought and, in the main, were won. We have seen the benefits in improved occupational health and safety and the falling off in accident and fatality figures over the years. I hope that that trend long continues.
However, we did not win the battle for offshore health and safety. We put into the Act a power to extend the Act to offshore activities by Order in Council while we discussed the matter further with the appropriate Department. By 1976 the case had become so overwhelming that the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) made a statement to the House saying that we would make the Order in Council on the primary responsibility for health and safety in the North Sea and that this would pass through the Health and Safety Committee. The Department of Energy was not ready to give up as easily as that. It had lost only one round.
I wonder whether hon. Members have seen that delightful and amusing programme on television called "Yes, Minister". You, Mr. Speaker, and I have been Ministers and we know that sometimes that programme comes very near the truth. The "Humphrey" in the alpartment of Energy must be smirking all over his face because he has won again. His Minister is here, acting as the stooge for Humphrey, who is sitting in the box, no doubt. Perhaps he will say "We will set up a committee". Like all Government-appointed committees, the key will lie in who is on it. They will include carefully hand-picked people, so that the Government can be certain in advance that the committee will come up with the answers that they really want. They will also make sure that the terms of reference are sufficiently elastic, so that with the passage of time they can be bent sufficiently to include those things that were specifically excluded. That is why we have this report this afternoon. It is all to do with the preservation of the empire of the Department of Energy and the vested interests to which my hon. Friends have referred, and are referred to in the minority report.
Paragraph 7 of the minority report is straightforward about the conflict of interests and the interchange of personnel. We do not wish to question the integrity
1532
of any employees, but the report goes on to give two examples. It says:
"in 1978 Dr. Jeremy Bray, MP said of Angus Beckett, a Head of the Petroleum Division, His view was that whatever was good for the oil companies was good for Britain… . He was so obviously in the pockets of the oil companies that I don't think they had any respect for him.' Secondly, the Bingham Report on Sanctions Busting records that one of Beckett's assistants, Alan Gregory (later Chairman of BP Trading) asked Shell if information received on sanctions busting could be passed to the Under-Secretary at the Commonwealth Office, 'on a purely personal basis', so that if 'there were any further signs of Ministers wishing to sound off on this subject, the appropriate discouraging noises could be made'".
Shades of "Yes, Minister" again. I do not know who advises the producers of that programme but I think that there must be some mole in the Department of Energy earning a bit on the side.
The grim side of this is that on the receiving end, way down the line, are those poor people whose lives are at risk in the North Sea, and many whose lives have been snatched away from them in the most grim and gruesome circumstances. I shall not harrow the House with the descriptions given to me, when I was responsible for occupational health and safety, of some of the terrible tragedies that have occurred in the North Sea. Those who are putting forward the proposals ought to be aware of them, because they may feel that they should carry a heavy responsibility for any such tragedies that occur in future.
The Minister spoke of liaison between the HSE and his Department. The note of dissent takes up that aspect and says:
"In spite of requests from the HSE, as part of the Agency Agreement, for detailed information on fatal and serious accidents, so that there could be consultation over the investigation and reporting, PED does not appear to have complied on a regular basis. Scrutiny of investigation reports on serious or fatal accidents has tended to indicate absence of some necessary factual information; insufficient consideration of legal aspects necessary to identify contraventions of laws or regulations; absence of first-hand statements taken by PED inspectors; delay, sometimes considerable in assembling papers which are not normally accompanied by a covering report on the lines of the Factory Inspectorate accident report; and insufficient consideration being given to enforcement procedures generally or legal proceedings in particular."
The whole House knows that the risk of accidents in the industry is in excess of that in almost any other industry. It

1533
is obviously dangerous work, yet the service of the PED has so far not included the service of any prohibition or improvement notices. The note of dissent continues:
"No offshore safety committee visited by us has ever seen a PED inspector. PED told us they have never needed to meet safety committees or safety representatives offshore, or advise them of their visit offshore."
I find that astonishing, in view of the legitimate concern that built up over the years and led to my arranging with the chief inspector of factories that, in the relatively much safer environment of onshore factories, inspectors making visits are required to talk to the representatives of workers and are required by section 28(8) of the 1974 Act to pass on to those representatives any factual information relating to their health, safety or welfare.
We have imposed that statutory obligation in respect of much safer establishments and it seems extraordinary that the PED inspectors have never met safety committees or safety representatives offshore, and have never advised them of visits offshore.
We have heard many quotations from the minority report. My hon. Friends and I are at one with those who compiled the report, and it seems that we are not alone in that. I am not attacking the Government on traditional party lines. I am saying "Please listen to those in the House who know something about these matters and have been involved with them over the years." The Government must do what is right for the blokes whose lives are at risk in the North Sea.
We are all concerned to get the oil and gas ashore and to get the benefits of it for this country—the Government want to use the revenue for cutting taxes and we want it to be used to build schools and hospitals, but that is a separate argument—but we do not want that to be at the expense of workers lives. Those who have produced the report are not sufficiently sensitive to the health and safety needs of those working in the North Sea.
Not only Labour Members take that view; we have heard it from the Liberal and Scottish National Benches, and even from the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who has an honourable record in these matters. I hope that the
1534
Minister will tell us that he and his officials want to think about what we have said and will have further discussions with the Department of Employment. If the Government do not agree that until they have had those further discussions they will leave the motion before the House, meaning only what it says—take note and nowt else—we shall have to put our views on record and divide the House.
If the Government do not listen and respond to us, the Minister and his colleagues will have a heavy responsibility to bear for the fatalities and serious accidents that will undoubtedly continue to occur in the North Sea.
6.56 pm
Mr. Gray: By leave of the House, it might be convenient if I try to deal with some of the points that have been raised in our interesting debate.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and others questioned the membership of the committee and the views of some of the members. I remind them that their Government set up the committee and that we are accepting the majority view of the members appointed by the previous Government.
There is no conflict between us on the issue of safety. We are every bit as anxious about safety as is anyone on the Opposition side. There is also little conflict about the report. The recommendations are broadly acceptable to both sides. The one exception is the recommendation that attracted the attenion of the trade union members who submitted the note of dissent.
We believe that the suggestions that we are prepared to accept from the majority report and the action that we propose to take as a result will ultimately lead to greater safety offshore than would the suggestions of Opposition Members.
I return to the theme that I developed earlier. We believe that it would be highly dangerous to separate safety from the production functions of offshore installations. If we have people saying "We are not responsible for safety, somebody else is", we shall be taking serious risks in the conditions prevailing in the North Sea—probably the most hazardous oil exploration conditions in the world.

1535
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) asked about recommendation 6.11—the official approval of independent surveyors for specialised surveys. That is the one recommendation that we are unable to accept. The hon. Member for West Lothian gave our reason for rejecting that recommendation. It would not be appropriate for the Department of Energy to give official approval for independent specialised surveyors to be employed by certifying authorities. That would detract from and confuse the authorities' certification responsibilities. The terms of appointment of the certifying authorities require them to accept reputable independent agencies. Many are recognised. It is not a question of cost. The reasons are, first, the difficulty of ensuring full coverage of the many organisations involved, and, secondly, that it would detract from their ultimate responsibility.
It may be that Opposition Members do not agree entirely with that, but after a report such as this, which has been prepared by a distinguished group of people, the time comes when the Government must take a view. That view may not be the same as that of the Opposition. However, we took the view that the recommendation was not sufficiently compelling for us to accept it.
The right hon. Member for Devonport referred to the data bank on plant and equipment failure. There is no doubt about its value. The discussions mentioned in the Government's statement will be concerned with how to obtain proper coverage of these failures and how to assemble it to be credible and useful. Therefore, I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked what steps were being taken to ensure that there would be no repeat of the "Alexander Kielland" disaster. I reiterate that I am reluctant to make any comment on the "Alexander Kielland" disaster at the moment. When I was in Norway earlier this week I was given an up-to-date report on how the attempts to right the "Alexander Kielland" were proceeding. Until we see the report that is being prepared as a result of the investigations in Norway, it would be unwise to comment.
All the installations similar to the "Alexander Kielland" and operating on
1536
the United Kingdom continental shelf were thoroughly examined shortly after the accident, and necessary modifications were made in some instances. Such minor defects as were disclosed were not considered to be critical. The owners of other types of mobile installations were required to carry out safety checks, particularly in relation to structural stability. No significant defects were found. We still await the report of the comminssion. Until it is received, I cannot comment further.
Mr. Douglas: It is true, as I indicated, that the Norwegians found it necessary to make structural changes and to reinforce at least two rigs, one being the "Henrik Ibsen", but Lloyd's did not find that necessary. Surely the Department of of Energy has a view on the reasons why Lloyd's took a different view from Det Norske Veritas.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the alterations to the "Henrik Ibsen" were carried out on the volition of the owners, not under any pressure. They did that of their own volition. The Government must take the advice of the certifying authorities. We are satisfied that we were given the correct advice. If the hon Gentleman requires any further information, I shall provide it.
Recommendation 6.50 on the timing of the application of regulations offshore was referred to by the right hon. Member for Davenport. The draft extending these regulations offshore is being considered by the Health and Safety Executive's legal advisers. The consultations over the draft have been protracted because of the complex employment practices in the offshore oil industry.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about transferring responsibility for this matter to the Health and Safety Executive. I make no criticism, but it would mean divorcing the Petroleum Engineering Division Inspectorate from immediate and continuing access direct to other petroleum specialists in my Department. In the event of a major accident or emergency such reservoir engineers, who are limited in number, must be retained in my Department because of the nature of their main responsibilities for field developments and operations. These are points of which Opposition Members and even the authors of the note of dissent

1537
may not fully have been aware, but I assure the House that they are vital.
Mr. Maclennan: I am at a loss to understand what that last statement meant. Similar considerations must have arisen within the nuclear industry. That is a high technology industry, with officials in the responsible Department, in the sponsoring Department and in the industry, who must retain responsibility for safety matters. However, that does not mean that it is not necessary to bring in outside authorities and officials to double check and to give an independent and authoritative analysis of problems of this kind. Where, if there is a difference, does the difference lie?
Mr. Gray: I cannot accept that there is no difference. There is a great difference. The nuclear establishments are on shore, and that makes a great difference. Offshore, it is imperative that the inspectorate has easy access to other specialists within the Department so that they may benefit from the knowledge that can be given to them on production and exploration. I repeat that it is imperative that the two functions are not divorced.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked about the possible extension of the United Kingdom civil and criminal law pipe-laying vessels and other vessels attending installations. There are formidable difficulties in the way of extending United Kingdom law in general to foreign flag vessels, which account for a fair proportion of the vessels engaged in our offshore areas. This recommedation will be examined in the wider context of the Law Commission's report on the territorial and extra territorial extent of the criminal law. That point was also made by the hon. Member for West Lothian. We intend to follow this up to see whether anything can be done about it.
The right hon. Member also asked about pipelines and their inspection. Pipelines are inspected by the owners and the pipelines inspectors of the Department of Energy. Pipelines are usually inspected externally from submersibles. The Department is collaborating on research into internal remote inspection devices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) made an in-
1538
teresting speech. We always pay attention to his advice, because he is never afraid to express himself clearly, whether or not he agrees with his Front Bench. I suggest that offshore activities are spearheading diving developments. We should not confuse naval diving with offshore diving. They are substantially different. However, experience gained in naval diving can be extremely useful in offshore diving.
Mr. Dalyell: What is meant by "Offshore activities spear-heading diving developments"?
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is a real nit-picker. On this occasion he has picked yet another. There is nothing particularly intricate about that expression. The diving industry is more widely represented offshore in the oil industry than in any other sphere. For the hon. Gentleman's benefit, that is what the expression means.
The PED diving inspectors are, with one exception, ex-Royal Navy divers. I remind the hon. Gentleman, who was anxious about this matter—I hope that I have removed any qualms that he had as a result of my opening remarks—that we are extremely interested in the whole aspect of safety. It is for that very reason that we believe that our solution will, in the long term, be better than what is contained in the minority report for those who work offshore.
Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend asking the House in his motion—which is all that I have—to take note of the Burgoyne report—the whole report—or is he asking us to take note of the conclusions and recommendations only? Or is he asking us to take note of a paper which was lodged in the Library by his Department and which is not before this House but is to be found in the Library? I must ask that question, because all that we are seeking to do tonight is to decide whether to take note of the Burgoyne committee report. It is that and nothing more.
Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend will accept that the normal procedure is that, when a report is submitted to the Government, the Government give a view on that report. The Government have given a view. The way in which we did that was

1539
by lodging in the Library our responses to the recommendations that were made. This debate is on a take-note motion, of both the report and the Government's responses.
Mr. Harold Walker: I cannot hear the Minister.
Mr. Gray: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.
Mr. Harold Walker rose——
Mr. Gray: I shall not give way.
Mr. Harold Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, the question put by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) is very importtant. The answer will determine the way in which the House is to vote. The Minister is replying to the hon. Gentleman. I think that the House must understand what we shall be voting on shortly. Is it merely on the question that the House takes note of the report, or is it, as is implicit in the paper in the Library, on the basis that the House and the Government accept the principles and the recommendations?
Mr. Gray: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. It would be rather strange if the Government did not give a view when a distinguished committee reported to it. The Government's responses to the report's recommendations are clearly set out in the paper that was lodged in the Library. That is a normal state of affairs. Therefore, tonight, hon. Members may care to interpret the take-note motion as meaning accepting what the Government will be doing, or to vote for the Opposition amendment. If the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is correct in saying that the Health and Safety Executive is in the pocket of the Department of Employment, the amendment is unnecessary.
Mr. Harold Walker: We must have this cleared up. The Minister accepts that the motion before the House is that the House takes note, but then he goes on to talk about the House possibly interpreting that as acceptance by the Government of the recommendations, and of that being a matter for the House. The Government cannot have it both ways. I do not wish to accuse the Minister of sharp practice, but it is getting near to that when we are being asked to
1540
vote for something which the Government subsequently say is something very different and far-reaching.
Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that we have to involve you in this matter, because the time will come later this evening when you will put the Question on the motion to the House. As I understand it, we shall first have to decide on the amendment to the motion. Perhaps we shall divide on that, and then you will put the Question on the motion that we take note.
Can you advise me whether you are asking me merely to take note, or are you asking me to do more than take note, and to take note of the Government's intentions? It is important that the Government should make clear their intentions, either in writing in a paper in the Library, or in a statement by the Minister this evening.
What are you asking me to do, Mr. Speaker? Are you asking me to take note of the Burgoyne committee's report in its entirety, including the note of dissent, or are you asking me to take note and add a rider to the effect that I must bear in mind what the Government have said? This is extremely important, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that it is important, but the hon. Member has been a Member of the House for a long time and he knows that I am not asking him to do anything. All that I intend to do is to put the Question.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) asked a number of questions. He asked, first, about offshore installations. The technical advisory committee is available to advise on disputes between the owner of an installation and the certifying authority. The committee, which meets on an ad hoc basis, consists of officials from the Health and Safety Executive, the Department of Trade, naval constructors, the Meteorological Office and the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, and it is chaired by a member from the Petroleum Engineering Division.
The hon. Gentleman made some other points about the "Alexander Kielland", which I think I have dealt with and about which I shall write to him.

1541
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the certification of divers. Under the new unified diving regulations, which will come into force during 1981, a diver will not be able to dive unless he has a certificate that he is competent by training or experience. A proposal from the TUC and the CBI is under consideration for approval by the Health and Safety Executive for a diver training certification board to be set up, with expert membership.
The hon. Member for West Lothian and the hon. Member for Dunfermline raised the question of recommendation 6.19 and asked the reason for the time lag. The difficulty is that the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971 puts the main responsibility for safety on the owner and the offshore installation manager, whereas the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 puts it on the employers of the individual workers, who may be contractors or subcontractors. Both Acts now apply to offshore installations, so there is a serious difficulty which needs further consideration. We intend to take action on those matters.
The hon. Member for West Lothian also asked whether the minority report was rejected because acceptance of it would have involved inconvenience for civil servants. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman had in mind the fact that most of the headquarters of the HSE is to be dispersed to Merseyside, but I assure him that this has no bearing on the decision.
On the subject of civil servants, I should like to put the record right in connection with a reference that the hon. Gentleman made to Sir Jack Rampton, the former permanent secretary at the Department of Energy. I refer the hon. Gentleman to Hansard for Wednesday 5 November and the answer that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department gave when he was asked about Sir Jack Rampton. He said:
"Since the hon. Gentleman has tabled his question, I must tell him that the Government have received no such request from Sir Jack Rampton to take up a business appointment. Were any such request to be received, it would have to be considered in accordance with the rules."—[Official Report, 5 November 1980; Vol. 991, c. 1287.]
1542
I hope that that clarifies that point.
I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point about the composition of the committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) made a very helpful contribution to the debate. His view and his experience of the construction industry must be envied by some Opposition Members. The Department of Energy is playing a leading role in the North-West European harmonisation group, which consists of officials of countries bordering the North Sea. The committee is committed to the harmonisation of regulations on the continental shelf on matters of safety and pollution. That point was also raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
I suspect that the House is anxious to move on to other business, so I do not propose to detain hon. Members. [Interruption.]
Mr. Maclennan: What about the diving school?
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman knows that negotiations about the diving school are taking place. It would not be right to make any detailed comment now. We all have the same objective, and we are anxious to see the school continue successfully.
Mr. Maclennan: Before the Minister concludes his speech, can he tell us what weight the Government give to the fact that hon. Members are virtually unanimous in their belief that the Government are wrong on the central issue of taking responsibility away from the Department of Energy? It is understandable and right that he should state the Government's view. Nevertheless, will he give some weight to the opinions that have been expressed by hon. Members from all parties before he makes any final decision?
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman has rightly asked for the Government's view, and I have given it. The Government have taken considerable notice of the minority report. We believe that we are acting in the best interest of those who work on offshore installations. Therefore, the Government do not intend to change their mind.
Mr. Dalyell: What about safety representatives?
Mr. Gray: Many safety committees are now in operation.
Mr. Dalyell: How many?
Mr. Gray: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how many without having been given prior notice. It is up to those who work on the offshore installations to set up safety committees. Some companies have done so. The operators have every right to set up safety committees, and the initiative should usually come from them.
Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. At present, those who work onshore are covered by
the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and they have a statutory right to appoint the safety representatives and committees if their unions request that. Those who work on offshore installations do not have that statutory protection. Is the proposal to be made effective? If so, when?
Mr. Gray: As regards offshore installations, it is a condition of their licensing agreements that companies should make facilities available to trade unions. There is no question of that being discontinued. The ultimate decision rests with those who operate them.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 60, Noes 99.

Division No. 490]

AYES

[7.22 pm

Adams, Allen

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Alton, David

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Penhaligon, David

Anderson, Donald

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Haynes, Frank

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Hefter, Eric S.

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Home Robertson, John

Rooker, J. W.

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Homewood, William

Rowlands, Ted

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Horam, John

Snape, Peter

Crowther, J. S.

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Steel, Rt Hon David

Cryer, Bob

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Strang, Gavin

Dalyell, Tam

Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

Tinn, James

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

McElhone, Frank

Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

Dixon, Donald

McKelvey, William

Welsh, Michael

Dobson, Frank

Magee, Bryan

Whitlock, William

Dormand, Jack

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

Douglas, Dick

Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

Winnick, David

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Morris, Rt Hon John 'Aberavon)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Foster, Derek

Newens, Stanley

Mr. Joseph Dean and

George, Bruce

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Mr. George Morton

Graham, Ted

NOES

Aspinwall, Jack

Gray, Hamish

Neale, Gerrard

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Greenway, Harry

Needham, Richard

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

Nelson, Anthony

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouh N)

Neubert, Michael

Bendell, Vivian

Hannam, John

Newton, Tony

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

Henderson, Barry

Onslow, Cranley

Best, Keith

Hicks, Robert

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Biggs-Davison, John

Hoeg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Parris, Matthew

Blackburn, John

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Percival, Sir Ian

Body, Richard

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Pollock, Alexander

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Proctor, K Harvey

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Hurd, Hon Douglas

Renton, Tim

Budgen, Nick

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Burden, Sir Frederick

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Rossl, Hugh

Butcher, John

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Lyell, Nicholas

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

McNair-Wilson, Michae (Newbury)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Carlisle Kenneth (Lincoln)

Major, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Marlow, Tony

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Behills)

Colvin, Michael

Mather, Carol

Sims, Roger

Cope, John

Mayhew, Patrick

Speed, Keith

Critchley, Julian

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Squire, Robin

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Moate, Roger

Stainton, Keith

Elliott, Sir William

Moore, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Onester)

Wakeham, John

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Murphy, Christopher

Waldegrave, Hon William

Gow, Ian

Myles, David

Ward, John

Wells, John (Maldstone)

Wickenden, Keith

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

Wolfson, Mark

Mr. David Waddington and

Wheeler, John

Lord James Douglas Hamilton

Question accordingly negatived.
Resolved,
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Burgoyne Committee on Offshore Safety (Cmnd. 7866).

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION BILL [LORDS]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. Bernard Weatherill in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14
Mr. Frank McElhone: We are advised that the Bill is mainly a consolidation measure. Nevertheless, as the Solicitor-General indicated on Second Reading, we are to repeal 17 complete Acts of Parliament and parts of 12 others. However, the House of Commons will have no real opportunity to discuss the reasons for doing so.
We are told that the Government are again on an exercise to cut public expenditure. Is the valuable time of the House of Commons being wasted? If there are any further cuts in public expenditure on overseas development, parts of the Bill will be obsolete even before it appears on the statute book. The Government are treating overseas aid and development in a mean and cavalier fashion. We hope that the Minister will make a strong recommendation that there should be a full and urgent debate on the subject.
I shall attempt to get some clarification of clause 14. I do not wish to discuss the merits of the clause, but the Minister should clarify the intention of the clause. I draw the Solicitor-General's attention to a letter that I received from the Minister for Overseas Development on 21 August 1979 when we were discussing matters relevant to the clause. At that time we were discussing education and development banks, especially the Asian Development Bank. The Minister accepted that efforts in education had been
1548
relatively small. The clause refers to the provision of teachers and further education co-operation.
In the last part of the letter from the Minister for Overseas Development—I accept that the Solicitor-General is in some difficulty because the Minister for Overseas Development is not present—the hon. Gentleman stated:
"I share your regret that the Caribbean Development Bank's Student Loan Scheme is not running smoothly."
The Minister agreed in large measure with the concern that I expressed at that time. However, apart from the 17 Acts that are being repealed there is included on page 21 the revocation of the Asian Development Bank (Extension of Limit on Guarantees) Order 1977. That causes me to be in a state of some confusion. In the debates that took place on the bank the Minister referred to substantial sums. The Government are treating overseas development in a rather mean and callous fashion. The Opposition have only 10 minutes per month to ask oral questions on overseas development matters. Bearing in mind that The Sunday Times described the Government's response to the Brandt report as a rather shabby document, I hope that the Solicitor-General will accept the urgency of debating an issue that concerns 800 million people who are living in absolute poverty.
It is not good enough that we should be concerning ourselves with this legislation, which is circumscribed by consolidating procedures. It is grossly unfair to the House, and to the Third world in particular. It is not good enough for a Government whose Prime Minister started her career with the famous words of St. Francis of Assisi.
Mr. William Hamilton: I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone). I appreciate that we cannot go into the whole policy programme of overseas aid, but we should be allowed to take the opportunity in a few minutes to voice our protest at the way that procedure of consolidation measures is conducted. It may be a matter that should be looked at by the Procedure Committee. It may be considered desirable that we should move the matter formally and then hinge a

1549
debate on wider issues on that formal motion. My hon. Friend quoted the Solicitor-General on Second Reading when he said:
"The Bill is a consolidation of a considerable body of law relating to the terms and conditions on which aid and assistance may be granted to overseas territories."
He rightly went on to say;
"It will make a useful contribution to the tidying-up of the statute book. "—[Official Report, 30 October 1980; Vol. 991, c. 859.]
It may be our fault that we have not followed the proceedings by which the consolidation takes place as closely as we would like. However, the Acts repealed by the schedules include two Coal Industry Acts, part of a National Health Service (Scotland) Act, part of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979, part of the Post Office Act 1969 and part of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967.
It is difficult for humble Back Benchers like myself to follow what is happening. We have to take a great deal on trust, and there is not that much trust on this side of the House of what the Government are doing in this or any other field. We have no chance to cross-examine them on how these 17 Acts or parts thereof are to be repealed. That is unsatisfactory.
My hon. Friend referred to the aid programme. The whole point of the debate is that we are laying down a marker. We are concerned, and I believe that large areas of the world are concerned, about the cavalier attitude of the present Government to Third world problems and our aid programme. We ask the Government to give serious and careful consideration to providing Government time for a major debate on the aid programme very early in the new Session. It would not be good enough for the Government to say that the Opposition have had their Supply Days and, if we consider the matter to be of such supreme importance, it is imperative on us to provide the time. If that is their view, let us compromise and each party provide one day of a two-day debate. The importance of the subject merits it.
There is an article in The Guardian today about the conference that is taking place in Vienna tomorrow, and at which Britain will not be represented. Our name is mud in the Third world as a direct consequence of the Government's
1550
policy. That will be compounded, because I believe that the aid programme will be further cut as a result of Cabinet decisions taken this week or shortly thereafter.
I repeat my hon. Friend's suggestion. We must insist on an early and major debate in Government time or in Government and Opposition time to enable us to have a one- or two-day debate on the aid programme.
7.45 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): It will be no surprise to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) that I take issue with him on his criticisms of policy, but I do not take issue on anything else. I fully understand the desire of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to debate either a change in the amount devoted to overseas aid or the law relating to overseas aid, but they will equally understand that it is not within my province to say what shall or shall not be debated. What has been said is on the record. I have no doubt that the business managers on this side of the House will pay close attention to the suggestions made.
My task is relatively simple. I believe that I can remove the other causes for concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman. If I can do so, the debate will have served a useful purpose in that respect, as well as in getting the other views on the record.
I believe that there is some misunderstanding about my statement that the Bill repeals 17 Acts. So it does, but it re-enacts all the provisions of those Acts. There is no change in the law. We have got rid of 17 statutes and parts of 12 others, and all the provisions of the law that are contained in those are now contained in this one Bill. It is the last of a series of consolidation measures, tidying up the bits and pieces. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of having to take something on trust. We are merely bringing within the covers of one Bill the provisions of 17 statutes—or 29—without altering the effect of them save in one respect, to which I shall refer.
The hon. Gentleman is a senior Member of this House. He knows that the

1551
verification of that is to be found in the report of the Joint Consolidation Committtee. In this House we are lucky that we have that Committee to do for us the work that the hon. Gentleman rightly says that we should have to do for ourselves if someone else did not do it. I can set his mind and the mind of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr McElhone) at rest on that. We are not changing anything. The measures are repealed, but their provisions are reenacted.
There is one small exception. Two sections of the West Indies Act 1967 are repealed and not re-enacted, because they are obsolete. That does not take away any right that there might have been to anybody to have aid, nor does it take away any right that anybody would need to give aid. In all other respects the law is as it was before.
The hon. Member for Queen's Park asked whether, if there were to be further cuts, that would mean that parts of the Bill would be obsolete. My answer is "No". Nothing could be done that would affect the provisions of the Bill without further legislation. Mere changes in the amounts available would not necessarily have an effect on the provisions of the Bill. If they did, there would have to be further legislation. Even then, this Bill would be worth while, because after the Bill has been passed we have all the relevant provisions between its covers. If something has to be amended, we are merely amending this one Bill.
The hon. Gentleman asked what clause 14 did. I draw attention to the table of derivations. If the hon. Gentleman has not had one I shall be very glad to supply him with a copy. It sets out one by one the clauses of the Bill and then says where the provisions come from—in other words, that a clause is re-enacting the sections that are specified in the table of derivations. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to deal with it further he has only to say so. I know that some provisions of the Overseas Act 1960, for example, are re-enacted in clause 14, and some provisions of the 1966 Act.
Mr. McElhone: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. He said that the Bill would not interfere in any way with the cuts that I understand are now being discussed by the Cabinet. I do not wish him
1552
to send me a list of the items that he mentioned in his last comments, but in referring to clause 14 we know that the provision of teachers for, and for further educational co-operation between, Commonwealth countries has already been seriously impaired. We know that from the statement of the Minister in August 1979, and that there will be a 14 per cent. cut in the next three years. It is almost a certainty, therefore, that items such as education for Commonwealth students must be seriously at risk.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has been rather optimistic. We do not know what happened at the Cabinet meeting this morning, but if he can tell my hon. Friends and me that no cuts in overseas development have been discussed at the Cabinet meeting this morning, or since the Cabinet met this morning, I shall be delighted to hear that.
The Solicitor-General: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened. In so far as I referred to possible cuts, I was taking a purely hypothetical case. I am not indicating either that there are likely to be any, or that, if there were any, they would be of such a nature as to be relevant to clause 14. I am speaking, as it were, in the air about this and seeking merely to deal in general terms with the hon. Gentleman's point.
Clause 14 contains enabling provisions. It says what may be done with moneys provided by Parliament. What can be done must depend, of course, upon how much money is provided by Parliament, but the amount that is provided by Parliament does not depend upon clause 14. That clause merely says what may be done with the money provided by Parliament for the purposes of the clause.
Mr. Peter Archer: Perhaps the Solicitor-General will accept some support from me. I think that the point was that it is something of a charade to have powers on the statute book if the Government manifestly do not avail themselves of them. Will the Solicitor-General agree that it is as well to retain the powers on the statute book because we hope that a future Government will avail themselves of them?
The Solicitor-General: Adopting the point in rather more general terms, I think that all of us who would wish it to be possible to give the assistance for

1553
which clause 14 provides, whatever the amount of money provided, would wish to see the clause remain in the Bill. 1 hope, therefore, that although we have had this debate on the clause, the conclusion will be that the clause should stay in the Bill. Unless the clause stays in the Bill, however much money is provided for the purposes of the clause it cannot be used for that purpose.
I understand the great interest in the amount of money that may be available for the purposes of the clause, but the conclusion to which the discussion must lead us, I suggest, is that we need the clause in the Bill so that whatever moneys are available may be used in the appropriate way.
With regard to the hon. Member's point about the letter that he received, I know that he will not feel it discourteous of me to say that it would not be right for me to try to answer the detailed point involved. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue it, no doubt one of my colleagues will be happy to deal with it.
If there are any further matters on the clause, I shall be happy to deal with them, but, for the reasons that I have mentioned. I hope that it will be appreciated that the fears expressed as to the law have no foundation. The clause does not alter the law in any way, and it is very much for the convenience of everybody interested in the matter that these remaining bits and pieces should be brought within one Bill. I hope, therefore, that the clause will remain in the Bill and very soon become law, together with the rest of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 15 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 14

  PROVISION OF TEACHERS FOR, AND FOR FURTHER EDUCATIONAL CO-OPERATION BETWEEN COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  7.30 pm

Schedule 2

  ENACTMENTS REPEALED AND ORDERS REVOKED
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 21, line 8,
  1554
  column 3, at end add:
  'so far as it relates to British Shipbuilders'.
  This is a technical amendment. When the Bill was considered in another place by the Joint Committee it was suspected that the appointed day for the vesting of the property rights and obligations of British Aerospace, under section 1 of the British Aerospace Act 1980, would occur before this Bill came into force. It is now clear that this will not be so, and it is that fact which necessitates the amendment. I shall be happy to enlarge upon it if hon. Members wish me to do so, but that basically is the reason for the amendment. I hope that it will be acceptable.
  Mr. McElhone: I thought that I heard the Minister refer to the rights of British Aerospace. I understood from the Amendment Paper that the amendment related to British Shipbuilders.
  The Solicitor-General: I referred to the rights and obligations of British Aerospace under section 1 of the British Aerospace Act 1980. I said that it was expected that the appointed day for the vesting of the property rights and obligations would occur before this Bill came into force. It is now clear that this will not be so. Until that is so, it is wrong to repeal in its entirety section 3(6) of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, under which British Aerospace has the power to enter into overseas assistance agreements. Hence the need to limit the repeal to British Shipbuilders. The power of British Shipbuilders to undertake such assistance is brought into the consolidation and is safeguarded by clause 2(1) and the entry in part III of schedule 1 to the Bill. I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

REGULATED TENANCIES
8 pm
The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move,
That the Regulated Tenancies (Procedure) Regulations 1980, which were laid before this House on 27 October, be approved.
The regulations are concerned with the procedures followed by rent officers. Schedule 1 deals with the procedures for registering a fair rent and schedule 2 with the procedures for issuing a certificate of fair rent. They amend schedules 11 and 12 to the Rent Act 1977. I stress that nothing in these regulations alters the relations between the rent officer service and central government or affects the basis of assessment of fair rents.
The objective of the changes made by these regulations is to streamline rent officer procedures and to reduce delays without of course prejudicing the rights of either landlords or tenants. The proposals flow from a working party consisting primarily of serving rent officers whose report was received earlier this year and was placed in the Library on April 30. After consulting the Institute of Rent Officers on the report and modifying the proposals in the light of their comments, the Government introduced an amendment to the Housing Bill on Report in this House to give effect to the most important of the recommendations. This was debated on 19 May and agreed to without a Division. It now forms part of schedule 6 to the Housing Act 1980.
The amendment which was agreed to covered the subject matter of schedule 1 to the regulations we are now considering, namely, the procedures for registering a fair rent. The four changes to rent registration procedures which were originally in schedule 6 to the Housing Act and are now reproduced in schedule 1 to the regulations are as follows.
First, they amend the circumstances where a rent officer must hold a consultation with the landlord and tenant prior to fixing a fair rent. At present, the rent officer must hold a consultation if he disagrees with the rent sought by the applicant or if the other party makes representations on the rent sought. This is inflexible and leads to consultations
1556
which the parties have not sought and which frequently they do not bother to attend. This can be a waste of everyone's time, especially on re-registrations which form over 80 per cent. of cases where the issues are relatively strightforward. The regulations before the House instead provide that the rent officer, on receipt of the application, should ask the landlord and the tenant whether they want a consultation. If either does, he must hold one. In addition, he may also hold one at his discretion if he thinks it necessary. But there will be no automatic triggering of consultations regardless of whether the parties want one. This new procedure is expected to save a considerable amount of rent officer time that is now wasted, but I stress that it provides an absolute right for landlord or tenant to a consultation on request.
Second, schedule 1 provides that, where the applicant is the landlord and he has included in the proposed rent an amount for services and has submitted supporting evidence, the rent officer must send this evidence to the tenant when he notifies him of the application. If the tenant asks for a consultation the rent officer must then give at least 14 days' notice before holding it. This is a new procedure which will ensure that tenants on fixed fair rents will always have the opportunity to see, in advance of consultation with the rent officer, the evidence on which their landlord is seeking an increase in rent attributable to services.
Third, the rent officer may arrange joint consultations at which more than one tenant is present. As the legislation at present stands, there is no explicit power for this, but it can save a good deal of time where rents are being registered for a number of identical or similar flats in a block.
Fourth, there will be a right of appeal to a rent assessment committee in all cases where the landlord and tenant have individually made applications for rent registration. This is a broadening of landlords' and tenants' rights, because at present there is no right of appeal unless a consultation was held prior to the registration. This means, for example, that if the landlord applied for a fair rent of £10 and the rent officer agreed with that figure the tenant would not be

1557
able to appeal unless he had made representations about the proposed rent to the rent officer before the rent was registered.
If the tenant had not made representations—say, because he was away from his home at the time—there would have been no consultation and hence no right to appeal. The regulations remove this appeal. The regulations remove this anomaly by allowing a right of appeal regardless of whether representations were made, or a consultation held, on the application when it was before the rent officer.
In addition to reproducing the bur changes to rent registration procedures which I have described, schedule 1 to the regulations contains some small differences from schedule 6 to the Act. This is because in discussion with the Department on the detailed implementation of schedule 6 to the Housing Act, 1980, the Institute of Rent Officers has proposed a few minor administrative changes.
Schedule 1 to the regulations merely reproduces schedule 6 to the 1980 Act but with the minor administrative changes I have mentioned. Hon. Members may reasonably ask why we did not directly amend the original schedule 6 by regulations. The reason is that schedule 6 to the Housing Act 1980 is not in force and thus not yet embodied in the Rent Act 1977. Hence, there is no power to amend it at present by regulations. If schedule 6 to the 1980 Act was brought into force and then amended immediately afterwards, it would be administratively confusing. Thus, if the regulations before the House are approved, schedule 1 to these regulations will in effect replace schedule 6 to the Act and it will not be necessary to bring schedule 6 into force.
I turn now to schedule 2 to the regulations which deals with the procedures governing certificates of fair rent. These were not covered by schedule 6 to the Act. Although the Rent Act 1977 provides the power to change rent officer procedures by statutory instrument, we had originally intended to propose amendments to the certificate of fair rent procedure similar to those to the rent registration procedure during the remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
1558
Subsequently, however, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary announced during the Bill's proceedings in another place that the Government's intention was to make the necessary changes by statutory instrument as soon as possible after Parliament's return from the Summer Recess. This is what schedule 2 does.
As the House knows, a certificate of fair rent is a very useful procedure for giving a landlord who wants to let or improve his property a clear indication of the fair rent he will get if he goes ahead with his letting or his improvement. The existing procedures have stood unchanged for 15 years since fair rents were first introduced by the Rent Act 1965. They have worked well and it is only minor changes that we want to propose now.
The proposals in schedule 2 have been fully discussed and agreed with the Institute of Rent Officers. There are five changes that we propose to the existing certificate of fair rent procedures, and I will describe them briefly.
First, rent officers cannot at present take any action on a case where the landlord supplies insufficient information other than by referring it to a rent assessment committee. This causes delay due to rent assessment committee hearings having to be held which are, in fact, unnecessary. The new procedures in the regulations empower the rent officer to request more information from the applicant so that cases need not be referred to the rent assessment committee simply because of a lack of information. This will bring the certificate of fair rent procedure into line with ordinary rent registration procedure in this respect.
Second, the new procedures provide that, where there is no existing tenant, the rent officer is not required to hold a formal consultation but can consult the landlord in such a way as he considers suitable. This will avoid the need for formal notices having to preceed the consultation and will greatly speed up decisions on simple cases.
Third, consultations are at present held automatically whenever there is an existing tenant, regardless of whether either the tenant or the landlord has asked for one. This often results in unnecessary consultations. Schedule 2 provides that

1559
landlords and tenants will always have an absolute right to a consultation if either so requests—and I stress this—but consultations will no longer have to be held automatically even when neither party wants one. This arrangement parallels the procedures for fair rent registrations in schedule 1 to the regulations to which I have already referred.
Fourth, at present all cases have a 14-day delay imposed upon them between the determination of the rent by the rent officer and the issue of a certificate of fair rent. Schedule 2 provides that, if the landlord indicates before the expiry of the 14-day period that he does not object to the rent which the rent officer proposes to specify in the certificate of fair rent, the rent officer will be able to issue the certificate of fair rent straightaway without having to wait the full 14 days. This will apply only where there is no tenant, and will again eliminate unnecessary delay.
Fifth, rent officers are not at present specifically empowered to save time and effort by holding joint consultations involving several similar or identical dwellings where this is sensible. The regulations provide that the rent officer may hold joint consultations in the same way as is provided for fair rent determinations in schedule 1 to the regulations.
It will be helpful both inside and outside the House if I say that these regulations will, if approved by both Houses, come into force on 28 November. This is the date on which we are planning to bring the main private rented sector provisions in part II of the Housing Act into operation. Subject to today's proceedings, we intend shortly to make a commencement order and to lay before the House the various negative resolution instruments needed to give effect to part II.
Finally, may I express my appreciation to the Institute of Rent Officers for its valuable and most constructive work over many months in suggesting ways in which unnecessary delays and inefficiencies in rent determination procedures can be ironed out.
I commend these regulations to the House.
8.11 pm
Mr. Ted Graham: On behalf of the Opposition I welcome the streamlining that the regulations are in-
1560
tended to achieve. The delicate relationship between tenant and landlord must be tackled with care. When the additional clause and schedule were introduced in May, they were not opposed and none of my right hon. and hon. Friends debated them. In that case, silence indicated assent. We shall not put any obstacle in the way of the Minister making progress.
Earlier this evening I had the pleasure of hearing Lord Bellwin making a speech remarkably similar to that which the Minister has delivered. I took careful note of a number of his arguments. That is why I was more relaxed than usual when listening to the Minister.
The Minister commended the Institute of Rent Officers for its report published in April. He said that its recommendations were constructive. It is a pity that it is not possible to include many of those recommendations, but I understand that there is a limit to what can be done. The report is a credit to the rent officer service. All hon. Members have experienced the benefit and sympathy of rent officers.
Justice must be seen to be done. There are always aggrieved parties. People are often disappointed with an arbitration or adjudication. We must satisfy ourselves that as far as possible the system is fair and equitable. The proposal puts a little additional flesh on the bones of the Housing Act. That is to the good. If it works out as the Minister believes it will, it will make the service speedier and more efficient. However, we must ensure that the name of the game is not simply speed. According to the Minister, there is no intention of diminishing the rights of landlord or tenant. I should like to be satisfied that that is so.
One of the major changes involves the circumstances in which consultations can take place. I should like to be assured that in three or four months' time the rights and opportunities of tenants will not be diminished by these modest modifications. Many of my constituents are sensitive. Sometimes they do not comprehend. Sometimes they may not read about their rights or understand what they read, in spite of the best efforts by Government and rent officers.
When a tenant is notified by the rent officer that an application for a change

1561
in rent has been made he must put in writing a request for a consultation. The aggrieved tenant will be exposed more to his landlord when he takes the opportunity to exercise his rights. I am not talking about Rachmanism or about a plethora of bad landlords; I am talking about a normal elderly tenant who is told by a rent officer that his landlord is asking for a new rent of £10 or £12. That elderly tenant may not be in receipt of any aid and may be frightened about his security of tenure. That tenant may wonder whether, by challanging the landlord, his relationship with his landlord will be affected. By having to state in writing that they cannot afford the rent, tenants may be more inhibited.
I understand the need to put such a request in writing, but many people will have difficulty in expressing themselves in the formal language that is necessary. I am talking not about illiterate people but about people who are limited in their ability to express themselves. Will the Minister ensure that a form or outline procedure is publicised so that spelling out the reasons for objecting to a rent increase is made as easy as possible?
The rent officer could be encouraged to ensure that the facilities of his office were made available to tenants who wanted a consultation but who were limited in their ability to put their reasons in writing. That could very well be done if there were a form and if the tenant had only to sign it, perhaps in the presence of a rent officer.
The new regulations spell out that it is proper for the rent officer to carry on multiple consultations. I was surprised to find it necessary to be so specific. All the consultations that I have attended in my constituency have involved three, four and sometimes five or six tenants of the same landlord on an old estate. They have all been invited together because the same rent has been applied for in respect of all of them. The landlord's agent has sat at one end of the room, with the tenants at the other. I have been present strictly as an observer. The tenants have wanted me not to hold their hands but to be there for the assurance that it has given them. That is one of the pleasant duties of a Member of Parliament. If the Minister and his advisers have any
1562
doubts in that score it is right that the provision should be written into the regulations.
The rent officers' report, however, states quite clearly:
"In practice, however, rent officers do arrange multiple consultations for tenants of comparable properties with one landlord in common."
It then goes on to give the reasons. We welcome that provision very much.
Reference was made in a note from the Department and in the Minister's speech to the time that is wasted through needlessly calling for consultations. Has the Minister any statistics upon which to base the claim that the consultations are often unnecessary? It is not my experience that they are. Tenants who have come to me with a query have not felt, even though they have been reasonably resigned to the equity of the landlord's case, and even though the adjudication has produced the result they expected, that the consultations failed to serve a purpose.
Consultation is not strictly the argument of a case by two advocates, but the process serves a useful purpose because it gives my constituents a much broader understanding of the whole fabric of the landlord and tenant relationship. The rent officers of whom I know in Edmonton have done a good job as advocates for the arbitration of the system they operate. Is the Minister simply assuming that many consultations have been a waste of time? I do not oppose the regulations, but, leaving aside the question of time and money, I feel that consultation provides a valuable element in the whole structure of the relationship between landlord and tenant, and I hope that it will not be diminished by the provision that consultation should take place only in certain circumstances.
I turn to the Minister's reference to those who fail to take advantage of a response to the note from the rent officer saying that if they wish they can go directly to the rent assessment committee. That is a valuable additional aid. I speak from the tenant's point of view, but I do not want to be biased, and therefore the matter should be seen from the landlord's point of view as well.
If landlord and tenant are on two sides of an argument, the issues between them are of utmost importance. I do not want to see the procedures changed to

