Sitting of 11 November 1980

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

    "Inequalities in Health"
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will place in the Library a copy of the report "Inequalities in Health".
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I did so when the report was published.
    Mr. Dormand: Is not it disgraceful that it took the pressure of the Opposition to have this important report issued? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if improvements in the NHS are to be made, it is essential that they be made quickly in relation to some of the report's recommendations? Can he say whether he intends to implement those recommendations relating to the four areas in the Northern region which call for a special health and social development programme, or is this another case where the Government will ignore the needs of the Northern region?
    Mr. Jenkin: It is an absolute travesty to say that this report saw the light of day only as a result of Opposition pressure. I gave a clear undertaking to my predecessor that as soon as it was available and could be printed it would be published. It was printed and published. More than 100 copies were sent to the press and broadcasting authorities, and copies have been made available to hon. Members. It is absolute nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to make that accusation.
    As to the merits of the report, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that it contains
    168
    proposals for a wholy unrealistic increase in public expenditure—more than £2,000 million a year. In present circumstances, extra spending on that scale is right out of the question.
    Dr. Glyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the report says, it is now essential, in view of the high cost of health care, to have a true partnership between the private and public sectors rather than a rivalry between the two?
    Mr. Jenkin: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. However, hardly surprisingly, that was not what this report was about. As to the health of the country, the report has some valuable things to say about prevention. These are matters which the Government fully take on board, as they are entirely in accordance with our policy.
    Mr. Moyle: How can the right hon. Gentleman introduce a blanket rejection of the Black report when his answers to me yesterday indicate that he has no idea of the cost of about half the recommendations? Is not his real reason for rejection of many of the proposals the fact that he just does not believe in equal access to the Health Service?
    Mr. Jenkin: The questions which the right hon. Gentleman asked yesterday—and I have no doubt that it was quite intentional—related to a number of recommendations which it is obviously difficult to cost in advance of detailed plans for implementation, or where the cost would not be a major factor, for instance, in setting up a further working group. But as the right hon. Gentleman well recognises, I said in my foreword to the report that the report is available for discussion, and we can all form judgments as to the effectiveness of the recommendations and whether they are costly. Some are certainly worthy of more consideration than others, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants to find out more about my views on the report, perhaps he will try to ask different sorts of questions.

    Pensions (Increase Payments)
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on the delay in payment of the increase in pensions.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Reg Prentice): Representations in the form of letters and pre-printed postcards have been received from a number of individuals and organisations.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does not the Minister agree that pensioners have already suffered as a result of cuts by this Government and others? Can he give an assurance that even this Government will not stoop so low as to introduce prescription charges for old people?
    Mr. Prentice: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about pensioners suffering, he had better look at the arithmetic. The uprating will be 16½ per cent. against a cost of living increase which was measured at 15·9 per cent. in September and which is tending downwards. Therefore, this will be the second year running in which this Government will have increased pensions more than prices.
    Mr. Paul Dean: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, so that the Opposition can take note of it, that what he has just said means that the 16½ per cent. increase in pensions starting on 24 November will more than restore the value of the pension for the 54-week period since the last increase? If that is correct, does it not clearly demonstrate the Government's active concern for the elderly and other vulnerable groups at a time when the working population, quite rightly, is being asked to make sacrifices in its living standards?
    Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend is right in every particular. The fact that the increase will have been more than the increase in prices for the second year running is of substantial benefit and should be set against the politically motivated rhetoric that we keep hearing about Government cuts.
    Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware that under the previous Labour Government's legislation, pensioners, the disabled, the unemployed and the sick would have received their increase yesterday—10 November? It is sheer robbery that, as a result of the Social Security (No. 2) Act, pensioners will lose £12·30 over two weeks.
    Mr. Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman made a number of mistakes there. First, he referred to the wrong Act—a
    170
    small point. Secondly, any Government, Labour or Conservative, would have dealt with the creeping forward of the date. The date in 1975 was 17 November, which would have been adjusted, anyway. Thirdly, his arithmetic is wrong. He should not compare a Christmas bonus for a single, retirement pensioner with that for a married couple. The Christmas bonus is £20 for a married couple.

    Drugs (Expenditure)
    Mr. Neil Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the present method of controlling expenditure on drugs in the National Health Service.
    The Under Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): The Department has introduced a number of measures over the years to control expenditure on drugs, but I am always willing to consider suggestions for improvement.
    Mr. Thorne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that I had hoped that he would be able to assure me that a committee would be set up to investigate this area with a view to making considerable savings in expenditure? I had also hoped that he would give an undertaking that pharmacists would be included in such a committee as well as medical practitioners and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
    Sir G. Young: My hon. Friend rightly points out that we have set up a working group to establish an effective dialogue between prescribers and the Department. At this moment, the composition of that group does not include a pharmacist, but my hon. Friend has made a positive suggestion which I should like to think about and then to respond to him.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Have the Government any proposals to restrict the present unrestricted right of prescription by doctors? Is my hon. Friend aware that that is an uncontrolled element of expenditure within the National Health Service? Does he realise that the only way of controlling it is to prevent doctors from prescribing drugs, which, in certain cases, are almost the same as similar drugs but which might cost four, five or six times as much?
    Sir G. Young: No, Sir. The Royal Commission also looked at this subject and concluded that that avenue would not necessarily yield any savings.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is my hon. Friend aware that on occasions drugs are prescribed which cost more through the National Health Service than they would cost privately? At the same time will he look into the question of the supply of spectacles? I am now wearing a pair of glasses which cost $10—£4. Is my hon. Friend aware that such spectacles are commercially available in the United States at a lower price than the subsidised cost through the National Health Service in England?
    Sir G. Young: With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is true that a small percentage of prescriptions can currently be bought at a lower cost than the prescription charge. With regard to his second point, my hon. Friend the Minister of State is looking at the whole question of optical charges to see whether we can come up with a more equitable solution.
    Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister answer the question that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State refused to answer and say whether he will try to claw back some of the money spent on drugs in the National Health Service by introducing prescription charges for retirement pensioners?
    Sir G. Young: We have no plans to alter the current exemptions.

    Benefits
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether it is Government policy to maintain the real value of social security benefits.
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has for reducing the uprating of certain social security benefits by more than 5 per cent. below the rate of inflation.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: In July the House approved increases, to take effect the week after next, in most social security benefits. Pensions and other long-term benefits will go up by 16½ per cent.—now expected to be slightly ahead of prices; unemployment benefit and some
    172
    other non-taxable benefits by 11½ per cent. Some benefits, such as mobility allowance and family income supplement will go up by more than our estimate of prices.
    No decisions have been taken yet in respect of the 1981 uprating.
    Mr. Canavan: Since many of the new benefit increases later this month will be considerably less than the rate of inflation, is not the Minister ashamed to be a member of a Government who are reducing the real value of benefits for the sick, the unemployed, expectant mothers and victims of industrial injuries? In view of the fact that the Treasury is calling for more cuts that will result in further attacks on the living standards of some of the weakest members of society, will not the Minister say that he will resign rather than implement those cuts, which will continue to clobber the sick and the unemployed?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the House debated and accepted the Government's proposals for an interim reduction in some of the nontaxable benefits, pending the introduction of proper taxation. Those matters were fully debated during the summer, and they are now the law of the land. I cannot add anything to what I have already said about the 1981 uprating.
    Mrs. Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some public disquiet that social security money is sometimes paid to maintain hire purchase payments on luxury items? Will he ensure that a limit is set on both the type and number of such goods that may be funded from the public purse in this way?
    Mr. Jenkin: I can reassure my hon. Friend in that from the end of the month those payments will be made under regulations under the reform of the supplementary benefits scheme. I assure my hon. Friend that she may comb those regulations from end to end and she will find no mention of colour television sets or any other luxury goods of that sort. I hope that this change will put paid to the widespread rumours that public money is paid out for luxury goods. I have never had any hard evidence brought to my attention during the five or six years that I have been concerned with the subject.
    Mr. Freeson: In view of the rumours that are circulating in Fleet Street and in some parts of Whitehall, will the Secretary of State tell the House clearly whether the Government are contemplating cuts in the budget for supplementary benefits nationally, or whether it is the Government's intention to maintain the present real value of supplementary benefits? The Secretary of State should give a clear answer to the House.
    Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman must not expect me to anticipate decisions which will be announced by the Government after the Cabinet has considered all these matters. At a time of economic constraint we can only afford what we can afford. The right hon. Gentleman must know that in these circumstances no programme can be exempt from scrutiny by the Cabinet.
    Mr. John Townend: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that people who are working, and who have to accept the economic facts of life and accept wage increases of 5, 6 or 7 per cent. will think it very unfair if people who are not working are given inflation-proofed increases of 17 and 18 per cent.?
    Mr. Jenkin: I assure my hon. Friend that those factors are very much in the minds of Ministers when we consider these difficult questions.