1563
achieve greater efficiency and save time and money if that confronts ordinary people—I use the term without offence—with a greater obstacle to ensuring that their rights are protected. We on the Opposition side feel that the Government have acted reasonably in the matter, and we certainly do not seek to oppose the regulations.
8.26 pm
Mr. John Heddle (Lichfield and Tam-worth): I wish to bring to my hon. Friend's attention two points about the fair rent procedure. I register an interest as a consultant to a firm of chartered surveyors, which no doubt numbers among its clients landlords and tenants who would, presumably, benefit if the regulations were passed tonight.
I understand that the regulations are designed to reduce what some might regard as the inordinate time taken in determining fair rents. That inordinate time arises from the complicated procedure under which the rent officer service must operate. It is not unknown for the procedure to take three or four months, and therefore one benefit that will flow from our passing the regulations tonight will be the greater supply of homes to rent, because landlords will feel that the bureaucratic red tape that binds the rent officer procedure at the moment will be loosened a little. That in its turn should provide a ray of hope for those who are unable to buy their own homes or who do not qualify for a home to rent from the local authority or a housing association.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take a further and more critical look at the procedures under which the rent officer service must operate. The present system is unnecessarily cumbersome. The time lag between the submission of an application for registration of a fair rent and the determination of a fair rent is unnecessarily long. That undoubtedly serves as a deterrent to some landlords, and on that score I give the House one brief example.
I understand that the rent officer has to measure the property in question and then translate the dimensions on to a plan. This time-consuming process is irrelevant, because rental values of residential property are not determined on the basis of a price per square foot or per square metre. Residential values are
1564
determined by supply and demand, by the scarcity factor, which is built into the rent officer's determination, by the structural and decorative condition of the demised property and by the standards of amenities available.
I wish to bring to my hon. Friend's attention one further defect in the procedure for the registration of fair rents that has not been raised in the House previously—certainly not during the passage of the Housing Act 1980. There are four major land Acts affecting the public—the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the Valuation and Rating Act 1956 and the Rent Acts. The first three stipulate that accountability rests with the authority responsible for administering the Acts. The official concerned is required to justify his calculations, to defend his decision, to accept that he may be cross-examined on appeal and to establish facts. If the appellant is successful on appeal he will be entitled to recover his costs.
That is not so, regrettably, under the Rent Acts. I share my hon. Friend's esteem for the Institute of Rent Officers, but, with great respect to that profession, the rent officer is not required to attend an appeal, to justify his calculations or to answer questions under cross-examination. The successful appellant is not entitled to claim his costs. He has to foot the bill. If the appellant is the tenant, inevitably it involves a great deal of money which he cannot recover in any way. The landlord can recover his costs because they are part of his management costs. The rent officer is not entirely accountable. His file will be closed with his decision, except possibly for the notes that he makes on site, which he would have to reveal to the panel if the case were taken to a rent assessment committee.
With those two comments, I invite my hon. Friend to answer two questions. Is he satisfied that, with the passing of these regulations, the whole process of the registration of fair rents will be as streamlined and efficient as it might be, or can we go further? Will he consider making accountability under the Rent Acts similar to that under the other three land Acts that I mentioned, and so enable cross-examine the person who ultimately either the landlord or the tenant to makes the decision?
8.31 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: As the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) declared his interest as a consultant to a firm of chartered surveyors, perhaps I should declare a non-financial interest, in that I spend a great deal of my time as an unpaid consultant to a considerable number of residential tenants who object to their landlords' high rents.
Both Front Bench speakers might learn with regret that the tenants object to the functioning of the rent officer service. In a written answer of 19 June, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said that the reason for their objection might be that, in the borough that both he and I represent, the average percentage change from the previous rent in determinations made in 1979 was no less than 75 per cent. That is substantial, and considerably higher than the increases that arose in Enfield, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham).
I do not wish to speak at length about the general shortcomings of the rent officer organisation. Before anyone chides me I readily acknowledge that that was established by a Labour Government 15 or 16 years ago. In my view, it has been unsatisfactory for all that time, and is not becoming more satisfactory. I wish to refer to the modifications of schedule 12, which relates to the procedure under which certificates of fair rent may be issued by a rent officer. I shall concentrate especially on the circumstances in which the certificates are issued to landlords in cases where a tenant is not involved. That is an area of the operation of the Rent Acts that has been quite unsatisfactory and has not worked as well as the Minister suggested.
In circumstances where a tenant is not involved, the landlord negotiates or argues with the rent officer about the rent that he, quite naturally, wishes to maximise. The rent officer finds himself in the role of adjudicator between two parties—the tenant who wishes to keep down the rent and the landlord who wishes to maximise the rent. There has been a number of examples in my consituency, and others that I know of in other constituencies, where there has been considerable dissatisfaction following the issue by a rent officer of a certificate of
1566
fair rent on empty premises. That has imposed a rent well above what was felt to be the going rate by people living in the area who were interested in rent officer determinations. That is an unsatisfactory situation which will not be made any better by the speeding up of the process through these regulations.
It is absurd to have a system—which normally operates on the concept of two people arguing with one another, with the rent officer as the adjudicator—whereby in certain circumstances there is only one party to the argument. I do not know how we might set about building in some party who has an interest in keeping the rent down. It may well be that any local organisations that wish to make representations would be entitled to do so, or tenants' organisations in neighbouring blocks or streets or, in some cases, even a neighbouring house. They have an interest in these determinations, because once the certificate of fair rent has been issued on an empty property, it is fed into the experience in that area next time the rent officer determines a rent in that block, street, or area. That is an example of the operation of the Rent Acts where one party is pressing to increase the rents and no one is pressing to keep them down, yet it establishes precedents that will tend to be binding on everyone else. In my view there is a ratchet on that, because, putting it at its lowest, rent officers in my area are not notorious for keeping the rents down.
I talked about an average 75 per cent. increase in the borough of Camden in 1979. From the tenant's point of view, that is better than the experience in Kent, where the average increase in 1979 was 103 per cent. That is a substantial increase, even in times of inflation. Therefore, more consideration should be given to this matter.
There is another source of dissatisfaction in the area that I represent. I believe that it also exists in the area represented by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). That relates to the procedure for appeals when rent officers have made their determinations. I am sure that everyone accepts that in one way or another the rent officer is some form of professional or has some basic experience in valuation. However, there is another ratchet in this

1567
system, because, if there is no tenant in respect of the certificate of fair rent, no one can appeal, at least not at the time of the determination. If, in other circumstances, people appeal to the rent assessment committee, they can expect a judgment by what I regard as a biased court of appeal.
The London rent assessment panel, from which the rent assessment committees are drawn, consists of 35 lawyers, 35 valuers and about 30 laymen. Even the laymen include eight bank managers, as well as company directors and accountants. It would be interesting to undertake an analysis to discover exactly how many members of the London rent assessment panel have ever paid rent. I suspect that more of them are in the landlord class than in the rent-paying class. If lawyers and valuers are involved in valuation matters or matters concerned with landlord and tenant, most of them will almost perforce be normally employed on, or have their basic experience in, the landlord's side.
Certainly in my area, there is a substantial body of opinion among tenants to the effect that they will not get a fair deal, and cannot expect to get a fair deal, from rent assessment committees two-thirds of whose members are lawyers, valuers or chartered surveyors. After all, the caring professions are normally medicine, nursing and, so on, and if a distinction has to be made, presumably valuers, chartered surveyors and lawyers fall into the category of the uncaring professions. Many people in my area get that sort of response from the rent assessment committees. I do not have up-to-date figures. but the last time I looked at them there was no doubt that, even with the 75 per cent. increases from the rent officers, in the London area the odds were that a person's rent would be increased rather than decreased by the rent assessment committees. There was a positive disincentive for tenants to appeal.
I still say, despite everything that the Minister has said about the concept of the rent officer services and their operation, that, where it is a matter of issuing certificates of fair rent where there is no tenant in residence, there is a direct bias against the interests of the tenants. The structure and personnel of the rent assessment committees are seen and felt to be biased against the interest of tenants, and
1568
while that system prevails I cannot support any tinkering with the stystem. We need major changes, and we should make sure that there is a proper distribution of membership of the rent assessment committees so that they include a substantial proportion of members who know what it is like to be a residential tenant, rather than members who simply have experience of operating on behalf of landlords.
8.41 pm
Mr. Stanley: I appreciated the expressions of gratitude from the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) on the role played by the rent officer service. They have a difficult function to perform, underlain to some extent by what was said by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson). They have a balance to strike between two conflicting interests. They have to do so impartially, and with regard solely and wholly to the statutory provisions under which they function. Hon. Members who have served in the Department of the Environment recognise that this is one of the important, largely unseen and unrecognised services that make an important contribution to our society.
Having considered the recommendations of the working party, I assure the hon. Member for Edmonton that there is no material, or in any way significant, diminution of the rights of tenants in the changes that we are making to the consultation procedures. I remind him that even under the present legislation, which has been in force since 1965, there are circumstances in which a tenant will not get a consultation now. If the rent officer agrees with the rent proposal that is put to him by a landlord and no representations are received, there will not be a consultation. So, even under present circumstances, it could be argued that there might be reluctance in certain cases for tenants to exercise a right to consultation, because there is no automatic consultation.
Depending on the circumstances, tenants have security of tenure, but many of the tenants to whom we are referring are tenants with security of tenure under the 1965 fair rent legislation, which is basically long-term security of tenure. In those circumstances it is not unreasonable to look to one of the parties specifically to request a consultation in order to avoid situations in which a rent officer has to

1569
hold a consultation that neither party has requested, and, in some cases, where a consultation is arranged and neither party appears, resulting in a waste of a rent officer's time.
The hon. Member for Edmonton asked me whether we had any statistics of abortive consultations. The advice that I have had is that we do not have that group of statistics, but the rent officers who took part in the working party reported that their experience was that many abortive consultations were held. The Institute of Rent Officers supports that view. Certainly there are occasions on which abortive consultations are held.
Mr. Graham: If a consultation is abortive, surely it means that the consultation has been called either by the rent officer himself and neither of the parties have turned up or that it has been requested by one of the two parties and neither has turned up. We have to accept that when the rent officer calls the consultation and neither party turns up, apparently both are satisfied to leave it to him. Although he has called a consultation he has, in effect, misjudged the need for it, because both parties have declined to come. The alternative is that one of the two parties who has asked for the consultation has had second thoughts. Is that not the case at present?
Mr. Stanley: That could be the case, but there are circumstances in which, for example, a landlord on a review of rent could put in a rent application rather higher than he would expect to get. He might wish to err on the side of a high rent. He might well be prepared to settle without consultation for a lower rent, but simply because the rent officer disagrees with the application that a landlord has put in, willy-nilly it is necessary for the consultation to be held, even though both parties may be happy to settle for the judgment of the rent officer. So clearly there is an element of inefficiency there.
I believe that nothing that we are doing here materially detracts from the rights of tenants, but I assure the hon. Member that when we make changes of this nature in a sensitive area we shall want to observe them very closely and see how they work out in practice. If
1570
further changes seem to be necessary, we shall be very open-minded.
I turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle). I was grateful for his contribution, which was made from personal experience. I shall look further at the points he made about accountability and particularly the comparisons that he made with other legislation. Perhaps I could come back to him later when I have looked at it.
On the other question, on whether I am satisfied that this is the most efficient possible means by which we can make changes in the rent officer procedures, I believe that these changes to the present procedures will materially help to reduce inefficiencies. However, as I made clear to the hon. Member for Edmonton, in this area the sole objective cannot simply be efficiency. A careful balance must be struck between landlord and tenant, and we are concerned with the rights of both and not simply with the administrative procedure which is the most efficient possible. We must try to balance those two interests. We shall see how these procedures work out in practice and if there is scope for improving them further and ending the delays of rent registration the Government will discuss this further with the rent officer service.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South asked about the certificate of fair rent on empty dwellings. I note what he said. He may have a different experience in his part of London, but it is not my impression that there is a general sense of dissatisfaction with the certificate of fair rent procedure. It is a useful administrative device, which allows a landlord with an empty dwelling to obtain an indication of what the fair rent would be if that property were occupied. That is an important facility to make available to landlords as part of our objective of getting more private rented accommodation available and more empty accommodation brought into letting.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the rent officer makes his determination in terms of the certificate of fair rent on an empty dwelling he is obliged to make the registration fully in accordance with existing stautory provisions. I see no

1571
grounds for attributing any suggestion of bias in the way in which the rent officer approaches that task, any more than I would accept that there is an element of bias when he makes his determination of a fair rent. I see no logical reason why that need be the case, and I am confident that the rent officer service carries out determinations in a detached and dispassionate way, within the framework of the legislation.
Mr. Dobson: I am not suggesting—at least in general—that there is bias on the part of the rent officer service. However, if it is of benefit to the process of adjudication for an officer to hear both sides of the case when there is a landlord and a tenant and it is worth the tenant's being represented, there is surely a structural fault if the party who would like to have the rent kept down is not represented in other cases. I have been told by rent officers that tenants will frequently draw to their attention certain elements affecting the officers' judgment of the value of a property which they have not noticed, because they are not omniscient. The certificate of fair rent issued when there is no tenant leaves out the possibility of disadvantages being drawn to the attention of rent officers.
Mr. Stanley: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He is questioning the existence of the certificate of fair rent on empty properties. By definition, that procedure is usually operated on a dwelling that is untenanted, and there is no way in which a tenant is able to make representatations. The hon. Gentleman is calling into question the use of that procedure.
The counter argument in support of the retention of the procedure is that landlords with empty properties will wish to know what is likely to be the fair rent, particularly if the property is let with the existing security of tenure under the Rent Act 1977, which may prevent them from getting repossession for a long time. It is of critical importance that we should give owners the facility to establish in advance what a fair rent would be on a dwelling should they decide to let it.
The hon. Gentleman's comments about rent assessment committees were interesting echoes of a debate some months ago, in a Committee with which a number of us were involved for a long time. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr.
1572
Allaun) made similar observations about the composition of rent assessment committees, and I must give the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South a similar reply to the one that I gave then.
I do not accept that there is some sort of class basis that produces class blinkers on those who are called to serve on rent assessment committees and results in their loading determinations in one direction. The composition of committees was established by a previous Labour Government and has continued under successive Governments. The function of the committees is to fix rents in the light of the statutory criteria that are laid down. I have just as much confidence in the ability of the rent assessment committees, as currently composed, to carry out what is a statutory function as I have in the members of the judiciary generally, regardless of their individual backgrounds, to perform their independent functions as members of the judiciary. Therefore, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said.
The critical requirement on rent assessment committees is to have a balanced composition of people with relevant interests to carry out a statutory and not a social function. It is a statutory determination of rent. The judgment that was made, when the legislation was first put through in 1965, on the right balance of rent assessment committees, has been justified during the past 15 years by the general confidence in which rent assessment committees are held. Certainly when the Housing Bill was going through it was not our view that we should make any change in the composition of rent assessment committees.
Mr. Graham: Will the Minister deal with the point that I made about the difficulties that some tenants might have because the request for consultation must be made in writing? Schedule 1 refers to the circumstances in Which this request can be made. Paragraph 3(1) states:
"the rent officer shall serve on the landlord and on the tenant a notice inviting the person on whom the notice is served to state in writing, within a period of not less than seven days after the service of the notice, whether he wishes the rent officer to consider, in consultation with the landlord and the tenant, what rent ought to be registered for the dwelling-house."

1573
I can see the value of that statement being made not verbally but in writing, so that there is no dubiety about what is wanted. I do not want to make heavy weather of the inability of some people who may be elderly, frightened, nervous or unsure of what they must do. They must have guidance in prescribed form or directly from the rent officer, and that advice must be publicly available. I am uneasy about rights that have not been eroded but could in practice inhibit some of my constituents from taking advantage of them.
Mr. Stanley: The reason for the provision to make this request in writing is to introduce an important element of certainty where a request for consultation has been called for. I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said. I assure him that I shall look at the mechanics of the way in which a tenant or a landlord would exercise his request in writing. I shall want to satisfy myself that people have a simple process whereby they can exercise that important statutory right.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Regulated Tenancies (Procedure) Regulations 1980, a copy of which was laid before this house on 27 October, be approved.

HOUSING INVESTMENT (CARADON)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]
8.57 pm
Mr. Robert Hicks: Since May 1979, whenever I have been called upon in my constituency or elsewhere to explain, or, indeed, to defend, the Government's basic economic strategy I have invariably used the analogy of this policy being essentially an exercise in good housekeeping. I have pointed out to my constituents that no country can go on indefinitely paying out more than it earns, any more than a typical family can continue ad infinitum to live beyond its means. At some stage the realities catch up and one has to adjust. This can be a difficult, indeed often painful, process. I am sure that in our private lives all of us in the House have been through that
1574
process at some time, and now the nation as a whole is having to do likewise.
I find it somewhat ironical that in attempting to pursue those laudable objectives in local government a serious situation has been created, largely as a direct consequence of the statement about two weeks ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, when he suspended local authority housing investment. The result is that those local authorities that have been responsible and have conformed to his Department's financial constraints will now be penalised for their prudent actions.
One such local authority is the Caradon district council, which forms part of the Bodmin parliamentary constituency. Caradon's allocation for its housing investment programme for the current financial year, 1980–81, was £2,253,000, and together with the tolerance factor it gained a total allocation of £2,285,000. Those figures hardly represent large sums of capital expenditure when compared with the potential national overspending of £180 million, which was the figure quoted at the time of the announcement by my right hon. Friend of the moratorium that has been imposed.
I think that it is relevant to point out that since 1974, when Caradon district council came into existence, only once has it exceeded its basic housing investment programme allocation from the Department, and even in that year—1979–80—it adhered to the rules of the scheme, since it was within the accepted tolerance levels.
Furthermore, it is worth adding, as part of this background of responsibility on the part of Caradon that I am attempting to establish this evening, that the net general rate fund expenditure of Caradon in 1979–80, in terms of 1973–74 general price levels, was only 4 per cent. above the combined expenditure level in 1973–74 of the six former local authorities that were amalgamated to form Caradon on 1 April 1974. I should add that that increase of 4 per cent. was accounted for mainly by loan charges—something beyond Caradon's control.
I believe that these two groups of figures demonstrate clearly not only that the Caradon district council is far from being an irresponsible local authority but that

1575
it is cautious and sensible and has constantly practised what the Prime Minister seeks of the nation as a whole, namely, good housekeeping. It was, therefore, no small wonder that, locally in South-East Cornwall, we were all shaken—indeed, amazed—by the Secretary of State's recent moratorium on housing investment in the public sector. Councillors, council officials and, above all, those on Caradon's housing waiting list—who number about 1,686 families, and of whom 735 are pensioners—felt that they were being victimised for the sins of others.
It has been pointed out to me that the Secretary of State for the Environment and others in the Government constantly say that the country must adhere to the constraints and limits of public expenditure. Yet in our case, having done just that, we were victimised. Of Caradon's allocation of just over £2¼ million for 1980–81, its committed expenditure at the time of the moratorium was approximately £1·9 million. Therefore, contrary to the amount that it thought it could spend, there was a shortfall of £323,000.
That figure may not seem too high a ratio of Caradon district council's total annual allocation for the current year, but such financial statistics do not convey the essential structure and nature of a council's HIP. I refer to its continuity, or rolling characteristic. My hon. Friend has experience of local government, and he will appreciate the need for continuity and good planning. Something is hidden in the curtailed figure of £⅓ million. The clampdown has prevented construction from starting on three projects. First, it has prevented a start on the construction of 32 local authority houses at Torpoint—which were allocated £72,000 out of this year's financial investment programme. Secondly, it has prevented the start of construction on four bungalows for disabled persons, which were to have been built at To-point, and for which £20,000 had been allocated from this year's programme. Thirdly, construction has been prevented on 40 local authority houses at Looe, for which £32,000 had been allocated.
According to Caradon's housing committee's projected planning, the two Torpoint programmes were to have been started in November, and the Looe pro-
1576
ject was to have been started in early January. In July Caradon district council started work on 40 dwellings for old-age pensioners at Saltash. In September work began on 10 flats and two bungalows for the disabled in Looe. Last month work began on eight dwellings for old-age pensioners in St. Germans. I mention that because I hope that the Minister will understand that they are all part of a rolling, and sensibly and carefully planned HIP. The curtailment of the two schemes at Torpoint and the curtailment of the Looe project will mean that, out of a total of 136 anticipated housing starts, 76 may not be made during this financial year. That represents about 60 per cent. of the anticipated housing starts. That will have serious social consequences for our area.
Sadly, the tale of woe does not end there. The suspension means that Caradon district council will not be able to proceed with the purchase of land at Callington. A sum of £13,000 had been allocated for that. A sum of £20,000 had been allocated for Pillaton, and that would have provided a total of 26 dwellings for retired persons. In addition, Caradon district council will not be able to proceed with providing access to four acres of land at Liskeard. That land is owned by Caradon district council and was intended for housing purposes. Incidentally, once access has been established the way will be open for further development of housing in the private sector.
Finally, this decision has meant a halt to the purchase of five cottages at St. Mellion, which was the subject of extensive correspondence between the Minister and myself. It means the suspension of the replacement of a number of roofs on the existing local authority housing stock and prevents the provision of more residential caravans at the council's homeless centre at Liskeard. I hope that this brief description will have demonstrated the adverse effects that the suspension of funds will have on Caradon's carefully planned and phased housing investment programme.
It might be said that Caradon was rather slow in getting off the mark with its housing investment programme at the beginning of the year. I respectfully remind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that this year it was only in

1577
February that it knew what its housing investment programme allocation was to be, whereas normally it knows it in the autumn of the previous year.
I shall make a number of brief observations that are relevant to the situation that I have described. First, I deal with the effect on local employment, especially in the already depressed building and construction industries. I know that this is a matter of national concern as well. The Timber Trade Federation has kindly sent me a copy of the letter that it sent to the Secretary of State, in which it draws attention to the consequences of his announcement for its members. The South-West Building and Construction Confederation has made its views known about the adverse consequences of my right hon. Friend's decision.
It is relevant to observe that Caradon does not employ a large direct labour force. It employs only 42 men. That is the labour force that is required for essential minor works and maintenance. Caradon's total housing stock is about 4,500 housing units, so 42 is a minimal direct labour force. All the other work is undertaken by local private builders.
I remind my hon. Friend that unemployment in my constituency is in excess of 12 per cent. When the tenders for the 40 new houses at Torpoint were opened—they would have been opened on the Wednesday following my right hon. Friend's announcement—it became clear that the contract would have gone to a local builder, thus guaranteeing work for his employees for the next two years.
The second point of relevance is that South-East Cornwall is a low-income area. Average earnings are 16 per cent. below the national average, and 18 per cent. of my constituents are living on retirement pensions or fixed incomes. Therefore, Caradon has to fulfil particular but essential social functions arising from the problem of retired people who are living on fixed incomes and who, at a time of high inflation, find that they can no longer afford to live in the private sector. Therefore, they have to join the waiting list in the public sector.
At the other end of the scale there are young people in my constituency, first-time owners, who find that they can afford only older properties, which are often in
1578
a poor condition. Therefore, they are totally dependent on the district council for housing advances, because the building societies are not interested in their situation. I remind the Minister that Caradon makes it a condition before it gives anyone a housing advance that he must first have applied to a building society.
My third general point is that the particular problem that Caradon faces, being in a desirable part of the United Kingdom, in the South-West, is its statutory obligation to house the homeless. People often come from other parts of the country, and there is a large residual group of people who often live in substandard and condemned houses. The figures for April to October of this year indicate that Caradon was obliged to rehouse 50 such cases. In addition there are still on the waiting list 18 families whom Caradon has a statutory obligation to rehouse and five families who formerly lived in agricultural tied cottages. The Minister will recognise that the 73 cases in total represent a high percentage of the council's total lets since April, particularly when one realises that the average number of lets per year in Caradon of existing properties is only just over 200.
I hope that I have demonstrated to my hon. Friend that Caradon is a responsible local authority. It has an excellent track record. It genuinely and urgently requires permission to continue its phased housing investment programme. There is a very strong case for saying that, on a selective basis, local authorities should be allowed to continue with their housing investment programmes, provided that they have acted within the guidelines and constraints laid down by the Department during the current financial year.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has powers of control over certain parts of the housing investment budget. He or his regional officers have to authorise contracts for new housing projects and for land acquisition. A degree of control already exists. The blanketing effect of imposing a moratorium is misplaced. District councils like Caradon have had to suffer unnecessarily. I do not believe that there was a need for this. One consequence has been the victimisation of responsible authorities. I hope that my hon. Friend

1579
can give me some encouragement when he replies to my request.
9.18 pm
Mr. David Penhaligon: All of us from the peninsula that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) and I both represent are greatly indebted to the hon. Member. I congratulate him on having an Adjournment debate at such a sensible time. It has enabled me, perhaps uninvited but I am sure not unwelcome, to say a few words.
As someone who comes from outside Caradon I can genuinely say that that authority is recognised in the county of Cornwall as being a good authority, which has attempted, within the limits imposed, to build a gradual rolling programme to cope with the problem. However, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will concede, tragically, the problems are not unique to Caradon. If they were the problem could be solved without too much anguish. The problem is growing throughout the South-West, and I am extremely disturbed about it. I welcome this unexpected opportunity to give the Minister some indication of what is happening in the far South-West.
The truth, quite simply, is that in Caradon and other areas in the far South-West of Cornwall the housing position is very near to collapse. I am sure that, like myself, the hon. Member meets people at his surgeries with an overwhelming case to be rehoused and who look to the local authority for housing; but, as we both know, there is little prospect of anything being achieved for them.
I understand from the building societies to which I have spoken in the South-West that it is impossible for anyone at the moment to borrow much more than one and three quarters or perhaps twice or two and a quarter times his earnings. House prices in the far South-West are fixed by the wealth and purchasing power of those who come into Cornwall to settle there. Local people who wish to buy have their purchasing power fixed by the local levels of income.
We are told that the national average wage is now £124·50 a week. I am sure that the hon. Member will confirm that the mention of such figures in the South-West produces hollow laughter. The people in my area never get that mad about these statistics because I suspect
1580
that they do not believe them to be true. Any young person in my county who earns £100 a week knows just how lucky he is. It means that he can borrow £11,000 or £12,000. Perhaps the only real answer to the housing problem in the far South-West is to get around to building rows of houses for £10,000 or £12,000 each. Tragically, we know that that is impossible. Therefore, the young people are increasingly forced to look to the local authority for some relief of their housing difficulties.
My local authority is Carrick. It has 10 families in a place called Trennick House. It is a large old house and each family is given one room. My authority has another eight families at Falmouth. It also has 28 families on a caravan site in my constituency. On the last occasion that I inquired I was told that there were another six families living in bed and breakfast accommodation.
When housing in the more urban areas is discussed in this House, reference is often made to "hard to let" council houses. I have heard that expression so many times since I have been in this House that I decided to ask one of my colleagues what was meant by a hard to let council house. He told me that it is a council house that is built, furnished and equipped to such standards that no one can be persuaded to accept it.
I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) that there are 1,700 hard to let—in other words, empty—council houses in that great city. I do not denigrate Liverpool, and I know that it has many economic problems, but such a concept in the far South-West is beyond imagination. If I happened to be lucky enough to get one of my constituents rehoused, I should have very little sympathy with him if he came back to me and said that the house was not suitable for his needs. But that simply could not happen, because the people in my area are only too well aware of how lucky they are if they are able to get a council property.
I have no reason to believe that the position will get other than worse. In Caradon, in Carrick, in Restormel and in all the local authorities——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are discussing Caradon and Caradon alone.
Mr. Penhaligon: I recognise that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in supporting the hon. Member for Bodmin I was trying to show that his arguments apply to a general area.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: At some early date there may well be a general debate about the difficulties in the South-West, but today we are talking about Caradon.
Mr. Penhaligon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point has probably been made. There is one other matter that affects the good people of Caradon who are seeking aid and advice as to how they are to deal with their housing problems. The good people of Caradon, like many others, look to an organisation called the Devon and Cornwall Housing Aid for advice in a no-housing situation. This is a small local body that tries to serve the whole of Devon and Cornwall—an area some 150 miles long—funded on £9,000 from Shelter, £6,000 from the Government, and whatever it can raise by its own charitable efforts locally. The Government, tragically in my view, have decided to end their £6,000 contribution—a paltry sum. The good people of Caradon, seeking advice in the rural areas of that locality, have few other people to whom they can turn for professional, specialist advice on housing other than the hon. Member for Bodmin and this body with its specialist knowledge.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I, as Members representing Cornwall, recognise how useful it is. There is general dismay that this teeny-weeny, miserable, £6,000 is being saved at the expense of closing down this body. I do not expect the Minister to say tonight that he will change his mind. I would, however, ask him, especially if housing problems are to increase because of the stopping of the current investment programme, to give the House an assurance that another look, possibly favourable, will be taken at that grant.
I recognise that the Government find themselves in some financial difficulty. I have more sympathy with them than some hon. Members have, because I recognise that they inherited a difficult situation. I cannot believe, however, that the Government are hard up for £6,000.
9.27 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I should like to deal first with the points unexpectedly raised by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). His remarks went wider than the subject introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks). I shall confine myself to those elements of his remarks which have a direct relevance to the actual subject that my hon. Friend raised.
Much of what I want to say to my hon. Friend will cover the broader aspects to which the hon. Member for Truro referred. I assure him that the advice organisation to which he referred was a matter to which I gave my personal attention. I looked carefully into the proposal. After careful thought, I came to the conclusion that it was not possible for the grant to be continued.
It would not be fair if I said that I would look again at the matter. I do not believe that I could come to a different conclusion. The matter was not left to officials. I looked at it myself and I came to a conclusion. I confess that I have not put into eloquent words, as the hon. Member for Truro did, the invaluable advice that those seeking housing can obtain from my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin. That is self-evident. There are also a number of highly competent local councillors. I would have thought that, between them, they are in a position to give the advice that may be needed in that area.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I will have another look at the papers. I would not wish him to believe that I can hold out a scintilla of hope that I will change the position. I shall have a further look to satisfy myself, in the light of what has been said, that the decision is still justified.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin for the careful and moderate manner in which he has presented the issues, from his own knowledge, as they have been put to him by the local authority. It is a refreshing change from some of the more emotive, mischievous and misleading statements that I have been reading in the press over the past

1583
few days since my right hon. Friend issued a circular about the moratorium.
Whatever else the House may learn from this debate—and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me while I deal with the detail of the issues raised—there should be no doubt in anyone's mind of the Government's determination to hold very firm to the cash limits that we have determined. Spending on housing will be brought under control.
I have no doubt that Caradon is now faced with a new set of problems in managing its housing programme and I sympathise with the difficulties that it is facing as eloquently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks).
Caradon is not alone. Hardly an authority in the land is not having to reappraise its programme in the light of recent events. My hon. Friend has detailed the effect on Caradon of the Government's recent announcement of the action that it has been necessary to take to correct overspend on this year's programmes, and I shall deal with that in a moment.
There are in fact three issues with which I must deal. First, there is Caradon's housing investment allocation for 198081. Then there is the effect of the Government's actions on their current programme, and, finally, the problem of next year's allocation. I shall deal with them in turn. They are separate issues, but in one sense they are linked like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and they have one feature in common—the underlying need for us all to cut our coats according to our cloth. The amount of money available for housing is a finite sum, and there is no way in which it can be exceeded.
First, I shall deal with the allocation for 1980–81. Caradon received an allocation of £2·25 million, which, together with the allocation for insulation grants and a tolerance brought forward from 1979–80, gave it a total allocation of £2·28 million. This fell some way short of its bid for £3·79 million, but I must say that, overall, that is slightly better than most authorities in the South-West region.
In its HIP submission earlier this year, Caradon estimated what its payment would be. It was estimated that these would come within the allocation, and it would be ungracious of
1584
me—indeed, it would be monstrously unfair of me—not to applaud the efforts that Caradon made to achieve this. However, this was not the case generally. There were alarming indications from the returns that we were getting from local authorities that unless special actions were taken there would be an unacceptably high risk of substantial overspend on the total housing investment programme. This was so nationally and was also the case for the South-West region.
The Government could not allow this. We had to take immediate steps to ensure that the cash limits were not overspent. The painful decision was therefore taken to ask local authorities not to enter into further contracts for housing purposes, for the acquisition of land and building or for building works; not to start further capital housing projects by their direct labour organisations and not to give further undertakings to make grants and loans for housing purposes, except of course when they are required to do so by statute.
Furthermore, local authorities were also told that they would not be allowed to anticipate any sums which may be allocated for the next financial year. Accordingly, and for the time being, we have stopped giving any further borrowing approval and have withdrawn any unused sanctions and approvals.
I wish to make it crystal clear—my hon. Friend did so, but there has been too much misrepresentation—that this is not a cut. All that we have said to local authorities is, in effect, "For the time being you must stop taking on new work. Let us know exactly what your commitments are, to enable us to determine as quickly as possible whether these commitments generally will take us over the top. When we have that information we will consider what scope there is for additional commitment this year". We have promised to let local authorities know of our decisions as quickly as possible.
Let me spell out what this temporary standstill will not do. It will not affect work that is already proceeding, or for which tenders were accepted before the date of receipt of our circular 19/80. It will not affect any undertaking, formal or informal, that an authority may have given, before receipt of the circular, to

1585
make grants or loans for housing purposes, and it will not prevent it from entering new contracts or approving grants in cases where the expenditure results from a specific statutory obligation. Finally, neither the homes insulation scheme nor the giving of mortgages on council house sales is affected by the circular in any way.
I fully recognise that our action must seem desperately unfair to any authority that has done its best to contain its expenditure for the year within its allocation. Why should it have to suffer the consequences of the failure—deliberate in some cases—of other authorities to do the same? The immediate answer is that the size of the prospective overspend gave us no alternative. Local authorities submitted, in their HIP returns, estimates of spending in 1980–81 that exceeded their allocations by £180 million, or 8 per cent. It is fundamental to the success of our strategy for beating inflation that when we set cash limits for public sector expenditure we should stick to them.
The only way to be certain of containing housing investment within the limit for the year was to call a halt to new commitments by all authorities, whatever their spending records and whatever their forecasts of spending for the year, until such time as we could establish just how much expenditure was already committed.
We are now hard at work analysing the estimates of commitments that authorities have supplied. We hope to he able to announce our conclusions very shortly. Will there be any comfort for those authorities with commitments well below their allocations for the year? I cannot say. But my hon. Friend will know that in other contexts we have taken steps to prevent the consequences of overspending by some authorities being visited on the heads of others. That is one of the main principles of the new block grant arrangements for which we are providing in the Local Government Bill.
In the case of housing investment, too, we will see whether anything can be done, now or for the future. I make that clear to my hon. Friend, who will understand that I can make no promises.
1586
Local authorities have been shocked by the action that we have had to take. Many have been equally shocked to realise just how profligate some of the other authorities have been. But generally local authorities are wisely refraining from making excited comment. They, like the Government, realise that it is too early to make sensible comment about what it all might mean.
We now know that Caradon is committed to an expenditure of £1·9 million this year. Within its budget it has been able to take up virtually all that it allowed for housing improvement grants; it is true that it has had to stop issuing approvals for the moment, but its committed expenditure is only £25,000 or so short of what it decided it would spend at the beginning of the year. Similarly, it is only £30,000 short of what it said it would spend on housing advances and it has fully taken up the allocation for insulation grants.
My hon. Friend has described dramatically and fairly the effect of the stop on the other parts of Caradon's programme. He mentioned villages and towns whose names are bywords to those who enjoy their holidays in that delightful part of the world. I might at some stage even visit the area personally to examine for myself the facts that my hon. Friend has been putting forward.
The main impact has been felt in Cara-don's programme for new house building, for the purchase of land, for some cottages, and for repairs to some council houses. But let me put that in the context of this year's allocation. It has committed itself to all but £300,000 of what was allocated. It really is not right for Caradon to claim that the stop on its activities has seriously affected its ability to take up its allocation for 1980–81.
The main effect—and this is a holding operation—has been to stop a number of housing starts where the bulk of the expenditure would count against next year's allocation. Those are the houses at Torpoint and Looe, to which my hon. Friend referred, half of which would not be starting until December. I do not underestimate the implications that has for its running programme. As my hon. Friend said, any intelligent local authority will provide itself with a running programme. But it is overstating the case to

1587
say that the recent announcement has cut those from the programme. Inevitably there will be some delay. How long that delay will be I cannot say at the moment.
The effect of the temporary halt is to give a new and, I hope, helpful meaning to the range of initiatives that we have proposed for the promotion of low-cost home ownership and in the use of capital receipts. That refers to one point raised by the hon. Member for Truro, namely, that there is no reason in some local authority sales where equity sharing should not be started and where stair-casing should not be introduced so that the young first-time buyer does not have to make the sudden jump to total purchase. That is one of the initiatives put forward by my hon. Friend the Minister a short time ago.
The low-cost home ownership programme will incur only a small, in some cases even a nil, call on a local authority's HIP allocation, and there can be great advantage, as Ministers have said on numerous occasions, to a local authority from selling council houses to sitting tenants, from selling local authority land to private builders with planning permission for starter homes, from providing starter homes for sale on local authority land in partnership with private builders, and from acquiring properties for improvement and for sale, or for selling unimproved houses for improvement by the purchaser. As I said earlier, I urge local authorities to consider offering shared ownership as an alternative to outright sale wherever possible.
My hon. Friend raised a point about the problems of people in Caradon obtaining mortgages from building societies. The hon. Member for Truro alluded to that also. I remind the House that there are adequate provisions that can be used by local authorities to use the mortgage guarantee powers that exist to facilitate down-market lending by building societies. My regional officers have discussed those initiatives with Caradon, and Caradon has approached them realistically but perhaps a little too tentatively to date.
1588
I hope that my hon. Friend will draw Caradon's attention to some of the initiatives to which I have referred, to see whether he can spur it on to make more use of some of the facilities.
I said that I would deal with the 1981–82 allocations. I can do so only very briefly. We have not yet determined them and there may be some apprehension about the levels at which they may have to be fixed. But I can assure my hon. Friend that the arrangements that we are proposing are directed towards the need to ensure that broad equity is maintained between competing claims—whether that be a village, a district authority in Cornwall or a major city in the North-West—and that proper scope is given for the circumstances and the problems of individual local authorities to be taken into account.
I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that my Department understands the problems in Caradon. We will take account of its specific housing need in determining its allocation for next year, although I do not need to remind Cara-don or the House of the continuing need for severe overall constraint on public expenditure. That is the message that Ministers have put to the House for a considerable time. I do not apologise for having started tonight by putting that message again both to the House and to my hon. Friend; neither do I apologise for finishing with it. It must be realized fat there is only a limited amount of money for capital investment in housing. We shall do our best to ensure fairness within that limitation.
I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend. As soon as we have analysed the figures that have been coming in since we issued the circular and brought the moratorium into force, the sooner we can make an announcement about what is to happen for the future. We shall not overlook the particular problems of Caradon, which my hon. Friend has so reasonably put to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Ten o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  International University Exchange Fund
  International University Exchange Fund
EMPLOYMENT
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Calderdale (Short-time Working)
  Calderdale (Short-time Working)
  Equal Pay Act
  Equal Pay Act
  Liquefied Gases
  Liquefied Gases
  Manchester
  Manchester
  National Dock Labour Scheme
  National Dock Labour Scheme
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Closed Shop and Picketing
  Closed Shop and Picketing
  "Methane Progress" and "Methane Princess"
  "Methane Progress" and "Methane Princess"
TRADE
  Exports
  Exports
  Manchester Airport
  Manchester Airport
  European Community (Balance of Trade)
  European Community (Balance of Trade)
  South Africa (British Companies)
  South Africa (British Companies)
  Special Steels (Imports)
  Special Steels (Imports)
  Trade Controls
  Trade Controls
  International Monetary Fund (Labour Costs)
  International Monetary Fund (Labour Costs)
  NATIONAL RAILWAY MUSEUM
  NATIONAL RAILWAY MUSEUM
SCOTLAND
  Enterprise Zones
  Enterprise Zones
  Deaf-blind Children
  Deaf-blind Children
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Spain and Portugal
  Spain and Portugal
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Eritrea
  Eritrea
  SHOPLIFTING
  SHOPLIFTING
ENERGY
  Windscale (THORP Expansion)
  Windscale (THORP Expansion)
  North Sea Natural Gas Liquids
  North Sea Natural Gas Liquids
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Winter Heating Costs
  Winter Heating Costs
PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
INFLATION
  INFLATION
  INFLATION
MILLBROOK
  MILLBROOK
  MILLBROOK
CBI
  CBI
  CBI
GREECE
  GREECE
  GREECE
LLANGADOG
  LLANGADOG
  LLANGADOG
NATIONAL UNION OF MINE-WORKERS
  NATIONAL UNION OF MINE-WORKERS
  NATIONAL UNION OF MINE-WORKERS
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (PAY)
  PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (PAY)
  PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (PAY)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Fire Service
  Fire Service
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Open Channel Radio
  Open Channel Radio
  Vagrancy Act 1824
  Vagrancy Act 1824
  British Movement (Welling March)
  British Movement (Welling March)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Educational Provision
  Educational Provision
  Taxation Revenue
  Taxation Revenue
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Exchange Controls
  Exchange Controls
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  European Community (Repayments)
  European Community (Repayments)
  Prices
  Prices
DEFENCE
  Directorate-General of Internal Audit
  Directorate-General of Internal Audit
  Cleaning Services
  Cleaning Services
  Sting Ray Torpedo
  Sting Ray Torpedo
INDUSTRY
  Manufacturers' Sales (Quarterly Inquiry)
  Manufacturers' Sales (Quarterly Inquiry)
  Financial Assistance
  Financial Assistance
  Production Census
  Production Census
  Public Sector Purchasing Policy
  Public Sector Purchasing Policy
  European Community (Steel Production)
  European Community (Steel Production)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Dental Charges
  Dental Charges
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Children Act 1975
  Children Act 1975
WALES
  Colleges
  Colleges
  Council House Sale (Arlon)
  Council House Sale (Arlon)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Marginal Land
  Marginal Land
  Bread Making (Wheat Samples)
  Bread Making (Wheat Samples)
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  Liquid Milk
  Liquid Milk
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Voluntary Organisations
  Voluntary Organisations
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Income Tax (Trusts)
  Income Tax (Trusts)
  European Community (Borrowing)
  European Community (Borrowing)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Nationalised Industries(Borrowing)
  Nationalised Industries(Borrowing)
  Manufacturing Industry (Earrings)
  Manufacturing Industry (Earrings)
  Co-operative Union Limited (Representations)
  Co-operative Union Limited (Representations)
  Gross Domestic Product (International Comparisons)
  Gross Domestic Product (International Comparisons)
  Manufacturing Earnings and Unit Labour Costs
  Manufacturing Earnings and Unit Labour Costs
  Pay Comparability
  Pay Comparability
ENVIRONMENT
  Nuclear Waste Disposal
  Nuclear Waste Disposal
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  Prefabricated Dwellings
  Prefabricated Dwellings
  Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill
  Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill
  Energy Conservation (Loft Insulation)
  Energy Conservation (Loft Insulation)
  Council Houses (Disabled Persons)
  Council Houses (Disabled Persons)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
TRANSPORT
  M25 (Swanley to Sevenoakes)
  M25 (Swanley to Sevenoakes)
  Sheffield-Manchester Railway Line (Woodhead Tunnel)
  Sheffield-Manchester Railway Line (Woodhead Tunnel)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  River Foyle
  River Foyle
  Property Damage
  Property Damage
  Security Raid (Twinbrook Estate, Belfast)
  Security Raid (Twinbrook Estate, Belfast)
  Intoxicating Liquor Licensing
  Intoxicating Liquor Licensing
  Deaf-Blind Children
  Deaf-Blind Children
  Calves
  Calves
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Marginal Land
  Marginal Land
  Value added Tax
  Value added Tax
  Belfast (European Community Development Assistance)
  Belfast (European Community Development Assistance)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Manpower
  Manpower
  Pay Research Unit
  Pay Research Unit
  Pay Scales
  Pay Scales
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Principal Grade Staff
  Principal Grade Staff

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

DISARMAMENT
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will support at the Geneva U.N. Disarmament Committee the proposal of the Swedish and Romanian delegations that there should be an international freeze on all military expenditure.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, before negotiations could begin on freezing military expenditure, we would need international agreement on a means of reporting and verifying military budgets. The Government are supporting work in the United Nations to reach such agreement, but further progress depends on Soviet willingness to co-operate.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister, may I ask whether he could explain this contradiction? The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has made admirable speeches in Eastern Europe in favour of détente and disarmament. Can he explain the contradiction why the Government are opposing every proposal made in this House for disarmament—chemical weapons last week, the Indian Ocean yesterday, and the proposal today? Will the Government themselves take the initiative if they are sincere in making proposals for disarmament?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we are not opposing every proposal that comes forward but we have to consider each and every one on its merits, principally in the light of whether it will be effective.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, can the noble Lord say which other delegations are supporting the proposals from Sweden and Romania?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do not think I have that information in front of me. No formal conclusion has been reached on this matter in any event, and any answer I could give would be only an indication of people's preliminary positions.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Committee of 21, an actual majority at Geneva, are supporting this proposal, representing the unaligned nations?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Lord is always so well informed on these matters and I bow to what he has to say, but the fact is that we still have to consider it in the light of whether or not it would be effective.

MICROCHIP INDUSTRY: JAPANESE AND US INVESTMENT
2.39 p.m.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards encouraging investment by Japanese and US companies in the British microchip industry.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, within Her Majesty's Government's policy of encouraging inward investment a particular welcome is given to high technology industries, such as the microelectronics industry.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is no concern amongst many small firms on competition in this country? Would he agree that taking a lot of the weight off the Government's shoulders in training young people for this new revolution will be helped by the foreigners coming in?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, it is very important, from whatever quarter, to continue the emphasis on the microelectronics industry because of its all-pervasive influence on the whole of British industry. We therefore welcome the latest technology, both developed at home and by companies who bring it from overseas.
Lord GRANVILLE of EYE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister if he can say how this will help the three electronic factories that were recently closed in this country?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, the recent closure of the three consumer electronics factories in this country was caused by a whole set of factors, including the world recession and the international competition in this area. While we regret it very much, fortunately we still have in this country a strong consumer electronics business which we believe will survive and grow.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether in our schools, colleges and universities we are teaching the technology of the microchip, so that the children of this country are brought up in the way of working in this area?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I think that is a separate Question that ought to receive attention to itself if it were to be tabled. However, such teaching is increasing in schools and universities.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, whereas it is the Government's policy to encourage investment from United States and Japanese companies, there is a danger that the embryo British industry may be starved and that the competition may become so intense that we shall not have the national capability which is so essential for our defence effort and our industrial progress?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am glad my noble friend asked that supplementary. First of all, as long as the Government are concerned we believe in an open climate for investment for our industries abroad and for other people here, but we do not intend to give aid
1044
specifically to foreign companies in this area, or in any other. Our aid schemes, whether regional or for a specific industry as in this case, are open to the home industry and to foreign industries alike. Further, in my department we advise potential investors in this country as to what we see to be the state of the market. Normally commerce is best at sorting out where there are gaps in our marketplace or our technology, but occasionally my department can help in avoiding a degree of over-competition in a saturated market such as my noble friend envisaged.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, can my noble friend further help us? Will the foreign companies be encouraged to go not necessarily to the areas of highest unemployment, but to the areas where they have the real back-up facilities?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, that is their choice and their commercial decision. We have a regional policy and if, indeed, their needs can be met in the areas of greatest need, we are of course happy.
Lord GRANVILLE of EYE: My Lords, can the Minister say how this policy really helps technical development and research in the electronic industries in this country, upon which our war potential and our defence requirements may vitally depend?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, that, again, I think, is mainly a separate question. But we continue major support of micro-electronics. We have backed the second stage of Inmos, we have two major micro-electronic schemes which are still operating and we have companies specialising in the defence area which are in the forefront of this kind of development.

VIDEO-TAPING OF BROADCASTS
2.45 p.m.
Lord SAINT OSWALD: 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 a fact that the video-

1045
taping of a BBC programme by a private individual for his own use is a breach of the law of copyright.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, there is a breach of copyright if, first, the programme which is taped includes copyright material—namely, a literary, dramatic or musical work, a sound recording or a cinematographic film, or if the broadcast is itself of a tape; and, secondly, the private individual making the tape does so without the authority of the copyright owner.
Lord SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply I should like to ask him two further questions. His reply seemed to cover the category which I used in my Question of "for his own use". Is my noble friend aware that "for their own use" something like one-quarter of a million owners of video-tape machines are presumably breaking the law unconsciously every day; and would he say how this kind of use squares with the concept of an Englishman's home being his castle, if they are thereby infringing the law?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, it is true that the technical position is that the owner of one of these machines, recording a programme which is the subject of copyright, should, in fact, get the copyright owner's permission—and that is not necessarily either the BBC or the IBA—before he does it. Palpably, as I think the Whitford Committee saw very clearly, that is an impossibility and perhaps it does not matter very much, so long as the tapes concerned are being used only for private purposes and for the convenience of the house-owner to look at a programme, either again or at a time which is convenient to him.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the law, as he described it in his original Answer, is unenforceable, unenforced and ought to be improved?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I believe that from this Box I cannot ask a question back. But the question in my mind is: would my noble friend like to suggest to me how the copyright law, which is a very important law and which works over the whole of the rest of the
1046
area, should be made enforceable or how the exception should be made in the area of people's homes? There has been a committee, the Whitford Committee, looking at this and the Government have undertaken to publish a Green Paper at some stage. But perhaps if my noble friend has ideas, he can let me have them.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me what position I am in, having shown a video-tape of the New Zealand-Wales match? Am I likely to get a policeman knocking at the door, having already been punished once by the New Zealanders?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I think it depends whether you show it to a Welsh audience or a New Zealand audience.
Baroness TRUMPINGTON: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell me how many prosecutions have taken place in these circumstances?
Viscount TRENCHARD: No, my Lords; but I will let my noble friend know whether any have taken place in relation to use in a home.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, may I ask whether this applies to a Scotsman's home as well as an Englishman's home?
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, is it not the case that, in any event, a copyright infringement will not establish any right to the uninvited to enter the home of an Englishman, a Welshman or even a Scot?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is correct.
Lord DAVIES of PENRHYS: My Lords, would the noble Viscount consider the problem which arises when people have come around selling these video machines, saying that everything is all right and that there is no law to stop them? Something ought to be done about that.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I think it would be quite wrong to forbid—if that is the noble Lord's suggestion—

1047
the sale of these machines, which are marvellous machines and which can be used perfectly legally to record the New Zealand-Wales rugby match, which is a live performance, and many other live performances. Personally—I do not know whether I should be saying so—I cannot see, if there is a technical breach of the law in the home in other areas, that it really need concern us in this House very much. What is important—and steps are being taken—is to enforce the copyright laws, if anybody starts using this facility for commercial purposes.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, could the noble Viscount say whether there is any hope that, if the proceedings of the House are broadcast, those noble Lords who make speeches will be paid performing rights?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I do not think that I should answer any more questions!

MINISTERIAL VISITS TO EAST EUROPEAN STATES
2.50 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement after the visit of the Foreign Secretary to Hungary and to Poland, and of the Minister of State to the German Democratic Republic, and what conclusions they have drawn in respect of the United Kingdom's and the EEC's political and commercial relations with these countries.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Carrington): My Lords, I had useful talks with the Hungarian and Polish Foreign Ministers and with the top leaders in both countries. Mr. Blaker's visit to the German Democratic Republic concludes today. I hope these discussions will strengthen our political and commercial relations with these countries.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. While being the first to agree that interference in the domestic affairs of the formerly independent countries of Eastern and Central Europe is to be deplored, is it not, none the less, a mistake to underestimate the influence of the democracies in trying to bring forward the happy day when a greater measure of national independence can be enjoyed, with which one hopes more personal freedom and more democratic institutions would march?
Secondly, and rather more importantly, may I ask my noble friend whether I am entirely correct in saying that we and our allies have every right and reason to use our influence to these ends, and that we are not inhibited from doing so by any treaty arrangements or other agreements, secret or public?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think it very important that we should not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. If any of us start to do so, it may be that some others will. The sort of visit which I paid to Hungary and Poland and that my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs is paying to Germany, in itself has an effect in influencing, creating and developing understanding between countries of different political philosophies. There is certainly no treaty which prevents that.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: Is it not a fact, my Lords, that the timely visit of the Secretary of State was warmly welcomed by the Governments concerned?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, it was not only warmly welcomed; I was invited there. I do not think that I should have been invited if I had not been welcome.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the Foreign Secretary, now that he has happily and safely returned to the United Kingdom, since the question not only refers to commercial relations but to political relations, whether he can indicate whether those political relations have been improved, and in what direction? Can he also give us an assurance, if he does not mind my asking this further question, that he has not been indoctrinated?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, having sat in this House now for a great number of years with the noble Lord and not having yet been indoctrinated by him, I can assure him that it will take more than four days in Hungary and Poland to change my views about certain matters. The political issues which were discussed between Poland and ourselves and Hungary and ourselves were of course the obvious matters of East-West relations, détente and disarmament, which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned earlier today. Though it would be perhaps an exaggeration to say that we were agreed about these matters—although there were some points of agreement—there is no doubt that the very fact that one talks frankly about these things leads to a greater understanding of other people's positions. I do not think that one ought to underestimate the usefulness which visits of this kind have.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, could the Foreign Secretary indicate to us whether he is able, through these visits, also to help our allies to get a certain amount of information—or is this question too indiscreet to be answered?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord is asking me whether I let our allies know what happened, indeed I did. Yesterday I was in Luxembourg, at a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Ten, because the Greeks were also there. I told them, of course, what went on.

ACCESS TO PARLIAMENT
3.55 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I rise with your Lordships' permission to raise very briefly a question of obstruction outside your Lordships' House which has arisen in the last 40 minutes. The whole of the road between Vauxhall Bridge, the Embankment, Millbank, through to this House has been occupied by a long procession with banners, a demonstration which has had the effect of obstructing access to your Lordships' House. It has been sealed off and I have had great difficulty in reaching the House by 2.45. Surely demonstrations are in order in this
1050
country of demonstrators visiting this House, but it must be wrong if they have the effect of sealing off roads and preventing your Lordships and Members of the other House from reaching here by Question Time.
It may be said by some of your Lordships that I should have got out of my car and walked, or run, but I happen to be disabled and, as some of your Lordships know, cannot walk more than a few yards. There are many others in your Lordships' House and in another place who are in the same category. I do hope that something can be done to prevent this kind of thing in future.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, must have had an unfortunate experience because I happened to come here fairly late, too, and was not so obstructed, but perhaps I was lucky. Certainly if noble Lords are obstructed and prevented from coming to your Lordships' House it is a serious matter, but of course it is one for the police. Each Session we have an order which prevents stoppages in the street. Such an order is minuted at the beginning of each Session. It was so minuted at the beginning of this Session. However, I will ask Black Rod to take account of what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has said, ask him to look into the complaint and see what he can suggest as a result.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend.

DINNER
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Third Reading of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill is expected to be adjourned at approximately seven o'clock for a short period, so that your Lordships who are particularly interested in this matter may have an opportunity for refreshment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL
2.57 p.m.
Bill read 3a, with the amendments.
Clause 1 [Relaxation of Ministerial control of authorities]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert ("or police authority").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 52 and 65, which may help to shorten the proceedings. The controls for which the relaxations are sought by these amendments are over the appointments of the chief, the deputy chief and the assistant chief constables and the provision and maintenance of the buildings, structures and premises which are part of the day-to-day running service of the police.
The police authority, as Members will know, is required to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force, properly housed and equipped. The chief constable has his force placed explicitly under his control and direction. He has the powers of appointment, discipline and promotion up to the rank of chief superintendent. The Home Secretary has the duty to promote the efficiency of the police, both generally and through the provision of common police services. The result of these provisions, as embodied in the Police Act 1964, is that the control is in effect a threefold partnership between the Home Secretary, the police authority and the chief constable.
The local authority associations submitted a joint paper on the review of central Government control over local authorities in February 1979 in which they urged that as much as possible of the management of the local services should be left to the local authorities—that includes the police authorities—while the Government concentrated first on maintaining only that influence on the aggregate of local authorities' expenditure which is necessary for the macroeconomic control and, secondly, on the involvement of the broad national strategies within which local authorities and
1052
other bodies have the responsibility for operating.
The amendments fall into the two main classes. First, so far as the repeal of the relevant parts of Section 426(1) and Section 64 of the Police Act are concerned, we are concerned with the control over the appointments involved. Such controls are very difficult to justify in the light of the freedom which local authorities have to appoint, for example, their chief executives. The exercise of these controls by the Home Office has been known to create some local difficulties. It seems to some that the Home Office is becoming increasingly interested in being involved in the whole selection procedure in a way that perhaps goes beyond its proper remit.
On the other amendment, surely the appointment of the chief police officers is an essential part of the exercise of a police authority's statutory duty, and on the second area, on providing and maintaining buildings and premises, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, at the last stage of this Bill announced that there were to be proposals for some relaxation of detailed project control on schemes costing up to £1 million. This is welcomed but it still leaves statutory powers of control outstanding. What we should like to know, if the noble Lord can tell us, is whether this concession which he announced at the last stage relaxes controls on other than financial grounds, and would it not also be consistent for the Home Office to relax controls on land acquisition and on property leases? These seem to us to go hand in hand with the dispensation announced at Committee stage. I beg to move.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, having spoken on similar amendments at a previous stage, I should like to say a few words. Whereas I support the latter part of the speech just made by the noble Baroness, dealing with property and maintenance and the amount of work which is still going to be put on local authorities in order to follow this new so-called relaxed procedure, I am not happy about the abolition of the Home Office control over the most senior appointments. In this country of ours we are lucky to be very free of corruption, but on the other hand there is always a chance that a local favourite before a selection committee gets priority because

1053
the local people just do not know the whole field. It is right and proper that in the interests of the police service the Home Office should retain that control. The police are all too anxious to see the ghost of the old watch committees arising amid this question of local freedom to make all appointments, and that would be disastrous.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, before my noble friend replies I should like to add a word in support of what my noble friend Lord Inglewood has said. I moved these amendments almost word for word at Committee stage—which seems now to be a very long time ago—and I was "shot down" by the Committee on the appointment of chief constables. I think rightly so; I accept that decision of Parliament. But where we can relax the control over the buildings and minute details of buildings it really will be in the interests of good government. If these amendments are not acceptable, I hope that at least the principle will be acceptable to the House.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends for their comments as regards the appointment of chief constables. In fact we have covered this ground before and I thought that your Lordships were content. Let us be quite clear that we are not here talking about the removal of some central controls over local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, seeks some relaxation of the controls over police authorities exercised by the Home Secretary. But police authorities are not local authorities; they are independent statutory bodies composed of two-thirds county councillors and one-third magistrates. Police authorities are dependent on the county council or, in the case of combined police authorities, the constituent councils for funding police expenditure. However, 50 per cent. of expenditure on the police is paid by central Government through a specific grant.
The effect of these amendments would not be simply to relax some central controls over police authorities; they would undermine the constitutional
1054
arrangements for the administration of the police as embodied in the Police Act 1964 which followed on the report of the Royal Commission in 1962. At Committee stage my noble friend Lord Belstead reminded the House that the Royal Commission set out the responsibilities on the three elements on which our policing arrangements are based, namely, chief constables, police authorities and the Home Secretary.
First, the Act places each force under the direction and control of the chief constable and in this way his operation of independence is clearly set out. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who emphasised the importance which he attaches to this, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Ridley, and I suspect that the noble Baroness herself would not quarrel too much with that.
Secondly, the chief constable is appointed and his force is maintained by the police authority and it is to this authority that the chief constable is generally accountable. Thirdly, the Home Secretary has an essentially supervisory role summed up in his general duty to exercise his powers to promote the efficiency of the police.
Without going into a great deal of detail here, I should like to say generally that as my noble friend Lord Belstead said in Committee, the Home Secretary's role reflects his responsibility for the maintenance of the Queen's peace, which is one of the prime functions of central Government. This ultimately is the duty of the Home Secretary and therefore we think it essential that he should have, and should exercise, adequate powers to secure the efficiency of the police service.
The powers to approve the appointment of chief constables, deputy chief constables and assistant chief constables come within this category, as does the power to approve a deputy chief constable performing the duties of his chief officer for longer than three months, as do the powers to approve the number of police officers in a force and to approve the provision of buildings. These are only some of the many responsibilities placed on the Home Secretary by the Police Act, but the individual provisions cannot be divorced from the wider considerations of law and order.

1055
I think that Parliament expects the Home Secretary, with the professional advice of Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary, to be able to ensure that officers of the right calibre are appointed. Similarly a determination of the number and rank of officers needed in each force is crucial to the efficient policing of this country; and again Parliament expects the Home Secretary to be in a position, with the professional advice of the inspectorate, to influence these decisions.
This was a matter which we talked over at some length. In fact, when I was in another incarnation, so to speak, I argued the same case exactly from the opposite side, but I accepted for myself then that there was here a circumstance which did not come within the general category of the relaxation of controls.
I think here are factors which are very special, and I hope the noble Baroness will not want to press this point. As was said in Committee, there are sufficient arguments here to justify not relaxing this particular control, the relaxation of which I think would cause much concern to everyone in your Lordships' House. In these circumstances, perhaps the noble Baroness will feel able not to press at least this amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I do not intend to press the amendment, but having read through the debates in the Committee stage, and reinforced by the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, this afternoon, on the fact that we ought to keep the appointment of the chief constable in the hands of the Home Office, or under very strict supervision from the Home Office, because of corruption, I fail to see why a chief constable is any more likely to be corrupted than, say, a county planning officer, who is appointed by the county council.
However, I think this matter has had a very good airing. I had hoped that the noble Lord might be a little more forthcoming about the other relaxations on buildings and land, in view of the support I was given from his side of the House. Perhaps he would be willing to take that point back and look at it again with his colleagues in the Home Office. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Power to direct other bodies to publish information]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 7, line 4, leave out from ("the") to end of line 9 and insert ("descriptions of bodies mentioned in subsection (4)(e) and (g) above, in the application of those paragraphs to England; and

(b) to the London Transport Executive,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is needed to correct an error which was made in Committee stage, without which the powers concerned would be conferred on the Minister of Transport in both England and Wales, and this would not reflect the present division of responsibilities for transport matters between the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Meaning of "works contract"]:
3.10 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 4:
Leave out Clause 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I ask leave to deal with Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 together. The reason I ask leave to take this course is, of course, that it is the only technical way in which I can draw the attention of the House to the disapproval of Part III of the Bill as a whole, of those who sit on this side of the House.
I do not intend to reiterate any of the detailed arguments that I was able to adduce to your Lordships at Committee and Report stages of the Bill. What I do want to say is that this part of the Bill could have been cast in a very different way from that in which it has been laid before your Lordships. It is a tremendously complex part full of accounting and technical details, and in order to turn it into a really workable form one would have had to rewrite the whole of Part III.
The first point that one notes about Part III, which deals with direct labour organisations, is that nowhere in the Bill is a direct labour organisation defined. This must be held to be a little remarkable, because if we turn to Clause 20 we find plenty of definitions, including that of an "appointed day", "construction or maintenance work", a definition of "development body", of a "DLO revenue account", of "functional work", Yea, even, my Lords, a definition of a "local authority". But nowhere in the Bill, as indeed my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal pointed out at Report stage, is there a direct labour organisation defined.
Your Lordships are aware that I am not a lawyer, but I am given to understand on reliable authority that an absence of definition can very often lead to difficulties. It is all very well to say, "Of course, everybody knows what a direct labour organisation is; there is no need to define it", but we have many immortal cases in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court where one of the learned judges in the past has said, "What is a motor car?". These things are not unusual. I do not know whether the noble Lord when he comes to reply can provide some kind of rough and ready definition, but your Lordships may feel that, if you are going to devote a whole part of the Bill to direct labour organisations, what constitutes a direct labour organisation ought to be capable of reduction into the Queen's English; if it is something that is capable of definition and also of legal entity, then it should be possible to reduce it into words. I sincerely hope the noble Lord will be able to give that some thought.
Putting that aside, it was only when I came across, quite accidentally, the detailed report of the working party on direct labour organisations—its final report, which, unfortunately, was not in my possession either before Committee stage or Report stage—that I realised the real shortcomings of Part III of the Bill. This working party sat—if sitting be the correct word, because I presume it did a certain amount of travelling as well—for some 18 months. It commenced its sittings, I am informed, in October 1976 and the final report was put out in August 1978 by the noble Lord's own department. Modestly it has
1058
not claimed ownership of it or responsibility for it, and indeed, again somewhat modestly, the noble Lord did not refer to its contents in any very great detail when he was introducing this part of the Bill to your Lordships.
On going through it in detail, I am bound to say that I understand why. Here is a very responsible working party; its chairmen were provided by the Department of the Environment itself; it had numerous members. I will not weary your Lordships with all the names; it would take far too long; but they comprise responsible representatives from the Association of Municipal Authorities, the Association of District Councils, the Property Services Agency, the Association of County Councils, members from the noble Lord's District Auditors Department, and indeed members of quite a number of prominent local authorities themselves. It took evidence from a very wide section of those who might be considered as being legitimately interested in the whole question of direct labour organisations. It took written evidence from the Federation of Specialists and Subcontractors, from the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, from the Institute of Municipal Building Management, from the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and from the TUC. So it cannot be said that it was in any way unrepresentative.
In the event it produced a very moderate report. It was a moderate report, I would assume, because those who were members of it arrived at a consensus of the most practical things to be done to improve the organisation of direct labour organisations, to tighten up their tendering procedures, to make them more comparable with those with whom they were alleged sometimes to be in competition. As I say, if the whole spirit of Part III of the Bill had followed out the very sensible recommendations of the working party, there would have been very little to divide the House about on its context.
Incidentally, your Lordships may be interested to learn that one matter that was revealed in the report was the fact that, as regards the GLC, when discussing its figures for the year 1975–1976, the figures supplied by the treasurer showed

1059
that it would have cost the GLC an additional £8 million per annum if its housing maintenance work, then done by direct labour, had been placed with term contractors at the lowest tender rate. That may be a fact which is not generally known as there is the broad, general, political allegation that DLOs were in some respects wasteful; they were responsible for the waste of public funds; they resulted in the waste of ratepayers' money and, indeed, perpetrated all other kinds of cardinal, financial and organisational sins. It is, therefore, very interesting that in the case of the largest authority in the United Kingdom—and this was not challenged in any way by the working party and indeed was accepted by it—there was a saving of £8 million.
Looking at paragraph 3.1 of the report we see that the committee revealed its opinion and said:
"In our view it is not surprising that all but 10 of the 549 local authorities in the United Kingdom have found it beneficial to have a construction workforce of some size or another, directly under their own control".
Perhaps if extensive quotations had been made from this document, the attitude in some quarters of the House towards DLOs might have been considerably different. I can only speculate as to what happened when the final report of this working party came into the hands of the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Minister. I would assume that he read it. I would assume that he assimilated it. But, of course, it is the business of a Minister to make decisions. Quite clearly Ministers are not bound to adopt recommendations of working parties. They are free agents within the confines that are imposed upon them by their own colleagues in the Cabinet. They are free to make their own decisions. But certainly a decision in principle must have been made.
The Minister had two alternatives. If he wanted to produce a Bill or a part of a Bill covering this aspect of a local authority's work he could have decided to proceed on the broad, general lines laid down in the working party's final report—the general lines of consensus politics. He could have said to himself, "Well, perhaps there are a number of pet things that I would like to do myself but, by and large, since I am the Minister for the
1060
Environment and since I do wish to maintain the friendliest relationships with local authorities and desire to work harmoniously with them, I shall proceed on the basis of consensus and seek maximum agreement".
His alternative was to proceed with the policies of confrontation. We on this side of the House complain, so far as this part of the Bill is concerned, that the right honourable gentleman Mr. Heseltine decided to proceed on the policies of confrontation. This part of the Bill not only represents a direct challenge to the responsibility of local authorities, it does not only de-rate the degree of community between councillors and the electorate itself, but it endeavours to pursue the diktat. One finds in the 19 clauses comprising this part of the Bill that on no fewer than seven occasions does the Minister take power to issue regulations; on four occasions he takes power to make orders and on five occasions he takes direct power to give directions without any consultation with anybody at all. But nowhere is the desire to confront local authorities more obvious than when it comes to the Minister's power taken in this part of the Bill to direct that a local authority shall produce a report, and to direct at any time. In this part of the Bill he gives directions that in certain defined circumstances the authority shall cease direct labour operations either as a whole or, indeed, in whichever particular subdivision of its work may fall below the prescribed rate of return on capital which he from time to time—and which he alone—prescribes.
Nothing is in greater contrast with that than the very sensible observations brought out in the working party's report. I refer to Appendix K, paragraph 13, which does, to some extent, paraphrase the earlier and more detailed paragraph 9.6 of the report itself. It says:
"…any new legislation governing DLOs should provide for the application of profits and the defrayment of losses made by a DLO, and should impose a requirement on the parent authority that its DLO should not make an overall loss taking one year with another over a 5 year period".
It then says, and these are the important words:
"Where this requirement is not met … the position should be specially reported to the elected members who would be required to conduct a comprehensive review of the DLO to

1061
determine whether it should continue to operate, and if so, whether its activities should be limited in any way; and to publish the results of the review".
That particular finding of the working party may strike your Lordships as being eminently reasonable. It is quite clear that this working party—comprising members of the Department of the Environment as well as all the other authorities involved and those from whom it took evidence—took the view that DLOs should be responsible and should be required to work profitably, or at any rate without loss over a defined period, and that if that does not happen then there should be a detailed report to the elected members and the whole matter should be made public.
That strikes me as being an eminently reasonable proposal which does not in any way violate, but even enhances, the status of the local authority as an elected body, and leaves the locally-elected body to determine just what shall happen with its own direct labour organisation. That is in sharp contrast to the provisions of the Bill that has been inflicted upon us. There the Minister expresses himself in peremptory terms—after one year he can do this and after the one year he can direct the other. The whole essence of the matter is the establishment of the Marsham Street diktat over the discretion of the local authority. Nor is that all. From time to time during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House, especially in Committee, we have suggested to your Lordships certain amendments to Part III of the existing Bill, imperfect though Part III was in its total concept. Our object was to improve it, with all its structural defects and with all the defects that lie behind the purpose of its introduction.
Noble Lords will remember that amendments were introduced on this side of the House permitting DLOs to work outside their boundaries. We pointed out to the House particular circumstances where, owing to winding roads which would cross and in some cases recross individual local authority boundaries, it was obviously a matter of common sense that the DLO should have power—subject to the agreement of the other local authorities—to work in a sensible and practicable fashion. But that was refused us.
However, the working party report said:
"DLOs should be permitted to work outside their parent local authority boundaries for other local and public authorities as well as inside them on both new and repair and maintenance work; be able to second staff from one authority to another (as already happens between some authorities) and that the financial and accounting rules when they do so should be clearly stated".
Then there was a paragraph in the report of the working party which went even further; indeed, further than was suggested by some quarters on this side of the House. In paragraph 11, we find:
"Consideration should be given to extending the scope of powers available to DLOs to include work for private house-owners in certain circumstances, viz., where the dwelling is either a former council … or is one in the various areas of special treatment prescribed in the various Housing Acts.…".
et cetera. But there is no mention of these in the Bill.
Your Lordships will also remember that we on this side of the House introduced amendments concerning the provision of emergency services and also the accounting treatment of them. But these also were rejected by the noble Lord; whereas the working party report at paragraph 18 of Appendix K says:
"DLOs may also be required, because of their authority's statutory obligations, to provide emergency services at short notice. If this disrupts ongoing work and gives rise to measurable extra costs, it should be identified and charged to the cost of the emergency rather than the work in hand".
Then there were pleas from this side of the House that some account should be taken of the work performed by direct labour organisations, with the full authority of the directly elected council, to do certain works on social grounds. These were refused us; whereas the working party report says:
"Costs arising from decisions taken on social grounds, e.g. the employment of extra trainees as a contribution to employment for school leavers, should be identified and charged not to the DLO but to the central funds of the authority".
There are many others. One cannot help but contrast the whole Government attitude as expressed in the strident terms of Part III of the Bill, with the eminently reasonable attitude that has been taken by the working party. Let there be no doubt that we, on this side of the House, welcome the fact that there should be

1063
better organisation in direct labour organisations; we welcome improved accounting systems; and we welcome cost accountability. All matters of that kind are welcome, with the proviso that in the first instance the prime people interested in these are the local authorities themselves; they are directly elected bodies; they are the people who are closest to those in the local authority area who derive benefit from or, in fact, use the services. It should be in their hands to determine their rules.
Therefore, on this side of the House we resent the endeavour by the Secretary of State to seek to enforce his will on local authorities rather than pursuing more moderate and consensus policies advocated in the working party report on direct labour organisations, and following the lines of open, friendly co-operation with local authorities, to the detriment of the status of neither. I beg to move.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House whether it is in order to make a long Second Reading speech on what is ostensibly an amendment on Third Reading. Whether or not it is in order, it is undoubtedly against the traditions of the House. I think that it is treating the House with contempt and that it is quite monstrous.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I do not intend to speak on that point, so perhaps we should hear what the noble Earl the Deputy Leader of the House has to say first.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend puts me in a slight spot if he asks me to give a ruling on a speech which another noble Lord has made. Indeed, I should find it very difficult to do so. Of course, your Lordships are masters of your own procedure, and we must do what we think is right in the House.
There is a problem here and I am bound to say so. I realise that the noble Lord feels very strongly about this. The problem arises when a number of "Leave out" clauses are tabled at the Third Reading of the Bill. I would only address such remarks as I make to that principle. Of course, one can only be guided by
1064
Standing Orders over this. If one looks at the Companion to the Standing Orders one sees that with regard to the Report stage it says:
"An amendment to leave out a Clause or a Schedule is not desirable on Report if the purpose underlying the amendment is to initiate a general debate".
Presumably such a stricture also refers to Third Reading. In so far as the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, have in fact initiated a general debate I think that one might question whether this was the right procedure. If one looks at what the Companion to the Standing Orders says with regard to Third Reading, one sees that it says:
"It is considered undesirable that an issue which has been fully debated and decided upon a previous stage of a Bill should be re-opened on Third Reading".
I would do no more than draw that to the attention of your Lordships' House. One is in a danger because the current trend over the past few years has been to make the Third Reading an extension of the Committee stage and the Report stage, and in so far as that is a trend your Lordships may think that it is an undesirable trend. But one, of course, works within the Companion to the Standing Orders.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would not be a party to defending anybody in your Lordships' House who opposed Standing Orders. I know that it is a matter for the House to decide. I would not defend my noble friend on this side of the House if I thought that he was wrong. But I do not think—and I believe the noble Earl the Deputy Leader has confirmed this—that he has offended the rules of the House. Something may not be desirable as a general rule, but it may be highly desirable in certain instances.
As the noble Earl knows, we feel very strongly about this Bill, as strongly as other noble Lords feel in favour of it. Noble Lords opposite have got down 34 amendments today at Third Reading. Among other things—I cannot count them—I understood there were 74 amendments. When I counted I found that we on this side are responsible for 40 and I think noble Lords opposite are responsible for 34. I think the noble Lord probably accepts my figure.

1065
When speaking just now, I understand that my noble friend was speaking to something like 18 amendments. I accept that it is undesirable for certain things to happen at Third Reading, but if my noble friend has got down an amendment which has already been before your Lordships' House and has been decided upon, I do not think I shall have any difficulty in persuading him not to pursue it. But if there is such an amendment I am sure it is not more than one; or perhaps there are two. We ought to bear in mind that we are dealing with a Bill of some importance and that feelings are very strong on both sides of your Lordships' House. On reflection, while we want to deal with this matter as expeditiously as possible, I do not think it would be right to say that my noble friend is offending in any way. As I said at the beginning, what may be desirable as a general rule may not be desirable on certain occasions. In view of the importance and far-reaching effects of this Bill, this is one of the occasions when it should be discussed quite fully, but I am sure my noble friend will take into account what the noble Earl has said.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, I think there is a point of some substance here and I wonder whether it would be a good thing if the Procedure Committee had a look at this once more and gave us some guidance. It might be a practical suggestion.
Lord HOWIE of TROON: My Lords, I do not like this kind of debate at all. In the past I have not been used to Third Reading debates which deal with a large number of amendments; it does not happen in another place, but it does happen here. In its nature, a Third Reading debate is fairly general so it stands to reason that debates on amendments on Third Reading are likely to be fairly general as well; so I do not think that the complaint was terribly well founded. But the thing I really do not like about this kind of complaint is that it arose at the end of my noble friend's speech, which I found an extremely interesting one. If it turns out that my noble friend or any other Member of the House is in breach of the Standing Orders or any of the customs of the House, surely the time to challenge him is when he is in breach. He should be interrupted then and not at the end of his speech. To
1066
wait until the end of the speech and then raise the matter is really to trail a red herring across procedure and to utilise a kind of device. And I think utilising the device is as offensive to the House as the matter of the complaint might have been if the complaint were justified.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I should like to say one word and I shall not prolong this debate. I find it unsatisfactory that any noble Lord should attempt to rule the House by insinuation, as the noble Lord opposite has attempted to do.
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord AVEBURY: Yes, my Lords; I stand by that word. To stand up at the end of Lord Bruce's remarks and make reference to them as being undesirable in some way, as if that were to be the same thing as impermissible, is really not to direct the House in the proper way that it should be going. If, indeed, anything that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, had done was impermissible under the Standing Orders, then the proper moment to have raised it was right at the beginning of the debate; or, if I may say so, it could have been done through the usual channels when the noble Lord's amendments first appeared on the Order Paper. If there was anything improper in putting down a large number of amendments, as the noble Lord has done, to leave out certain clauses, then that could have been taken up through the Opposition Whips and perhaps, if it was contrary to the procedure of the House, the noble Lord would have seen fit to withdraw them.
But the noble Lord himself has pointed out that things have changed in the last few years, that the procedures on Third Reading, which are so foreign to those of us like the noble Lord, Lord Howie, and myself who come from another place, where at Third Reading one can only stick rigidly to what is in the Bill and not what one would have liked to see in it if one had had one's way at Committee and on Report, are entirely different. They are clearly evolving, as the noble Lord himself underlined when he said that the practice had grown up in recent years of developing certain themes on Third Reading. If the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has simply continued a practice which the Government consider to be undesirable

1067
then they have their remedy through taking it up with the Procedure Committee. But I hope they will not come along during the Third Reading and attempt, as I say, by insinuation to silence noble Lords opposite from doing what they consider to be perfectly proper.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I wonder whether I can say just one other thing? I know that noble Lords feel very strongly about this but I think the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is being less than fair if he says that any one of your Lordships is trying to rule by insinuation. I do not think my noble friend has sought to do that, nor do I think that any other Member of your Lordships' House would do so. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, said this was utilising a device. Again, on reflection I think that is a fairly strong description. I think that what was happening was that my noble friend was airing a view, which some people would have, that it is not the normally accepted procedure to list as a matter for Third Reading a whole series of clauses which should be left out. The principal purposes of amendments at Third Reading are to clear uncertainties or to get clarification on various issues which have been raised earlier, or for the Government to fulfil undertakings. That has been generally accepted to be the purpose of Third Reading amendments.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that things change. Noble Lords will have noticed that this particular procedure on Third Reading has changed, but I should like to suggest that possibly the Lord Chairman, who at the moment is on the Woolsack, might take into account the words of my noble friend Lord Home. I think this is a matter which could be and properly should be considered by the Procedure Committee, as opposed to continuing any further at this moment. It would be a pity if any noble Lords were to feel that an intervention either soured Lord Bruce's speech or cut across the trend of his argument. We could go from here quite happily after that intervention because I think that my noble friend Lord Derwent was only trying to express a matter of concern.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I should like to make a small point on the amend-
1068
ment, which rightly or wrongly has been moved and is before the House. I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, to say when he comes to reply whether he has considered one point that has been worrying me. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has said, there is no definition of a direct labour organisation.
On an amendment which I proposed, Clause 20(3) was included in the Bill. This makes it clear that there are excluded from the direct labour organisation provisions work done by a local authority in its capacity as a dock or harbour undertaking. It seems to me that, if that is specifically excluded, it might be held that because other similar operations by local authorities, such as operating an airport or perhaps operating a transport undertaking, are not excluded the labour employed in those activities was also included under the heading of direct labour organisations. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, when he replies could give some indication of what he thinks about that.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, I think my noble friend on the Front Bench mentioned the query that I raised in the House, that there is no definition of the words "direct labour organization". I read carefully the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, made in answer when I used the example of the city that I know best, which has the equivalent of three direct labour organisations all under the control of different committees of that council and different officers. I used the example, for Members of your Lordships' House who were not at that previous debate, where the council had a direct labour organisation for its public works department, another direct labour organisation for its housing department, and another for another department which I have forgotten. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, most likely will remind me of it. However, we have three. I was concerned whether all those departments would be one direct labour organisation under the Bill. When I read his reply I really was not satisfied. I did not know whether he really did not understand my question because I put it so badly, or whether there could be an answer this afternoon.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, may I say how nice of the noble Baroness to make her last point in the way she did. I think we need not weigh too much on this point of definition. The phrase "direct labour organisation" is not used in the text of the Bill. It is used in the Title, but it is not used in the text of the Bill except in the phrase "DLO revenue account", which is defined. Therefore, strictly speaking, there is no need for a definition as such.
In any case, the crucial point is surely the nature of the work done. If any employee of the council carried out construction or maintenance work his activities are subject to Part III irrespective of the title the council chooses to give to his department. I hope that that would perhaps satisfy certainly the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I recognise that this is only part of the various points that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was making. It certainly was not the one on which I understood him to base the thrust of his whole argument.
Apart from the reference to the report of the working party, which I think the noble Lord said was brought out in I978—and I recall that working party sitting—the noble Lord today told us nothing new at all. He has made clear again his strong dislike of this part of the Bill, but that is nothing new, if I may say so. I really do not feel that he strengthens his case by referring to "Marsham Street diktat", and the Secretary of State forcing his will, and such phrases. What we have to do here is to look at one or two basics.
There has long been disquiet about the working of direct labour organisations, and there is no secret about that. The previous Labour Government themselves came out with proposals for more tendering; for separate DLO accounts on a trading basis; for a rate of return to be calculated on a current cost accounting basis, and so on. Indeed, the main basis for much of this section of the Bill comes in fact from the report produced as long ago as 1975 by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy on direct labour accounting. As I recall, it was that report which touched off the working party to which the noble Lord referred.
1070
I am not going to go into much detail as to what that working party said. One would want to look at its composition. I seem to recall that it was made up in the main of officers; people certainly with much responsibility. But then one would have to see what their interest was is analysing the 1975 report. When we talk about the GLC making or losing if it places out work to the private sector, again I think we would want to look carefully at exactly what those figures were based upon.
I could make a long speech which would set out precisely why I disagree fundamentally with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, on this issue. But at the end of the day I would come back to a few basic facts. The fact is that there is a need for more accountability; there is a need for competitive tendering. No one can really make a case contra to that. I have said on so many occasions now that I should not have to repeat it again, that there are efficient DLOs, and there is a place for them to do certain work. It should not be necessary for me to have to say this again but I do so because the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has intimated, at least, that the Government are—I forget the phrase he used today; he has used a number of phrases in the past—clobbering DLOs, or whatever. It just is not that at all.
If it is clobbering them to want to see accounts published, then that is clobbering. If it is clobbering them to want to see tendering in competition with everybody else, then that is clobbering. If it is clobbering to want to see them have to produce separate accounts on the basis that we have said, then that is clobbering. However, I do not think it is that at all. It is simply an attempt once and for all, long overdue, to give the good, the efficient organisations the chance to show just how good they are. Those who are not are the only ones who need to be concerned. If what is in this Bill makes them, one way or another, become more efficient, look to their workings, look to what they can do more competitively, then it is jolly well overdue for this requirement to come about.
Therefore, it will not be a surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that I do not accept what he says in these amendments at all. I think in fact that the

1071
majority of local government people welcome these provisions because they give a chance to those who are doing a good job to show to all and sundry that they do.
3.58 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is not in his place. It is perhaps the case that the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, was unaware that I got into touch with the Minister's office earlier this afternoon in order to inform them that I had no intention of moving the individual amendments that are down in my name; that I proposed to speak to them all on the first amendment, and that for the convenience of the House I did not propose to move the remainder, or at least did not propose to divide the House upon them. I was advised on the proper authority of the only technical way of being able to express our disapproval of Part III of the Bill.
I sincerely hope that the House will therefore acquit me of any intention to be discourteous to the House, or indeed to the Government, or in any way to violate any of the principles upon which it has worked successfully for so many years. It will always be my objective to conform not only to the rules of the House but also to the spirit with which the House seeks to have them carried out.
In reply to what the noble Lord has said, I shall not keep the House long save to say that of course I willingly accept that it is desirable to have all the various accounting, disclosure, and division and cost control procedures dealt with in the Bill. The issue between us does not concern those at all, although in my view technically some parts of them are going to be difficult and tortuous to carry out. My complaint is solely of the power to direct the local authority and order it about. This is what I object to in this section. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
4 p.m.
Lord HENLEY Lord HENLEY moved Amendment Nos. 8 and 9:
1072
Page 11, line 35, leave out from beginning to ("submitted") and insert ("the price of each offer")
Page 11, line 37, leave out from ("above") to end of line 38.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid my noble friend Lord Morris cannot be here this afternoon, and so I will speak to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 on his behalf. My Lords, these are both very simple drafting amendments, purely designed to clarify Clause 9(8), with regard to exactly what can be disclosed, needs to be disclosed, by the local authority. The wording is the result of fairly extensive consultations with the department, and I hope that the result—I believe it will—will meet with the approval of the Government. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Henley. My noble friend Lord Morris, in moving his amendment to this subsection in Committee, gave notice that he would be considering the matter further and I agreed that the drafting would repay closer examination. It is, as my noble friend Lord Henley says, a matter of drafting, and no one in this House or in another place has ever challenged the substance of this provision. There is happy unanimity on what is required; the publication of tender competition results without the breach of any commercial confidentiality between authority and contractor. The present amendment appears to have the merit of simplicity and certainly shortens the clause, and I accept it willingly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord HENLEY Lord HENLEY moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 11, line 37, leave out from ("above") to end of line 38.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, I have already spoken to this on Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Maybray-King): My Lords, I take it that Amendments Nos. 10 to 17 are not now moved.
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 17 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Rates of return: Powers of Secretary of State]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 17, line 23, leave out ("the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment. The definite article here is intrusive and has survived by mistake from earlier amendments. By removing it it will be made clear that failure to earn the required rate of return in any three consecutive years will mean that a report has to be prepared for the council to consider. This is what everyone has always taken the clause to mean and the amendment will merely make the drafting coincide with that understanding. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Application to joint committees]:
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 21:
Page 23, line 18, at end insert—
("Provided that no such order in respect of the accounting and financing provisions shall specify a date prior to 1st April 1982.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe Amendment No. 21 would be more appropriately discussed after a later clause, after Amendment No. 25. There is an error on the face of the amendment itself.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Maybray-King): My Lords, Amendment No. 21 should be No. 25A and we will take it after Amendment No. 25.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Part III—supplementary]:
4.4 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 25A:
Page 23, line 18, at end insert—
("Provided that no such order in respect of the accounting and financing provisions shall specify a date prior to 1st April 1982.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the amendment standing in my name. This seeks to ensure that the
1074
accounting and financing provisions shall not come into operation on 1st April 1981 but on 1st April 1982. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will accept it from me that there is nothing at all perverse in the moving of this amendment. I am not in any way trying to wreck or postpone the Bill. It is simply that there are practical implications involved. I have already drawn your Lordships' attention to the fact that there are some minor instances in which regulations can be issued, some four occasions where orders are going to be issued and some five instances where directions can be made. In addition, on the Committee stage of the Bill the Minister himself stated that after the passage of this Bill he would continue to listen to any further arguments the local authorities want to put on timing and
"We shall see how things go, but we shall need a good deal of hard evidence if we are to move away from the target set out for this part of the Bill".
Speaking for the moment as a practical accountant, I can envisage very many difficulties indeed, particularly in the re-devising or the re-programming of computers that are in use in many local authorities. Your Lordships will, I am quite sure, appreciate when reading through the very complicated accounting section of the Bill, that this does mark a very radical change in the whole of the accounting and cost procedures of local authorities. Moreover, the institute concerned, which is the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, is itself going to produce a code of guidance to enable those who are employed in an accounting capacity in local authorities to be able to bring these measures into operation. I believe that that code is well advanced, although it is not yet in its final form. It is going to take some time to produce; it is going to take some time to circulate and, if I may say so, as one who has spent a considerable amount of his time in studying technical publications of one kind or another, particularly those relating to accounting and finance, it will take some time to assimilate.
I am therefore asking the noble Lord to think again on this. Very few months now remain before 1st April 1981. If this part of the Bill, Part III, is to come into operation, in spite of what we consider on this side of the House to be defects, then

1075
I think we are all agreed that it should come into operation effectively, efficiently and smoothly, and for this I think 1st April 1981 gives much too short a time. I therefore beg the noble Lord, in all seriousness, to think again about this, because it is my view, which is, I must tell the noble Lord, widely shared by those with experience in these matters, that it will be very difficult indeed to get this into operation by the end of next August, let alone 1st April. I hope that in the friendliest possible spirit, bearing in mind the terms of the servant in which I have felt bound to address him from time to time, the noble Lord will give very careful consideration to this matter. I beg to move.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, very briefly, may I say that on this amendment I agree very strongly indeed with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I understand from telephone calls I have received just before your Lordships' House met today that local authorities throughout the whole spectrum—and I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, can speak for the ADC and the ACC, but as far as the AMA is concerned, and I understand the other two associations—are very concerned and very worried, and certainly the local authorities with which I personally am connected are very concerned and worried that the Government is setting an impossible task if this matter is not put off, as suggested at the moment. We do hope the Government will look upon this favourably.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I say at once that I entirely and unreservedly accept the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in moving the amendment and I am not unaware of the concern to which he referred. I know that many local authorities are anxious about their ability to get to where the Bill calls on them to be within the time stipulated. However, the amendment presents problems because, as noble Lords will know, we are anxious that the earliest possible start should be made, and therefore this is a problem of striking a balance.
1076
We believe that authorities have had time. It was in August of last year that we made clear what was being proposed, and I hope that most authorities have been moving in the right direction and that implementation in the time is still possible. We have tried to help in this respect. We have made some concessions to ease the burden of starting the new system, easier tendering requirements, particularly the freeing of all maintenance work below £10,000 for highway authorities, winter maintenance programmes, compulsory tendering and the de minimis exemption for the smallest authorities. To contemplate a further relaxation now, even acknowledging the problems that some have, is not something we would willingly want to do.
It has been suggested that perhaps we might have further consultations with the local authorities on this point. In fact, we have had a great number already on this as on all other matters concerning this part of the Bill, and officials are constantly in touch. Nevertheless, in an attempt to be helpful and to show that we are not dogmatic about it, if the local authorities wish to come back and make some formal representations on this point, we shall be willing to receive them. While I would not want to give the wrong impression by indicating that we will accept this—I could not say that at all; in fact, to the contrary is my brief—I can say that we would be willing to hear again what they may wish to say about it and have a further discussion with them if they care to approach us. I assure the House that we will certainly listen.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am sorry the Minister has not seen fit to give way on this. The views I have expressed are broadly those of a large number of local authorities who are sorely beset by the problems raised by the technicalities of the Bill. I should have thought it would be in the interests of good relations between the local authorities and central Government for the wishes of the local authorities to be accepted in this respect. I repeat, I am sure they will with complete loyalty carry out as expeditiously as possible the provisions of the Bill and, with some difficulty, the provisions of this part of the measure.