    National Health Service (Treatment)
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services in what circumstances documentary evidence is requested before a person may receive treatment under the National Health Service.
    Sir George Young: In an emergency, treatment is not, of course, delayed by any need for documents. In other circumstances, a patient might be asked to produce documents to resolve doubts as to his or her eligibility to receive NHS treatment, or possibly to assist staff in correctly recording the name and date of birth.
    Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister give an assurance that it is not his intention that British citizens should ever be asked to produce British passports as a precondition for National Health Service treatment?
    Sir G. Young: We have no plans to introduce any form of documentation as
    174
    a routine before treatment is administered.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: When does my hon. Friend expect to be able to introduce a scheme under which documentary evidence is required for those people from countries for which we have no reciprocal agreements for treatment? When will they have to present some form of evidence to show that they are not entitled to free medical treatment, and can therefore, be charged?
    Sir G. Young: As my hon. Friend knows, we are looking at the question of treatment for overseas visitors. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to announce his conclusions before the end of the year.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is it not correct that there is no legal authority whatever for requiring any documentation before administering treatment on the NHS or, indeed, for any other purpose? Is not the real sting in the proposal that people who may be suspected of being overseas visitors but who are settled here would have to carry about with them their passport and other documents to prove who they were, and that such a practice would be totally different from that applying to those who were born in this country?
    Sir G. Young: Eligibility to use the NHS at the moment is restricted basically to people who are ordinarily resident here, work permit holders, and persons staying for prolonged periods, so it is not the case that everyone in the country at the moment is entitled to NHS treatment. I would deplore any situation in which those from ethnic minorities were, as a matter of routine, asked for documentary evidence before treatment was administered. There is no evidence of that happening and I would deplore it if it did.

    Attachment Orders
    Mr. Freudasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of attachment orders made in the last financial year.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): In the year ended 5 April 1980 the Department made 469 applications to the courts for attachment orders.

    175
    Statistics are not kept of the number of orders obtained; but we do know that, of those which were obtained, 302 are still in operation.
    Mr. Freud: In view of the lack of success of the current court orders may I ask what the Government have done about examining the recommendations of the Finer report, which recommended effecting a central collection point for court orders of this kind?
    Mrs. Chalker: As the hon. Gentleman will know, this has been looked into, but not in as much detail as one would like. It has a number of costs associated with it.
    There are practical limitations on attachment orders. The court must, for instance, take into account the person's family commitments before it makes attachment of earnings orders, and new orders have to be obtained if a person changes his employer. It is not merely as simple as one at first thinks it to be, but consideration is certainly given to it in those cases where it can help the beneficiary of the attachment order.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does not the Minister accept that the Finer report's recommendation for the setting up of an enforcement office was one of its most important recommendations, and that unless the Government implement that recommendation, far more maintenance defaulters will continue to go to prison, rather than, as the Finer report suggested, eliminating this as being an essay in social and economic futility?
    Mrs. Chalker: I accept that there is grave concern about the matter, but, in the social assistance report, which dealt with the other changes being introduced this month, the general issue of liability upon spouses and upon parents to maintain their dependants who receive supplementary benefit was left for later consideration. The subject will be considered as soon after this month as the existing priorities in the first part of the review will allow.