1077
In the careful and accommodating remarks the Minister made he indicated that of course if he had conversations with local authorities, that must not be taken in any way as implying that the Government could be persuaded to give way. I cannot feel that if the local authorities visited the noble Lord's office they could provide any reasons other than those I have already given, except perhaps to elaborate them to suit the circumstances of their particular cases. I am in a very non-contentious mood this afternoon, but
on sheer grounds of practice and out of regard for the fortunes of the local authorities and the difficulties with which they are faced, I am afraid I must divide the House.
4.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 135.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Amherst, E.

Hale, L.

Amulree, L.

Hall, V.

Raglan, L.

Avebury, L.

Hampton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Balogh, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rochester, L.

Banks, L.

Henderson, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Beswick, L.

Hooson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Segal, L.

Blease, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Shinwell, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacques, L.

Simon, V.

Briginshaw, L.

Janner, L.

Stedman, B.

Brock way, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Chitnis, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strauss, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Underhill, L.

Denington, B.

McNair, L.

Wade, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Wall, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Milford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Walston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Pargiter, L.

Whaddon, L.

Galpern, L.

Peart, L.

White, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Phillips, B.

Wigoder, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Cathcart, E.

Ferrers, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Ferrier, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chelwood, L.

Fortescue, E.

Alport, L.

Clancarty, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Ampthill, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Gage, V.

Auckland, L.

Clwyd, L.

Gainford, L.

Avon, E. [Teller.]

Cockfield, L.

Gisborough, L.

Bathurst, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Bellwin, L.

Craigton, L.

Gowrie, E.

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Greenway, L.

Berkeley, B.

De Freyne, L.

Gridley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Denham, L.

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

Boardman, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Boothby, L.

Dundee, E.

Halifax, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Eccles, V.

Harvington, L.

Bradford, E.

Effingham, E.

Henley, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Caccia, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Cairns, E.

Energlyn, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Caithness, E.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Ilchester, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Exeter, M.

Inglewood, L.

Carrington, L. (A Principal Secretary of State.)

Faithfull, B.

Killearn, L.

Falkland, V.

Kilmany, L.

Kimberley, E.

Mottistone, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Kinloss, Ly.

Mountgarret, V.

Sharples, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Netherthorpe, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Newall, L.

Somers, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Northchurch, B.

Spens, L.

Long, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Stamp, L.

Loudoun, C.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Onslow, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Luke, L.

Orkney, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lyell, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Swansea, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Swinfen, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Redmayne, L.

Teviot, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Renton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Robbins, L.

Trenchard, V.

Mansfield, E.

Roberthall, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Margadale, L.

Rochdale, V.

Vickers, B.

Marley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Vivian, L.

Middleton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Westbury, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

St. Germans, E.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Monson, L.

Savile, L.

Young, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Selkirk, E.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 22 to 26 not moved.]
Clause 31 [Rating exemption for fish farms]:
4.24 p.m.
The Earl of AVON The Earl of AVON moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 31, line 27, leave out ("concerned") and insert ("engaged").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is one of two technical amendments to the clause which was accepted by the Government at Report stage. It seeks to specify that the occupier of any dwelling-house on, or adjacent to, a fish farm and, therefore, eligible to be assessed for rating purposes as though it were tied to its use in connection with that fish farm, must be "engaged in" rather than merely "concerned in" fish farming operations. The use of the word "concerned" could provide a loophole by which the provisions of this clause would have a wider application than is our intention. I am thinking of a situation in which a person was financially concerned in fish farming, but could not be said to be engaged in it in any other way. The use of the word "engaged" is therefore preferable, and is consistent with the corresponding agricultural provision in the General Rate Act 1967, Section 26(2)(a). I beg to move.
The Earl of AVON The Earl of AVON moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 31, line 39, leave out ("aforesaid") and insert ("mentioned in this subsection or in section 26(2) of this Act").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the second of the two technical amendments to this clause. At present subsection (2) provides for the rateable value of fish farm dwellings to be estimated on the assumption that, for rental purposes, the house could not be occupied or used otherwise than in connection with fish farming. I am advised that this restriction is too narrow. It would be more realistic to assume that dwellings at fish farms could be occupied by people engaged either in fish farming or in other branches of agriculture. This amendment provides that the purposes for which such dwellings should be deemed to be occupied or used shall include agricultural as well as fish farming operations. The result would be that dwellings would be valued on the same, generally favourable, assumptions as other agricultural dwellings. Without this amendment the valuer would have to assure a very restricted clientele, which would be unreasonably favourable to the occupiers at fish farms in comparison with the occupiers at other farms, or in any other dwelling. I beg to move.
4.26 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
(" Rating relief for industry and commerce
. There shall be added after subsection 40 of the 1967 Act the following new section:—

"40A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by Order make a scheme for the purpose of giving relief from rates, in such a manner, in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in the Order, to persons liable to rates in respect of hereditaments (not being domestic hereditaments) and such a scheme may make different provision for different cases and different rate periods.

(2) An Order under subsection (1) above shall only be made in response to requests from trade organisations or organisations representing employers.

(3) Before making an Order under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consult with such associations of local authorities and with such other bodies of persons with whom consultations appear to him to be desirable.

(4) The power to make an Order in subsection (1) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Report stage I moved Amendment No. 60, which was a rather limited amendment, to allow for "mothballing" to be a permitted way in which productive industry might be excused rates so that it could maintain equipment in being during these extremely hard times from a business point of view. The equipment would still be available when times get better and industry is able to take on more employees. Industry could then quickly re-establish its machinery and other equipment, which would in the meantime have been subject to reduced rating, thus making available extra financial resources to keep going in these, I repeat, extremely hard times.
Unfortunately we did not quite make it on Report, but there was great support from all sides of the House, and that encouraged me to think that on the whole your Lordships agreed not so much with the detail of the amendment, but with the principle of giving an opportunity to wealth-creating industry to be tided over during the difficult period and be fully ready to expand when the moment came. The President of the CBI wrote to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment pressing that point and inviting him to accept an amendment that would try to deal with what one might call the wider issue; and the present amendment seeks to do just that. It seeks to give power to the Secretary of State, when approached by the repre-
1082
sentatives of productive industry, to make an order to enable rate relief to be given, possibly on a temporary basis, to deal with a temporary and strict situation. It has that intention; and the proposed new clause makes full provision for the representatives of local authorities to be consulted so that the Minister would not in the end make the order without both sides having their full say; but he is given this flexibility to be able to deal with the extremely difficult situation which prevails at the moment.
By the way, to make the point, I spent this morning sitting on a joint industrial council seeking to agree a wage settlement for the biscuit industry, with which I am associated, as your Lordships I think know. We could not reach agreement. The reason was that the poeple with whom we were discussing could not appreciate—and perhaps many of your Lordships do not appreciate—just exactly how difficult life is for productive industry today. It really is extremely tough. Hopefully, this is temporary; hopefully, this situation will be surmounted. But it can be surmounted only if productive industry is allowed to have all possible flexibility to maintain itself and its equipment, and, indeed, as far as possible, its employees, to take it over this difficult time.
So, my Lords, this amendment seeks to give the Government the sort of power they want. Unfortunately, because we have been so pressed for time I fully recognise that the wording of the amendment is not perfect, as it should be. I had rather hoped—indeed, I wrote to my noble friend Lord Bellwin asking him about it—that perhaps the Government themselves would think of an amendment which would be better worded and would meet the same objective. Unfortunately, I do not see that on the Marshalled List, but I am hopeful that perhaps this might mean that the Government will accept mine, with all its imperfections. I beg to move.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I think the House will have listened with considerable sympathy, as it always does, to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, when he speaks, as he is entitled to do, on behalf of trade and industry. The worrying aspect to some of us is, I think, this. The previous amendment which the noble Lord moved at another stage of the Bill, as

1083
he frankly told the House on this occasion, limited to certain circumstances the relief of rates to trade and industry. This amendment seems to give an overall discretion to the Minister in any circumstances at all, after he has consulted the local authority associations and trade associations, as he sees fit, to make an order which would relieve industry and trade of rates.
I cannot imagine that any noble Lord would want to prevent the relief of trade and industry if they knew that there were certain other matters protected, but I think that some of your Lordships may be worried, as my noble friends and I are worried, that where you have capital and expenditure of local authoritities limited by Act of Parliament and regulation then, apart from a few sources (and even they have to be taken into account in regard to their allotment, as it were, of capital and expenditure) the only way in which local authorities can raise their money is through rates on the domestic occupier and on the occupiers of business premises.
In those circumstances, if it is not the local authority that has the power but the Minister, it seems that the local authorities and the domestic ratepayers can be very badly hit; because, as I have said, central Government having limited the amount of expenditure for local authorities, if they then exempted certain businesses and trades from their proper rating assessments and liabilities they would in fact be imposing an extra burden upon domestic occupiers, who I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, would admit are as hard hit as anybody in these times. This is the worrying thought that I believe some of us have who might otherwise be so anxious to support him.
4.34 p.m.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I think your Lordships will appreciate the work which has been put into the various editions of this clause with which we have been concerned at the various stages of this Bill. I referred to the difficulties on previous occasions, and on this occasion my noble friend has, in a way, got out of those difficulties by creating what is an extremely flexible framework for the Executive. Some of your Lordships
1084
might possibly feel that the proposed powers are rather too wide for the Executive to have in this particular area.
I understand perfectly the intention of the new clause, and it would certainly at first sight appear to give the Secretary of State scope for quite a number of different forms of relief. The only express limitations on the power are, first, the requirement that the Secretary of State cannot make an order unless first requested to do so by trade organisations or organisations of employers, and then there is the provision that there must be consultation. The first of these limitations is somewhat unusual in legislation, and would perhaps elevate trade and employers' organisations to a rather unusual prominence. Although, as I have said, the intention is wide-ranging. I must tell your Lordships that we are advised that as drafted it will in fact be a good deal narrower than my noble friend had in mind. In particular, the advice we have been given is that the word "relief" in subsection (1) of his new clause, when construed in the light of the general rating legislation into which it would be placed, could be interpreted only as 100 per cent. relief in respect of hereditaments. Therefore, although apparently rather flexible, it would not, as drafted, exactly achieve the aim that my noble friend had in mind.
We are of course very conscious of the problem to which my noble friend has referred, and perhaps I need not weary your Lordships by going over the difficulties in giving effect to these, which I summarised on previous occasions. However, I should like to conclude by saying to your Lordships that the Government have themselves approached the problem of business ratepayers with concern and understanding, and my right honourable friends with responsibility in this area have given very serious consideration to this particular clause—and that consideration continued right up until what might be regarded as almost after the last minute.
It is relevant to point out what we have done already in this matter. The new provisions in this Bill on empty property rating are significant, and after Royal Assent we shall be bringing forward an order under Clause 42 to impose a ceiling of 50 per cent. on empty rates in the non-domestic sector. This will bring a great

1085
deal of benefit to very many firms; and, I might add, it will bring relief in many of the cases that are sometimes put forward in arguments for mothballing relief. Moreover, the Government will be able to review the new ceiling on empty rates in a year or so, and make further reductions if this is desirable.
May I also say, my Lords, that we have not irrevocably ruled out rate relief for premises only partly used. I recognise the depth of feeling with which my noble friend and, on earlier occasions, other noble Lords have spoken on this matter, and may I say in recognition of that that we shall keep this proposal in mind. I expect there will also be opportunities to discuss it further with the CBI in the coming months. I should also like to remind your Lordships and those concerned that there is a possibility of empty property relief in cases where it is possible to set aside an area with separate access and other requirements of a separate occupancy, so there is scope for an examination of that in particular cases. Having said that, may I advise your Lordships not to accept this new clause, and I hope that in the light of these explanations my noble friend may perhaps feel able to withdraw it.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. I fully understand the difficulties of implementing this proposed clause as it is phrased. I am most heartened by his remarks about bearing in mind for the future the various factors which he enumerated. I am hoping that as time goes on he will be able to find his way through to giving purpose to those intentions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Rating of unoccupied property]:
4.41 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 41, leave out lines 14 to 29 and insert—
(" (2A) The owner of a relevant hereditament shall not be exempt from being rated under this Schedule in respect of that hereditament on the ground that the provisions of section 32, 33 or 34 of this Act would exempt the hereditament from being liable to be rated or to be included
1086
in any valuation list or in any rate, unless it appears that the relevant provisions will so exempt it when it is next occupied.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we return to an amendment which we put forward at Committee when, as was the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on the previous amendment, I was encouraged by a slightly sympathetic reception. I hope I shall receive a still more sympathetic reception this afternoon. The amendment is put forward in slightly different wording. This clause is intended to close the loophole in the 1967 General Rate Act whereby the gas corporation and electricity boards can escape liability to rates on their empty showrooms. There have been difficulties with other properties—notably, offices—and this amendment would tidy up the law so that public corporations were not exempt from rates on empty offices, showrooms and dwellings. I hope that the Minister will give me a shock, even at this late stage, by accepting the amendment.
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, this amendment is a revision of one which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, moved at Report stage. In the Bill as drafted, paragraph (4), subparagraphs (2A) and (2B) of Schedule I of the 1967 Act, as amended by Clause 42, are intended to close a small loophole in the present statutory provisions on empty property rating whereby unoccupied electricity and gas showrooms are able to avoid paying empty property rates. The loophole came to light in a court case concerning Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and it was thought that the clause would close it. The noble Baroness's amendment at Report stage, which the Government agreed to consider, led to investigations into the need to ensure that empty offices as well as showrooms of electricity and gas boards should be liable to rates. There have been discussions between officers of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the department about this matter.
This amendment now goes further in that it covers all empty electricity and gas board premises (that is showrooms, offices and dwellings) which, when occupied, are subject to normal rating provisions. It also extends to analogous premises on railway board land. It removes any doubt that, when unoccupied, such premises should be liable to empty

1087
property rating in the same way as premises owned by any other person or organisation. This amendment clarifies the purpose behind the original legislation and I recommend to your Lordships that it be accepted.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am delighted at this late stage that we have had one of our amendments accepted.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
(" Agricultural premises: Scotland
.—(1) In section 7 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 (provisions relating to agricultural lands and heritages and dwelling-houses occupied therewith) in subsection (2) in the definition of "agricultural lands and heritages" after the words "market gardens" there shall be inserted the words "nursery grounds".
(2) In the definition of "agricultural buildings" in that subsection after the words "market garden" there shall be inserted the words "or nursery grounds".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an amendment which I bring forward at the request of the Scottish Farmers' Union and which should have been put down on Report stage but I did not get it early enough. It is an absolutely new amendment which has not been discussed during any period of our discussion of the Bill. I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for bringing it up like this, but it is worth considering because it brings forward rather an important matter.
This amendment refers to a definition of agricultural land called nursery ground. Market gardens are already derated while nursery ground is derated in England and Wales but not in Scotland. Nursery ground covers 792·6 hectares of ground and on this ground is grown a variety of things none of which requires to be under glass. On it grow fruit stock, ornamental shrubs used considerably by local authorities for improving the environment, roses, rose stock, ornamental trees, bulbs, flowers, outdoor growth for hardy annuals and fruit stock. The value of the trees and shrubs grown is
1088
quite considerable. In 1978 it was £8·3 million, in 1979 it was £8·4 million and in 1980 it will be approximately the same although maybe a little down. The total value of stock grown on the ground is £40 million. The Scottish NFU have in their membership between 50 and 60 members who are engaged in this form of agriculture but outside NFU membership hundreds of men and women are employed in this kind of agriculture.
It is in order to bring this section of agricultural and horticultural development into the same category as in England that this amendment is moved. It is nothing new; it is exactly what has been done in other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope the Government will see their way to accepting it. The reason that it was brought to my notice was that in a recent case the Strathclyde regional local valuation panel said that open growing areas planted almost wholly with the kind of fruit trees and shrubs that I have described were not devoted to agricultural usage a market garden and therefore were not entitled to have nursery ground benefits from agricultural derating. Considering that it is done in England and Wales, I think that this is a most unfair definition and I hope the Minister will see his way to accepting this amendment to be sure that in the matter of derating we have the same treatment in Scotland as obtains in England and Wales. I beg to move.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness on this. We all know how valuable are many of the things in this category which are grown in Scotland. Think of the roses, for example, which are famous. It seems to me that in this case we should be in line with the practice in England. This is not so in every case but here, in regard to the situation that we have heard described, it seems right and appropriate that we should be in line and have nursery grounds in the same category as market gardens in general.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to support the new clause moved by the noble Baroness. It is a growing industry, and a valuable one with considerable export potential, and it should be treated in the same way as many other aspects of

1089
agriculture. I trust that in this case the noble Earl will be able to achieve parity with England for the Scottish nurserymen. It gives me enormous pleasure to support the noble Baroness. I do it because she ordered me to do so—and it is a wonderful thing for a politician to be able to have as his reasons affection, conviction, and fear.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I should like to say from the Cross-Benches that I support strongly the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, and I hope the Minister will see his way to accepting it. It will be good for Scotland as it is already good for England. What England deserves Scotland also deserves.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I dare not be here and not support this amendment, such is the power of the noble Baroness. But, honestly, it is only fair and right that in this particular section we should have justice and equity for Scotland and for the nursery people. It gives me great pleasure to support this amendment.
4.50 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, my noble friend was good enough to tell me before the weekend of her intention to move this amendment. Therefore, I am glad to say that I have not been taken by surprise. I should like to say to her and to all of the noble Lords who have gallantly rushed to her aid from all parts of the House that Scottish nurserymen are not at a disadvantage, and there is no need for this amendment. The reason I say that is this. Her new clause in effect seeks to add the term "nursery grounds" to the definitions of agricultural lands and heritages and agricultural buildings in Section 7(2) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 in order to ensure that nursery grounds and their related buildings benefit from agricultural derating. The justification for the change regarding agricultural lands and heritages is that in England and Wales the definition of agricultural land in Section 26(3) of the General Rate Act 1967 already includes the term "nursery grounds".
The term "nursery" can cover both the growing of young plants for transplantation at a later stage and, more
1090
loosely, the stocking of young plants which are brought in for retail. In the former sense, "nursery grounds" are already entitled to agricultural derating in Scotland because assessors do not distinguish between land on which plants are grown for harvesting and land on which young plants are cultivated for onward growing elsewhere. The latter kind of nursery where plants are stored prior to their sale (sometimes called a "garden centre") is not entitled to derating.
The definition of "agricultural lands and heritages" in Section 7(2) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 does not include "nursery grounds" unlike the corresponding provisions in the General Rate Act 1967. But I want to reassure my noble friend that this difference is not to the disadvantage of Scottish growers because, as I said, local assessors do not distinguish between the growing of young plants in nursery beds and the growing of mature plants in, for example, fields or orchards. Nursery grounds already benefit from agricultural derating in Scotland and it is in those circumstances that the amendment is unnecessary.
As my noble friend has said, the original inspiration of the amendment was a recent appeal in Strathclyde in which a firm of landscape gardening contractors (describing itself as a nursery) was denied derating. In that case, the valuation appeal committee noted that the open ground on the contractor's premises was used, not to grow young plants, but to store young plants which had been bought in from other growers, until they were required for use in connection with the business.
That is the only case which has appeared on this subject. It is a very recent one, and one can well understand why it has caused anxiety in the minds of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. Nevertheless, I hope my noble friend will agree in the circumstances that nursery grounds in the proper sense of the term and associated buildings already benefit from agricultural derating in Scotland. The lands and heritages which appear to be excluded and not in any strict sense nursery grounds are in a different category. I hope therefore that the House will accept this assurance that there is no inequity either as between Scottish and English practice

1091
or as between Scottish and English nurserymen.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the situation. As long as it is well known and appreciated by rating authorities that nursery grounds are included, among other things, then I am satisfied and will withdraw the amendment. If there is any doubt, I trust that the Scottish Office will issue a circular of some description to give the information that this is ground which passes the test of being a market garden ground, derated ground, and there should be no doubt in the minds of rating authorities, and they cannot descend on market gardeners or other gardeners and change the rates. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 [Commencement and extent]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 46, line 15, after ("6(2)") insert ("and (3)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an essential, but minor, drafting correction to the commencement provisions for Part V of the Bill. As drafted, the Bill wrongly provides for two related provisions to come into effect at different times. These can be found in Schedule 31, paragraph 6. Under the commencement clause, sub-paragraph (2) is to come into effect only after a general rating revaluation, which is correct. Sub-paragraph (3) however would have effect on Royal Assent, which is wrong. The amendment provides that both shall commence only after a revaluation. I beg to move.
Clause 56 [The block grant]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 55, line 17, at end insert (", other than any amount payable under subsection (3) above,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment designed to ensure that Clause 56(7), which specifies that the block grant payable to an
1092
authority should not exceed its total expenditure and should not apply to any payments of grant made under Clause 56(3). Clause 56(3) allows for the possibility (should the authorities concerned request it and the Secretary of State agree) of the grant which would otherwise be payable to a county council, the GLC or ILEA to be paid instead to the districts or boroughs on which they precept. In this particular case it would be legitimate for grant paid to exceed the expenditure of the district or borough, because the precepting authorities simply receive their grant indirectly through the precept. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 55, leave out lines 30 to 32.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, while we remain totally opposed to the block grant, we accept that it is probably going to be a fact of life after we have finished with this Bill in this House tonight. Therefore we thought that it would be slightly better if we could get it based on the method of equalisation known as percentage equalisation rather than that known as per capita equalisation.
I accept that this matter is very complicated to explain; I also confess that I had it explained to me by means of graphs which I could understand; but it is very difficult to show graphs across the Table of the House. The issues are: first of all, does a variation in expenditure measured in pounds per head or percentage terms give a better indication of variations in standard of service? Secondly, which of the methods is more readily understood—if either of them is?
It can be argued that the per head measures do not properly reflect the variations in need, and those who understand this principle far more clearly than I do will pose the question: Given that, because of differences in conditions between the areas, local authority A needs to spend, say, £300 a head to provide the same standard of service that could be provided by an adjacent local authority, B, for some £200 a head, could the £10 extra per head spent in authority A provide as much extra service as £10 extra per head in authority B?
If the answer is considered to be "Yes", then per head equalisation would be a fair choice. Both authorities would be able to raise the extra rate to pay for the extra £10 per head. If the answer was considered to be "No", authority A then needs to spend an extra £30 a head to provide as much extra service as authority B can provide for an extra £20 a head. Then percentage equalisation would be a fairer choice.
Authority A would only have to levy the same extra rate to pay the £30 a head extra spending as Authority B would have to raise to pay the £20 a head extra spending. The same cash increase in spending would have a different effect on the rates of the two authorities. This amendment, if acceptable, would remove the option in the Bill to choose a per capita equalisation. I hope that my perhaps inadequate explanation may convert the Minister into accepting that percentage equalisation would be the fairer way of doing it. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, as I hope everyone in your Lordships' House will know by now quite clearly—I am sure they do—the purpose of the rate support grant system is to enable authorities to provide a comparable standard of service for a similar rate in the £; in other words, it is an equalising grant. This amendment is about whether the poundage cost to authorities of equal increments in expenditure should be equalised, as the noble Baroness suggested, on a per capita basis—that is, so many pounds per head (which is the present system): or on a percentage basis—that is, an increase in expenditure of X per cent.
There are arguments for and against both bases of equalisation and it is important to note that the legislation provides for both possibilities. The noble Baroness, whose amendment is designed to rule out the possibility of per capita equalisation, advanced the arguments in favour of percentage equalisation and those against per capita equalisation. I respect her point of view. But I have to say that there are arguments which can just as easily be mounted in favour of per capita equalisation—which is the established method—and against percentage equalisation.
1094
Unless pressed, I do not propose to go into these now, because this is one of the issues on which the Government will shortly have to reach a decision in the context of the forthcoming rate support grant settlement for 1981–82 and they have not yet reached a final view. For this very reason, it surely would be wrong to rule out in the legislation one of the bases of equalisation. Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will consider the explanation to be a fair one and that she will understand that we do not want to accept the amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point that these are two of the options that may be open to the Secretary of State when he is considering the rate support grant and something about which he will no doubt have to consult with the local authority associations. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [Adjustments block grant]:
5.3 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 58, line 25, leave out from ("Temples") to end of line 27.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, again this refers to the block grant. There has been a long debate about the use of multipliers in block grant and considerable concern has been expressed about the extent to which a Secretary of State might use multipliers to produce grant penalities or advantages for certain authorities or classes of authorities. In Clause 59(6) we set out the prescripton of the purposes for which the multipliers may be used, and then Clause 59(6)(d) removes all the good work that goes before by giving the Secretary of State power to use multipliers for any purposes he chooses. We think that is too wide and that some of the misgivings at present about multipliers might disappear if the Government could accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, while I appreciate the point the noble Baroness is making, I do not accept that there is cause to be alarmed about the clause in its

1095
present form. We discussed this particular issue at Committee stage. I said then that the three specific purposes for which multipliers may be used listed in paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) of Clause 59(6) are the main purposes for which multipliers are in practice likely to be used. This remains the case. But as I also said then, any other purpose not listed is by definition excluded. It surely would be imprudent on grounds simply of good administration of the new system to rule out paragraph (d), which does provide for the possibility of other uses, and that is why I cannot accept the amendment.
However, I should also point out that the power in paragraph (d), if it were used, would have to be in accordance with principles applied either to all authorities or all authorities in a class—there would be no question of picking off individual authorities. I might also point out that paragraph (d) in itself provides a safeguard against misuse of the power to use multipliers to adjust authorities' grant entitlements: it makes it clear that if the Secretary of State wants to use multipliers for any purpose other than those listed in paragraphs (a) to (c) he must spell it out—because it is a formal "determination" in his annual report to Parliament, which must be subject to a vote in another place before it can take effect. There is therefore considerable value in setting out on the face of the Bill both specific uses for multipliers and a general power. I therefore believe that there are adequate safeguards in this clause as it stands, and I wonder whether the noble Baroness would accept my views on this, because it is a very complex matter and, as I know only too well, it is sometimes very hard to absorb all these points simply cross the Table in debate
At the end of the day, that is a view one has to take. I think that the explanation given is a fair one. It is based on the Bill as it is—hopefully, the Act, as it will become—and as regards the fears that have been expressed before, I believe they are taken care of by what I have said about covering classes of authorities. That is the intention. That is the way it works, and I hope the noble Baroness may feel able at least to accept the spirit of what I am saying.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, may I just thank the Minister for defending what is in effect the amendment which I moved at Committee stage and which the Committee accepted. We do want to support the Minister on this because, as he has already said, nothing can be done without the approval of Parliament; and I think that is right.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we certainly accept all the safeguards and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his patience in spelling these out again to us. The trouble is that you cannot write safeguards into an Act of Parliament, and we have to accept them on face value. We do accept what the noble Lord said is the intention, but it is again giving very wide powers to the Secretary of State, even though he has to come to Parliament for them. There are misgivings, and I thought it only fair to raise this matter today. However, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 59, line 10, leave out from ("In") to end of line 15 and insert ("their application to block grant payable to a local authority for the commencing year subsections (3) and (6)(a) above shall have effect as if references to an amount determined by the Secretary of State were substituted for the references to the amount of block grant payable to the authority for the previous year").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment designed to extend Clause 59(12) so that it relates to the reference to the previous year in Clause 59(6)(a) which was incorporated at Report stage. That clause provides that multipliers may be used to limit changes in the amount of block grant payable to an authority as compared with the amount payable in the previous year. In the first year of block grant, the previous year must be subject to the special definition in Clause 59(12), which already applies to another such reference in Clause 59(3). I beg to move.
Clause 60 [The Rate Support Grant Report]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 59, line 35, after ("determinations") insert ("relating to the relevant grants which are").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is necessary to make it clear that the Rate Support Grant Report need only specify the determinations relating to the relevant grants. I beg to move.
Clause 68 [Rate support grant—supplementau]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 64, line 26, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment which is necessary as a result of Amendment No. 120 at Committee Stage, which added a new subsection to the clause concerned with Section 31(7) of the Education Act 1980. I beg to move.
Clause 72 [Expenditure which authorities may make]:
5.10 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 66, line 36, leave out from beginning to ("(3)(e)") and insert ("and such payments may be made, subject to section 73 below, for such purposes as the Authority think fit.
(4) In subsection").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I, in moving this amendment, speak also to Amendment No. 41? These two amendments are purely technical. As it stands, Clause 72(3) provides that an authority may make in any year capital payments equal to or less than the aggregate of the amounts listed in paragraphs (a) to (f). But paragraph (f) does not give an amount; it sets out various enterprises which are included in the term "trading undertakings". These amendments will remove paragraph (f) from subsection (3) and make it into a new subsection (4). My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, I should like to say a word of warm appreciation to the Minister for the amendment that he has moved, which will give very considerable satisfaction to many local authorities. I think I am right in saying that concealed in this amendment is an acceptance of the point made in a debate in this House. If I am correct, may I say to him that to the very high parliamentary reputation that he has built up can be added a capacity for persuading his colleagues of the wisdom of a sound argument, widely supported in this House? We very much appreciate his attitude and its accomplishment in that direction.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hill, for what he has just said. In fact, I think it is the next amendment which covers the point. Nevertheless, the sentiments are most appreciated and I am very grateful.
5.12 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 67, line 8, at end insert—
("(ix) any direct labour organisation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that, after the discussion on this amendment, I shall be able to offer the noble Lord similar felicitations to those just offered by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. On the assumption that the efforts of local authorities will bring their direct labour organisations into that degree of efficiency which they themselves desire, and upon which the Secretary of State will insist by imposing certain obligations to yield a percentage return on capital, it is quite clear that they will make a profit. One way of encouraging or rewarding good management would be to allow local authorities to use DLO profits to supplement capital expenditure allocations. This would enable DLOs to be better equipped, and presumably, would improve their performance.
I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, joins me in desiring to encourage direct labour organisations to be profitable in some or all of the divisions of work. This amendment would enable them to do that. I sincerely hope, in the light of the noble Lord's exceptional

1099
geniality this afternoon, that he will find himself able to accept the amendment without any violation of his conscience, and without incurring the extreme displeasure of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I was not aware that I was being unusually genial, if "genial" is the right word. If that is so it can only be because of the approaching end of some of our labours. But I think we had better just hang on a little, because there are still some amendments to come yet—and, who knows? Nevertheless, I appreciate the spirit of what the noble Lord said. Would that I was able to be so helpful. I hope noble Lords will have noticed the fact that it was my noble friend Lord Avon who accepted the noble Baroness's amendment, so perhaps it is to him that the words should be directed on another occasion.
It is correct, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill, said, that the clause which he moved so successfully is being accepted by the Government. In fact this is, I suppose, the first occasion that we have formally said so and there will be no attempt to put it back in another place. So I think that that is the good news which the noble Lord, Lord Hill, was wanting to hear.
This amendment would add direct labour organisations to the list of trading undertakings, but one would have to say straight away that direct labour organisations are quite different in character from all the other trading undertakings listed in Clause 72. Noble Lords will see that those undertakings all perform the function of providing services for persons outside the local authority. This is obvious from the list—airports, markets, transport undertakings, places of entertainment and so on. Direct labour organisations are different. The reason for their existence is that they perform a service for their own authority. Work which they may do for some other body, as mentioned in Part III of the Bill, is ancillary and subsidiary to this basic reason for their existence.
This difference is reflected in the notion of profits of the undertaking. It will not be a simple matter to establish the profits of most of the trading undertakings concerned, but, at least, the concept of
1100
making profits out of services provided, at a charge, to other people is readily understandable. With direct labour organisations, the position is much less clear. Clearly, a direct labour organisation must charge its own authority's services account with the true cost of its work and should show a rate of return on capital employed. But that will not amount to making a profit out of the DLO's own authority.
The difficulty—and scope for confusion—of establishing what might be profit for an undertaking such as a direct labour organisation, which does most of its work for its own authority, would be enormous. In view of this and, as I said earlier, because the fundamental difference between a direct labour organisation and trading undertakings as such is so great, we could not accept this amendment. I understand the thrust behind what the noble Lord said. He asked: if it applies to one, why should it not apply to the other? I am saying, in effect, that if they were both equal and on all fours, that would be an unarguable case. While I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, who has presented cases on which he feels very deeply, and has presented them with great restraint—and I respect that—unfortunately, I see this enormous difference between the two. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am very mystified to understand just what the noble Lord is driving at. He seemed to imply that the direct labour organisations would not make a profit at all. But they must. He has himself laid down in the Bill the form in which the accounts shall he drawn up. He has himself laid down in the Bill that a rate of return on capital shall be employed. A rate of return on capital cannot, in fact, be accomplished without a profit being made.
This is the whole reason for the preparation of a revenue and expenditure account, the preparation of a balance sheet and the preparation of a statement showing the source and application of funds. It is the whole purpose of the use, after certain adjustments, of the whole system of current cost accounting, to which the noble Lord has now become addicted. But if there is no profit, his whole accounting concept collapses.

1101
A profit is made, because of the determination of the difference between the cost to the local authority of the work that it is carrying out, and the amount that has, on his own insistence, been inserted into the books of the direct labour organisation as the substitute for the invoiced selling price. He has all the matters under his control. He has made provision as to what happens when there are deficits.
Now we are asking him to make provision as to what happens to the surpluses which, if his policies are carried through, are bound to arise. It is not as though one is asking the Government to assent to the squandering of the profits that have been made. The suggestion is not that those profits should be spent outside on wild and riotous living but that they should be allowed, as a matter of accounting, to take them into account for the purposes of their capital expenditure. In other words, the more profits they make on their DLO, the more they are allowed within their capital expenditure allocation. What is unreasonable about that? I should have thought that it stood out a mile that some encouragement should be given to local authorities to utilise the returns on their capital in this way. I should be very loth to accuse the noble Lord of pedantry or anything of that kind, but may I suggest he is sticking too close to the briefs which those of us who have seen "Yes, Minister" know quite well are provided to Ministers, and that he should exercise a little common sense.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I do not see why one should assume in the first instance that briefs are necessarily not common sense. I could be accused, perhaps more than most, of not sticking closely to mine. Indeed, I assure the noble Lord that the complaint I get is that I depart too often from the briefs and do not stick to them.
Like most things, it is a matter of judgment. The nub of this argument is that the profits which the direct labour organisations will be making, as opposed to those which trading undertakings outside are making, come from supplying services to their own functional departments within their own authorities. The profits come from within; they make no external profits. They make the surplus from giving the service to the functional
1102
department within their own authority which places the order. Yes, indeed, a profit it is, hopefully, in accounting terms, and indeed a profit it needs to be—and will be, we hope. But I do not see how that can be compared with the profit which a trading undertaking outside makes by selling its goods or providing its services on the open market to anyone.
On Question, amendment negatived.
5.23 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 67, leave out lines 9 and 10.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 39. I beg to move.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, this is the last occasion, possibly, that we shall be able to refer to Clause 72 of the Bill. I am so sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, is not in his place, because I should have liked to associate myself in his hearing with what he said regarding the amendment which has been accepted. As the House will know, my noble friends and I put down an amendment in precisely the same terms as that of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, except that we added an exhibition centre. The noble Lord was good enough to say that he approved of the addition. It was not subtlety which led us to defer to the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and leave him to speak to his amendment from the Cross-Benches. It was merely an appreciation that his oratory would most likely be far more successful than anything which I could put over. That was a matter which was put to me by my noble friends in no uncertain terms. It was in that spirit that the House received the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and gave its encouragement to the noble Lord the Minister to agree to the amendment.
We on our side would also like to thank the Minister for the understanding he has shown regarding this amendment, which originally was resisted. I share the admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, for the way in which his conviction has now presumably been imparted to others, with the result that we now learn that this clause, as amended, will stand part of the Bill.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, as one who spoke with unusual vehemence against my noble friend when we debated the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton—Amendment No. 107, as I recall it, at the last stage—I should like to add my thanks to the Government, if it is not premature to do so, for their acceptance of this amendment and for their intention to retain it, or to do their best to retain it, when it reaches another place. This is a considerable improvement of the Bill. Although I incurred the wrath of my Chief Whip in getting the amendment in at an earlier stage, I am glad that now it is going to stick.
Clause 74 [Withdrawal of specification]:
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 68, line 22, at end insert—
("(3) The same principles shall be applied to every withdrawal of specification under this section for any year.
(4) Withdrawal of specification under this section shall not have effect until approved by resolution of the House of Commons.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since we are going very rapidly, and helpfully so, through this Bill at Third Reading, I wonder whether your Lordships will bear with me for one moment while I refer to the basis upon which this amendment is put forward. At Clause 72(1) on page 66 of the Bill as it now stands, the Minister is empowered—indeed, it is stated to be his duty—to specify in relation to any authority an amount of prescribed expenditure for each year. If noble Lords will now turn to Clause 74(1), the Minister can withdraw a specification so far as it relates to payments which the authority have not made before it is withdrawn. That is subject to a point in subsection (2), which says that he cannot withdraw a specification if the local authority has already entered into a binding contract to spend the money, although it has not already been spent.
The purpose of the amendment is to see to it that the same principle regarding the policy of withdrawal shall apply to all local authorities and that favour will not be shown to any authority as against what may happen to others. That is
1104
the spirit, noble Lords will remember, which we discussed—indeed, the Minister emphasised it—when we looked at the block grant provisions in Clause 59. Clause 59(5)(a) says that the power
"may only be exercised—

(i) in accordance with principles to be applied to all local authorities; or

(ii) in accordance with principles to be applied to all local authorities belonging to the appropriate class".

All that this amendment therefore seeks to do is to carry through this principle in regard to the withdrawal of payments which are included in the Minister's specification so that a general and similar policy is invoked in regard to all local authorities. The purpose of the second part of the amendment is purely to see that the other place has the right to look at these matters when there is such an order for withdrawal.
Let me say at once that if the noble Lord the Minister were inclined to accept the first part of this amendment and not the second, or the second part and not the first, obviously I should be more content than if I were to hear him say that he does not accept anything at all. If the House would like to hear my own personal preference, for what it is worth—and I put it forward humbly—it would be that, if he were to dissect the amendment, the first part should prevail over the second; namely, that there should be clearly written into the Bill the spirit of fairness which is already written into the block grant provisions. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, the amendment is in two parts, and I must say at once that the intention behind the first part is not at all clear to me. It could mean either that where the Minister withdraws an expenditure allocation he must follow the principles set out in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 74, or it could mean that the Minister must not apply different principles to the withdrawal of different expenditure allocations made for the same year; but in either case the first part of the amendment seems to be confusing.
If "the same principles" is meant to refer to the principles set out in subsection (1) and (2), then I would say that the Minister is already bound to apply those principles, and the amendment

1105
would do nothing to strengthen or weaken that obligation in any way. If on the other hand the amendment is meant to provide that the Minister may apply whatever principles he likes to the withdrawal of expenditure allocations in any year, on condition that these principles should not vary from one place to another, then this seems to me like a reduction in flexibility in the way the system will work; and, may I say, rather an arbitrary loss of flexibility at that.
While the second part of the amendment certainly has the virtue of clarity, I would argue that it is no more desirable than the first. I can quite understand—and indeed I sympathise with—the thinking behind the second part, which is that the Government should not be able to withdraw expenditure allocations so suddenly as to cause destruction in a local authority's capital programming. As I said at Report stage, we recognise the possibility of such destruction if the Minister ever found it necessary to take back an expenditure allocation once he had made it. The amendment would oblige the Minister to seek approval by a resolution of the House of Commons before the withdrawal of an allocation could be effective. This would mean that the Minister would not be able to withdraw an allocation without making it known, some considerable time before the event, that he intended to withdraw it.
Clause 74(2) provides that the Minister cannot withdraw an expenditure allocation in so far as it relates to payments which an authority is contractually bound to make. That is to ensure that no authority can be put in the position of having to break contractual obligations through the withdrawal of an allocation. But if the Minister had to give a substantial period of warning that he intended to withdraw an allocation there would be nothing to prevent the authority concerned from entering into contractual commitments that could make it impossible for the withdrawal to take effect. In other words, the amendment could mean that the Minister's power to withdraw allocations would be useless in practice.
I am convinced that that would not be in the national interest and, as I said in several earlier debates, it is the national interest which is of paramount importance. The situation could arise, although
1106
we all hope very much that it will not, where the only way in which a Government could prevent a national overspend would to be to withdraw all unspent and uncommitted allocations with immediate effect. The amendment would jeopardise our ability to take that remedial action. For that reason and for the reasons I gave earlier—and I think that the second reason is a particularly powerful one—I fear that we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord IRVING of DARTFORD: My Lords, if the noble Lord would be kind enough to bear with me a moment, I should like to raise one point, although I am not absolutely certain that it is exactly on this amendment. There are large numbers of authorities who have contractual obligations in terms of capital projects at the moment, and if the specification were to be withdrawn and the money which is available at the moment, either in terms of capital receipts or in terms of balances, were not available, this would create a critical situation. I wonder whether the noble Lord can give me an assurance that, as a transitional measure, the Minister will see those projects through to an end.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, there is no need, because we have made it clear that, where a contractual obligation is undertaken, that simply stands. There is no question that it can be interfered with in any way.
Lord IRVING of DARTFORD: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister for some further elucidation. Where there is a contractual arrangement where, for example, a building has been put out to contract in its entirely, that is quite clear—and I understand the point that has been made, but if, for example, there is a management contract where there may be, as part of the total project, 30 or 40 contracts, some not yet let but essential to the total construction of the building, would his point cover that situation as well?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, that is a very interesting point and offhand I would say that it would not be covered. In other words, in such an event the authority would not be able to enter into the further commitment to finish off

1107
—or whatever it may be. I recognise the significance of what I am saying, but I hope we are talking about rare situations, and it would only be if the national interest was felt to be in jeopardy that such action would take place. I have said all along that this is a reserved kind or situation. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, puts it extremely well and has done many times throughout the whole of the discussions on these matters, but that is the position at the end of the day.
Lord IRVING of DARTFORD: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that these may be expensive buildings, five, six or seven-eighths completed, but totally unable to be used and an expensive waste of money, whichever way they are looked at.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord the Minister will consider the last statement made by my noble friend, and we will deal with it after he has given consideration to it, possibly through another medium.
I have had occasion to say to this House more than once that local authorities resent some of the powers given in this Bill, because they are being treated like children. When I heard my noble friend a moment ago answer the amendment which I had ventured to table for the consideration of your Lordships, I felt that I had to turn my phrase into "being treated like naughty children." Your Lordships have been invited to consider the proposition that when a Minister intimates that he is about to withdraw a specification because money has not been spent by a local authority, that local authority will immediately—if the Minister cannot carry out his intimation immediately and make it effective—enter into a contract in order to see that the money is spent or contracted for, and therefore the Minister will be done out of his direction or withdrawal. As I said before, this is really going too far. It will lead to such a resentment among local authorities as in my judgment—and I say this most humbly—will lead to a deterioration of the relationship between central Government and local authorities to an extreme degree.
I am not going to weary your Lordships with a long speech, but I did not hear the
1108
noble Lord the Minister say why it was that in Clause 59 of this Bill it is possible for a power which dealt with the determination of different multipliers for different authorities to be limited, by a statement that that power can only be exercised in accordance with principles to be applied to all local authorities and why it is possible to do that in regard to multipliers and it is not possible to do that in regard to the principle of withdrawals. All I am seeking to do by this amendment is to see that the same principles are adopted by the Minister so that the question of equity and fairness can be made abundantly clear.
I appreciate what the noble Lord the Minister has said in regard to the approval of another place, and I shall not weary your Lordships with any further discussion of that topic; but I hope that on consideration the Minister—even if he wants to alter the wording—will at least agree that it is right that, when you withdraw from a local authority a specification you have given them for expenditure, because they have not yet spent it, the same principles will have to apply with regard to that policy to all local authorities, without, of course, any preference one against the other. It is that principle that I tried to enunciate and I hope that at the last minute, even if he wants to alter the wording, the noble Lord the Minister can concede that it is a principle worth agreeing to.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I do not know that I can add much to what I said before. I think we may be on slightly different ground here; I suspect we probably are. To me the great strength of the argument that I was putting was the one where the noble Lord asked, "Would authorities behave like naughty children?" That is not the term I would use, but I would have to say that in my experience it is not unknown for authorities, either anticipating or knowing that certain directions will take place, to take steps to, if you like, nip in beforehand. I think in some instances this is not an unreasonable thing to do.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, do they in Leeds?
Lord BELLWIN: Well, my Lords, I am not going to say. Certainly it is the kind of matter that one has thought about.

1109
I think it would be unrealistic not to assume at all that it could happen, and that is really what I am saying.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 86 [Distribution of planning functions between planning authorities]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 78, line 37, leave out ("that Schedule") and insert ("Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a pure technicality which is necessary, after the insertion of subsection (3) into Clause 86 in Committee, to clarify what the succeeding subsections refer to. I beg to move.
Clause 87 [Fees for planning applications, etc.]:
5.42 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 82, line 15, at end insert—
("(b) to a County Planning Authority in England or Wales in respect of any application by a body referred to in paragraphs 1(d) (h) and (i) of Schedule 19 for an authorisation which, if granted, would result in a deemed planning consent.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to speak to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 together, as they hang together, and, before I move them, to correct a small misprint in Amendment No. 44. The third line should read
"paragraphs 1(d), (h) and (j)
, not
(i) of Schedule 19".
This is a misprint which I hope can be seen if one refers to the schedule.
I should explain, in view of what has been said this afternoon, why I am raising this subject on Third Reading. I put down these amendments on Committee but they got muddled up with the debate on the Question that the clause stand part, and in the interests of supper, if I remember rightly, I was very popular with your Lordships when I withdrew them so that they would be debated at a later stage. I should, of course, have put them down on Report, but for two reasons I did not.
1110
One was that I had not by then received what I regard as a less than satisfactory reply from my noble friend Lord Bellwin, which I subsequently did receive, and, secondly, I was not sure that I could be here on that day. However, the matter was briefly touched on at Report stage, and my noble friend said, without quoting him at length, that he did not rule out what I am trying to do. So I did warn of this amendment at Third Reading, and hope that with that explanation your Lordships will allow me to proceed.
We are talking here about the question of payment for applications for planning permission. I am well aware that this is very unpopular in many parts of your Lordships' House, but we have made the decision, rightly or wrongly, that such payments will be introduced for such applications and we must stand by the decision. It was very thoroughly debated, and I for one supported it. What I am saying here is that if we accept that principle, as we must do, we must support the principle that no one should be exempt from these charges, that the Government cannot exempt itself or the nationalised industries, which, under the planning Acts, are deemed to have planning permission and do not technically require it from the planning authority. I believe it is quite wrong that the Government should exempt itself. I think it does itself great damage by trying in effect to excuse itself from its own laws and what will be an unpopular process. It will be resented, however desirable I may think it is, and it will be seen as clobbering the private sector at the expense of the public sector, and that is not what this Government should be doing.
I want to quote from advice which was given by the Government itself, by the Department of the Environment. I am sure my noble friend is well aware of the advice. Circular 7/77 reads:
"Advice to county councils with regard to development by bodies entitled to Crown exemption under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts: the Department of the Environment urge that Government development proposals should be processed in the same way as if they were a planning application, that similar publicity should be given to such proposals as would have been given to a planning application, and that the views of the county planning authority upon such proposals should be made known within the same timescale as that which applies to a planning application".

1111
So the Government itself is treating such applications as though they were planning applications. Therefore, I submit that the cause of charging for these is a very real one and should be supported.
Moreover, of course such proposals are normally on a scale which far transcends that of normal development. I gave examples of this at Committee stage and I shall not repeat them. They very much tend to be the larger planning applications, which cause a great deal of work and worry to all planning authorities. My amendment gives the Secretary of State power to make such charges generally if he thinks fit, and I am not suggesting what they should be. Of course, I suppose that, if they so wish, the Government can always reimburse the nationalised industries for such charges as may be levied. Perhaps it will be said that such charges will be relatively minute in comparison with the amount of money which most of our nationalised industries manage to lose in any one year, but that is not the subject of the debate. Some of them are very profitable and could well afford to pay the charges that should be levied. It may be said also that this is only public money circulating from one pocket to another. But in the context we have at the moment, with local authorities so often being accused of extravagance, I think that the true costs of such applications should lie where they fall, and I submit that this means that deemed consents should be treated in the same way as if they were applications for planning permission.
The second amendment is necessary because otherwise the opencast coal division of the National Coal Board, which has its own special Act of 1958, could be exempt from the net in which I wish to include it. The Secretary of State for Energy in this case gives himself planning permission after such consultations. These consultations are quite different from the normal form, and I leave it to your Lordships' imagination to picture the violent reactions to such opencast operations now and in the past. I have suffered perhaps more than most from this in my own case and I know a great deal about it. Lest it be thought that I am declaring a special interest, it might be of interest to your Lordships to know that next week the Warwickshire
1112
County Council will be considering, and I believe is recommended to oppose, a proposal that some 90 hectares of land in a built up area should be opencast mined for coal. So your Lordships can see the seriousness of this. Even if it is a profitable operation for the country as a whole, the point is that the opencast coal operations should bear the same charge for planning applications as if they needed planning permission under the planning Acts.
It cannot be right that there should be one law for the private sector and another for the public sector. The public sector cannot opt out of charges. As I have said, we have accepted the principle of charges. I am not against nationalised industries and I am not against procedures where planning permission is deemed to be given by the State. I merely wish to be fair between both sectors and I wish to push this amendment as hard as I can. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: My Lords, the amendment proposed is to insert the words on the Marshalled List, subject to the letter (j) being substituted for the letter (i) in the third line.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I must rise to support my noble friend Lord Ridley in pressing this amendment most vigorously upon my noble friend, and I hope my noble friend will accept it. The House did hear the argument he raised against it at the earlier stage and will be in a position to judge what weight it had. I think, if I may say so, it was a respectable argument, but it has to be set against the much wider considerations of public fairness; my noble friend has already elaborated this and I do not need to say much more in support of it.
The situation we face is that the Government are seeking to introduce planning fees—and they are controversial enough, though I support them—in order to reduce public expenditure. Without this amendment we shall introduce planning fees in order to reduce public expenditure and then exempt all the public authorities from having to pay them. That really is an absurd situation, and the resentment that it will cause when planning fees are introduced generally in the private sector of industry and among individuals certainly

1113
cannot be contemplated. We shall have individual householders going along to obtain a planning permission for some extension or alteration to their own property and having to pay a fee for that. We shall have the National Coal Board or the Atomic Energy Authority or the Public Services Agency going along and making application for planning permission which will involve the local authority concerned in a public local inquiry perhaps lasting for three months, and being exempted from paying any fees at all. That is a perfectly intolerable situation and I cannot conceive that this Government would want to support it for one moment.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Ridley knows, I have differed from him and from my noble friend Lord Bellwin throughout on this question of introducing charges for planning applications. I still think that they are wrong in principle and harmful in practice. But, your Lordships have decided otherwise and we must, as my noble friend Lord Ridley has said, therefore, accept them. I wholly join with him, on that basis, in being very critical of the Government's attempt to exempt themselves and the nationalised industries from this imposition.
If these charges are right then surely they must be right for everybody. Surely this Government, of all governments, should not be seen to discriminate against private enterprises and in favour of public bodies. I think that my noble friend Lord Ridley is logical and right in moving this amendment and I shall listen with great interest to my noble friend Lord Bellwin's attempt to justify what the Government propose. I know that he can justify most things—he has shown that throughout the progress of this Bill—but he will have to be rather on his mettle as regards this matter.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I am so glad that I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because for the very first time, as a newcomer to this House—but as one who has so much enjoyed participating with your Lordships' courtesy in its debates—I am able to agree with what the noble Lord has said.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I must be wrong!
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I shall wait to see, if the House divides, where the noble Lord casts his vote. I do not want to repeat what the noble Lord has said in much more eloquent and clear terms than I could employ. But, it so happened that from these Benches I too opposed the whole idea of planning fees and I was able on behalf of my noble friends to move an amendment at least to exempt certain classes of planning fees from being charged and the Government were good enough to accept that amendment.
We, on this side of the House, would not wish in any way at all to claim that it was either equitable or fair that once the idea of planning fees is accepted—as it would appear to be accepted by this House and will now be written into the Act—nationalised industries should be exempt. I hope that that is an exhibition of the fairness and equity with which all my noble friends are clothed. It will be interesting, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has said, to listen to a Conservative Minister oppose an Opposition Front Bench on the issue of nationalised industries being exempt, when the Opposition Front Bench is saying that, in its view, they should not be.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I should like to say from these Benches that we very much support the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. We do not mind on these Benches—perhaps because we have fairly few friends—where we find our friends, whether they be the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter or the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
I must say, as other noble Lords have said, that I am very strongly opposed in principle to the application of charges for planning consents. But, having said that—and we have debated the matter at length and I have divided your Lordships' House on part of it myself—once we have reluctantly accepted the principle, it seems to me absolutely wrong that the nationalised industries and deemed planning consents should be excepted.
There is already a great deal of resentment about local authorities giving themselves planning consents. It causes and has caused over the years a very great deal of resentment in all local authority areas

1115
where the private developer has to put in a detailed planning application and the matter is debated and discussed, and the local authority very often puts through a whole estate of houses without having any discussion or debate on the deemed basis. If we now extend this and exempt them from charges in addition, I think that it will cause, rightfully, as several noble Lords have said, a great cleat of cynicism and a great deal of resentment.
Put very simply, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. I hope, if the noble Lord the Minister is not willing immediately to accept this amendment—and I hope he will—that the matter will be taken to a Division, because I think that your Lordships feel, in a majority, very strongly against this exemption.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to ask one question. I am entirely in favour of every word that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has said. I was against the proposal to charge for planning authority. However, in this amendment, I note that my noble friend Lord Ridley talks about England and Wales. Do I take it that we in Scotland are in the happy position of escaping from this, or are the nationalised industries to get away scot-free in Scotland, as they are in England and Wales? If so, I am dead against it. Unfortunately the clause about charging for planning has been accepted and is in the Bill, but I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Ridley that the nationalised industries should be included. So, I should like to know whether this amendment and the whole principle apply to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. If that is so, it only makes me feel more against it than I was previously.
Lord DIGBY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, drew the distinction in Committee between consultations and the power of deciding planning applications. I should like to point out that in this case there would be a power of deciding if the applicant was not a Government body. Therefore, this is not consultations in the true sense; it is an alternative to the planning application.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, it seems as if I really need to emulate Houdini; but I think that I can do just that. Let me say at once that I really do not know what this is all about. I do not know why there is all this major concern. Let me make it absolutely clear—and I sincerely hope that this will assuage the major concern of my noble friends, and indeed of noble Lords opposite—that, in fact, with three exceptions to which I shall refer in a moment, all nationalised industries make planning applications and will pay charges for so doing. That surely is the matter which is causing most concern.
The three that do not are the following: first, the opencast coalmines, which are dealt with under special legislation—I do not have the details of it, but no doubt I could get it fairly quickly—and the other two are the CEGB transmission lines and power stations which, under Section 40 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which I have here, have a special release entirely outside this Bill. Furthermore, the amendment would not bring Crown development within charges, because Crown development is already outside planning legislation as a whole. I shall in a moment give the other reasons why we take this view, but I must say that I admire my noble friend's persistence in pressing this matter.
The one point which seems to be troubling most of your Lordships is the question of fairness. I say at once that I absolutely concur in this. How could I say otherwise? The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is quite right. How could I say otherwise than that, of course it would, in my opinion, be unjust. But I am happy to say that the nationalised industries do come within this sphere, with the three exceptions which I have mentioned, all of which have special circumstances and situations. They cannot in any way be considered in the generality of nationalised industries.
The amendments propose a widening of the scope of charging beyond the area of planning applications and related approvals, and into certain consultations undertaken as part of the process of obtaining approval for developments by statutory undertakers. I have just mentioned what those are. It has been argued that from the local authorities'

1117
point of view, dealing with consultations about "deemed consents" is a task which is equivalent to considering and determining a planning application. From that it is argued that it should be possible to recover some of the administrative cost from charges. Nevertheless, I think that we should preserve the distinction here between consultations and the power of deciding planning applications. There is a wide range of matters on which local authorities are consulted in one way or another, even in the field of planning. For example, we are setting up new arrangements for districts to consult counties about planning applications under the provisions of Clause 86. To charge for consultations raises a new principle which goes beyond the proposal that we have put forward in Clause 87.
I notice in particular that the amendment provides only for fees to be paid to counties. But, by the extension of that principle, I would have expected fees to be paid to districts where they, too, were consulted in these cases. Where local authorities consult other bodies—if you like, water authorities or parish councils—should they not also receive a proportion of the fee? It becomes apparent very quickly that if we are to move far in this direction we shall lose sight of the purpose of these charges, which is to offset the public expenditure involved in development control and to shift some of the burden of financing it away from the ratepayer and taxpayer.
Therefore, in charging for consultations we risk creating an expensive and complex bureaucratic procedure for passing payments, or proportions of payments between bodies inside the public sector. I would not wish it to appear that the Government are unsympathetic to the thought behind this amendment. I said so, I think at Committee stage or Report stage—it all seems so long ago. For who would not be sympathetic towards the simplistic argument of the equity of charges applying as much to nationalised bodies as to everybody else? I go with that 100 per cent. But I hope that I have been able to show that it applies to all the nationalised industries, with the three specific exceptions which I have mentioned, and that we are not now seeking to exclude them in the Bill but that, for whatever reasons were decided in the past, they are already excluded by virtue of other
1118
legislation. I hope that my noble friend will be willing to accept that explanation and perhaps not press his amendment.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, would he be good enough to inform the House of the clause in the Bill which exempts the three classes to which he refers?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I would refer to Section 40 at page 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. That applies to transmission lines and power stations. The opencast coal mines have special legislation and I shall get that information in a few moments. If I could read the writing before me I would give it to noble Lords now.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will be as helpful as he always is. If I may be very frank with him, the difficulty I find myself in—and other Members of your Lordships' House may be in the same difficulty—is that we are dealing with a provision which enacts that planning fees may be charged by order of the Minister, and we went into that very fully in a previous debate in your Lordships' House. What I cannot find in this enabling, empowering clause is any exception which relates back to the Town and Country Planning Act, or anything else. I am sure that it is my fault, and I merely rise to seek clarification and not because I am trying to make a clever point.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, who so often comes to my help, assures me that you do not have to apply for planning consent. I have before me a piece of paper which says that, in fact, Section 2 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 covers the point about opencast coal mining. The point I make is that, with the three exceptions that I have mentioned, for the specific reason I have given, nothing in what we propose in the Bill sets out to exclude any nationalised bodies. They all fall within this Bill; they will all have to make applications and pay charges.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, I seem to have caused a positive flurry of pieces of paper from behind my noble friend, and for that I apologise; I have never

1119
seen so much paper change hands in such a short time. I am afraid that I cannot reply to my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood about Scotland; I would never dare to speak in her presence about Scotland. I am talking about England and Wales, and I have no doubt that, as always, Scotland will follow where we lead.
I do not accept the Minister's argument. No doubt he is much better acquainted with some of the details of the Bill than I am, but my amendment would make it clear beyond doubt that all nationalised industries would be included. I refer your Lordships to Schedule 19 where it refers to Government departments in
paragraph (d), nationalised industries, roughly speaking, in paragraph (h), and statutory undertakers in paragraph (j). We are talking about:
"… authorisation which, if granted, would result in a deemed planning consent".
I believe that the amendment is unacceptable to the Government. I believe that it is right that I should press it, for the reasons that have been advanced by so many noble Lords on all sides of the House, and I ask your Lordships to accept it.
6.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 44) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 96.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Phillips, B.

Amherst, E.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Balogh, L.

Glenamara, L.

Raglan, L.

Banks, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Ridley, V. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rochester, L.

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Blease, L.

Hampton, L.

Sandford, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Henley, L.

Savile, L.

Blyton, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shannon, E.

Bradford, E.

Hughes, L.

Simon, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stamp, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B.

Caithness, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Chitnis, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Collison, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strauss, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

McCluskey, L.

Swinfen, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davidson, V.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Maelor, L.

Underhill, L.

Denington, B.

Melchett, L.

Wade, L.

Diamond, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Digby, L.

Monson, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Whaddon, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Fortescue, E.

Peart, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cockfield, L.

Falkland, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Colwyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Avon, E.

Craigton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Bellwin, L.

Croft, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Gainford, L.

Bessborough, E.

De Freyne, L.

Gisborough, L.

Birdwood, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Glenkinglas, L.

Boardman, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Greenway, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dudley, E.

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

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dundee, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eccles, V.

Halifax, E.

Cairns, E.

Elibank, L.

Hanworth, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Harvington, L.

Cathcart, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Chelwood, L.

Faithfull, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Ilchester, E.

Marley, L.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Ironside, L.

Middleton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Kemsley, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Selsdon, L.

Kilmany, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kimberley, E.

Mottistone, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Kinnaird, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Northchurch, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathspey, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Nunburnholme, L.

Swansea, L.

Liverpool, E.

Onslow, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Long, V.

Orkney, E.

Trenchard, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lyell, L.

Pender, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Vickers, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Vivian, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

St. Davids, V.

Wynford, L.

Mansfield, E.

St. Germans, E.

Young, B.

Margadale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.15 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 45:
Page 82, line 15, at end insert—

("(b) to a County Planning Authority in England or Wales in respect of a consultation relating to an application made to the Secretary of State for Energy under the Opencast Coal Act 1958.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already debated this. My noble friend said it was one of the few exemptions. In the circumstances I will not force a Division, but I hope very much that the points I have made will be taken into account in due course when planning authorities come into being.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 46:
After Clause 87, insert the following new clause:
("Planning permission
. The grant or refusal of planning permission shall be in writing signed on behalf of the appropriate local planning officer and any document purporting to grant or refuse planning permission which is so signed shall be conclusive evidence that such permission has been lawfully granted or referred as the case may be by the appropriate local planning authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that at Report stage on this Bill I moved the two amendments which are identical with those before your Lordships today, but I withdrew them in certain circumstances. With your Lordships' permission, I propose to carry on with the speed with which the Third Reading is being conducted by speaking to Amendments
1122
Nos. 46 and 47, if your Lordships will approve this, and then possibly taking them separately if in his reply the Minister finds that that is necessary. This is purely for the purpose of clarifying the law as it stands, first of all in regard to the validity of a planning permission and, secondly, the time from which the planning permission should run. At the moment the law is far from clear and it is the opportunity, which we ought not to miss, to see that the law is clarified and made certain in this Bill.
It can be appreciated that anyone receiving a planning permission, unless the matter of validity were made completely clear, would have to inquire whether before the permission was granted the authority that gave it had carried out the necessary consultations which are set out in this Bill; because it might be held subsequently that if those consultations had not been carried out the planning permission was invalid. That is an unhappy situation which your Lordships obviously would not wish to see; so Amendment No. 46 sets out clearly, I hope, the position of the validity of a planning permission and the fact that if it is signed in the appropriate way there is conclusive evidence that it has been granted properly. It has just been pointed out to me that there is a mis-type in the last line but one of Amendment No. 46; the word "referred" obviously should be "refused". I hope your Lordships will permit me so to amend the amendment.
When this was dealt with at the Report stage the Minister said, at column 318 of the Official Report of 28th October 1980:
"The Government appreciate the desirability of clarifying exactly what constitutes a decision on a planning application. The existing legisla-

1123
tion and decisions of the courts leave the position unclear. Our own proposals for clarifying the position had to be excluded from the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill for lack of space. The noble Lord "—
which was a kindly reference to me—
"has put forward his own proposals, on lines different from the Government's, and I am grateful to him for his efforts in tackling this problem".
Later, at column 319, the Minister said:
"… I accept that there are differences of opinion as to how the existing legislation should be clarified. I wonder whether, in view of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw these amendments so that all concerned can give more thought to the matter and bring forward some considered proposals on another occasion. I must tell him that I am not certain what I mean by 'on another occasion', in the sense whether or not we are referring to the last stage of the Bill or if it will be later. I suspect that it will be later. I hope that I have said enough to indicate that this is very much a technical matter, as we see it".
Then my last quotation is from what I said just before I withdrew the amendment, and the noble Minister did not dissent. This is at column 320:
"I should be the last person in the world to try to press these amendments on your Lordships if the Minister has said, as I understand he has said, that he realises the problem and that something has got to be done in the Bill itself to make these positions perfectly clear. In view of the elementary nature of the problem, if I may say so, I hope that this can be done by Third Reading. It does not seem to me to present so many difficulties. I can merely ask the Minister to do his best to do it by Third Reading; in any event, I am sure he will do it before the Bill leaves this House. In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw this amendment…".
I referred then to the same situation applying to the next amendment, and that amendment is now Amendment No. 47. That deals with the effective date of a planning permission being indeed the date when the resolution is passed by the local authority, or under subordinate powers dealt with by the planning officer who has the delegated power to do it. The question, of course, as to whether appeal times and so on should date from the time of the making of the resolution to grant the permission, or indeed to refuse it, is a separate matter, and I imagine that the noble Minister may want to repeat what he said before, with which I do not quarrel at all: that time in respect of appeals and matters of that kind should indeed run from the date of the receipt of the planning permission by the applicant and not, obviously, from the date when the resolution is passed.
I apologise for bringing these matters again before the House, but the Government have recognised that the law is unclear on both these matters and have recognised the need for clarification. The clarification should be in this Bill, and as this is the last opportunity I may have of referring to the matter, I thought your Lordships would think it proper for me to bring the amendment back again, especially in view of the assuranceses given by the noble Minister at Report stage. I beg to move.
6.23 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I put to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, a problem on both Amendment No. 46 and Amendment No. 47? On Amendment No. 46, I know of four cases where the question, "What and when was the planning permission" has been before the courts. In two of them the courts have held that the document which was purporting to grant the planning permission was completely invalid and void: in the one case because the officer had written exactly the opposite of what the committee had decided and had granted planning permission when they had refused it; and in the second case, which was the famous supermarket in South Wales, where the clerk of the district council purported to grant a planning permission when he had neither the authority of his district council nor of the county planning authority which actually ought to have been seized of the matter in the first place. In both events the courts overruled the apparent effect of the document, but they would not be able to do, I think, without great difficulty if the document was conclusive evidence.
The two other cases did not raise quite these matters but they would have been equally difficult, because in one which was in fact settled there was never a document which granted planning permission at all. There was a resolution of the committee which was followed by the issue of a refusal notice, and eventually the local authority decided that they would agree that planning permission had been granted, but for reasons that I have never understood they still refused to issue a document to that effect, and the planning permission is enshrined in the consent order in the High Court.

1125
I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, thinks those situations fit into the concept of conclusive evidence because I, with respect, do not. On Amendment No. 47 the question I would briefly ask him under paragraph (b) is, what document is there in the world which rescinds a decision to grant, or indeed rescinds a decision to withdraw a planning permission? I know of no such thing within the Town and Country Planning Act—certainly not one that can be done by an officer under Section 101. I simply wonder what on earth the noble Lord is referring to.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, what an interesting and erudite intervention I have to deal with. I shall do my best knowing that something of what I say ought to make sense in view of the fact that the very specialist committee of the Law Society which sat on this matter, and indeed dealt with the provisions of this Bill, has put forward the very amendments which I have ventured to put before the House, as I told the House at Report stage. Having, therefore, endeavoured to shift any blame that there may be in a most cowardly fashion, may I endeavour to deal with both the points made by the noble Viscount.
In regard to the first point, I should have thought that the answer was that this merely refers to the validity of a permission in respect of the lawful granting of it. In other words, if indeed a local authority has granted it, and there is a permission, then it shall be deemed to have been lawfully granted without the recipient of this permission having to inquire whether the necessary consultations, for example, have taken place.
In the interesting and intriguing example which the noble Viscount gave the House where the authority had not granted it in fact and an officer had made a mistake, I would respectfully say, especially when you look at the second amendment, that the permission had in fact never been granted at all, and that the whole substratum of the case brought before the court was to the effect that the permission had never in fact been granted. I should have thought that that was the answer to that one, and that it was indeed dealt with by the use of the words "lawfully granted". As I said in the other case, it would not have been granted at all.
1126
In answer to the point raised by the noble Viscount on Amendment No. 47, I am led to believe-I am not by any means coming before your Lordship as an expert in planning matters—that where there is in fact a rescision of a decision to grant, or withdraw, planning permission, this is in fact notified to the person who is interested by a document. All that this says is that if there is such a document then the date of it, or the effective date of it, is as set out in this amendment. I should have thought that there was not very much harm in the wording here, if indeed that is not so, because if there is no such document then the clause will not have that effect. I am sure that the noble Viscount will be able to sleep tonight on that assurance.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, your Lordships have listened to two very interesting amendments, and as they have been put forward with much skill by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on two occasions now, and behind them stands the Law Society, I feel that they would be a matter of great interest to your Lordships. The noble Lord had just said that not much harm is to be attached to the words of the second amendment, but as we are going to deal with both amendments together perhaps I may be permitted to tackle them in like manner to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
The noble Lord sets forward his case with the very laudable intent of clarifying the law. But for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross who would have thought that his case was anything other than highly satisfactory on the face of it? But, my Lords, we have very sound reason to doubt it. These amendments deal with the validity of planning decisions and their effective date, and during the debate on precisely similar amendments which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, at Report stage, my noble friend Lord Bellwin pointed out that the Government accepted the need for clarification of what constitutes a decision on a planning application, and indeed that our own proposals on this particular matter were only excluded from this Bill because of lack of space.
During that debate my noble friend also pointed out, however, some of the problems we see coming from these

1127
amendments. The debate on that occasion was a rather technical legal one and I would not wish to take up your Lordships' time now in going through these difficulties to any great extent. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Bell-win asked the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whether he would withdraw his amendment to enable all concerned to give further thought to the matter so that proposals could be brought forward on another occasion, and the noble Lord quoted Hansard. But what he did not quote was the very last sentence of my noble friend's statement, and perhaps I may quote it here. It is once again, as he rightly said, from column 319 of the Official Report for Tuesday, 28th October. My noble friend's closing words were:
"I hope that I have said enough to indicate that this is very much at technical matter, as we see it."
Lord MISHCON: I am sure the noble Minister will allow me to intervene, if only so that I shall be shown never to have tried to mislead the House. Indeed I quoted that sentence very clearly and read right to the end of that quotation, as he will see in tomorrow's Hansard if he looks at it.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I must apologise both to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to the House. I did not hear that, and I must not have been listening. I believe that this amendment and its successor are both very much more technical in nature and very much more substantial in nature than your Lordships have perhaps been led to believe. This is not something that can be done within the timescale of this Bill. The Government's own proposals have had to be dropped because of lack of space, as I have said already, and because this subject bears only a peripheral relation to the provisions of this Bill. There are other interested parties, outside Government who should be given an opportunity to give their views. My Lords, the Government's own proposals have evoked considerable differences of opinion and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, therefore, to accept my assurances that we will look further into this matter in the light both of his proposals and of our different proposals, and would ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I did receive an assurance at Report stage that this would have the immediate consideration, or the fairly immediate consideration, of the Government. That assurance has now been repeated. Although I would have hoped that something could have been done in the intervening period, I think it would be singularly ungracious of me not to withdraw the amendment in the circumstances; but I would plead with the Government that this is a very important matter, that it is essential that the law should be clear on these vital aspects of planning, and that I hope that all the consultations will therefore take place with the usual urgency which the Government attach to most matters.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I should like to make one point clear. As we see it, we believe the first amendment goes much too far in making all documents valid on planning decisions, no matter what misdemeanour has taken place. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has indicated so clearly to your Lordships a misdemeanour which happened in a particular instance, and a second one. This lead to the decision; and also it conflicts with other provisions which courts would have to sort out. My Lords, I think there is a severe and much more serious matter to be considered here.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, the noble Minister has said nothing which leads me to alter what I previously said to your Lordships.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 126 [Sums to be paid to the Secretary of State]:
6.34 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 115, line 3, at end insert ("and shall have regard to the programme of planned development of the town.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I refer your Lordships to Clause 126, again, because we move very fast and we are now dealing with the question of new towns and your Lordships will recall the quite

1129
fervent debate which took place both at Committee and Report stages on the powers that are given to the Minister to direct that payments shall be made by new towns, and the only limitation which is put upon that power is one that he shall consult. Your Lordships will remember that there were amendments brought forward to limit that power. They were brought forward at Committee stage, and it is rather essential that I remind your Lordships of what happened on that occasion.
At Committee stage, and after a very full debate from all parts of your Lordships' House, there was a very definite expression of concern about this unlimited power of the Minister, and as a result an amendment was put to your Lordships in Committee that there should be added to the words "before giving a direction "—I am quoting from the Bill:—
"Before giving a direction under this section the Secretary of State shall consult the corporation or, as the case may be, the Commission …".
Your Lordships divided on this matter and the Division was carried against the Government—and thre were noble Lords participating in that vote in favour of this amendment, I repeat, from all parts of the House. This was the amendment:
"… and shall satisfy himself that such payment does not undermine the programme of planned development of the town and is consistent with the principles of sound financial management of his assets".
That amendment having been carried against the Government at Report stage, the Government sought to remove the amendment, and there was an expression of opinion—I think I am correctly paraphrasing some of the speeches that were made, again from all parts of the House—and some concern that, on consideration, perhaps the power of the Minister was being limited too much and too vaguely if one considered the fact that he had to take into account the principles of sound financial management of his assets. I can remember speeches being made from the Benches opposite, I believe I am right in saying from the Cross-Benches, too, which intimated that if only there had been a watering-down of this limitation, then there would be very much in the minds of your Lordships the view that there should be a limitation, but that this was too wide, this was too strong, this was too general, this was too vague.
So I come back, if I may, appealing to all sections of the House, and saying very deliberately that there is not a scrap of politics in this at all. I say that because the politics, if you like, was in the point that the Minister should not be able to direct new towns in this way. But once you concede, as one has to concede because of the vote of the House, that the Minister should be able to direct, would your Lordships really think that the functions of this House as a revising Chamber, a thoughtful Chamber, were being carried out if there was no limitation at all, even in the sense that the Minister had to take into account what were the plans of the new towns for the future?
This is really what this amendment means: the present plans and the future plans, must he take them into account? It does not mean to say that if the new towns put forward a case he has got to accept it. It merely says he has got to take it into account, but he cannot be ruthless in his demand that the new town pays a certain sum of money. Having cut in two the amendment that was first passed in Committee and having removed the vague element, and therefore the argument that was against it on Report, I hope your Lordships will consider it right that the amendment as it stands should be carried.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made clear, the amendment returns to ground which we debated exhaustively both in Committee and on Report and on which we divided. Throughout the debates the noble Lord has expressed fears about the lack of a direct precedent for the wording of this clause. He has wanted to see the powers of the Secretary of State limited in some way by the wording of the clause. I think his latest attempt is an improvement on the previous one, since it would make the decisions of the Secretary of State less susceptible to delay through challenge in the courts. However, I still cannot advise the House to accept the amendment, and I will explain why.
When we last debated this point I explained that we could not look at the powers which the clause would confer in isolation. Whatever the Bill says, the application of the powers will have to take account of the many factors applying in the real world. As I said on Report,

1131
in the real world any Secretary of State would have to take into account the two factors that were mentioned in the previous amendment to the clause. These were the planned development of the town and the principles of sound financial management. The noble Lord's amendment is therefore unnecessary since the Secretary of State will be bound, in the nature of things, to have regard to the planned development. But those are not the only factors that would have to be taken into account. Quite apart from any factors of national policy, the needs of the planned development of other new towns into which the assets realised might be ploughed back would be very relevant.
The amendment therefore seems to me to single out one of the many factors to be taken into account and enshrine it in the Bill, thus giving it undue prominence. If it is a question of comparing the need of a nearly completed new town for some desirable, but not essential, element to round off its development with the need of a third-generation new town still in the full flood of development for some essential element of infrastructure, I know to which factor I would want to give more weight. Yet with the noble Lord's amendment it would be the needs of the nearly-completed town to which the statute would direct the Secretary of State to pay attention.
Furthermore—and I make this point in no sense as a carping criticism—the amendment is not clear. It would direct the Secretary of State to pay attention to the "planned development of the town". But the Commission for the New Towns is already responsible for seven towns. The Bill would leave it to the commission to decide in which of its seven towns it should realise any assets, subject of course to any direction by the Secretary of State, should be in some rare case see it necessary to give one. This would make it difficult to see how the Secretary of State should go about complying with the literal wording of the amendment.
I revert to the basic question here. Massive public resources, over £3,250 million are tied up in the new towns. We believe there is a case for redirecting some of these resources from the towns which have completed all or part of their
1132
development to other parts of the country where public investment is needed. As I have explained, in this year and the last, this is to the other new towns—some £700 million—and the needs of the other new towns are a factor to which any Government must pay attention. But doing so, we enable investment to continue without new public borrowing. We thus simultaneously provide the resources for the new towns programme and keep down the public sector borrowing requirement. To do that requires judgments to be made. Those judgments are inevitably for central Government who have to take into account a wide range of factors. We do not think we should single out just one of these factors to be written into the Bill. I admire, as I always do, the assiduity and clarity with which the noble Lord presents his case, but within the context of the overall responsibility which falls to Government, we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, on Report I referred to Clause 99, dealing with the disposal of the land by public bodies, and I referred to the fact that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the land can be disposed of without serious detriment to the performance of their functions or the carrying on of their undertakings. However, when I look at Schedule 16, which lists the public bodies concerned, I find that the New Towns Commission is included as is the corporation of a new town. Why, therefore, are qualifications laid down as to conditions which the Minister must take into consideration under Part X dealing with the disposal of public land, yet the Government resist laying down a condition in this clause relating to new towns themselves?
Baroness DENINGTON: My Lords, I wish to give the strongest support possible to the amendment, which I am sure would be extremely helpful to the Secretary of State as well as to the New Towns Commission. It would mean the Minister having regard to these matters in his consultations, and I must say how much I welcome the fact that there are to be consultations because, whereas I understand that to date in Scotland and Wales there have been consultations, to the best of my knowledge in England the Secretary of State has not, directly through his

1133
department, had direct consultation with the new towns, and that is why some of the present damage has been occurring. I hope the words "planned development" do not just mean the physical development; they must also mean the financial planning of the town, because the two go hand in hand. It is surely impossible to do the physical planning without considering the financial aspects of it.
New town corporations have been very conscious that the nation has invested the millions of pounds to which the Minister referred. It is therefore vital that they should have regard to the financial implications of all they do so that in the end, when the towns are complete, they are a sound investment for the nation. Indeed, I assure the House that if they are allowed to go on without damage, they will prove not only socially wonderful investments for Britain but sound and profitable ones. But, as I say, that will happen only if they are not damaged in the meantime, and they are in great danger of being damaged now by being required to dispose of assets which are not ready for disposal. They will be undersold when, if they could be held for perhaps three of four years—for various reasons and each project and asset one considers has different reasons for selling now or delaying a year or longer—they would be profitable. After all, these are business transactions and the nation and the Government should be looking at them, as the corporations and the commission would wish to look at them, with a view to getting the best possible return.
Therefore, I am exceedingly glad that there are to be consultations. I take it that that means that there will be direct consultations with the corporations when the corporations could put to the Secretary of State all the facts regarding such points as perhaps not finding quite so much money one year and doing better for the nation and for the Government by having a postponement for a year; and so on. In those circumstances, the whole financial outcome, in which the Government are interested—and properly interested—would be very much better. The words of the amendment would, I believe, strengthen the Bill, and I would beg the House to give them very earnest consideration and indeed support them.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I should like to have a very quick word, since I recall that the noble Baroness. Lady Denington, was not present when we discussed this matter at Report stage. I know the noble Baroness's interest in this matter and so I should like very briefly to say again something that I said at that time, and which I strongly believe. I said that I felt that this particular case was as strong as most, if not all, cases about which I had spoken in your Lordships' House. It is about how we deal with national resources. There must be a point in time when a Government putting hundreds of millions of pounds a year into any sector—and here we are talking about new towns, which we support—must ask, can we afford to do this, and if we must do it, where do we get the money from? If there is a possibility of taking assets from those new towns that have been there for some time putting the assets into liquid form and then redeploying them to the benefit of new towns—as has been the case in the last two years—I see nothing wrong in doing that. Furthermore, I think it absolutely vital that sooner or later we accept the reality that there is only so much money available. Redeploying money in this way puts it to the best use without forever printing new money. I believe passionately in the case for what we are doing, and I am sure that, if we divide on this issue, my noble friends will fully support me.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, once or twice from the Dispatch Box opposite the noble Lord has reiterated his personal commitment to new towns, and we do not question that at all. He has also reminded us of the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been ploughed into new towns. We take that point as well, and we also look on the other side and see the benefits that the country has had from the new towns. I accept that the noble Lord would like to see new towns continued, and I also accept that he would like to see some, perhaps a major part, of the money that is coming from the sale of new town assets ploughed back into the Mark 2 and Mark 3 new towns, so that we can have early completion of them and so, as my noble friend Lady Denington has said, we can have a reasonable portfolio of assets that will be worth considerably more as the years go by and the assets mature.

1135
But we have never ever had more than assurances that some money will go in. What we really want to know is that the Government are firm in their intention, that the money derived from the sale of new town assets, or even only a large proportion of it, will be ploughed back into other new towns so that they can be completed and can reap the harvest that they have sown.
This is the wrong time to ask new towns to put a large proportion of their commercial and industrial assets on to the market. The new towns know that they will have to sell; those people who want to buy will know that they have to sell, and therefore the new towns will not realise a proper sum for the assets that they are selling. They will not raise as much money as the Secretary of State had hoped for, or had demanded that they should raise. These assets ought to be left alone to mature. As the years go by they will continue to be worth considerably more.
New towns, in particular Mark 2 and Mark 3 new towns, cannot meet the arbitrary demands of the Secretary of State and at the same time maintain not only their solvency, but also their means of reinvesting and completing. In the other place one of the noble Lord's colleagues said that the money could be used for kidney machines and other things; we have to sort out our priorities. Those of us who are concerned with new towns have new towns and their completion as our priority. We accept in good faith what the noble Lord says—that he would like to see the money ploughed back into early completion of the new towns—but that is not what the Bill says. That is not what was ever said in the other place by any of his colleagues. The amendment would provide a small insurance, as it were, so that the Secretary of State would have some regard to the programme of planned development of the new town before asking it to dispose of some of its assets. That is all we are asking for at this time.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, may I say very quickly that this question still comes back to the basic principle. The Government have shown their intentions in that in the last two years they have ploughed £700 million into the new towns. I think that that is great evidence
1136
of intent. But if one says let the assets mature in the existing new towns—and that is what the noble Baroness said—where is the money to come from in the future? There is not a bottomless pit. When we are talking of this kind of money it is clear that someone will have to make a decision somewhere down the line as to where the money comes from. We cannot go on forever simply saying that we shall find it somewhere. This is my very point: those who are most keen to see the development of the new generation of new towns ought to be encouraged by the fact that the Government have said, "Let's raise money this way". Of course I cannot guarantee what will happen to all the money. Clearly no Government could say what they will do with all the amounts of money in the years to come. Who knows what the priorities will be. But that our intentions are honourable (if I may put it that way), in that we have a commitment to the new generation of new towns is, I believe, unquestioned. In so far as we can afford, one hopes, to use all the money, I am assuming that we shall probably want to, but no one can give guarantees. To that extent I cannot help further than I have done.
6.57 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I make a last appeal for my amendment. I do so by trying to bring back the House not to the speeches made in the Chamber, but to the actual wording of the Bill. It is a pedestrian remark not really worthy of your Lordships' intelligence to say that this Bill is to be an Act of Parliament that will be binding not only on a Conservative Government, with their present Ministers but also on any Government until the Act is either amended or repealed. I say with all due deference that unless speeches about the intentions, policies and priorities of a Minister are translated into an Act, your Lordships will not have carried out your duties as legislators.
It so happens, as we all know, that the present Secretary of State for the Environment is a very quiet, studious, introspective individual. But who knows? One day there might be a Secretary of State for the Environment who is flamboyant, who likes getting his own way, who has very definite ideas of his own as to where he can gather money from local government

1137
and put it into the general exchequer. I know that at present your Lordships cannot conceive of there being such a complete contrast with the present Secretary of State for the Environment, whom we all so much adore.
It is for that reason that I bring your Lordships back to the wording of the Bill as it now stands. I repeat that this Bill is to become an Act that will be binding on any Government. It provides that without having to come back to Parliament at all, the Secretary of State can direct a new town to pay up an unspecified, unlimited sum. I shall not again go into the whole question of why it is wrong for this power to be so unlimited, so unqualified. I have been into it before and your Lordships will be bored with me even more than usual if I repeat my arguments. All we are saying in the amendment is that when the Secretary of State exercises what some of your Lordships might regard as this dictatorial power, then at least, after he has consulted, he should have regard to the planned development of the town from which he is exacting the money. That is all that is asked. He has not got to be convinced; he has got to "have regard" to it.
When the noble Lord the Minister says, "Ah!, yes, but there are other things, no doubt, that he would have
regard to", I have no doubt your Lordships will agree with him. Of course there will be other considerations. They cannot all be put into the Bill; but you can put into the Bill the very minimum consideration that he ought to have—and I underline the word "consideration"—namely, that before exacting a payment which must be made he has regard to the planned development of the town from which he is taking it, and will have regard to the fact that this may destroy something which is very good and something for which people have worked and aspired. If he decides to destroy it, so be it; that is his right. But at least let him have regard to this programme.
I may be disappointed in the Division which results, but I cannot conceive of anyone who has a proper constitutional belief in the limitation of the power of a Minister, and certainly I cannot conceive anybody who has the interests of new towns really at heart, voting against this amendment. I may prove to be disappointed—it will not be the first time—but I live in hopes.
7.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 48) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 104.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips, B.

Amherst, E.

Hale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Balogh, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bernstein, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rochester, L.

Beswick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Blease, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Segal, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Simon, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B.

Byers, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Chitnis, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Denington, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strauss, L.

Diamond, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

McNair, L.

Underhill, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Maelor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller].

Fulton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Galpern, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gosford, E'

Peart, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Belstead, L.

Bradford, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bessborough, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Auckland, L.

Boardman, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Avon, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cairns, E.

Bellwin, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Caithness, E.

Cathcart, E.

Harvington, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Chelwood, L.

Henley, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Onslow, E.

Colwyn, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Ironside, L.

Pender, L.

Croft, L.

Kemsley, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Killearn, L.

Ridley, V.

De Freyne, L.

Kilmany, L.

St. Germans, E.

Denham, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sandford, L.

Digby, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Drumalbyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Savile, L.

Dundee, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Selkirk, E.

Elibank, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Selsdon, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Liverpool, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Long, V.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Elphinstone, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stamp, L.

Faithfull, B.

Lyell, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Falkland, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mansfield, E.

Swansea, L.

Fortescue, E.

Margadale, L.

Swinfen, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Marley, L.

Trefgarne, L. [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Trenchard, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Middleton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gisborough, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Vickers, B.

Gowrie, E.

Mottistone, L.

Vivian, L.