    Fraudulent Claims (Investigation)
    Mr. John Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that the additional staff appointed to investigate fraudulent claims are of a sufficient number.
    Mr. Prentice: This matter is kept under constant review. In my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major) on 13 February 1980 I gave details of the Government's special campaign against social security fraud and abuse during 1980–81; of an additional 1,050 staff, 270 were specifically allocated to the investigation of suspected fraud. I shall be considering the adequacy of these measures as part of my analysis of the current year's results.
    Mr. Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the additional office staff have had a deterrent effect upon intending offenders? Will he also agree that it is possibly one area of public expenditure where we may increase the number of staff because of the return gained?
    Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. There is a quantifiable result, which we are measuring by rather more sophisticated measures than we have used in the past. [Laughter] Well, most people in this country take the view that fraud and abuse should be dealt with, whatever view is taken by Labour Members. But my hon. Friend is correct in saying that in addition to that there is the deterrent effect, which cannot be quantified but, nevertheless, may be much larger than the figures on paper would suggest.
    Mr. Rooker: If the Minister is using these sophisticated measures, why is it that we cannot have a progress report on the effectiveness of the measures before the end of the current financial year, which is what the Minister has said, bearing in mind that the amount of benefit to be recovered will rise from less than £100,000 a week to more than £1 million a week? If the difference is so great—and those are the Minister's figures—why cannot the House and the country have a progress report before the end of the year?
    Mr. Prentice: Because the House will want—I think that the hon. Member was confirming this—a figure to be attached to the quantifiable savings. [Interruption] Yes, the target of £50 million has been quoted. I have answered questions in the House before saying that we appear to be on target in regard to that figure. But a quantifiable figure will have the greatest possible meaning when it is at the end of a complete financial year

    177
    and therefore can be compared with previous figures for previous financial years.
    Mr. Ashley: Will the Minister confirm reports that the claims made by his Department about the income derived from these investigations are wildly exaggerated? Could he estimate the number of genuine claimants who have been deterred from claiming by virtue of his very strident campaign against a small minority?
    Mr. Prentice: The answer to the first part of the question is "No, Sir". There is no evidence whatever that our expectations in the campaign will be disappointed. With regard to genuine claimants being deterred, the right hon. Member is exactly 180 degrees wrong. A number of people, particularly very elderly people, still feel embarrassed about applying for benefits to which they are entitled, and one of the reasons for that is that the scroungers have got the whole system a bad name.