Greenway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wynford, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

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

Nugent of Guildford, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I think this is probably the right moment at which we should adjourn for a certain time. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.10 to 8 p.m.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL
Consideration on Third Reading resumed.
Clause 167 [Removal of unlawfully parked caravans and their occupants]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 148, line 6, leave out from ("unless") to ("to") in line 7, and insert ("he has a written Ministerial authorisation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I speak also to Amendment No. 50 and say
1140
that these two amendments are consequential to the amendments to Clause 167 we accepted on Report which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and which dealt with the powers of a UDC to survey land. They make it clear that a person who enters land under clause 167(1) needs to have a written ministerial authorisation in the case of an objection by a local authority or statutory undertaker to the placing, leaving or removal of apparatus. They also define what is meant by a "ministerial authorisation." On this basis I beg to move.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for tabling these consequential amendments to the amendments that I moved on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 148, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert ("he has a written Ministerial authorisation to do so.
(4A) In subsection (4) above "Ministerial authorisation" means—

(a) in relation to land held by a local authority the authorisation of the Secretary of State; and

(b) in relation to land held by statutory undertakers, the authorisation of the Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 49. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Relaxation of controls over functions relating to clean air and pollution]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 163, line 13, after (""or"") insert (", in the second place where it occurs,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the same as No. 66. This is a minor correction intended only to make clear that the purpose of paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 is to delete the words from the second "or" in Section 31(6) of the Clean Air Act 1956; that is, to remove the need for the Minister to be involved in any disagreement between local authorities on which should deal with any premises that straddle the boundary between them. I beg to move.
Schedule 7 [Highways]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 177, line 33, leave out the words ("the appropriate highway authority") and insert ("each body which is a local authority for the purposes of section 28 of this Act in relation to the land concerned.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to define in clear terms the appropriate authorities that the Secretary of State must consult before proposing to make a public path creation order. It is necessary because there is no interpretation in the Highways Act 1959 of what constitutes "an appropriate authority" in this context.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale): My Lords, I should point out that the figure "33" in the first line in the amendment should read "32".
Schedule 12 [Prescribed expenditure under Part VIII]:
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 197, line 24, at end insert—
(". Expenditure on Direct Labour Organisations by an authority to which this part of this Act applies shall not be prescribed expenditure for this part of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may describe this as a technical and accounting amendment and I am hopeful that the noble Lord will be able to accept it. Under the various accounting provisions of Part III of the Bill, your Lordships will recall that each direct labour organisation—nay, more than that, each particular subdivision of work within the DLO—is considered to be an entity for accounting purposes; but it is only necessary to say that the DLO as a whole certainly is so and has to publish its own balance sheet, its own revenue expenditure account and the various other statements that go with it. That means that DLOs, according to the Bill, will as of right and in law acquire their own assets, which will be shown in their own balance sheets and for the balance sheets to be certified by whatever auditors do the audit, whether it be the district auditor service or outside auditors. For them to be satisfied that the balance sheet shows a true and correct view, they must be satisfied that the expenditure has been incurred on the assets concerned and that the assets exist.
It follows, since the DLO section of the Bill seeks to ensure that local authorities generate a proper return on capital, that the DLOs' overhead rates will have to be sufficient to cover their costs. If they do this, it will obviously involve the capital expenditure of the DLOs being charged directly against capital allocations at the time of acquisition; yet, at the same time, in order to conform with the procedures so meticulously laid out by the noble Lord, they will have to charge the cost of equipping the DLO; in short they will have to pass on some charge for depreciation, some charge for the use. There will therefore be an element of double charging. All this amendment seeks to do is to see that there is no duplication in this. Consequently, this should be accomplished by the insertion of the amend-

1143
ment I have suggested at page 197, after line 24.
I trust that the noble Lord has followed the accounting argument and I rather hope in these circumstances that he will find himself able to accept the amendment which, I can assure him, does no violence to the policies implicit in the Bill or to the determination of his right honourable friend to ensure that it works in accordance with its provisions. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, as on one or two other occasions today, I have been close to the noble Lord but just have not managed to get all the way with him. I understand the purpose behind this amendment. Direct labour organisations do work mainly for their own authorities and Part III of the Bill is concerned that the true cost of having work done by a direct labour organisation, including depreciation and replacement cost of equipment used, should always be shown. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to argue that the cost of providing that equipment for the organisation should not be controlled separately, since to do so could result in double counting—once when the asset is acquired by the authority for the organisation and once when the use of the asset is included in the cost of using it, for example, for building a school.
I am afraid, however, that we are not able to say that expenditure on a direct labour organisation shall not be subject to control. The main reason is the one which underlies the whole purpose of the annual control of local authority capital expenditure. It is the Government's duty to be able to control the acquisition of capital assets by the public sector in order to be able to achieve a proper balance in the consumption of assets by the public and private sectors. We cannot continue to accept a situation where, in effect, the public sector takes first bite at the nation's wealth and then leaves the private sector to take what might be left. This means that we have to be able to exercise control at the time of acquisition, not merely at the time of subsequent use.
There are of course other implications of the amendment. There is the difficulty of disentangling the cost of equipment which might be used for a variety of purposes within the authority. There is
1144
the possibility of equipment being bought for the direct labour organisation as a means of evading controls which would apply if it had been bought for any other service department of the authority. Or there is the possibility that little or none of the cost of equipment would be shown if the equipment was in fact little used.
My Lords, I do not want to make much or these points. The main point is the need to control the acquisition of assets as it occurs. Having said that, I am still conscious of the problem of double counting. On this, I can only say that when a direct labour organisation does work for its authority (or indeed any other) then the cost of the work for capital control purposes need not include the depreciation of assets used. I recognise that this departure from the principles of Part III of the Bill so far as direct labour organisation accounts are concerned is not entirely satisfactory and that some additional work may be necessary to identify the appropriate amounts for counting against capital controls.
I was careful to note what the noble Lord was saying, and I think that we have to say that we must look at this aspect. I do not know how far it will satisfy the noble Lord, but I am certainly prepared to say that we will look at this and, if it seems appropriate—and it might—we shall be able to take any necessary action by regulation under Schedule 12. I know that is never the same as having it on the face of the Bill, but I hope that I indicate by that that we are cognisant of this matter and appreciate the point that the noble Lord made. If we have to do something, we shall be able to do it in that way.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am most grateful for the noble Lord's response. It still seems that there is a misunderstanding about this matter. I have tried to make it clear from the outset of these debates on the accounting methods that have been prescribed in Part III that there is no such thing as the local authority acquiring an asset on behalf of a DLO. Either the DLO acquires the asset itself and owns it itself, or no balance sheet prepared by the DLO in accordance with the provisions can contain the value of that asset. If it does not contain the value of that asset, it is impossible to determine the

1145
capital of the DLO for the purposes of determining the return on the capital employed. This is the dilemma in which his right honourable friend's determination to lay down these precise rules has landed the noble Lord.
The noble Lord has said that for the time being perhaps—and I accept his assurance immediately—it will not be necessary for the DLO, when preparing its income and expenditure accounts, to make allowance for the depreciation on the equipment that it uses or on the equipment that it "owns". This is the point. That vitiates the whole of the comparison between private enterprise firms on the one hand and the DLO on the other which, so far as I can see, it has been the main purpose of this Bill to insist upon.
The noble Lord is in some difficulty, and I have no desire to detain the House on this. I have already talked for far too long on these breathtakingly exciting accounting matters.
I am quite content, in view of the explicit assurance by the noble Lord that he will look at the matter further; but I warn him now, as I have already warned him, that if the accounts are going to be prepared on the basis of the rigid rules laid down in Part III of this Bill, then this prediction which I am going to make will come true: when the accounts are prepared at the end of the year, with all the anomalies that will arise from some of the less intelligible parts of the Bill, no self-respecting accountant is going to certify them.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Schedule 14 [Amendments relating to surveys and plans]:
8.15 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 202 line 28, at end insert—
("(aa) subsection (5) (indication of action areas in general proposals for structure plan) shall cease to have effect except in relation to structure plans approved by the Secretary of State before the passing of this Act;").
The noble Lord said: With Schedule 14 we move back into planning and that part of planning which is to do with the amendments to surveys and plans. I should like, if I may, to speak at the same
1146
time to Amendment No. 58 and couple that with four further amendments. Amendments Nos. 67, 68, 70 and 71. Those four amendments amend Schedule 34 which introduces various repeals to other enactments. This package of six linked amendments—two to Schedule 14 and four to Schedule 34—constitute a third joint attempt by myself and the noble Lord's department to make an adjustment to the respective responsibilities of counties and districts that flow from the fresh division of planning functions achieved by Clause 86 of this Bill.
As I have spoken to this object twice already, both Committee stage and Report, in an attempt to move amendments which, in the eyes of the Government, were defective and lacking in various ways, I will not go into the whole matter again, unless any noble Lord wishes me to do so. Suffice it to say that the responsibilities which are adjusted by these amendments are those in connection with the designation of action areas, which in the past has been dealt with by the counties in the course of preparing their structure plans, and the preparation of local plans devised to be linked with those actions areas by the district planning authorities when the structure plans have been approved. The amendments are complicated because they need to look to the future, the division of responsibilities established by the Bill, but to retain some part of the existing arrangements in respect of those structure plans which were approved before the passing of this Bill.
I hope that my noble friend, having had a part in framing these amendments, will now at last—and this is our last chance of doing it—be able to accept the amendments in this form. I am most grateful to him for his assistance. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, there is very little I need to add to what my noble friend Lord Sandford has said. He has explained fully the reason for this group of amendments. I am very grateful indeed for all the trouble that he has taken. I am happy to advise your Lordships that these amendments should be agreed. Amendments Nos. 67, 68, 70 and 71 are consequential on the previous amendments which I have now accepted. I am very happy to accept these, too.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, there was a lot of talk earlier about a deal in smoke-filled rooms! Is this not a case where the ADC have stolen a march on the other local authority associations? Are they suitably contrite for what they have been doing?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I had not noticed the ACC had done too badly out of the discussions that took place as we went along.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 204, leave out lines 20 to 24 and insert—
("5A. The following subsection shall be substituted for subsections (6) to (8) of section 10C of that Act (development plan schemes):—
"(6) Where a district planning authority make representations to the Secretary of State that they are dissatisfied with a development plan scheme, the Secretary of State may amend the scheme, and any amendment so made shall have effect as if made by the county planning authority.".
5B. The following provisions of that Act, namely—").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment may or may not date back to a smoke-filled room some many months before this Bill was drafted. Whatever its origins, it is again a topic to which I have alluded at previous stages, but a different topic from the one introduced by Amendment No. 56.
On this occasion I should like the agreement of the House to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 69 on page 12, which repeals other enactments through Schedule 34. These two amendments, taken together, amount to little more than technical amendments, limiting and adjusting the way in which the Secretary of State will be able in future to influence development plan schemes. As with previous amendments, I have had very considerable assistance from the noble Lord and his department. I hope that we have got these right as well, and I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, this amendment makes a useful alteration to the provisions of Section 10C, giving the Secretary of State direct powers to amend a development plan scheme in response
1148
to representations by the district council, which will replace his existing powers of direction to the county planning authority. I commend it to your Lordships, and we are glad to accept it.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 58:
Page 204, line 43, at end insert—
("6A.—(1) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (4) of section 11 of that Act:—
"(4A) Without prejudice to subsections (1), (2) and (4) of this section, the local planning authority may prepare a local plan for any part of their area (in this section referred to as an "action area") which they have selected for the commencement during a prescribed period of comprehensive treatment, by development, redevelopment or improvement of the whole or part of the area selected, or partly by one and partly by another method.
(4B) A local plan prepared for an action area under subsection (4A) of this section shall indicate the nature of the treatment selected for the action area.".
(2) Subsection (6) of that section (which imposes on a local planning authority a duty to prepare a local plan for any area indicated as an action area in a structure plan which has been approved by the Secretary of State) shall cease to have effect except in relation to structure plans approved by him before the passing of this Act.".").
8.22 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 205, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 18 and insert—
("(a) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1):—
"(1) After the expiry of the period afforded for making objections to a local plan or, if such objections have been duly made during that period, after considering the objections so made, the local planning authority may, subject to section 12 of this Act and subsections (1A), (2) and (3) of this section, by resolution adopt the plan either as originally prepared or as modified so as to take account—

(a) of the objections so made;

(b) of any other objections made to the plan;

(c) of any other considerations which appear to the authority to be material.

(1A) Where—

(a) an objection to the plan has been made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

1149
(in this section referred to as "the Minister"); and

(b) the local planning authority do not propose to modify the plan to take account of that objection,

the authority—

(i) shall send the Secretary of State particulars of the Minister's objection, together with a statement of their reasons for not modifying the plan to take account of it; and

(ii) shall not adopt the plan unless the Secretary of State authorises them to do so.";

(b) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (3):—
"(3A) Subject to subsection (3B) of this section, where particulars of an objection to a local plan made by the Minister have been sent to the Secretary of State under subsection (1A) of this section, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to direct that the plan shall not have effect unless approved by him.
(3B) The Secretary of State need not give a direction under subsection (3A) of this section if he is satisfied that the Minister no longer objects to the plan.";
(c) in subsection (4)—

(i) after the words "subsection (3)" there shall be inserted the words "or (3A)"; and

(ii) in paragraph (d)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Report stage the House agreed to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stanley. As I pointed out then, and as my noble friend recognised, there were flaws in the drafting which called for correction. This amendment seeks to make a more general revision of Section 14 of the 1971 Act.
Although the Government consider the provision added to the Bill by the amendment tabled by my noble friend to be unnecessary, for the reasons I gave when we last discussed the matter, the purpose of the present amendment is to provide a new procedure which we consider will secure his intention more adequately than his own amendment did. Because there were already provisions relating to Section 14 of the Act in Schedule 14, the amendment incorporates one provision in addition to those covered by my noble friend's amendment, but the changes it is making to Section 14 are as follows.
A provision is being added to ensure that where the local authority do not
1150
propose to modify a local plan to meet an objection from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food they must notify the Secretary of State of that fact, and the new subsection (1A) provides that, in such circumstances, the local authority shall not adopt the plan until specifically authorised to do so. In addition, there are two new subsections—(3A) and 3(B)—which place a duty on the Secretary of State to call in the local plan for his own decision unless he is satisfied that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food no longer wishes to object to the plan. I believe this amendment fully meets the intentions of my noble friend's amendment, and I beg to move.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government for bringing forward this amendment. It demonstrates to local planning authorities that Parliament and the Government place a special responsibility on them to reach agreement when preparing plans with the Minister of Agriculture; in other words, to make every effort to minimise the loss of good agricultural land. My noble friend referred to the fact that he considered it unnecessary. Although I hate to draw his attention to it, I will nevertheless draw his attention in this instance to an article in The Times of today and I will quote just the headline:
"Department failed deplorably to look after citizens' interests and protect cottages".
This amendment was one moved by my noble friend Lord Stanley at Report stage in order to safeguard agricultural land. We feel it is necessary and we are grateful that the Minister has accepted its need. However, could he just confirm that he will guard against a "rogue" authority trying to evade this new responsibility by modifying the plan only slightly to take into account the Minister's objections? Also, can the Government give an assurance that in these circumstances they would use their power to direct the authority not to adopt the plan until he authorises them to do so, so that a ministerial review of the position could be made?
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, in the past I have criticised the Government occasionally and in the future I may do so again, and so I should

1151
like to thank the Government, as my noble friend Lord Caithness has done, and in particular my noble friend Lord Bellwin, for drafting this amendment and accepting it in principle—not because I happened by chance to move it, but because a majority from all sides of your Lordships' House decided to support it, not only with their voices but with their feet. I should be less than honest if I did not say I was pleased that the Government have listened to your Lordships, particularly on an agricultural matter.
Schedule 31 [Urban Development Corporations: Finance etc.]:
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 296, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) Any person may inspect a report of a corporation (including a copy of its audited statement of accounts for that year) under this section and shall be supplied with a copy of the report by the corporation on payment of such charge for a copy as it may reasonably require.
( ) A corporation shall publish in at least one newspaper circulating in its area notice of—

(a) the place where and the time when any report under this section may be inspected;

(b) the fact that copies of the report are available for supply to any person requiring them; and

(c) the charge for each such copy.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence for having brought this matter once again to your attention. As your Lordships are aware, it concerns accounts of these urban development corporations, and all that this amendment seeks to do is to make quite sure that these accounts are open to anybody requiring to see them and that the corporation shall publish in at least one newspaper circulating in its area notice of the place and time where any report under this section may be inspected, the fact that copies of the report are available to be supplied to any person requiring them and the charge for each such copy. We are informed that the Government are in favour of open government; indeed much play was made of this in the general election which brought them into office. Here is an opportunity to do not only what is reasonable but actually what they said they would do.
Let us consider the position in regard to the accounts, not only of limited companies, whether private or public, but also the accounts of local authorities and those of direct labour organisations. These are open and can be obtained, and everything is quite open and above-board. In the case of the local authority with its DLO, the local authority itself is responsible to its local electorate. Therefore, there is a double filter, in a way, because not only are the local councillors able to inspect accounts but the public as well. Even in the case of ordinary limited companies, whether private or public, the public have access by due application to the Registrar of Companies. I am aware that these days it is a little more difficult since they are now on microfiches and in Cardiff, as against being in London, as formerly. Nevertheless, the facility is there and public companies do it in any event.
An urban development corporation is responsible for very considerable activities in the neighbourhood in which it is established but without the benefit—I assume the noble Lord will agree with me that it is a benefit—of any democratic representation and without the benefit of local accountability through its elected representatives because the members of an urban development corporation are in fact appointed by the Minister: they are his creatures and if one wanted to be a little sardonic about them one could say they are quangos, but this term is probably not capable of the same connotations as when it was used for political purposes a little while back. Surely, in the public interest, it is all the more necessary, if public confidence in these bodies is to be maintained, that their accounts and reports should be open in the same way as those of a local authority, a direct labour organisation, or whatever it is.
The noble Lord said on Report that this might, of course, be included, and that the whole purpose was to make more information available. He said that, perhaps, he could deal with it by regulation. Why is there this sudden propensity to deal with everything by regulation, when it can be put quite firmly in the Bill itself? I really must ask the noble Lord not to take refuge behind the answer: "We will include it in regulations"; or,

1153
"We will put it in a circular"; or, "We will issue instructions"; or, "We will use our best endeavours to ensure that". Why not put it in the Bill? Is it not more honest to put it in the Bill? Is it not more compelling to put it in the Bill? Indeed, is it not simpler, for the avoidance of all reasonable doubt, to put it in the Bill? My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I welcome the principle behind this amendment. It is, indeed, the Government's intention that UDCs should operate in as open a way as possible, and I am sure it is right that their reports should be made widely available at a reasonable charge, that they should be capable of inspection, and that these facts should be advertised. I am very happy to give the noble Lord an undertaking that we shall ensure that this gets done under the powers we have to give directions to UDCs.
But when the noble Lord asks "In that case, why not incorporate it in the main legislation?", I have to say that these are important matters, and I hope that what I said a moment ago indicates our feelings about them. We do not want to tie UDCs down in the main legislation to a particular régime which might prove inflexible or inappropriate. For example, there could be a press strike and notice, in those circumstances, might more reasonably be given via local radio. Indeed, one might use that or other of the media as a preferential way of doing things. We might wish to ask the UDCs to make documents other than their reports available as well. This only indicates that there are also restricting factors in the noble Lord's amendment.
I have given a pretty clear assurance—and I repeat the undertaking—that we shall ensure that this gets done under the powers that we have to give directions to UDCs. That, by the way, is an assurance which I did not give at Report stage. In a way, I feel rather sad. The noble Lord and I have discussed so many matters and we have now come so close, though I have not gone all the way to where he wants to be. If he will, I think he will just have to wait and see what happens, in practice, in the light of what I have said.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, naturally, I am very indebted to
1154
the noble Lord who has given an assurance in specific terms, which he did not find himself able to give at Report stage. This marks a considerable advance and we on this side are duly appreciative of it. I am not saying that the obtrusion of extraordinary events, such as a strike, a storm or a tempest, might not prevent publication at the due date. Those are matters of force majeure, which are applicable to any clause of the Bill. They would apply equally to the accounts of DLOs.
Perhaps the period of six months, which is prescribed for the rendering of a direct labour organisation's accounts, might be frustrated by the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Minister tripping over and hurting himself in six months' time, producing a state of forgetfulness. He might forget to make a direction when he should have made it. Those are matters of force majeure, but I do not think that one can pray them in aid in refusing to enact something which presupposes that matters will proceed more or less with normality, within the context in which they are set.
But I have no desire, particularly in view of the noble Lord's very zealous efforts and the progress which we have made this evening, to detain the House any longer. I should have much preferred it to be in the statute, but I unhesitatingly accept, and recommend my noble friends to accept, the quite unequivocal assurance which the noble Lord has given and which, I am quite sure, will be noted very carefully by all those concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 32 [Enterprise zones]:
8.36 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 297, line 32, at end insert ("and

(c) in relation to Scotland shall specify that the scheme shall be prepared in conjunction with the appropriate regional council.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the designation of enterprise zones and, while I welcome and am considerably interested in the development of enterprise zones, I should warn the Government that the enthusiasm for

1155
them is to be found at its height in the area that is to be designated. In the surrounding areas, and in other areas of high unemployment, there is fear that whatever industry is attracted will pass them by and go into the enterprise zone, while firms will be worried that there will be what they consider unfair competition from the zone, which may be only two or three miles away. There the enthusiasm is a little more muted.
It is ironic that the Government are taking this step at the present time when, in special development areas with high rates of unemployment of 18 per cent., such as in the Cumnock-Kirkconnel area, they have stopped finance. In the Stonefield development, they have a new type of Range Rover car, which had gone through its development period and was building up the prospects of good orders, but the Government suddenly clamped down and said, "No more money". Yet here they are prepared to put money into enterprise zones.
Enterprise zones are not exactly new. I remember that in 1951–52, in Scotland, we had the Toothill Report. The idea then was to have growth points. This is virtually the same thing, but now it is called an experiment. In Scotland, which has one-quarter of a million unemployed, we have only one enterprise zone presently mooted, and that is at Clydebank. The Government have said that it is an experiment, but it is a strange experiment when, before it has started, they select another two areas, as they did the other week, at Corby and somewhere else. But in Scotland there is only one.
Clydebank is just on the North-West of Glasgow, and I believe that the area of 570 acres which has been mentioned comes slightly into the Glasgow district. Of course, it will be of concern to the whole area that the enterprise zone authority will become a planning authority. It may well be that for planning purposes it is overlapping another district.
But much more important is the question of the regional authority which is the major planning authority for drawing up the structure plan. The structure plan which affects the Clydebank area is before the Secretary of State. Would it not have been far better if they had brought in the
1156
regional authority, in conjunction with the district authority, to plan the enterprise zone? It would have saved conflict. Noble Lords should not misunderstand me. There is quite a wealth of generous feeling towards the enterprise zone. We want it to succeed, and if we want it to succeed, we want speed, liaison and cooperation rather than conflict.
One must appreciate that Strathclyde, which has the whole of West Central Scotland in its area, has the heaviest unemployment in the whole of Scotland—not just in this one part. Its resources are limited, as the resources of all local authorities are limited by the Government. We have been told that the standards are not going to be reduced so far as the enterprise zone is concerned. But who will have to provide the infrastructure? The regional authority will have to provide the infrastructure. Quite apart from the money that the Government are going to put in, there will have to be money from the regional authority. At the same time it is going to lose rateable value, although it will be made up to them by the Government, according to what has been said.
Would it not be better in those circumstances, and help to soothe some of the fears of neighbouring authorities, if Strathclyde were included, in conjunction with the district authority, in the planning of the enterprise zone? The sole purpose of my amendment is to bring the two authorities together at the start. It will save conflict; it will ease some of the fears that they are going to be done down by the proximity of the enterprise zone. We had the same thing when Edinburgh at one time was not a development area although the area outside Edinburgh was, and when we saw factories being built not in Edinburgh but on the periphery. This is the sort of thing which people fear. It is a good idea, but it is not a panacea for Scotland's ills. We want it to be developed, we want it to be a success and we want it to be a success quickly so that it can spread elsewhere if the Government can afford the money.
That is the purpose of this amendment. It is a simple amendment but it is one which anybody with knowledge of local government and of how local authorities react to the interplay of the structure plan on the strategic plan would want. I know that whoever is going to answer,

1157
whether it be an English Minister or whether it be either of the two other noble Lords who are sitting there, is going to say, "Don't worry about it. Willy. It is all there, anyway. The next subsection says that the Secretary of State may suggest that they have got to consult so-and-so". With all due respect, for the protection of interests and for the purpose of getting that co-operation the possibility of consultation is not sufficient. The other interests would be better protected and things would go along very much more quickly if the statutory obligation for co-operation were there right from the start. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment very strongly indeed. Ever since the reorganisation of local government in Scotland there has been difficulty over the responsibilities of the regions and those of the districts. The regions are the planning authorities, and it is the regions which must be consulted and which must be brought into any development anywhere in the area within which they operate. Schedule 32 lists the district councils, the London borough councils, the new town corporations, the urban development corporations. But none of those operate in Scotland. The new town corporations and the urban development corporations are not the bodies which have the authority in Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is absolutely right. It is the regions which have the planning authority. One has to have the backing of the regions for any enterprise in any area at all. The districts are all very well, but they do not have the planning responsibilities. Planning is the responsibility of the regions. It would be most unfortunate if a Bill like this were to be passed without mentioning for Scotland the importance of enlisting the support of the regions, consulting the regions and getting them to back whatever enterprise is put forward. It will not be successful unless we do so. It is much better to start straight away with the right situation and the right consultation, otherwise we shall run into trouble as, indeed, has been the case in some of the areas—not to do with enterprise zones but to do with the relationship between the district councils and the regions. Therefore I strongly support the amendment.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, first may I try to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. I hope he will accept—indeed, the House should know by now—that a fierce Scottish heart beats here in the absence of my noble friend Lord Mansfield. I hope that the noble Lord noted that I listened carefully to his dissertation on the reason why he believed that his amendment should be included in the Bill. It is clearly desirable that in preparing a scheme for an enterprise zone, district councils should consult the regional council. Indeed, my right honourable friend intends that his invitation to district councils to prepare an enterprise zone scheme should contain a direction to this effect. If noble Lords examine paragraph 1(5) of the schedule, they will see that it is quite adequate as it stands for the purpose which I have explained.
We believe that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is not only unnecessary but undesirable. The whole ethos of enterprise zones is to minimise any possibility, or even procedures, which could lead to delay. To require schemes to be prepared jointly—for this is what the phrase "in conjunction with" implies—would open up the possibility of negotiation and of lengthy bargaining over a fairly extended period to produce a document which might be acceptable to both councils in all its detail.
What we propose in the Bill is both simpler and better. The district council will consult the regional council in preparing their scheme. If the region consider, for some reason, that the scheme which is published and adopted by the district fails to take proper account of the views which they, the region, have expressed, they will doubtless make representations to the Secretary of State that it would not be expedient for him to make an order which would designate that zone, which we find is provided for in paragraph 5 of the schedule. Then my right honourable friend can decide whether the issues at stake are so vital that they should hold up the designation of the zone. We certainly bear in mind all that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in supporting the concept and the ideas behind the enterprise zone.
The reason for rejecting the amendment is that we wish to keep the legislation

1159
simple and effective. I hope that my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood will accept that this is the main reason why we are unable to accept the amendment. In conclusion, we intend to direct that Strathclyde should be consulted in the preparation of the schemes for the Clydebank enterprise zone. The noble Lord's amendment is for this purpose unnecessary. We believe that it will create an opportunity for delay, and that is the last thing which we, or indeed the House, would want.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I do not want any delay, either, my Lords. It is eight months since we first heard of these enterprise zones. Then what we had in Scotland was a battle between part of Renfrewshire and Clydebank and other places as to who was going to be selected. I am appalled at the delay which has already taken place. I want to minimise the delay in getting the thing drawn up, designated and then functioning. The point is that the impact of this zone, which is only one little island of industrial dereliction within a greater area, has a considerably greater impact than those other areas surrounding it, and Renfrew and Glasgow and Dumbarton and Milngavie and Bearsden all want to have some kind of protection. They are not going to get it from the district of Clydebank. I know the people in Clydebank and they are pretty good, but when it comes to the industrial concern for the whole area, that is a matter for Strathclyde, by statute.
When it comes to the expenditure—suppose we have to block up highways. Who does it? Not Clydebank but Strathclyde. If we want a new road, who does it? It is Strathclyde. We have already been told by the Government that they are not going to extend cash limits, so the authorities have to take it out of their resources. The noble Lord speaks about minimising delay, but when one is faced with a situation like that there is a recipe for delay, when the decision is that of one person and the expenditure is that of someone else.
I knew that there was consultation but we want more than consultation there, and one of the dangers about speed in consultation is that the consultation becomes perfunctory. We have been told
1160
to do it and we have done it. I want to make it co-operation rather than consultation, and I am very disappointed indeed in the answer that we have got from the junior Minister tonight. I would rather the Minister of State had been here, but I can quite understand that he is away in Liverpool tonight watching Aberdeen play Liverpool and that his fierce Scottish heart is beating in football terms. Maybe not—he may be in the Gallery of the other place listening to the debate on the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill. I am disappointed. I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment but I am not going to divide the House. I will allow the amendment to be negatived.
On Question, amendment negatived.
8.53 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 304, line 23, at end insert ("not being a major retail space development.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at various stages during the progress of the Bill amendments have been tabled to remove major retail space users from the rating exemptions proposed in the enterprise zone concept. In opposing these amendments the noble Lord made a number of sympathetic statements but said nothing more positive than that. At Committee stage he said:
"I should have thought that this was arguably one of the most difficult aspects of the proposals—some would say the most difficult aspect of the proposals"—
and added:
"I say again, we realise that there are arguments on both sides on this issue and strong and genuine differences of opinion and it is because we want to have the right answers that we are still having discussions about this".
Then we moved on to Report stage, when the noble Lord took the House further into his confidence and said:
"Noble Lords might like to know that the possible solutions under discussion at present are about planning restrictions and not so much about changes to rating exemption, because our conclusion is that rating exemption itself should stand".
It is because of this sympathetic response from the noble Lord that I have tried to deal with this problem today in the way suggested by the noble Lord at Report stage. The amendment will have the

1161
effect of removing a major retail space development from the planning exemption granted in an enterprise zone. There is considerable concern about this proposal and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is seized of this problem.
Today the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—and I would say in parenthesis one would hope that the AMA are as successful as the ADC and the ACC were in earlier amendments—held a meeting of representatives from all those authorities involved in the initial list of areas that are to be invited to establish enterprise zones. At this meeting particular concern was again expressed about retailing in enterprise zones. The meetings that many of these authorities are having with the Department of the Environment officials suggests that in practice the Government are much less flexible than your Lordships might have supposed from the remarks made by the noble Lord at earlier stages of the Bill.
For example, in Swansea, planning control will operate only for retail developments above the very large figure of some 65,000 square feet, although Swansea apparently did not want any retailing in their enterprise zone. Below 65,000 square feet any number of developments can go ahead and there will be no geographical restriction. At a meeting today a delegation from Swansea was again unable to get more specific controls.
I have also been sent a copy of a letter which may have been circulated to a number of your Lordships by the Manchester Chamber of Trade, enclosing a copy of a letter sent by the Chamber of Trade to the Secretary of State. In this, they expressed their alarm about the possibility of retail outlets becoming established in the Trafford Park enterprise zone. In their letter to the Minister, they say:
"It is understood that the Manchester Ship Canal Company have leased, subject at present to planning permission, an area of some 23·4 acres of land at Salford Docks to Hypermarket Holdings Limited to construct a supermarket of some 170,000 square feet, which would be by far the biggest in Greater Manchester. As you are aware, retail trading in the big cities has been very difficult for some and the recent increases in rates and services have almost wiped out what little trading profit was left. The advent of a privileged competitor on our very doorstep could prove disastrous to many of us and lead to the closure of some".
1162
They go on to say:
"Since the advent of the new Arndale Centre we are already over-shopped and there is no prospect here of a larger cake to share between us. The county structure plan forecasts a further fall of 1·5 per cent. in local population up to 1986 and the unit for retail planning information does not forecast any further significant growth".
They conclude:
"We therefore ask you that retail distributors should be excluded from the Trafford Park enterprise zone or if they are included they should be subject to the same planning controls and rates as the rest of us. Members of this Chamber have paid their way in this City without subsidies of any kind for upward of 100 years and we want to stay that way".
My Lords, these voices of concern are voices which I know the noble Lord hears. He is seized of the problem here and I only hope that he will be able to give us firm assurances tonight on this matter. I do not want the noble Lord's reassurances merely to steer this Part of the Bill safely through. The Minister must give a clear and categorical statement that local authorities will be allowed to control retailing above a certain size, either throughout an enterprise zone or in part of that zone. If local authorities are to be coerced into allowing any form of retailing, then the experimental basis of such zones is called into question.
During the Committee stage of this Bill in another place, the Minister for housing made a statement which has not been followed up. He said:
"The matter of resources for enterprise zones, particularly in regard to infrastructure, is one that we shall consider, but of course we cannot consider it until we know which will be the enterprise zones and whether they will or will not have infrastructure implications. But we shall be anxious to consider that and to see whether help is needed".
At least one authority which embraces an enterprise zone has been told that grants will most definitely not be available for infrastructure provision. Many of these sites will require major capital investment, expenditure which will have to compete against the overall capital allocation under the provisions in this Bill, and Government resources must be made available if the schemes are to be a success. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some positive assurances on this this evening. I beg to move.
9.1 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, may I say very briefly that I fully

1163
support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I have had a very large number of worried people contacting me about this possibility. I think there is a genuine and quite well-founded belief that it would be very unfair competition for a hypermarket to have the advantage of an enterprise zone competing with established shopping centres. In relation to the Speke enterprise zone this will cause a great deal of concern. I have had representations made to me from the Greater Manchester area. We have in my part of the world already turned down planning applications for hypermarkets in various parts of the Merseyside region. I am sure many of your Lordships have had representations made to you about this problem. I know the Minister is well aware of the problem and I hope he is going to be able to give real assurances to your Lordships' House, because this is a problem causing concern to people who have spent many years and a great deal of money in building up successful and competitive businesses.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I can say immediately that I cannot give the kind of undertakings the noble Lord asks me to do specifically. The fact is that there are still questions to be answered in this area and the whole thing turns on discussions with individual authorities. Clearly I am not going to comment upon what any particular authority is saying, because I shall need to be discussing it with them myself before I could do so. But the fact is that it is the authorities themselves who have applied to us to be included in this. When I said earlier that we were concerned about hypermarkets, I meant exactly what I said. But I cannot give an undertaking to accept an amendment which places a restriction in this way when I know how different the circumstances are in different areas and that what applies and is right and proper for one may be quite wrong for another. Nor would I want to mislead the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, or this House that I would do so.
We fall back again and again on the point that this is an experiment. No one guarantees its success. With it comes the kind of problems we are talking about. I have responded to this in your Lordships' House; I have indicated that the Government are aware of this problem and are
1164
not seeking to coerce local authorities, as the noble Lord suggests; not at all—that is the last thing we want to do. We are not trying to coerce anyone about any aspect of this. We are saying here is an opportunity. We want to play a role in this. It will cost the Government money, but because we think that these are areas of such dereliction that they need some special treatment we are prepared to see that money goes in in that way.
But, in doing that, we recognise the concern of those, not so much in the area but on the periphery or in nearby areas, who may be adversely affected. I must say that other than in the retailing area—and there is one other area I can think of in which someone has approached us—in the main I think the benefits to be gained will more than outweigh any such difficulties that may be thrown up. But, at the end of the day, this is going to have to be decided by the authorities themselves not by the Government coercing anyone. All we can do to help them in making their decision as to whether to proceed is to say that of course we recognise this difficulty; we will be willing to take a different approach in different areas where what may concern one may not concern another. That is why I cannot accept this amendment which seeks to restrict it and tie it down. If that means that noble Lords are not able to go along with it. I am regretful, because I think it is recognised by everyone that this is a real attempt to try to do something. Therefore, I hope it would receive even reserved approval by everyone in your Lordships' House, and I still hope that will be the case. But I am not in a position to give the undertakings the noble Lord asks for.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord is not in a position to give those undertakings. As I have said in earlier debates we have had on this issue, the establishment of these major retail users within enterprise zones can have a very serious effect on the peripheral areas immediately outside. It seems to me right that such matters should be reserved to the local authorities within those areas. I am sorry the noble Lord has not been able to give the undertakings which I have asked for this evening, and I shall divide the House.
9.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 62) shall be agreed to?
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Schedule 34 [Repeals.]:
[Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 not moved.]
9.14 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 318, line 13, after (""or"") insert (", in the second place where it occurs,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I dealt with Amendment No. 53, which was the same. I beg to move.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Rochester, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Blease, L.

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

Simon, V.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Stedman, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Maelor, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Mishcon, L.

Stone, L.

Denington, B.

Peart, L.

Strauss, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Phillips, B.

Underhill, L.

Galpern, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wade, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Raglan, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Ferrers, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Avon, E.

Ferrier, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Bellwin, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mottistone, L.

Belstead, L.

Gainford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Boardman, L.

Gisborough, L.

Northchurch, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gowrie, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Orkney, E.

Caithness, E.

Hanworth, V.

Renton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Ridley, V.

Chelwood, L.

Harvington, L.

St. Germans, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandford, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Croft, L.

Inglewood, L.

Savile, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kemsley, V.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Digby, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Swansea, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Long, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Eccles, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Elton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vickers, B.

Faithfull, B.

Marley, L.

Wynford, L.

Falkland, V.

Middleton, L.

Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendments Nos. 67 to 71:
Page 324, line 50, after ("7") insert (", in subsection")
Page 324, line 54, at end insert ("and subsection (5)")
Page 325, line 2, leave out from ("section") to end of line 12 and insert ("10C(2), the words" Subject to regulations under this section".").
Page 325, line 20, at end insert ("; subsection (6)")
Page 326, line 5, after ("end,") insert ("paragraph 6,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to each of the five amendments which now follow in my name and as they are all amendments to the same schedule, I believe that I would be in order in suggesting that they should be moved en bloc. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 330, line 2, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 174(3).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment consequential on the repeal of Section 174(3) of the 1972 Act by subsection (2) of Clause 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 73
Page 330, line 7, at end insert—

("1973 c. 65.

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

Section 46(2).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mansfield, I beg to move Amendment No. 73 which stands in his name. I hope that the House will agree that this is a technical amendment which inserts into Schedule 34 Section 46(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which is repealed by Clause 25(2) of this Bill. The amendment is identical in effect to that which has just been moved by my noble friend Lord Bellwin. Having said that, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 330, line 10, at end insert—

("1976 c. 70.

Land Drainage Act 1976.

Section 65(8).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the very last gasp! This amendment is consequential upon the acceptance by the House of Amendment No. 173A which was moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone at the Report stage. Is it not appropriate that at the very end of the day I should say that we are very pleased to accept this amendment, which is why we move it in this way. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.20 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, this is a long-awaited moment; I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. It is virtually three months since we approved the Second Reading of this Bill, and although it is a long Bill and in some parts a somewhat complicated one, we have had a
1168
very thorough go at it. We spent almost seven hours over the Second Reading debate, in which 27 speakers took part. We spent very nearly 50 hours over the Committee stage, covering seven days and usually late nights—a length of time which I should imagine is not often surpassed in your Lordships' House. Having examined the Bill in such detail and having argued the merits of so many alternative approaches, we returned to the attack again the next time round and spent over 25 hours over four more days on Report stage. And even today, in that part of the Third Reading which is given over to the consideration of amendments, we have taken up no negligible space of time. That is good going for a revising House, and I think that we and our respective colleagues in another place can be satisfied that this Bill has been gone over thoroughly and revised where appropriate.
As to the merits of the different amendments we have made, these will appeal or not, according to one's point of view. Perhaps I might mention briefly just some of those which the Government see as more significant. It is part of the fruits of our deliberations that authorities whose expenditure is less than their grant-related expenditure will not thereby suffer a loss of grant; that urban development areas will, in general, be restricted to the inner cities for which they are designed; that the publication of information provisions in Part II designed to further local democracy will apply to Scotland and to public bodies other than local authorities proper. We have done a good deal of tidying, perhaps particularly in Part XVI but also in dealing with such important matters as education pooling, the Metropolitan Police and passenger transport executives.
Most of these changes were at the Government's behest, but we have seen a fair amount of, dare I call it, private enterprise as well. My noble friend Lord Ridley secured the addition to the controls schedules of a large number of useful items dealing with highways and road traffic. My noble friend Lady Faithfull led us to reverse the effect of the Liverpool judgment which has been an obstruction to the valuable work of the local ombudsman. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, has persuaded us to repair the long-standing anomaly whereby vice-convenors of Scottish local authorities are

1169
not entitled to the allowance enjoyed by their English and Welsh counterparts. My noble friend Lord Colville moved some successful amendments to extend domestic rate relief to separately assessed garages; and similarly in the rating field are those amendments of my noble friend Lord Thurso, which attracted so much support from all quarters of the House and which we hope will give to fish farms the same benefits as those enjoyed by the more conventional kinds of agriculture.
I should also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hill, whose powerful arguments backed up those of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and persuaded the House to accept an amendment against my original advice but which, in the end, as I said earlier, we have not asked the House to reverse. Nor should I omit to mention at this stage the deep interest in the system of structure and local plans shown by my noble friends Lord Ridley and Lord Sandford, together with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon and others. And finally, there is the new Part XVII of the Bill, dealing with gipsy sites, for which we are indebted, I suspect in some sense collectively, to the noble Lords, Lord Irving and Lord Avebury, the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lord Ridley.
Nor would I like to pass over the miscellaneous improvements which have been made to the Bill. Clause 186, for example, although its title is rather dry, is none the less a useful provision; and as late as last Thursday we added a helpful new clause about land drainage, at the behest of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. That was the last amendment, with which I have just dealt. I do not see that I can leave this subject without mentioning the many invaluable corrections to the drafting which have been made at the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Renton, whose keen eye has picked up many slips of our pen.
All these amendments, however, have left intact the lineaments of the inner dignity and thrust of the Bill. I know that there are still those on the Benches opposite who hold fast to their original conviction that Part VI, the heart of the Bill, will have an adverse effect on the
1170
future of local government. I respect their opinions, even though they are diametrically opposed to mine. Our debates, of course, have not been confined to the amendments I have mentioned; they have ranged widely, as widely as the alternative system of rate support grant which was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton. But in the end we have approved, in all the various stages, the substance of the Bill as it was introduced, and I am grateful for the support which the House has shown to the Government's point of view.
I respect, as I have said before, the opinions of those on the Benches opposite, who doubtless will shortly rise to disagree with me; but I have made clear throughout my absolute conviction that they are utterly and irredeemably wrong. But that does not mean that we have not had constructive and helpful debates, for we have had both, in large measures. We have, indeed, been able to accept many of the amendments proposed from across the Floor, and we have listened to many helpful interventions and many fine speeches.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has carried the major burden of opposing this Bill; it is a heavy task, to which my own experience can bear witness. I pay tribute to her unreservedly for her constant courtesy, and, may I say, charm; for her tirelessness—an essential requisite, I am afraid—and for the valiant way she has coped with the sometimes very complex issues which the Bill presents. I am deeply grateful to her. In these virtues she has been most ably supported by her colleagues: the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the always so compelling, eloquent and persuasive Lord Mishcon.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, has carried a very substantial burden on the Liberal Benches. I should mention our admiration for the enthusiasm with which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, threw himself into the battle for direct labour organisations. I especially appreciated his restraint, and it will always be a matter of some regret to me that at the last I was not able outrightly to accept at least one of his amendments; but there you are, that is in the way of things.

1171
I also acknowledge the expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The local authority associations have been ably represented in our debates by their presidents, and Cambridgeshire in particular has found doughty protagonists in its three noble Baronesses who were so active in our debates. Nor shall I forget the always stylish and respected interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek.
My last and most pleasant duty in this last debate upon the Bill—and I say at once that I apologise to any noble Lord or noble Baroness who I do not mention, whom I would dearly like to; I know they will forgive me—is to express my warmest thanks to my colleagues here on this Bench who have provided such able and agreeable help in bearing the Government's flag in this House. I know the others will not mind my saying that we have perhaps benefited most from the deep and intimate knowledge of the rating system possessed by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who, together with the Minister of State for Scotland, has also taken the lead when our debates have strayed away from England and Wales. May I say as an aside that it has at all times been a great comfort to me to know that when technical legal points have come up at short and unexpected notice my noble friend has sat there next to me. He really is a great comfort in every way. I am grateful to him. My thanks are also due to my noble friend Lord Belstead, who has coped with an unusual range of Home Office matters, stretching from police to pleasure boats.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers, not content with covering agricultural matters, has taken responsibility for some of the rating and for many of the complicated controls in Part I of the Bill. And I shall not forget the sterling services rendered in Committee by my noble friend Lord Sandys on new towns, and by my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, who helped with some of the urban development provisions. Last, but by no means least, there is my new colleague at the Department of the Environment, my noble friend Lord Avon,
1172
who has proved bold and resolute in this baptism of fire and has taken on such controversial issues, single handed I may say, as gipsies, and he has done it without flinching. So my special thanks are due to all of them for the hard work they have put in, and indeed for their kindness in the first place in agreeing to relieve me of some of this task. May I also thank the Whips and the business managers for their patience, skill, tolerance and understanding. This indeed was paramount.
But I think perhaps I should finally extend my thanks more widely to my other noble friends on the Benches behind. There were invaluable contributions from my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Morris and others, who I know will forgive me if I do not mention them individually; also, my thanks go to the noble Lords opposite who have spoken, and to all those Cross-Benchers who have made such a valuable contribution to our debates. My Lords, the atmosphere in this Bill, despite its contentiousness, its weight and its complexity, has usually been good-humoured and courteous, and I owe it to the whole House to thank them for this, which has eased my path in the formidable task of steering this Bill through the House. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bellwin.)
9.31 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, first, I should like to offer thanks from this side of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for his courtesy, his very conciliatory manner and his equanimity at all times. He has carried the heavy burden of this Bill and at times we wondered whether he was going to stay the course, but always he has remained good-tempered and kindly, and we are grateful to him. We offer thanks also to his officials for providing us with Notes on Clauses and on Government amendments, and heaven knows there have been enough of those, even another 20 today—so many that our fears have been confirmed during the passage of this Bill that it was ill-conceived and cobbled together in the first place. It leaves this House with four additional schedules

1173
and over 30 new clauses, which must be a record for any Bill.
We are drawing to the end of 13 long days' consideration of the Bill and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said, it seems a very long time since Second Reading on 5th August. We said then that this was a worrying Bill, because it is an enabling measure which will give the Secretary of State far too much power through secondary legislation, and at the very heart of this Bill, in Parts V, VI and VII, are a set of proposals which have fundamentally restructured the relationship between central Government and the local authorities. We have been unable to get the right assurances as to how these parts of the Bill will work, how a fair formula will be decided upon and on what basis, and what redress authorities will have if they feel they have been treated unfairly and that their particular local problems do not seem to have been taken into consideration.
The local authority associations and everyone working in local government or serving on local councils are still unhappy about this Bill, and they feel that local government will only be responsible for a group of agency services directed and overseen by civil servants in the Department of the Environment. We still say that the local authorities should be able to make their own judgments about their expenditure needs, capital or revenue, provided they are prepared to finance them from their own resources and make their own decisions with a due sense of responsibility and local accountability.
This was a monstrous Bill on 5th August, and it is not much less so today. The Government have given very little—lots of assurances, but very little written into the Bill—and personally I very much regret that the Government felt it necessary to reintroduce in this House, after being defeated in the Lobbies, the original subsection on the sale of new town assets. I am not denying the Government's right to try to reverse that decision, but I remember that when we were in Government we were always told by the noble Lords opposite that when they defeated us in the Lobbies it was because this House was a revising Chamber, and it was sent back to the other place to give
1174
them a chance to look at it again. It makes interesting speculation as to why this course was not followed in this particular instance. Could it be that some of the Government Members representing new towns might have appreciated the danger and voted against the Government if they had had a second chance?
My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has repeatedly said they are committed to new towns; they want to see them all completed. Again we have had assurances, but again, even as late as this evening, we have got nothing written into the Bill and no future Secretary of State can be bound by any assurances given by his predecessors. At Second Reading I said that it would be a sad, sad day for democratic local government if this ill-conceived Bill ever got on to the statute book but that we would do our best to amend it and make it more sensible and workable. We have fought hard to amend this Bill. I believe we have won many of the arguments but so few of the votes, and this iniquitous piece of legislation goes forward almost as the Government intended. We still maintain that it is a constitutionally deficient Bill. It is arbitrary. It gives far too much power over local government to the Secretary of State, to any Secretary of State, and it is a covert and a dangerous Bill which has gone a long way to destroying the mutual trust and confidence between local authorities and central Government, trust and confidence that has taken decades to build up.
The overall damaging effects will be inevitable when the Bill is enacted; it is so alien to our traditions of local government. Local government will be forced to put the blame on central Government for any failures to provide the services the people want and it will be the Ministers in another place who will have to spend a lot of time answering correspondence and Questions from MPs because their constituents will have to go to MPs when it is no longer a matter for their local councillors. The aggregate expenditure on local government is what matters and it has been proved from all parts of this House and admitted by the DoE that local government aggregate expenditure was strictly under control before the Bill even emerged. Indeed, if Government departments were as much under control

1175
and managed their affairs as well as local government, we should not be in the mess with PSBR that we are today.
Many people have given long years of service to local government at every level from parish and community councils to district councils, county councils and metropolitan authorities. They have fought their elections over the years on programmes tailored to suit their areas. If they wanted to provide more ambitious services than their neighbours they could do so in the sure and certain knowledge that if their electors approved of what they were trying to do they would probably hold their seats next time round, and equally certainly if they had gone too far they would be out on their ear. They had their independence and their freedom, and the price they paid—they paid it willingly—was that they had public and local accountability.
Local government is about different authorities with different needs and different resources. Different authorities come to different conclusions and make different decisions about their spending needs, and the justification for all that is their local accountability. After this Bill is enacted, that will all be history. From next week, local government as we have known it over the years will have gone. Local government in this country has a long and honourable record and it deserves better than this Bill, which shows a complete and utter disregard for local democracy and is a deliberate move to replace local control with central dictatorship.
I asked in Committee, speaking of noble Lords in all parts of the House who have had a distinguished record of service on local authorities: would you want to continue in local government as a puppet of a Secretary of State of whatever party? I appealed for help to remove the arbitrary clauses in the Bill. I failed, but my colleagues and I have fought a good and hard fight to save local government. I am proud to have worked with every one of them and I know we would do it all over again if at the end of the day local government could remain local, could retain its autonomy, its independence and its local accountability. But that is
1176
not to be, and it is a sad day for many of us to see the Bill leave this House virtually unamended in any of the respects that are so vital to save local government.
9.38 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I wish at the outset to join in the paeans of praise to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the way in which he has taken the principal part in conducting this very complex Bill through your Lordships' House. He got so carried away that he described my noble friend Lord Thurso as his noble friend; I am glad that he has certain friends on the Liberal Benches. The Minister's great experience of local government and his great patience in piloting the Bill through your Lordships' House have made what I thought was an impossible task into one that has been only just possible. He has been fortunate—he said that himself—to have had his noble and noble and learned colleagues on the Front Bench to help him, but the principal praise for the way in which the Bill has been conducted must go to Lord Bellwin.
I have found working with, and very rarely against, noble Lords on this side of the Chamber a pleasant experience, particularly the consideration and understanding I received from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and I have been most fortunate in the help and advice I have had from colleagues on my own Benches.
This is a Bill of 19 parts, 197 clauses, and 34 schedules, though I am sure that since today's proceedings it is much larger. During the period that we have been discussing it the West Germans have had an election, the Australians have had an election, and the United States have chosen a president. When one considers those points one gets some idea of the length of time that we have spent on this Bill.
An indication of the complexity and the difficulties of the Bill is provided by the fact that today when I arrived here starry-eyed after staying up very late last night watching the results of the American presidential election, I found a huge selection of further amendments from the

1177
Government. That is perhaps also an indication of the way in which, as the noble Baroness said, the Bill has been "cobbled" together by the Government.
So far as I am concerned the Bill is not only, as I originally suspected, an attack on my concept of local government—and obviously a concept which I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman—but it is also an attack on the reasonable and rational use of Parliament to discuss and improve proposed legislation. Furthermore, it seems to me to be an invasion by the executive of the function of the legislature, and certainly in many ways a mockery of the role of your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber.
I repeat that this is not a criticism of the noble Lord the Minister. It is a criticism of this enormous Bill, which is really six or seven, or perhaps even nine or 10, different Bills all added together. It is not really a way in which any Government of any political complexion should go about legislating. In clause after clause, and part after part, the Bill has introduced new opportunities for the Secretary of State to make orders, to introduce regulations, and to set down codes of practice. It is a question not only of the mammoth size of the Bill, but also of the fact that it triggers off a whole new creeping, cancerous growth of subordinate legislation. I remember that during an earlier stage of the discussion of the Bill in your Lordships' House—I think it was on Report—the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, rightly pointed out that the volume of this subordinate legislation would effectively preclude any serious examination or discussion of much of it, very important though it is.
The parliamentary process of examination and control of legislation, the protection of the rights of citizens and the right at local level—I underline at local level—to manage our own affairs is in very serious danger of breaking down under the legislative programme, or blitzkrieg, of this Government. The Bill has introduced a number of minor reforms, which I welcome, giving local authorities more freedom, but in my view these are largely cosmetic. In trying to deal with the long-standing
1178
major defect of British local government, its financing, the Bill has succeeded in further emasculating and centralising local government in what I believe to be—though I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister will not agree—a very dramatic way. First, it has removed the need for regular rating reviews, and thereby the Government have destroyed the tax base of local authorities. This will increase the anomalies and unpopularity of the rating system and remove any natural buoyancy in the rate base. The Government claim that they are considering the whole question of rating; in fact they have been claiming this since they came into office. No one, least of all the Government, expects quick results. In the interim the Government have now introduced uncertainty and arbitrariness into the timing of revaluations. In my view this is bad administrative practice carried out in the name of economy.
Secondly, by introducing the block grant, the Bill has made a fundamental attack on the two central basic decisions that individual local authorities have historically been able to make: the local authority's judgment of its own need to spend, and its determination of the rate that it needs to levy. To me those are two fundamental obligations, duties, and rights of local government. What has so concerned me and I am sure several noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber is the fact that during the passage of the Bill local government has ceased to be local government and has become local agency of central Government.
Try as the Government may, they cannot successfully hide, and they have failed to hide, this fundamental blow to local government autonomy. It will not do for the Government to say that local authorities can still make these decisions. The whole thrust of the transitional provisions and the block grant is to penalise heavily those authorities whose judgments and decisions differ from those of central Government. As I said earlier, during the course of the Committee stage of this Bill, the Bill introduces what I have described as the concept of democratic centralism as understood in the third article of the constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; namely, the obligation

1179
of lower bodies to observe the decisions of higher ones.
The Bill has further emasculated local independence by introducing urban development corporations to do the work that in my opinion locally-elected local authorities with a little more freedom could well have carried out themselves. Indeed, the whole purpose of setting up county councils under the 1972 legislation was to enable them to do these very things which have now been taken away from them; and by introducing fees for planning applications the Government have introduced a new and, to me, totally unacceptable principle of charging or, indeed, of taxing individuals for the privilege of accepting limitations on how an individual can use his own land and property.
My Lords, praising the noble Lord the Minister for the way in which he has conducted this Bill does not in any way diminish the view held on these Benches that this is a thoroughly bad piece of legislation, and is a blow to the very heart of democratic local government in this country.
9.47 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those which have already been expressed to my noble friend on the Front Bench for his conduct of this Bill. Those congratulations are all the more heartfelt because eight years ago I occupied his office. I believe I endured at least as many Divisions, and I am certain I suffered many more defeats. So I know what it feels like; and I am sure my noble friend is delighted to be at the stage we have now reached. His is, I think, an astonishing achievement, and perhaps the greatest tribute to him is that, although this friendless Bill leaves us almost as friendless as it was when it arrived, it leaves us with his personal reputation very firmly established and, if anything, very greatly enhanced. That is a remarkable achievement, and is thoroughly deserved.
My noble friend has done his persuasive best to infect us all with his own personal
1180
convictions about, and his own personal enthusiasm for, this Bill. I think he has been helped in that, if I may say so, by arranging for notes on clauses and notes on amendments to be issued to us, and that has enabled us to see more clearly what it was that the Government were intending to do. There is no doubt that his persuasiveness, coupled with those notes, has served to allay a number of suspicions and to remove a number of doubts, but I have to tell my noble friend and his noble friends on the Front Bench that there is a considerable job of work to be done before local government as a whole is persuaded that this Bill is going to be for their long-term benefit—and this work must be tackled very seriously when the Bill is on the statute book.
My Lords, I am sure we have been able to improve the Bill here and there, and I hope that another place will be able to acknowledge and accept the improvements we have made. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. It will come when we see the way the Bill works out in practice, and whether the fears expressed by noble Lords opposite (many of which, I am afraid, I share) about the extent to which central Government will be tempted and enabled to interfere in the workings of local government are justified. It will emerge when we see the quality and the tone—particularly the tone—of the many regulations that will emerge from this Bill, and when the benefits which Ministers claim for this Bill are realised, if in fact they can be realised.
My Lords, local government is used to criticism. Members and officers know that they have to accept criticism as part of the hazards of their office and that it is not for them to enjoy the rewards of profit, as it is in the private sector. During the passage of this Bill, particularly in this House, that criticism has been greatly intensified. It has been intensified by private industry, who find themselves grappling with the recession, with redundancies and with high interest rates; it has been intensified by central Government and not least by Ministers responsible for local government as they have been left grappling, not with complete success, with their own failure to control their own targets of public expenditure for

1181
which they were directly responsible; and it has been intensified by private individuals grappling with the manifold personal problems which beset them in these hard times.
Local government has learned to live with these criticisms and, I hope, to welcome it and use it constructively; but it cannot do so unless the criticism is specific, constructive and can be substantiated. I hope that a lot of these broad, general, wide swipes of criticism of local government will begin to die down; for they are destructive, damaging to morale, quite counter-productive and no useful purpose can be made of them. If this Bill enables local government to be criticised in a specific, constructive way which can be substantiated, it will do some good.
One of the reasons for this Bill is that local government is responsible for a very large sector of public expenditure, £14,000 million; and local government in present circumstances has a very clear duty to help cut our national economic coat according to our national economic cloth; to stop spending what we do not earn and to do everything it is required to do with the maximum efficiency. For instance, we must use the housing stock we have got; and the Housing Bill will help us to do that. Planners and the district councils who are now responsible for the employment of the great bulk of planners, must learn to encourage rather than to restrain productive enterprise. That is a lesson I am sure they are now learning fast. But there is not a great deal of mileage to be gained in curbing waste and extravagance because there is not as much of that about as people would like to believe. But where it exists, of course, it must be curbed and, if necessary, penalised.
But, in addition to that, certainly we will have to reduce services. We must certainly review charges where they are already made and consider introducing charges where they are not being made. It will be necessary certainly to reduce staff, I hope by means of natural wastage; but everyone in local government must realise that high wages in present circumstances can only accelerate reductions and oblige local government to move from
1182
natural wastage to enforced redundancies. In all this, it is most important that everybody concerned with trying to help local government do what is expected of them should distinguish between the savers and the spenders. For those local authorities—and I like to think it is the great majority—that have been trying to curb expenditure and to make savings for several years, it would be very difficult to do very much more. The fact that there are a few who have been spending far more than they should have been spending under present economic circumstances does not mean to say that huge savings can be made now suddenly by the great majority. They cannot.
The only other thing I want to say is that it is now the clear priority of local authorities, and the district councils in particular, to promote and support industrial development by the private sector. This is our highest priority. It involves a significant change of attitude by our planners, and that I think is being achieved. It requires an appraisal and the dissemination of examples of the best practice in this field by districts and their associated agencies, in the promotion of wealth-creating and job-creating business enterprises. If some of the clauses of this Bill help in this way I believe that our five weary weeks will not have been spent in vain.
9.55 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I should like to add a few words from this side of the House. I can understand the feelings of noble Lords about this Bill because many of them think that it is an English Bill. Certainly from the Front Bench opposite I have had nothing but courtesy—and I return nothing but admiration to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the way that he has conducted this Bill. He has shown a knowledge of local government that must have surprised many people who did not know him. When we appreciate that this Bill has followed the Housing Bill, the cast may have changed at times but not the cast on the Front Bench, because he was there during the Housing Bill and showed the same mastery of the subject. I am delighted about that.

1183
I am not going to thank him for the Bill. As a Scotsman, I consider this to be a bloated, mongrel measure. The future of this place is under question in certain parts of Parliament. I do not know whether the Prime Minister will be all that satisfied with what we have done. Inflation is the enemy. When it came to us, the Bill had 166 clauses; now it has 197. When it came to us it had 265 pages; now it has 330. When it came to us it had 30 schedules; now it has 34. So we have played our part in inflation.
From a Scottish point of view I say "mongrel". The Minister said at one point in his "farewell" speech that the heart of the matter was Part VI. How many clauses, my Lords, in Part VI apply to Scotland? Not a single one. There are 197 clauses, and more than 100 of them do not apply to Scotland. If we take the main clauses, Parts IV, V, VI, VII and VIII, dealing with local government allowances, rates, rate support grants, miscellaneous grants and capital expenditure—those 62 clauses—only seven apply to Scotland. When we take town and country planning, land held by public bodies, and so on, right through to land in Wales, Parts IX, X, XI and XII, there are only two of the 25 clauses which apply to Scotland. This is not the way to legislate for Scotland.
Tribute has been paid to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I challenge him as the adviser to the Government on Scottish law. He is not a Scottish Minister. He is a United Kingdom Minister; he is the adviser to the Government on Scottish law. Is this the way to legislate for Scotland? Is it fair to ask any Scottish local authority to go through all this Bill and pick out the bits and pieces that apply to Scotland? Is it fair to the Scottish lawyers? Are we going to reprint this Bill leaving out all the English parts? That is a simple, straightforward question and I should like an answer from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate now. Is that going to be done?
This has been done before and this always happens when we get this confusion of legislation. It is not good
1184
enough for somebody to get up and say: "It is a United Kingdom Bill". We have a corpus of law in Scotland related to local government. It is nothing to do with English local government; it is an entirely different system.
The same thing is true of town and country planning. The same thing is true of the oldest subject for legislation in Scotland, land. Why should we get this mixed up? It is absolutely impossible. It is asking a bit much for the few of us in this place who are Scots to plough our way through all this business of reading English legislation and trying to translate it in those clauses which apply to Scotland. By the way, the draftsmen have had an awful time with this, I am perfectly sure. I could suggest a few more amendments, but I have a little more to do with my time than spend it on this particular one.
I listened to the noble Lord who referred to 1973 and the time he had, because that was the Bill that dealt with local government reorganisation. The year 1973 was when the Tory Government introduced local government reorganisation for Scotland. Many people, including many people sitting opposite me tonight, felt that was a disaster for local government. They said that local government ceased to be local. I tend to agree with the noble Lord who spoke from the Liberal Benches that with this Bill it tends now not to be "government". More and more what we have got is directives and regulations, the law being laid down; and the choice of decision by local government has gone.
I remember a time when elections were fought by the party opposite on the platform of freedom for the local authorities. They have shackled them and they have shown that they have no confidence in them. The statutory responsibility for the functions is still upon local authorities, but if they seek to carry out their functions in accordance with what they think to be essential, they are going to be clobbered by the central authority and by the Secretary of State, be it in Whitehall or in St. Andrew's House.
It is not good enough, and I think that many people will live to regret the day,

1185
having already regretted that they took away the local aspect from local government. Now I think they have restricted the "government" part. My last plea
1186
is this: Never let this happen again, so far as Scottish legislation is concerned. This is the wrong way to treat Scottish legislation.
10.2 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, I do not know whether or not it is a coincidence that we are passing this Bill on Guy Fawkes' night and I will not go so far as to say that it is such a threat to democracy as that gentleman was; but I do think we have provided enough bonfire material to last for many years to come.
This Bill has fundamentally altered the relationship between local and central Government. It may be for the better or it may be for the worse. We cannot see into the future and we cannot be certain about it. All I think is that nothing will be quite the same again after this Bill. We have already had many disquieting reports about the complications which the new system of rate support grant is introducing.
Those of us who have taken part in these long debates have enjoyed it; I do not deny that. This House has done its utmost to do the job for which it exists, and it has done the job very well. I have been greatly privileged personally to be able to take some part in it and occasionally to weary your Lordships with some of the views of the Association of County Councils. I think we really must welcome the way the House has tackled the somewhat tedious subjects in parts of this Bill.
Let us look for a second into the future. I think that this country must devise a better way of financing local government than the complicated house of cards which we have constructed over the years and which is in danger at times of collapsing—a system which can blend accountability, responsibility and acceptability and which does not need this sort of legislation to control it. It is about 70 years or more since the question of local government finance was raised in Parliament. I think it was under A. J. Balfours' Administration, which ought to please the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. Anyway, whether or not we have succeeded in solving it is a matter which I think your Lordships would agree is uncertain. We must give local authorities freedom, because I think democracy suffers very greatly if the local authorities are not free, and one of the essential parts of a vigorous democracy is a sound local government.
1188
I believe that this House, whether it be reformed or not, is ideally placed to look more closely at how we really can finance local government properly in the future. We need at least a year's rest from this subject—I am sure that your Lordships would agree that nobody wants to talk about it at the moment—but after such a period I do hope that we can return to it with a renewed sense of purpose and a feeling of how to make this thing work.
I should like to add a very sincere tribute to my noble friend Lord Bellwin for all that he has done to pilot this Bill through the House. I shall not repeat what has been already said, but I feel strongly that he has done a marvellous job on behalf of the Government and to help local authorities. He has explained so many difficult subjects to us with great expertise and skill. His readiness to listen, if not to concede amendments, is something that we all deeply appreciate, and he has been well supported by many other Ministers.
But I hope that he, and his friends in the Government, realise that there is concern in local authorities up and down the land at some of the measures which have been passed tonight. I hope that they are wrong, and I hope that I am wrong in saying this. I cannot help saying it, because I believe it is what people think, and I cannot deny that many local authorities think that I and some others on these Benches have perhaps not fought the Bill as hard as we might have done. But we have done our best. I think that there are bridges which now need to be rebuilt between the Conservative Party and their friends in local government, and I hope that, in some small way. I can play a little part in that process in the future.
10.6 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, is so right. There is one note of unanimity in this House during the closing phases of our debates, and it is that we have had the privilege of hearing in charge of this Bill someone who is undoubtedly a very good and a very courteous Minister. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood in this

1189
expression. He is, indeed, a man of many parts, as this Bill is a Bill of many parts, and, as I said, I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I say that if only the parts of the Bill were as comely and attractive as the parts of the Minister, my noble friends and I would be happier tonight than we are.
It is an astonishing time to hear this debate on whether the Bill should pass. Listening to some of the speeches of noble Lords opposite, I have closed my eyes and wondered why they are not on these Benches, or, if they have not been on these Benches during the passage of this Bill, where they have been in the Division Lobbies. If they had been there this Bill might have been very drastically amended.
I suppose that few of us can remember an occasion in regard to such a measure as a local government Bill of this kind when the views of the local authority associations throughout the country have been completely ignored. This is an extraordinary situation and one that, unfortunately, does not bode well for future relationships. But I suppose that we are all grateful for the offer of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that he will serve as a bridge over this crumbling relationship and endeavour to make it better than it seems to be at this moment.
Nobody wants to repeat a Second Reading speech tonight. I only want to say this on behalf of my noble friends and myself: the pitiful part of the Bill, as we see it—and this is not just empty criticism for the sake of criticism—is that we feel that it has dealt a very harsh blow at democracy in this country. We think it has done it, not just because of the reasons that have been advanced, that government has gone out of local government, or local has gone out of local government and authority has gone out of local authority. It is not just that. It is, as my friends and I have tried to show so often—and I know that our colleagues on the Liberal Benches have done the same—the shame that we feel that people should be so discouraged from entering into the service of local government, because so many powers and discretions have been taken away that it almost makes their job meaningless.
1190
The other blow to democracy is this. Many of us who have served in local government over the years, and have loved it, have found ourselves somewhat discouraged at election time when we have seen the size of the polls. It has been a matter of grave concern to all of us. If it was small before, what has the voter been left to vote for now if all the powers, discretions, capital expenditures, limits of expenditure and so on are taken away from authorities and if all that they are left with as political parties is to say, "Well, it may be that what we have done is the fault of central Government" or, if they are on the attack, "Had it not been for the limited amount that we have been given by central Government we could have done better".
We feel that this is a sorry Bill and a bad Bill. We have done our best to amend it. We have met with courtesy on the other side—I hope that I am using my words very carefully—but with a firmness that at times has seemed to be rigidity. I am sorry for the sake of this House that there has been that rigidity, but if ever we have an opportunity on our side of the House of challenging what has happened as a result of this Bill we shall do so, in the hope that at least at some time an amending measure may be brought about.
10.11 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, at this time I, too, have no intention of making another Second Reading speech, but I ought to respond as briefly as I can—I shall try to do so very briefly—to some of the points that have been made. May I begin by thanking everybody who has spoken for being so kind to me personally. I appreciate that very much indeed. It is quite a traumatic thing to go through, and even more to hear nice things said in this way. It makes one feel very humble. That is certainly how I feel at the moment. However, I must pick up some of the points which have been made. I am only sorry it seems that in debates which take place on, That the Bill do now pass? that in addition to the courtesies and the expressions of mutual respect there has to be a reference to what the legislation is about.

1191
When the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that local government, as we have known it, will have gone as a result of the Bill, I am sure that she does not expect me to agree with her. My personal hopes and aspirations for local government are not one whit less than hers—or less than anybody else's, if it comes to that. May I repeat something which I said at some stage down the line; namely, that if I did not believe in what we as a Government were putting forward I could not do it in the way I like to feel that I have done and that many of your Lordships have been good enough to say I have done. Therefore, as always with most things in life, there is more than one point of view.
On this basic fundamental of all fundamentals—that is, the freedom for local government to do things—I would pray in aid of very much the myth of existing freedom: at least, the freedom in local government today which is far less free than it was when I came into local government in the early 1960s. When one compares what we are going to leave local government with after this Bill has been passed and what we found, then one simply has to accept that there is a great gap between us regarding how we see it. I am not going to weary the House by going through all the reasons why I think that this is so. Noble Lords would not thank me for that, and it would not be right that I should do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, made his major attack upon the financial provisions—the block grant. He referred to the two aspects to which I also wish to refer; namely, the extent to which the block grant either increases or decreases the ability of local government to make its own decisions about what it spends and about what it rates. I repeat what I have said so often: that it does not in any way affect that, because it is all about—and it is only about—the distribution of grant from the central taxpayer.
There is a finite sum of money every year which goes out to local government in the form of the rate support grant settlement. It is u fixed sum. The whole debate—you can call it block grant or
1192
you can call it what you like—is all about how you distribute that money among some 450 authorities. Everything else is peripheral. It is all about that, and I maintain that categorically because we, through the block grant, think that this is a better way of doing it than the unloved and criticised-by-everyone existing method. It is for that reason that I think we have something better. If we differ about it, as my noble friend Lord Sandford said, at the end of the day the proof of the pudding is in the eating and we shall have to see, when all the debate is done with, whether we were right or wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said such nice things to start with, and then he spoiled it! I only say that he complained so bitterly about how little in the Bill affected Scotland, when all the rest of his colleagues on this side complained so bitterly about how much it affected England. There is no doubt about it, one really cannot win !
I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford for his very kind remarks and, as I said a moment ago, he summed it up by saying "the proof of the pudding will be in the eating". I always appreciate what my noble friend Lord Ridley says. He was very kind to me, and he was right when he said that there is concern in local government. My goodness! if we do not know that now, we do not know anything. Of course there was concern before, there is concern now, and there will go on being concern. If as a Government, with this Bill under our belt—if that is the right way to put it, and probably it is the wrong way—we cannot in fact show that it is better for local government, then that concern will be justified. I submit that it will be for the good of local government.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, throughout these proceedings, as indeed in the proceedings on the other two Bills in which I have been involved, has always been so gracious and so eloquent and so persuasive, and I sometimes feel, as with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, how sad it is that one is not able to move all the way that they would like us to do. Many of their arguments were very sound and sensible, and I hope in return they will accept that where there is a balance between us I take

1193
the Government's line because I believe that just has the edge on a narrow situation. I am grateful to Lord Mishcon for all the kind things he said, and I urge him, as indeed I urge all noble Lords opposite, not to feel so disheartened about it. It is a Bill of which I myself am very proud because I think it will do for local government many of the things we always dreamed about and wanted to see. Only time will tell. With that, I wind up a very long session indeed, and I am very thankful that I do.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendments.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
Fourth Report from the Select Committee made and to be printed.
  MEDICAL REPORTS AT PRISONS
  MEDICAL REPORTS AT PRISONS
  BRITISH CITIZENS IN PRISON ABROAD
  BRITISH CITIZENS IN PRISON ABROAD
  CLUB ROW MARKET INCIDENT: COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE
  CLUB ROW MARKET INCIDENT: COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE
  LIVE FOOD ANIMAL EXPORTS
  LIVE FOOD ANIMAL EXPORTS
  ONSHORE HYDROCARBONS EXPLORATION LICENCES
  ONSHORE HYDROCARBONS EXPLORATION LICENCES
  ONSHORE EXPLORATION LICENCES: RESTRICTIONS
  ONSHORE EXPLORATION LICENCES: RESTRICTIONS
  MARSHAM STREET, WESTMINSTER: COACH PARKING FACILITIES
  MARSHAM STREET, WESTMINSTER: COACH PARKING FACILITIES
  SHEFFIELD UNIVERSITY: THEFT OF LABORATORY ANIMALS
  SHEFFIELD UNIVERSITY: THEFT OF LABORATORY ANIMALS
  STUDENTS. MANDATORY MAINTENANCE GRANTS
  STUDENTS. MANDATORY MAINTENANCE GRANTS
  STUDENTS: DISCRETIONARY AWARDS
  STUDENTS: DISCRETIONARY AWARDS
  STUDENTS: POSTGRADUATE AWARDS
  STUDENTS: POSTGRADUATE AWARDS

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: GLOBAL NEGOTIATIONS
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on what grounds they are opposing the framework of the global round of negotiations on international economic co-operation for development.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we worked hard at the recent United Nations Special Session to find an acceptable framework for the global negotiations. However, we were unable to agree on the procedures eventually proposed. We judged that they did not sufficiently protect the integrity of the United Nations specialised agencies. The United States and the Federal Republic of Germany took the same view. Discussion will shortly resume at the General Assembly. We hope that it will come to an early and successful conclusion.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, was this not a modified proposal made by the developing nations, in a sincere effort to try to break the deadlock of the last seven years? Was it not supported by every delegation, except the United States, West Germany and, I thought, a rather reluctant Britain? Did not the supporters include all the rest of Europe, the Soviet Union, China and Japan? Can I have an assurance that the Government will do their utmost in the General Assembly, and at the summit conference next year, to make a beginning to end the hunger of one-third of the world's population?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we shall certainly be ready to play our part when the General Assembly resumes shortly to consider this matter. That will be on 17th November. But I do not think it would be helpful for me to speculate now on the chances of success.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister three questions which relate directly to the preparation for global negotiations? First, when the Vienna conference meets tomorrow, is it the case that Britain will not be present? Secondly, is it the case that there has been a much heavier cut in development aid than in any other aspect of Government expenditure in this country? Thirdly, is it the case that this policy of the British Government has been successively criticised and condemned by the Commonwealth finance Ministers, by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth organisation and, finally, by the President of the World Bank?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, if I may say so, all that goes rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. But it is true that there is a sponsors meeting in Vienna on 7th and 8th November to discuss the timing, agenda and participation of the North-South summit. But the countries attending that meeting are co-sponsors.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not the case that the real objection to this proposal, particularly by the United States of America, was not to the procedures, but to the proposal for the restructuring of the International Monetary Fund? May I also ask the Minister this question: Did not the terms of reference include "energy and resource transfers", and has there not been a developed attitude by the OPEC countries towards aid to the third world, supported by Algeria, Venezuela, Kuwait and, sympathetically, by Saudi Arabia? Does this not give hope of some settlement of this problem, if we have the co-operation of the three dissentient Governments?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, again, if I may say so, the question of OPEC aid goes rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. But as for the earlier part of the noble Lord's supplementary,

1201
we think that the specialised agencies have shown that they are capable of evolving to cope successfully with changing needs. We do not believe that any other body could have the skill or the expertise to make decisions on matters for which they are responsible.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord the Minister did not, by any means, fully answer my Question. Why is it that the British Government will be absent from the conference in Vienna in the next two days, when most of the industrial countries, who, incidentally, have promised increased aid, will be present?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we were not asked.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, why is the noble Lord so coy at expressing the view that Britain may have some reluctance in arranging for other people to spend our money?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, with respect, I think that that, as the noble Lord's supplementaries sometimes are, is an over-simplification.

COUNCIL HOUSE SALES
3.6 p.m.
Lord GAINFORD: 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 are the latest figures for the number of council houses sold to tenants in England and Wales under the May 1979 General Consent and what has been the demand since 3rd October 1980 for the right-to-buy application forms and booklets from the Department of the Environment.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, some 74,800 vacant or tenanted council dwellings were sold in England and Wales between April 1979 and June 1980, the latest date for which we have such information on a countrywide basis. Separate figures for sales to
1202
tenants are not available. Up to 31st October 1980, 389,000 right-to-buy claim forms and 675,000 booklets had been distributed by the department, mostly in response to requests from local authorities. These totals include some 57,000 copies of each document sent to individual tenants who had requested them by completing the coupon placed in national newspapers. It is not known how many tenants have asked their local authorities for the documents. The figures excluded the initial distributions of 341,000 claim forms and 691,000 booklets.
Lord GAINFORD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very exact Answer. Will he agree that those figures are encouraging for the Government's policy of helping council tenants to buy their homes? Secondly, has he any information concerning certain press reports, alleging that some councils are endeavouring to obstruct the Government's policy by threatening tenants to withdraw work of maintenance or repair unless those tenants surrender their right to buy?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, on the first point, yes, it is interesting that so many people asked, and we shall have to see how many of those requests are translated into actual sales. On the second point, we know of what we read and what we hear, and we shall watch the situation very carefully. Of course, one would deplore a situation such as that which my noble friend described. I would only repeat what my right honourable friend has said—that we shall take all steps necessary to ensure that the statutory rights of individual tenants will not be frustrated.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, in view of the moratorium which was announced about a week ago on council building, and which will also include private building and improvements, do the Government not think that, certainly for the time being while this is going on, there should be not increased encouragement for people to buy their houses, together with the giving out of all these application forms and booklets, but a drawing back, because of the numbers of people who are on the waiting lists for houses and flats, who will not get them, and whose condi-

1203
tion will get worse because of the increase in sales?
Lord BELLWIN: No, my Lords, I do not agree. I should only like to reiterate what I have said before on this point, that because tenants buy the homes in which they live, and in which they have lived for some time, they make neither more nor less of such dwellings available to those who are on any waiting list.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am sorry to follow this up but it is important. With great respect, I was asking the Minister whether or not he agrees that it can make a difference, because many people who are unable to buy their council houses because of the present pressure on council houses for rent will go and find them somewhere else. If they buy them up, it means that people in flats cannot be moved into houses with gardens. This is exactly what is happening in all parts of the country.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I do not accept that exposition.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he agrees that Socialist-controlled councils and Conservative-controlled councils both have long waiting lists of people who want to buy their council houses?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, we shall have better intimation of that when the many forms which I described earlier have been processed and handled, but it is no secret that there are great numbers of people who wish to buy, as was indicated by the fact that 57,000 people have sent in a form directly from newspapers.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the local council valuation department or the district valuer's office settles the price?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, this is a matter for the individual authorities and it will be done either way. It just depends how they propose to operate the scheme in their individual areas.

INVESTMENT IN UK BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES
3.12 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can estimate the total capital investment made in the United Kingdom by:

(a) other EEC countries;

(b) the USA; and

(c) Japan;

since Britain joined the Common Market in 1972.
The MINISTER of STATE, TREASURY (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, direct investment in the United Kingdom by other EEC countries totalled £1 billion between 1973 and 1978, the latest year for which figures are available. This excludes oil investment. For the United States, the comparable figure is £3 billion and for Japan £50 million. Investment in the United Kingdom by other EEC countries and by the United States has been significantly higher since we joined the EEC, and in recent years the figures have been on a strongly rising trend.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for those extremely stimulating figures, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the £1 billion from the EEC and the £3 billion from the United States have created not only a massive injection of capital but a massive injection of technology and the jobs which go with those two factors? May I ask my noble friend whether these jobs would be put at risk if a future Government decided that we should no longer be a base within the EEC and if we should be compelled to leave the EEC under left-wing policies?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the point made by my noble friend is a very valid one. Inward investment of this kind is of great value to the United Kingdom economy, both for the jobs it creates and for the new skills and new products it brings into the United Kingdom

1205
economy. There is no doubt whatever that our membership of the EEC has greatly stimulated investment of this kind in the United Kingdom.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to explain why, in view of the rising trend of investment by EEC countries in the United Kingdom, there is more unemployment?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the rising trend of investment in the United Kingdom has created additional employment in the United Kingdom. The level of unemployment would have been higher but for this inward investment. It is a matter of considerable significance that during the 1970s the proportion of total employment in manufacturing industry, represented by foreign-owned companies, increased from 9 per cent. of the total to 14 per cent. of the total.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, if we are genuinely trying to assess the consequences of joining the EEC, ought we not to avoid these highly selective figures? In this particular case, can the noble Lord tell us what was the outward investment over this period into the EEC countries?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, membership of the EEC has given the United Kingdom investment opportunities which otherwise would not have existed. It is of course a complete fallacy to assume that outward investment of this kind is at the expense of the United Kingdom economy. This is not true at all. There is a shortage in this country not of the capital needed for investment but of profitable investment opportunities, and it is those profitable investment opportunities that we need to create.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, what the noble Lord says may have some truth in it, but would he now be good enough to answer my question? Would he tell me what was the outward investment over the same period?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the Question is directed to the inward investment in the United Kingdom. If the noble Lord wishes figures for outward investment, which is the reverse of inward investment, perhaps he would table a Question.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us, with a view to the Japanese inward investment, whether the opportunities for outward investment by British companies into Japan are the same and as easy as are the Japanese ones into this country?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I think, with respect to my noble friend, it is valid to make the point that inward investment from Japan is of a very small order indeed. In fact, £50 million over the period 1973 to 1978 does not represent any very significant inflow.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister tell us how much portfolio investment there was, which does not create employment or new products?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, portfolio investment is a completely different question from investment in British industry.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the outward investment from the United Kingdom to the various sources of investment named here over the same period is considerably in excess of the figures that the noble Lord has given us relating to inward investment in this country? Is he further aware that a large amount of the inward investment in this country in money terms has also been counteracted by some £2,000 million worth of cash contribution out of the taxpayers' money to the EEC?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, so far as the last point raised by the noble Lord is concerned, the present Government have taken effective steps to deal with the contribution payable to the EEC, a matter about which the previous Administration did nothing whatever, despite their claim to have renegotiated the financial terms. So far as the first supplementary question of the noble Lord is concerned, he is assuming that outward investment is to the detriment of the United Kingdom. It is nothing of the sort; it is of value to the United Kingdom in many directions, not the least because outward investment often provides exports from the United Kingdom.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he entirely misrepresented what I said? In the question which I put to him I did not suggest that outward investment from the United Kingdom was not advantageous to the United Kingdom. He, as he very often does, put those words into my mouth. I asked the noble Lord for his confirmation in quantitative terms, irrespective of the benefits conferred one way or the other, that the outward investment to those sources in fact exceeded the inward input from those sources.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, I am glad to have his support that outward as well as inward investment is of great value to the United Kingdom. So far as the figures are concerned, I have made the point in reply to his noble friend that the Question relates to inward investment in the United Kingdom. If he wishes the figures for outward investment, perhaps he would table a Question.
Lord GRANVILLE of EYE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the figures he has given refer entirely to capital investment and not to "hot" money coming into this country to take advantage of the high interest rates, money which can be withdrawn at the drop of a hat?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the figures that I have given relate to direct investment in British industry in the form of buildings, plant, machinery and working capital. That is an entirely different question from the question of money which may come into this country for other reasons.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, perhaps I may put one last point. In view of these satisfactory figures and the fact that my noble friend said that there was a rising investment in this country, can he perhaps on some future occasion bring these figures more up to date? It is sad that they relate to 1975–78 while here we are nearly in 1981.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I shall be very happy to do so as soon as the figures are available.

BROADCASTING BILL
3.20 p.m.
Read 3a, with the amendments.
Clause 7 [Content of annual reports]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 43, at end insert ("in particular to include some comment from the existing Educational Advisory Council of the IBA on the quality and quantity of the educational programmes broadcast on the Fourth Channel.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I moved this motion on Monday it was uncharacteristically brushed off by the noble Lord with little civility, on two patently inadequate grounds—first, that I had referred to a committee instead of a council and secondly that I was trying to push the claims of the Open University in an underhand way. "We ought to do that openly", the noble Lord said, implying quite clearly that I had not been doing it openly. This is a clear allegation of devious procedure and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.
As to the first point, the central source of the educational policy for the whole independent television system is the Educational Advisory Council, assisted by the Adult Education Committee and the Schools Committee. It seemed to me that it was perfectly obvious to the meanest intelligence that that was what I was referring to, and I apologise to the House for having used the word "committee" instead of "council". Members drawn from different parts of the education system are chosen for their critical commitment to educational broadcasting.
What I am trying to achieve is to have a professional view from educationists as to how the fourth channel is shaping up to its obligations under the very general terms of Clause 3. In this form of my amendment I am no longer asking for a report from people independent of the IBA, which I did originally and was refused. I am content to hear from the IBA's educational advisers. Nor am I, in this new version, insisting on the report of the Advisory Council being included in the IBA annual report. I am only asking for comments.
Since we spoke on Monday, this year's IBA report has been issued and the six

1209
long columns on education in Chapter 4 make interesting reading in the light of our discussions. They say:
"We mean to devote resources to establishing the new structure of educational broadcasting wider and deeper than what appears on the screen. The power of broadcasting resides not only in direct teaching but perhaps even more in its power to stir and arouse, to motivate and to stimulate".
They go on to discuss some of their preschool programmes, and state:
"The parents concerned, however, had no particular perception of these series as educational".
I think this bears out the difficulties of the situation.
I entirely support this kind of widening of education but, as my noble friend Lord Perry pointed out on Monday, there must be a proper proportion between narrow education in the academic sense and broad education in the sense of fascinating programmes which catch the imagination. I suppose it would not be foolish in this sense to say that "The Archers" is educational. It certainly catches the imagination and is about a reasonable picture of real life. But I think it is not what we mean when we say that we want a certain number of hours to be devoted to education. In the view of my noble friend the BBC is already going too far in this direction. It is a difficult subject and it is for this reason that I think it proper to ask for an expert assessment which Parliament can consider each year.
The method I have suggested is not onerous. The council referred to—that is, the Educational Advisory Council of the IBA—will have to report periodically, I assume, and sometimes, I presume, critically to the IBA council, and all we are asking is that the relevant extracts from these comments should be included in the IBA report. For example, if the council said, "We are very disappointed at the progress that the IBA has made" I think we ought to be told that, and I do not think we should have it sieved through the views of the people who are responsible. If the noble Lord is going to refuse this very modest request, I hope he will find better reasons than he was able to give us on Monday.
As to the Open University, my noble friend Lord Goodman hammered home
1210
the point on Monday that the IBA has never made any use of the Open University at all. Let me now hammer home the point, too, that I have never urged that it should. What I want, and what the Open University wants, is that the future educational programmes on the fourth channel, which this Bill is about, should be watched carefully to make sure that they do not slip in the way my noble friend suggests that current educational programmes on the BBC are slipping.
This is a serious and important point and I am unable to comprehend the Government's indifference to it. The BBC has a governing body which has allowed this to slip and in the same way the IBA might allow a decline, so the very modest check on standards which this amendment requires seems to be the minimum we need for the future of the fourth channel. I beg to move.
Lord PERRY of WALTON: My Lords, I should like to add a word or two in support of this amendment. This Bill creates a fourth television channel in Britain. It will not only create a new service that will try to be different from the three existing services, but will also quite inevitably have profound effects on the other three channels. That is my first and major contention. I believe that the effects will be maximal on BBC 2. Competition for audience ratings has so far been mainly between BBC 1 and IBA 1; BBC 2 has been relatively free to cater for minority audiences. I suggest that, when the fourth channel starts, competition will be between BBC 1 plus BBC 2 on the one hand and IBA 1 plus IBA 2 on the other hand. This will be forced by economic reality, whatever high-minded ideals the authorities may hold. Thus the effects of this Bill will be much more wide-reaching than its influence just on the fourth channel.
Secondly, looking at the special needs of education, the Bill requires that the fourth channel authority shall devote a suitable proportion of time to programmes of an educational nature. What, my Lords, is "a suitable proportion of time"? May I suggest that it could well be zero time, provided that the other three channels cater properly for education, but may I also suggest that should the fourth channel, through enforcing competition for ratings, lead to a reduction of educa-

1211
tional broadcasting on the other three channels, the effect will be disastrous and an allocation of even quite a large amount of time on the fourth channel itself for education might be a wholly unsuitable proportion? We cannot know these things in advance. The effects of this Bill will remain mysterious until the fourth channel is in existence.
This amendment, as I said on Monday, imposes no constraint whatsoever on the freedom of the authorities of the fourth channel. All it asks for is a report annually by professional educationists of what the fourth channel is doing. I would, of course, prefer a report that said what all four channels are doing, but it would be wholly inappropriate in a Bill of this kind. What the amendment asks for would at least allow a debate that should take care of the overall situation for education on the basis of what the fourth channel is doing. I support the amendment.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I am particularly interested in adult education, as I think a number of Questions I have put down in this House in the past would bear witness. I am also interested in the education of other groups, and I mentioned teenagers and school-leavers the other day, who I think are very important at the moment. What we are worried about is the gap between expressed intention and actual achievement in adult broadcasting on the part of the IBA TV and local radio companies. I think it is admitted that that gap exists, and we do not want that to happen with this new fourth channel. What we want is for the public to know, from the comment by professionals for which we are asking, whether the intention and the achievement are matching up. If they are not and we know about it, some pressure can be brought to bear. Here in this House probably we could put down Questions for oral and Written Answers. But if we do not have the comment available on the quality and the quantity we shall not have the information on which we can act.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, spoke of the existing Adult Education Committee of the IBA the other day and was surpised that I had not mentioned it when I spoke. But I should have thought that the
1212
Education Advisory Council was the body to ask for comment and report overall, and it was in a way a bit nit-picking and unworthy of the noble Lord to object on those grounds to what I had had to say. This is a very serious amendment and a very important one, and we feel very strongly about it. I should like to support my noble friend, and hope that the House will, too.
Lord MILVERTON: My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend opposite. I think there are some good educational programmes of various sorts on BBC and ITV, but—and it is a large "but" —there are many of us, I for one, who would like more programmes of really good educational content. As I say, there are some on BBC and ITV, but we could certainly do with some more. That is why at this time I will support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I hope this fourth channel will give us more educational content programmes from which we really can receive knowledge.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Donaldson sponsors a proposal related to education. I naturally, with my lack of knowledge of the subject, feel inclined to support him; and when a noble Lord from the Cross-Benches, speaking—and I say this without any condescension—with expert knowledge on the subject, enters the debate, I am fortified in the view I have just expressed. And what I have said refers also to what the noble Baroness, Lady David, has said.
What worries me is how we define education. Some time ago, when the Education Bill was passing through the House in all its stages, I ventured to ask that question, because all I heard from the experts, the intellectuals, the semi-intellectuals, the would-be intellectuals and the pretentious intellectuals, was reference to the machinery of education, the number of schools required, their character, their architectural features, the number of teachers, the school managers and superintendents. That is all I heard, but not a word about the content and substance of education.
When reference is made to education, I recall watching some time ago—I think

1213
it was on a Saturday afternoon, when I had nothing else to do—a scientist of repute addressing a vast number of children on what was presumably a scientific topic. Whether the children understood him I am unable to say, but I certainly did not. I will tell your Lordships why; because what he lacked—and this certainly relates to education—was a capacity to speak with some elocutional facility. He mumbled and mumbled and was hardly articulate. It seems to me that when this channel or that channel or a forthcoming channel enters into this sphere of education, at any rate those who are responsible for addressing an audience, whatever the size of that audience may be—it may run into many millions—ought to be articulate. That is one aspect of education.
What is the rest of it? I am on the horns of a dilemma, because I can imagine if some of my colleagues in another place were asked what kind of education should be presented on one of the channels, they would say Marxian economics, dialectical materialism, the theory of social value and all the jargon associated with what is called Marxism. I tried to understand it many years ago and I failed completely, and that is why I remained in the centre of politics, neither on the Right nor the Left. And if somebody else was asked, they would have said more football or more tennis; or would ask: Why do we not have more snooker? Or, are there not other sports which are of an educational value?—and so on.
When we enter into this sphere we find ourselves in some difficulty: at least, I do. Therefore, I venture to ask this question. Will someone tell me—perhaps my noble friend Lord Donaldson, although I do not think he has the right to speak again unless it be with the leave of the House; but I hope he will be allowed to speak again with the leave of the House—the answer to this question, and I want somebody with authority to answer the question: What do you mean by education? Dismiss the school managers, dismiss the architecture, dismiss the number of teachers and the rest of it. What is meant by the substance and content of education?
3.39 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, even though he may not have defined it, has argued, I think persuasively, in the speech he made, for an important place for educational programmes on the fourth channel, and other noble Lords have argued likewise. If I may say so, they do not need to convince the Government. The Government believe that the fourth channel should indeed have an important educational content, however it is defined, and that is the reason why Clause 3(1)(b) requires the inclusion of a suitable proportion of programmes of an educational nature. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will not ask me what a suitable proportion is. That is why Clause 7(2)—we are on Clause 7 now—requires the IBA to make particular reference to such programmes in describing the programmes both on independent television and on the fourth channel and to give an account of the differences between them for the purposes of their annual report.
I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for dealing with a similar amendment at the Report stage of the Bill in a manner which was unacceptable to him and to other noble Lords. I apologise for any discourtesy I may have shown to the noble Lord. I hope he will not mind my going on now to say that I confess I remain unconvinced of the merits of this amendment. Quite simply, I genuinely do not see how the IBA could possibly discharge the duty—and it is a duty—under Clause 7(2)(a) without reflecting the views of the Educational Advisory Council. To say that the annual report must have some parts of it written by one, and one only, of the IBA's many advisory committees seems, to use a homely expression, a little bit like teaching your grandmother. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, has spoken once again of the undoubted claims of the Open University, in particular putting forward the claims for the Open University to have proper recognition on the medium which it needs; namely, on television. Obviously, the IBA will want to have the advisory council's views on this and will take account of them in weighing up the claims of this and of other areas of education for programming time.
However, as I have tried to indicate, I really am a bit surprised at seeing this amendment on the Order Paper. I think

1215
one thing is abundantly clear. If, as I may just ask my noble friend Lord Milverton to do, we look at the actual wording of the Bill, we see that the new fourth channel is going to be pointed very firmly indeed in the direction of an educational content for its programmes. Clause 3(1)(b) requires a suitable proportion of programmes to be educational and Clause 7(2)(a) requires the IBA's annual report to deal with its educational programmes on both channels and to explain how much there has been on one channel and how much there has been on another. In carrying out these duties, as it is statutorily bound to do, the Independent Broadcasting Authority cannot avoid reflecting the views of the advisory committee that it is statutorily bound to appoint. It is on those grounds that I genuinely believe that this amendment is not necessary.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would deal with this question, which presents itself forcibly to my mind. Supposing the IBA were in flat disagreement with their educational advisory body; would there not be at any rate some case for revealing the grounds of disagreement so that they might be discussed in wider circles, perhaps in your Lordships' House?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, of course, it is for the House to decide as to whether the annual report of the IBA and, indeed, the annual report of the BBC are debated in your Lordships' House; similarly for Members in another place. There is nothing to stop the Members of your Lordships' House doing their best to dissect the annual report and to find out exactly what lies not only in its words but behind its words. For some reason which is totally unexplained in this amendment, a duty would be placed upon this particular advisory committee to write part of the annual report, but apparently none of the other advisory committees has got a similar duty.
But so far as I know those advisory committees are not muzzled. There is nothing said as to why a member of an advisory committee should not reveal that they have been saying one thing in advice to the IBA and that they are very
1216
sorry that maybe their advice has not been taken. As I flicked through the pages of the IBA's annual reports I happened to notice that one of your Lordships is a member of one of the IBA advisory committees. So these things are not going to be a deep, dark secret. The difficulty about this amendment is that it requires, literally, the pen to be held by the Educational Advisory Council and for part of the annual report actually to be written by that advisory council. It is not showing very much trust in the IBA to make that requirement.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, unfortunately I have the right of reply, so I shall have to say something to my noble friend before we finish. I do not think the noble Lord has read this amendment; he was looking at the last one. The terms of the amendment are to include some comment. This does not involve a pen. There is only one advisory council to the IBA which is concerned with education. There are some committees, and presumably it subsumes them, if that is the right word; so I do not think the argument about other advisory councils has anything to do with it. The point of my amendment and of our feelings on this side of the House is extremely well illustrated by my noble friend's difficulty in knowing what it is all about. I will now define education in my terms. An educational statement is something which either does, or is intended to, leave the hearer knowing more after than before the statement was made. This seems to me what education really means nowadays, and it is too wide to leave in a Bill like this without some check.
We have been very loyal to the Government, because in another place a lot of my colleagues tried to specify what education meant, to tie down Clause 3. My view was that one could not get Mr. Dell and Mr. Isaacs to do a good job if one tried to do it for them; therefore I want it to be as wide as possible. Having said it has got to be as wide as possible, I want it to have some check outside the people who are paid to do it. The man who is, or will be, paid to do it is my noble friend Lord Thomson, who is going to be the new head of the IBA; and, respect him as I do as a man of total integrity and knowing far more about education than what my noble friend

1217
might call a pretentious intellectual like myself, I still think it is absolutely wrong to give him a duty of this very vague kind and leave him to decide whether or not the arrangements he makes are working well.
I do not think we can take it any further. The point that my noble friend from the Open University made is very important; it is that if this does become too general in the form of education and also uses up some of the educational hours which already exist, which of course it will, then one will get less of a formal type of education and more of the Archers type, which is not what everybody means. I do not think it is worth discussing it
further. I should like to end by saying that of course I accept the noble Lord's very handsome apology. We have had many little rubs and this is only another, and I bear no ill-will. I should like the House to express its opinion on this amendment because I think it is an extraordinarily important point. Therefore, I should like to have a vote.
3.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 109.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hale, L.

Peart, L.

Amherst, E.

Hall, V.

Perry of Walton, L.

Amulree, L.

Halsbury, E.

Phillips, B.

Ardwick, L.

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ashby, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Porritt, L.

Banks, L.

Henderson, L.

Reilly, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beswick, L.

Hooson, L.

Robbins, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Roberthall, L.

Bolton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rochester, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacques, L.

Rugby, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jeger, B.

Saint Brides, L.

Byers, L.

Kaldor, L.

St. Davids, V.

Collison, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Segal, L.

Crook, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Shinwell, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Somers, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Leatherland, L.

Stamp, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Listowel, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Fulton, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stone, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Meston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Galpern, L.

Miles, L.

Strauss, L.

Gardiner, L.

Milverton, L.

Underhill, L.

Garner, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wall, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Monson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Gordon-Walker, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gosford, E.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wigoder, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Grey, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Elibank, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Alport, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Elton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Crathorne, L.

Energlyn, L.

Avon, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Exeter, M.

Bellwin, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Falkland, V.

Belstead, L.

Davidson, V.

Fortescue, E.

Berkeley, B.

De La Warr, E.

Gainford, L.

Bessborough, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Cairns, E.

Derwent, L.

Gisborough, L.

Cathcart, E.

Donegall, M.

Glendevon, L.

Chelwood, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Gowrie, E.

Chesham, L.

Dundee, E.

Greenway, L.

Clancarty, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Gridley, L.

Cockfield, L.

Eccles, V.

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

Colyton, L.

Effingham, E.

Hankey, L.

Mancroft, L.

St. Germans, E.

Hanworth, V.

Margadale, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hayter, L.

Marley, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Mills, V.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Hylton-Foster, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Spens, L.

Ilchester, E.

Mountevans, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Inglewood, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kemsley, V.

Moyne, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Keyes, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Newall, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Northchurch, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trenchard, V.

Liverpool, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Onslow, E.

Ullswater, V.

Loudoun, C.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vernon, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Vickers, B.

Luke, L.

Redmayne, L.

Vivian, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Renton, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Rochdale, V.

Wise, L.

Malmesbury, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.58 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 21, at end insert—
("(e) a description of the arrangements made by the Authority for carrying out the powers given it by section 12(1B) of the main Act and a description of the methods used by the Authority to utilise such opinions, comments and suggestions by members of the public as it may receive in entering into contracts, or, as the case may be, extending contracts, with any programme contractor.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report I indicated to noble Lords that I intended to return to this amendment on Third Reading if my other amendments on public consultation failed. Unfortunately we made no progress on those amendments. During the course of this Bill, the Government have failed to meet requests for a Code of Conduct for public meetings, for such meetings to be obligatory and for members of the public to be able to question prospective contractors. This amendment relates to the inclusion in the annual report of a description of the arrangements made by the authority for public consultation:
"… and a description of the methods used by the Authority to utilise such opinions, comments and suggestions by members of the public as it may receive in entering into contracts, or, as the case may be, extending contracts, with any programme contractor".
e of the great unfinished matters of Bill must be the degree involvement in the decision-
1220
making processes of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. During the passage of this Bill the Government have accepted part of this argument that broadcasting contractors are not entitled to assume that they own their franchises for all time, but that their franchises must be terminated and exposed to public competition. The Government have accepted that part of that process of competition involves public opinion expressed, in the main, at meetings held by the authority for this purpose. Although the Government have accepted the need for public consultation, as I have said, they have refused to say anything about how this should be done, and we have had reluctantly to agree with that.
This amendment simply asks the authority to indicate in its annual report how it has used the comments and suggestions so gathered. This needs doing for two main reasons. First, the present reports of the authority are wholly deficient in this respect. Secondly, as I indicated at earlier stages of the Bill, criticism of the way in which the IBA conducts its public meetings is widespread, and it is by no means clear exactly what opinion of the public mind the authority can gather from such meetings. We lay an obligation upon the authority to consult the public, so we should be able to read in the authority's report how it went about achieving this and precisely what conclusions it drew.
Since we last discussed this Bill and since this amendment was tabled, the IBA Report for 1979–80 has come to hand, and it contains three references to public

1221
consultation. For example, on page 44 we read:
"These meetings have provided another useful means of seeking local reactions to programming and of the generating of fresh ideas".
We are not told in the report what these fresh ideas were.
I should like to make one further observation, because on reading the noble Lord's reply to me on Report, it occurs to me that he may well not understand the precise nature of the present IBA meetings, in that he spent some time comparing the 1BA's process of public consultation with that carried out by the education authorities under the 1944 Act. I hope that the Minister will forgive me for suggesting that this was a rather misleading comparison, but let me explain why.
I have been provided with a note about the process of public consultation which took place in a local authority area. This was in Liverpool in 1978. There the education committee met in public, discussed and then published a plan; a series of three separate meetings were held in each school to be affected, which involved the governors, the staff, the parents and the public. At the public meeting parents could cross-examine the committee members about the plan. A modified plan was prepared, published and placed before the whole council, which itself, of course, meets in public. The plan was passed. Then a statutory notice of the plan was published which gave members of the public a statutory right of objection. Objections were made to the Minister whose department also met with and spoke to the objectors.
That was a very comprehensive policy of public involvement and participation, and was very like the sort of schemes of public participation followed under the Education Act 1944 in other parts of the country. However, it cannot be compared with the circumstances of the public consultation being followed by the IBA. I think the Minister will realise that comparison as between consultation under the Education Act 1944 and by the IBA is, in fact, a very different matter indeed.
In some ways this is a small amendment; it is not a question of principle. This clause relating to the annual report
1222
requires a number of different matters to be included in the annual report and asks the IBA to show how it has discharged its various duties during the course of the previous years. The Bill now before us places additional duties on the IBA, and it would seem only right that these matters should also be reported on fully in the annual report. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, moved this amendment at the Report stage of the Bill, in the reply I gave I sought to indicate how much information the Independent Broadcasting Authority already gives about this aspect of its activities. It is true that in my reply I referred particularly to what the authority had said it was going to do in order to consult public opinion in the present round of ITV contract applications, rather than to any description of what it had done. My intention was simply to indicate that this area of its activities was one which the Independent Broadcasting Authority regarded as proper and necessary for it to comment on in its annual report.
As regards the award of independent television contracts, the future tense had, of necessity, to be used in what was said in last year's report because the process was then in the future. But I have no doubt at all that, having told us all that it was going to do, the IBA will tell us what it has done once it has done it. Indeed, as the noble Lord knows, we now have the annual report of the authority for 1979–80 and, as he said, pages 7 and 8 and page 44 of the report (which relates to local radio) deal to some extent with these matters.
In his speech the noble Lord complained that there is no code of conduct as to how public meetings shall be held, provided that they are held, to discover what public opinion wishes to say as regards a particular contract. The noble Lord also complained that there is no absolute obligation to hold a public meeting. I should like to remind the House that up until now there has been no specific statutory duty at all on the Independent Broadcasting Authority to ascertain public opinion in relation to the award of programme contracts. This we have put right in the Bill. Clause 33 now imposes just such a duty, and it is a duty, not a

1223
power. I find it inconceivable that the IBA, having given details of something which it was doing, which was not in terms a duty on it in the past, will now fail to do so when that activity has been made a duty as, subject to the final stages of this Bill, it will now be under the Bill.
Having said that, I suspect that the noble Lord opposite will want to say to me that, despite the IBA's evident good intentions, none the less we ought to give the authority a nudge in the right direction by putting into the statute the requirements which are set out in this amendment. If I may be allowed to say so, I doubt whether it would be wholly practicable for the IBA to describe all the ways in which it tries to ascertain public opinion and to encourage the making of comments and suggestions.
I shall not run through the different methods which the IBA employs in addition to public meetings, because I mentioned them last time when I quoted from its previous report on this subject. Another difficulty that I foresee with the amendment is that I think it would be very difficult for the IBA to say exactly how it utilises the opinions, comments and suggestions that it receives, other than by saying that it considers, evaluates and weighs them against other relevant considerations.
I should like to make one final point, which is not just a technical point but which goes to the heart of whether or not this amendment is necessary. The amendment for some reason refers to the powers of the IBA under Section 12(1B) of the 1973 Act. But, as a matter of fact, that section imposes duties. We have already agreed to require the IBA, as duties, to ascertain public opinion and to take people's opinions into account before entering into any contract with a programme contractor. It is because this duty rests upon the IBA that I really do not think that it is necessary to add the wording of this amendment to the Bill.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, on the point raised by the noble
1224
Lord the Minister about how the authority could utilise suggestions except by considering them, they could surely utilise a suggestion by saying, "So and so was suggested, and in consequence we altered our procedure in this respect."
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, at Third Reading stage it is difficult to withdraw an amendment to reword a particular part of the amendment to take account of a specific word which the noble Lord mentioned in his reply. I refer to whether the word "powers" or "duties" should appear in line 2 of the amendment. Therefore, while accepting that the amendment might be defectively worded, it is not, in a sense, open to me not to seek the opinion of the House as a whole at this stage because of some technically poor drafting in the amendment. That would have to be corrected elsewhere if, in fact, the amendment as a whole found favour with the House.
I thank my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger for her support with regard to the word "utilise". What I seek to achieve in the amendment is that the IBA shall show their reaction to the comments and opinions, and to establish that it is not good enough just to say that they have noted what had been said. There is a great problem here, and this comes out in the latest annual report. They say in their latest annual report, I think on page 7, that in fact opinions expressed confirmed the views of the staff of the IBA. In other words, they were using a section of public opinion to bolster the views of the staff. That was a convenient way of showing some reaction to some of the opinions expressed. Having said that, and having heard what the noble Lord has said, I feel that he has still not made out a sufficiently good case for not including this in the annual report. Therefore, I shall divided the House on this matter.
4.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 119.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hall, V.

Peart, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Phillips, B.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Blease, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Porritt, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacques, L.

Reilly, L.

Brockway, L.

Jeger, B.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kaldor, L.

Robbins, L.

Collison, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Leatherland, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Listowel, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Galpern, L.

Melchett, L.

Strauss, L.

Gardiner, L.

Milverton, L.

Underhill, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wall, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Gosford, E.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Hale, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Gainford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Garner, L.

Moyne, L.

Alport, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gisborough, L.

Newall, L.

Avon, E.

Glendevon, L.

Norfolk, D.

Bellwin, L.

Gowrie, E.

Northchurch, B.

Belstead, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Grey, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gridley, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Bolton, L.

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

Onslow, E.

Caccia, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cairns, E.

Halsbury, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Caithness, E.

Hampton, L.

Redmayne, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hankey, L.

Renton, L.

Chesham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rochdale, V.

Clancarty, E.

Hayter, L.

Rugby, L.

Cockfield, L.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Colyton, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

St. Germans, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ilchester, E.

Simon, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Kemsley, V.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Davidson, V.

Keyes, L.

Spens, L.

De La Warr, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stamp, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kinnaird, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Derwent, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Donegall, M.

Liverpool, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Long, V.

Sudeley, L.

Dundee, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Luke, L.

Teviot, L.

Eccles, V.

Lyell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Effingham, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Trenchard, V.

Elibank, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mancroft, L.

Ullswater, V.

Elton, L.

Marley, L.

Vernon, L.

Exeter, M.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Vickers, B.

Falkland, V.

Mills, V.

Vivian, L.

Forbes, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mountevans, L.

Wise L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Making and entertainment of complaints]:
4.22 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 13, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) that the complaint relates to the broadcasting of the relevant programme on

1227
an occasion more than five years after the death of the person affected; or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendment No. 5. On Report, on an amendment to delete Clause 19(3) which stood in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—the effect of which would have been to bar any complaint to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission about the treatment of people who had died—I proposed a possible compromise between the extremes of deleting the subsection and leaving it as drafted. It was that Clause 19 should be amended to impose a time limit on posthumous complaints and I suggested that five years could be said to be about right. I gained the impression on that occasion that such a compromise would be acceptable to your Lordships, and these amendments provide for that accordingly.
The amendments alter the clause so as to provide that the commission will be able to consider posthumous complaints only in cases where the relevant programme has been broadcast within five years of the death of the person affected. Any time limit is bound to be arbitrary—that I freely admit—but five years will, I hope, be accepted as a reasonable compromise. I beg to move.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we must be grateful to the Government for meeting us some of the way. The amendment will give satisfaction to historians and those who work on television programmes. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for going into the matter and tabling the amendment.
Lord GARDINER: I too am grateful to the Minister, my Lords. This amendment at least sets some time limit, instead of the words previously in the clause of great uncertainty, and will therefore place a time limit on complaints of this kind, and for that I am grateful. I should naturally have been happier if the noble Lord had felt able to limit the extraordinary variety of people who may want to complain on behalf of a dead man, even though the dead man may have said when he was alive that he did not care two hoots about the programme, did not propose to take any action about it at all and thought on balance that it had probably done him good rather than harm.
1228
In spite of that, an enormous number of people will, for five years, be able to complain, including undoubtedly overseas embassies; but I suppose we shall have to see what happens. I do not shut my eyes to the fact that it may be that the programming companies, in saying, "It looks as though this will put paid to any more of the prestige programmes which have gained us such a high reputation abroad have exaggerated the position. That is of course quite possible, but events will tell. Meanwhile, I am grateful to the Minister for going as far as he felt he could.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I am sure it must be absolutely right that the House appreciates the compromise that has been effected, and I wish to share in the expressions of gratitude. I rise only because the Minister referred to both Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, one being consequential on the other. I am merely making a plea to him—it may be that it is too late—in relation to the wording of Amendment No. 5. The English and sense of it leave much to be desired. It reads:
"Where, in the case of a complaint, the relevant programme was broadcast within five years after the death of the person affected, subsection (5) shall apply as if at the end there were added"—
and then the words one deems to add at the end of subsection (5):
"within five years after the death of the person affected".
If one turns to subsection (5) on page 14 and endeavours to add those words at the end, it requires a great deal of intelligent analysis to find what the clause means, and frankly I believe that the words which are to be inserted should come after the word "occasion" So that your Lordships will not think the point is trivial, I will read what the amended clause will sound like:
"The Commission may refuse to entertain a complaint if it appears to them not to have been made within a reasonable time after the last occasion on which the relevant programme was broadcast by a broadcasting body within five years after the death of the person affected".
It is very unclear if one adds those words at the end rather than adding them after the word "occasion". Whether it is too late for such an amendment to be made I know not, but I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the wording seems awfully clumsy at the moment.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, off the cuff I am not entirely certain whether transposing the words which Amendment No. 5 seeks to insert into the position where they would fall immediately after the word "occasion" in line 7 would not alter the sense. I am not confident on my feet to say whether or not that is so, but I have a feeling that they could alter the sense. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who is a distinguished lawyer and takes great trouble about the way we try to word our legislation, may be right. I do not think it is possible to change the position in which these words would be injected into the Bill. If, when we come to that amendment—which of course will not be put until Amendment No. 4 has been put—your Lordships would not object, I hope it will be agreed that none the less the sense will be secured consequentially on Amendment No. 4 by inserting those words in the place at present intended. I thank noble Lords who have spoken on the amendment. It is a compromise—Amendment No. 4, taken with Amendment No. 5—but it is, I believe, a solution to a difficult problem, and I am most grateful to noble Lords for recognising that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 14, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) Where, in the case of a complaint, the relevant programme was broadcast within five years after the death of the person affected, subsection (5) shall apply as if at the end there were added "within five years after the death of the person affected."").
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I say in connection with this matter that if what my noble friend Lord Mishcon says turns out to be correct, I think that the Government would have a chance to put it right when the Bill goes before another place.
Lord BELSTEAD: In that case, my Lords, I of course give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that we shall look at this point very carefully indeed. If we are persuaded by his argument that the amendment should be altered in the way that he suggested, we shall of course do our best to meet his point.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I am only trying to be helpful, and I am most grateful for what the noble Minister has said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, at the end of our rather long discussions I should like to say one or two things. First, by trying to tighten up the Bill one has inevitably given the impression that some of us here are critical of the IBA. In fact, I think that this is a false impression. If one is trying to insert safeguards for the future, it is inevitable that one can sound rather offensive towards the body in regard to which one is proposing the safeguards. I hope that we shall not be misunderstood on this.
My second point is that during Second Reading many of us raised a very important question which has nothing to do with the Bill; namely, that the future of broadcasting, with which this Bill is concerned, depends not only on the Bill, but also on a change of attitude towards the question of the amount of money given to the BBC. It cannot be said too often, nor too loudly that if the BBC is allowed to wither away slightly, the whole of broadcasting will go wrong, whatever this Bill does. I think that there is general agreement in the House on that point, but I thought it worth making.
Thirdly, I must say how glad I was that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, did not press his, to me very dangerous amendment, which in my opinion would have amounted to something very much like censorship on the programme makers. Fourthly, I am disappointed that we are unable to do anything about the international aspect, and I shall be surprised if my noble friend does not have a word to say on this. Lastly, my Lords, I am extremely grateful for the modest compromise and concession which the noble Lord gave us in the last two amendments. If I may say so, it is the only concession that we have received in our discussions, which have been going on since last July—but still, better than nothing.
Earl DE LA WARR: My Lords, I rise to sound a strong note of warning about the starting date for the fourth channel, which is provisionally planned for early 1982. At present public demand for a new channel scarcely exists. I would say that in fact relatively few members of the viewing public are yet aware of it. So we can wait. Indeed, at this time of national economic stringency we certainly ought to pause before going over this particular brink; for it is a new call on the nation's resources, quite possibly at the very worst moment.
It is usually thought that a new addition to the advertising media will automatically generate extra advertising revenue, but from experience I assure your Lordships that that is no golden rule. In business it is a common-place that in a recession a company tends to choose advertising as one of its first cuts, because it is relatively painless so to do. That may not be sensible, but it is what happens. If there is to be enough revenue to sustain, by advertising two channels instead of one, we need a buoyant economy. I wonder whether we can count on that in 1982, or even 1983—
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Not with this Government!
Earl DE LA WARR: To launch the fourth channel during an advertising recession would, in my opinion, be asking for serious trouble. It would seriously damage the longer-term chances of that channel. It could even affect the whole structure of independent television, and not least the quality of the programmes on channels both old and new. We must remember that there is no apparent instrument for controlling the ceiling of expenditure by the fourth channel should advertising revenue fail to emerge in sufficient quantity. Among the casualties would be the levy, which would put an added burden on the public sector borrowing requirement of as much as £100 million a year. One hundred million pounds may not sound like much in terms of the whole borrowing requirement, but I know how it sounds to me: it sounds like a jolly expensive luxury when times are hard.
So for those reasons it is very important for the Government to be able to delay the start of the fourth channel should that
1232
in their view seem necessary. But how would that be done, my Lords? Engineering work is already well under way. The board is already appointed; so is the chief executive, and so are many of his senior executives. The authority itself is "raring to go". This wagon, once it starts to roll, would be very hard indeed to stop, or even to check.
Nobody doubts that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary means to delay the start if he deems that right. But for how much longer will he be able to do so? When do we reach the point of no return? For how long can the Home Secretary withhold his final go-ahead? These are the things that we need to know. I should welcome some very definite assurances from my noble friend Lord Belstead about this matter, because I sincerely believe that it could be crucial to the continued success of television broadcasting in the foreseeable future.
4.40 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I do not intend again to go through the arguments that we have had in two very lively debates in Committee and on Report on amendments to the Bill, but it would seem inappropriate if a word were not said, very briefly, before the Bill becomes law, on the attitude that has been taken by so many organisations, in particular religious and charitable organisations, on the absence from the Bill of that international dimension for which we have been pressing.
I fully understand the reservations that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, to whose know-ledge and experience in education I pay tribute. I fully understand, too, that when he spoke at the Report stage he was sympathetic to the cause but was pleading for a form of education which was divorced from the considerations of this Bill. I do not agree with him. I do not agree that there is any longer any such thing as national education. I do not believe that the word "national" can be linked with education if education is to have its true meaning; and on this issue I would simply say that no doubt he and I differ, but so far as concerns the objective of bringing before people, young and old, the different points of view on central world issues, we would agree but our methods would differ.

1233
I also appreciate the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Hill, and the noble Lord, Lord Willis; but here I would differ much more than I did with Lord Alexander of Potterhill—and I would differ for this reason. I understand that professional broadcasters, like professional journalists and, indeed, like professional artists and professionals of many different crafts, consider themselves to be outside what in the broadest sense one might call the political field. They consider that broadcasting has a unity, an existence, of its own, and that it should be conducted by those who have become professionally trained within it and kept separate from the major considerations that we debate in this House.
My Lords, I do not accept that we can any longer afford that view of broadcasting. Broadcasting can no longer be considered to be mainly an entertainment. The effect of broadcasting can no longer he accepted as a recreation, because broadcasting has become essentially a part of the public educational system. My difference, then, from people like the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is that I believe we have a responsibility here to give much more direction to the professional broadcasters than they would themselves accept as professionals. This issue has been well debated, and we have been assured in this House, as the assurance was given in another place, that those who are in charge of the fourth channel will have listened very carefully to what have been (I think it is fair to say) among the most lively debates during the course of this Bill. But, my Lords, we still come back to consider to what extent we can afford to neglect the contribution of broadcasting, and in this case, particularly, of televising on the fourth channel, to the major events in human history that are now occurring and are going to occur in the last 20 years of this century.
Two nights ago there was a first-class programme on BBC 2. It was presented by two young men, Jack Pizzey and Nick Ross; it was included in the "Man Alive" series; and it dealt with the subject of hunger. This answers the accusations that have been made in some parts of this House in relation to the arguments that I have put forward. It answers them in
1234
this way. In this programme you had, first, the human reality of hunger—what it means to be hungry, what effect it has upon the mind, upon the emotions and upon the physical reactions. You then had some assessment of the degree of hunger in the world. But, lastly, my Lords—and this is what I want to concentrate on—at the end of the programme you had a number of experts on development, economists of varying points of view, who did not agree and who argued about the facts that had been presented. That is education; that is good television; that is attractive television; and that is relevant to the issues on which the future of the human race now depends. What we have been trying to say to the Government is that in this Bill there should be a lead given to include that kind of attitude to education in what now exists in the phrase "programmes of an educational nature".
I believe that in the years to come we shall increasingly recognise the vital necessity, the absolute necessity, of increasing this kind of educational programme, and that the fourth channel will be, can be and indeed must be a guiding light in opening the eyes of our people to the realities of the world in which we live. There is one comforting factor that has arisen from this debate, and it is that on both sides in the Division at the Report stage there was at least one Member from every side of this House, including the Government Benches. That, I believe, is an earnest of the future. As I said at the Report stage, I do not believe that this is a party political issue; this is a human issue. I thank those who lent me support in this matter, and I ask the Government to put all their weight, their force and their persuasion behind the sentiments that have been expressed from all sides of this House on the importance of the fourth channel to the real human problems of our time, and to help bring that fourth channel into the field of international education.
4.50 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to your Lordships for the work that has been done on this Bill which has made it a more generally acceptable measure on leaving this House than I think it was when

1235
it arrived. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, referred to only one concession being made. I do not think that my mathematics arrives at quite the same total as the noble Lord's; for we have, first, incorporated in the Bill new arrangements for the operation of the fourth channel in Wales. That resulted, importantly, as the noble Lord is saying, from—
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I must say that that was so long ago; but it was a very important concession for which we are grateful.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord; but it resulted originally from a deputation which came to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales which was led by a Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Cledwyn. Secondly, by refining the provisions dealing with the award of programme contracts in Clause 33, I think we balanced the need for regular public scrutiny of performance against that of the contractor to enjoy a reasonable period of operation. The third change that has been made followed some discussion, and I am grateful for advice from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and from other noble Lords in the area of the complaints commission. We have just agreed to limit complaints about the treatment of a person who has died to cases where the relevant programme was broadcast within five years of the person's death. One other amendment was made to the Bill when earlier we removed the exclusion of complaints made on behalf of persons who had, but no longer have, a remedy through the courts.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in his few remarks made the point that it might seem as though the House had been unduly critical of the IBA and, indeed, of the broadcasting authorities. I think that perhaps what the noble Lord had in mind particularly, and which I should like to echo, is that we have commented in our debates on the great influence which radio and television have on people's views and attitudes today, and on the weighty responsibility which that imposes upon those who broadcast.
1236
But many noble Lords have also referred during the debates, and particularly the ones on Report, in appreciative terms to the quality of the broadcasting that we have in this country; and that is something that I should like to endorse.
There have been also a number of matters which we have discussed over the past few weeks and on which I have had to say—and I am afraid that I have become increasingly predictable in saying it—" This is an admirable idea but the Government do not think that we should write it on the face of the Bill." May I say that I have no doubt at all that the broadcasting authorities, who are responsible bodies, will take very seriously what has been said during debates in your Lordships' House, and I am thinking of the discussions about the content of the fourth channel, about the response of both authorities to complaints on such matters as good taste and decency, about the holding of public meetings and the need for the Broadcasting Complaints Commission to contain a proper representation of broadcasting experience, a matter on which I have given an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson.
I should like to end by replying to some remarks of my noble friend Lord De La Warr about the start of the fourth channel. I recognise the force of the cautionary note which my noble friend struck in his short speech. Obviously, the wider economic considerations cannot be ignored, but do not let us forget that both Houses of Parliament have now indicated by their attitude to this Bill that they wish to see the start of a fourth television channel and a fourth channel of the kind envisaged by Part II of the Bill, and that this is something which has taken so long to bring forward. Do not let us forget also that there are many candidates for the contracts who are wishing to see whether they can serve the public in this particular way. The IBA's plans are to achieve the level of coverage which we and they think would be necessary to get the channel off to a start by the autumn of 1982. I am not saying to my noble friend that it is categoric that that is the moment when the fourth channel will start; but that remains our hope and our intention. May I finally reiterate that I am grateful for your Lordships' work and indulgence to the Government in the way that this Bill

1237
has been taken through and, if I may say so, I am convinced that the work on this Bill has been amply worth while.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

REGULATED TENANCIES (PROCEDURE) REGULATIONS 1980
4.55 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Regulated Tenancies (Procedure) Regulations 1980, which were laid before this House on 27th October, be approved. These regulations are concerned with the procedures followed by rent officers. Schedule I deals with the procedures for registering a fair rent, and Schedule 2 with the procedures for issuing a certificate of fair rent. They amend Schedules II and 12 to the Rent Act 1977. The objective of the changes is to streamline rent officer procedures and to reduce delays affecting the quality of service to the public. The proposals flow from a working party, consisting primarily of serving rent officers who reported earlier this year.
Noble Lords might recall that I gave notice of these regulations during proceedings on the Housing Bill last July. Since then we have been diverted by proceedings on another small Bill, so perhaps I might remind your Lordships of the background. When the Housing Bill came before your Lordships' House, it contained a schedule, now Schedule 6 to the Act, which revised the procedures for the registration of fair rents, under Schedule 11 to the Rent Act 1977. I had hoped at that time to be able to put before your Lordships' House amendments to the equivalent procedures in Schedule 12 to the Rent Act, for the issue of certificates of fair rent. I know this was a matter of considerable interest to noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Middleton especially, on account of the requirement that shorthold landlords must obtain a certificate of fair rent, before letting accommodation for which there is not already a registered rent. The noble Lord was concerned, as are the Government, that procedures for issuing certificates of fair rent should be as swift as possible, so that landlords are not
1238
deterred from letting, when the shorthold provisions are brought into force.
On Report stage of the Bill, my noble friend tabled his own amendments to these procedures, by way of polite inquiry about the Government's intentions to bring forward amendments. In response, I explained that if time did not allow Government amendments to be tabled to the Housing Bill, we should instead bring forward amendments by regulations, after the Summer Recess. Unfortunately there did not prove to be sufficient time; hence these regulations.
If I may, I shall deal first with Schedule 2 to the regulations, as it is this schedule which contains our proposed changes to certificate of fair rent procedures. A certificate of fair rent is a device by which a landlord who wants to let or improve his property may find out from the rent officer what fair rent he will get if he goes ahead with his plans. In the case of shorthold the landlord must get a certificate of fair rent as this will be the most he can charge until a rent is registered. The existing procedures have stood for 15 years, and in the light of that experience we are proposing, in Schedule 2 to the regulations, five changes.
First, rent officers cannot at present take any action on a case where the landlord supplies insufficient information, other than by referring it to a rent assessment committee. This causes delay, due to unnecessary rent assessment committee hearings. The new procedures in the regulations, empower the rent officer to request more information from the applicant, so that cases need not be referred to the rent assessment committee simply because of a lack of information. This will bring the certificate of fair rent procedures more into line with ordinary rent registration procedures. Second, the new procedures provide that where there is no tenant, the rent officer is not required to hold a formal consultation, but to consult the landlord in such a way as he considers appropriate. There would be no formal notices setting up the consultation. This will greatly speed up simple cases. Third, consultations are at present automatically held, where there is a tenant. This often results in delay, through unnecessary consultations. Schedule 2 provides that landlords and tenants will always be asked whether

1239
they want a consultation, and will have an absolute right to one, if either so requests, but consultations will no longer be held automatically. This arrangement parallels the procedures for rent registration in Schedule I to the regulations.
Fourth, all cases have a 14-day delay imposed upon them between the determination of the rent by the rent officer and issue of a CFR. Schedule 2 provides that, if the landlord indicates before the expiry of the 14-day period that he does not object to the rent which the rent officer proposes to specify in the CFR, the rent officer will be able to issue the CFR straightaway, without having to wait the full 14 days. This will only apply where there is no tenant, and would again speed up the processing of simple cases.
Finally, rent officers are not, at present, able to save time and effort by holding joint consultations where they are appropriate. The regulations provide that the rent officer may hold joint consultations, in the same way as is provided for in Schedule I to the regulations. May I now turn to Schedule 1? The bulk of this Schedule simply restates the amendments to rent registration procedures which—as I have mentioned—were made by the Housing Bill, and are now to be found in Schedule 6 to the Housing Act 1980. However, in discussion with the department on the detailed implementation of Schedule 6, the Institute of Rent Officers have proposed two minor changes to simplify the clerical operation in rent offices when applications are received, and one to give greater certainty. We have concluded that it would be sensible to accept these changes and they are as follows.
First, where the rent officer serves a notice informing the parties that he has received an application, Schedule 6 requires that the notice states the rent sought by the applicant and any amount for services included in it. The regulations instead require that a copy of the complete application (which will include this information) is sent with the notice to the party who is not the applicant. This will give him more information, while not telling the applicant what he already knows. Second, where the rent officer sends information on services to the tenant, Schedule 6 requires that this should
1240
also be sent to the landlord—even though it was the landlord who provided the rent officer with the evidence. The regulations remove this unnecessary requirement. Finally, the regulations require that a request for a consultation by landlord or tenant should be in writing, thus leaving no doubt as to whether a request has been made. Schedule 6 did not specify this.
Schedule 1 to the regulations, merely repeats Schedule 6 to the 1980 Act, but with these changes. Why, your Lordships may ask, is it necessary to do it this way, rather than by directly amending Schedule 6? The reason is that Schedule 6 is not in force and thus not embodied in the 1977 Rent Act, hence there is no power to amend it by regulations. It would not be sensible to bring Schedule 6 into force and amend it immediately thereafter because of the administrative confusion which could arise. Thus, if the regulations are approved, Schedule 1 will replace Schedule 6 to the Act and the latter will not be brought into force.
My Lords, I mentioned that these particular improvements were proposed by the Institute of Rent Officers. We have consulted the Institute throughout in the preparation of the regulations, and they are to be congratulated on the constructive way in which they have accepted change, and committed themselves to improve their output. In conclusion, may I mention that these regulations will, if approved by both Houses, come into force on 28th November? That is the date we are planning to bring the main private rented sector provisions in Part II of the Housing Act into operation. Subject to today's proceedings, we intend shortly to make a commencement order and to lay the various Negative Resolution instruments needed to give effect to Part II. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 27th October be approved. —(Lord Bellwin.)
5.4 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the Minister has moved the regulations with great clarity. In reading the regulations themselves, they are, as is usual in these cases, long in words and short on comprehension.

1241
I am also rather sorry to see—thinking of future students of legislation and historians—that poor old Schedule 6 becomes otiose, and that people who look for it, wonder where it has gone and what has happened to it, will have to find their way through the regulations, if they can. This is of course not peculiar to this Act or, unfortunately, to this Government. It is a result, as usual, of too much legislation, too hastily put through and then having to be caught up in this way with extra reading matter, extra work for everybody to do.
I would hastily say that I do not consider the Minister to be the villain of this piece. He was kind enough to write to me and send me an explanatory note on these regulations. The only remark I should like to make about heaping more regulations on to the Act—although this may be in a rather different category—is in both the Housing Act and the Local Government Bill, which is now waiting for Royal Assent, the number of places in which the Secretary of State has almost complete dictatorial powers and has the right to make regulations, and it all rests with him, have grown enormously.
However, in this instance I certainly have no objection to streamlining and also to cutting down any delays because this is an extremely important factor and has been in the past. It is essential that the tenant knows that he can ask for a consultation now that the mandatory form of consultation is going under these regulations, and that he will not be intimidated by the landlord or feel that he will put himself into a difficult position if he asks for a consultation. In order to show how even-handed I am about this, I can envisage the odd case where the landlord is the less dominating of the two parties. He also may feel a bit timid about asking for a consultation. However, we have to understand, to be fair, that it is usually the tenant who will be in this position because he is the person who is taking a tenancy in the house, flat, or whatever it is, and it is very important that he should know his rights.
I should like to ask the Minister whether this new procedure, and the opportunities open to the tenant, will be set out in simple language and made easily available to tenants. As we all know—and again
1242
it is not the prerogative of this Government—so much of people's rights very often become eroded because people do not understand them and they do not know they have them. Even when they find, or are given, the piece of paper the wording is extremely difficult to follow. Also, I should like to know whether the Minister has any idea—he can let me know later if he has not the answer today—how many of the mandatory consultations under the old régime proved to be unnecessary because they were unattended. In other words, consultations had to be held, but the tenant or the landlord and tenant—one or the other or both—did not attend.
Where the rent officer sends information on services to the tenant, Schedule 6 requires that it should also be sent to the landlord. As the Minister pointed out the regulations remove this requirement. I wonder whether there could be cases where all the necessary information is not given. If that is so, is there any way this would be found out? How would it be dealt with?
The other point that slightly worries me is that the requests for a consultation have to be made in writing. I can see the reason for that: somebody may phone and the message may not get through. People may get worried and say, "Well, I did phone" when in fact they have not done so, but they do not quite know what to do. There are all sorts of difficulties, especially if this is going to be carried out very stringently. There are old people, people who are illiterate or semi-literate, who may find it difficult to put their request in writing. I should like to be assured that it would be possible for people to fill in a simple form in the rent office, so that they could go along and then and there put their signature to a piece of paper which simply asks for a consultation. I think that is very important.
Streamlining and cutting down the work of rent officers is all very admirable, but I wonder how this is going to tally with the cut in the rent review period from three years to two years, over which we argued so vigorously and on so many occasions during the passage of the Housing Act. Since this will mean more work for rent officers, how far will this cancel out the streamlining of rent officers'

1243
work under the new regulations? The Minister may perhaps reply by saying, as he did during the passage of the Bill, that with inflation as it is it is necessary to cut the review from three years to two years. I naturally would answer—and he will not be surprised—that the inflation is due to his Government's policies anyhow, but I will not go further into that on this occasion.
I would ask the Minister whether the Government will monitor these new procedures to see how many consultations at the end of the year were requested by tenant, or landlord, or both, or how many consultations were held by rent officers when thought necessary, even though a consultation was not asked for. Also, there may be cases where a consultation was not immediately asked for but then the tenant might approach the rent officer within a quite short period. I am not trying to build up a case for more consultations, because I think that anything which wastes the time of rent officers and of other people is unnecessary; but obviously we must welcome anything that simplifies the procedure, as long as tenants' rights, as I said, are not eroded.
5.14 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I will just quickly cover some of the points made by the noble Baroness. Of course, I will gladly write to her and tell her how many mandatory consultations were not attended under the old regime. She was concerned that tenants, under the new regulations, may be afraid to ask for a consultation. I do not see why they should be. The tenant has full security of tenure under the Rent Acts and has nothing to fear in asking for a consultation. However, if there was any hint of a tenant being intimidated, which I would condemn just as much as would the noble Baroness, the rent officer has the reserve power under our proposals to call a consultation himself. It is precisely this kind of circumstance which, albeit remote, has led us to give this discretion to the rent officer.
The same point applies in any case under the existing provisions where the tenant is asked whether he wishes to make representations. Any representations he makes will be copied to the landlord and then discussed at a consultation, so if there is any risk of intimidation—and I
1244
see no evidence of it—it is equally there at the present time. However, that is no reason why we should not want to see something better.
I make no comment on the noble Baroness's reference to inflation being due to Government policies, beyond saying that I presume she would accept that the inflation under the previous Government was due in those circumstances to her own Government's policies. I do not think we would quarrel too much about that. I do not think there is much I can add. I will read very carefully what the noble Baroness has said and should there be, among the suggestions that have been made, any points which would make things work better, we shall be very glad to contact her and indeed to consider taking them up.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, there is one point I should like to raise again, if I may. I did mention it, but I should like an assurance that the Minister is taking it on board. It is the matter of the tenants being informed in simple language about their right to a consultation, so that they know exactly what the position is and exactly what they do. These are human points and points of communication. The other point deals with what I think could create difficulties, namely, this request in writing. I should like to feel that this is being taken up by the Government and by the Minister and that something will be done on both points.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, on the first point I agree that the rent officer must tell the tenant in simple language that he has a right to a consultation, and because of this the Government will prescribe by law the letter to be sent to the tenant. It will be in simple, clear language and, subject to tonight's proceedings, we shall lay regulations before the House tomorrow containing the prescribed letter. I hope that the noble Baroness is duly impressed by the expedition brought forth by her suggestion. I am sure she would also realise that it was anticipated. I should have said this when I responded in the first place. I apologise for not so doing. As regards the other points she has made, as I said, we shall consider them carefully, and if there are any proposals that are helpful, we shall want to take them further.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, it would appear at first sight that this matter of regulations is a simple affair that can be dismissed following a speech by the noble Lord the Minister and one on behalf of the Opposition. In my opinion it goes much further than that. Far from being simple, it raises many complications, such as the rent that is to be charged to a very large number of tenants in the United Kingdom, the effect on their standard of living, and the financial and domestic difficulties that are bound to follow. When the Bill was passing through your Lordships' House, I played no part in it because, quite frankly, I had the utmost difficulty in understanding the implications involved.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is out of order because he did not use the phrase. "Before the noble Lord sits down". I regret that he should have continued his observations.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, how is this matter to be raised, this matter of regulations?
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, it could have been raised before the noble Lord rose or it can be raised by letter or by word of mouth.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, let us be clear about the position. The Minister made his speech and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, replied. The Minister then got up to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I was not aware that it was his final speech. I was waiting to get an opportunity to speak. There was no indication that he was finalising the situation—none whatever—and I am not so sure that that was the opinion of the House, that this was the final word.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, it is customary when the Minister has made his final speech—and I think it was clear that it was his final speech—that there are no further observations. The only means whereby the noble Lord could have interrupted him was to use the phrase, "Before the noble Lord sits down". He did not do so. If the noble Lord will consult Hansard he will discover that he is out of order.
Lord SHINWELL: Then, my Lords, how is this matter of the regulations to be dealt with? Are we simply to accept what the Minister has stated in submitting the regulations, and accept them without any opposition at all, in spite of the large number of people who are being adversely affected? Is that the situation?
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is teasing my noble friend and, indeed, the Government, because he is quite well aware of the procedures set out in our Standing Orders and indeed in the Companion. It is possible to lay a Prayer or to make use of some very flexible opportunities.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, all I have to do is to make a protest. I am disgusted with this kind of action. Here is a matter of the utmost importance. I raised it in the course of the debate and it is the only intervention that I made. It is a question of the rents that ought to be charged. Now that there is an opportunity, when the regulations are submitted, to offer some observations on the subject, I am told that I cannot do so. We cannot appeal to the Speaker, because we have no Speaker. But this is pushed through, under cover almost, in a House that is almost empty. It is a matter of the utmost substance—
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I must object strongly to the suggestion that anything at all is being pushed through. I come along here in the correct manner, I present the regulations in the proper way and they are discussed by the Opposition or by any other noble Lord who wishes to comment. Because the noble Lord does not stick to procedures, with which I am less familiar than he, he must not, with great respect, say that something is being pushed through. Whatever it is or is not, nothing is being pushed through, because that seems to imply that in some way there is something underhand about this. It is nothing of the kind. It is a straightforward alteration of the procedures. It is nothing more than that. It is an attempt to do things better. It is attempting to change the regulations, but it is not changing the basics of the Act in any way. With respect, to suggest that something is being pushed through in any way is wrong.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, the Question is, That this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, Content? To the contrary, Not-Content?
Lord SHINWELL: I say, Not-Content.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Contents have it. The Contents have it.
Motion agreed to accordingly.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
TENANTS' RIGHTS, ETC. (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the said amendment considered and agreed to.
TYNE AND WEAR BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the said amendments considered and agreed to.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the amendments to the Commons amendment agreed to.