    Cosmetic Surgery (Private Clinics)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with the British Medical Association about ways of controlling private cosmetic surgery clinics.
    Sir George Young: None, Sir. When section 16 of the Health Services Act 1980 comes into force these clinics will need to register with the local health authority under the Nursing Homes Act 1975. The registering authority is concerned with the standards of facilities and staffing. The clinical practices of doctors and professional ethics are matters for the medical profession.
    Mrs. Short: Is the Minister aware that that is a very disappointing reply to a question relating to an increasingly serious problem? Is he aware that the BMA now receives complaints about these cowboy clinics more or less every week, that the clinics are allowed to advertise—which is doubtful clinical ethics—and that they are wreaking damage on the women and, indeed, the men who patronise them? Does he not think that they should be brought under control, as other private clinics are?
    Sir G. Young: If the hon. Lady has any evidence of professional misconduct
    178
    she should bring that to the notice of the General Medical Council. As she rightly says, the BMA is concerned about this matter and is seeing whether it can introduce some more effective guidelines for doctors. Any member of the public contemplating the use of such clinics should contact his general practitioner and take advice before going to any clinic.
    Mr. Pavitt: In view of the BMA's concern, will the Under-Secretary hold two Departmental inquiries? First, will he have an inquiry into the way in which the provision of consultants in plastic surgery is being diminished merely because of the possibility of their doing two jobs, one in a private clinic and one in the NHS, so that a number of senior registrars are not getting promotion? Secondly, will he hold an inquiry into the drain of skilled theatre nurses from the NHS to the new clinics and private hospitals, which art taking away from the NHS the important speciality of qualified, theatre-trained nurses?
    Sir G. Young: The hon. Gentleman's question goes slightly further than the matter of cosmetic surgery. I shall look into the two matters that he has raised. Cosmetic surgery is available under the NHS in certain conditions.

    Ante-natal and Perinatal Care
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he plans to take in 1981 to improve antenatal care and reduce perinatal mortality.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I ask the hon. Member to await the reply to the recent report of the Social Services Committee on perinatal and neonatal mortality which the Government will present to Parliament shortly.
    Mr. Hooley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the distinguished committee under Professor Black calculated that a great deal could be done to improve the welfare of mothers and babies, particularly in the deprived areas of this country, by an expenditure of £30 million? Will he stop putting about the notion that the Black committee requires an expenditure of £2,000 million in order to do anything effective?
    Mr. Jenkin: I quote the figure of £2,000 million from the Black committee I am quoting figures for precisely costed measures which it recommended should be introduced, including a whole range of new social security benefits.
    With regard to perinatal and neonatal mortality, we can take some comfort from the substantial improvements that have taken place over recent years. As recently as 1963, the perinatal mortality rate was as high as 29·1 per thousand. Our estimate for 1979—this is a provisional figure—is 14·6 per thousand. That is a reduction of more than half in that period. I think that that is solid progress. What we need to do now is to build on it and to have sustained pressure for further improvement.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Secretary of State aware that he does not need to wait for any reports to know that in the Northern region the infant mortality rate is 5 per cent. above the national average, that the perinatal mortality rate is 13 per cent. above the national average, and that the male mortality rate is 10 per cent. above the national average? Does he think that it would be reasonable to take these figures into consideration when he considers his allocation of resources for the NHS next year?
    Mr. Jenkin: These figures are built into the resource allocation formula, on the basis of which money is now distributed differentially to the different parts of the country. A region such as the Northern region had twice as much growth of resouces this year than regions such as the Thames regions, which are better provided for. I hope that we shall be able to maintain this progress, and that where we have greater growth in the future we shall be able to intensify the reallocation process.

    Hospital Service (Savings)
    Mr. Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further savings he can make in the hospital service by reducing administrative and bureaucratic costs.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The changes we have announced to the structure and management arrangements of the National Health Service should enable management costs to be reduced by 10 per cent.
    180
    by 31 March 1985, excluding transitional costs such as compensation and protection.
    Mr. Renton: In abolishing the area health authorities, however, has not my right hon. Friend just melted the tip of the iceberg? Is it not a fact that the administrative and bureaucratic tail in the NHS has more than doubled in size in the past 10 years, and that it is for that reason, rather than public expenditure cuts, that our financial resources have not produced more hospital beds and more operating theatres?
    Mr. Jenkin: It is true that the number of people engaged in management and administration has grown. I accept broadly what my hon. Friend has said. It is not only the elimination of the area tiers that we are seeking in our reorganisation; it is a substantial slimming down of the management structure between the level of the district health authority and the unit, be it the hospital or the community services. We intend to set district health authorities clear management cost targets, so that they may introduce management structures which achieve what we are looking for. But, of course, there have been other changes which have increased the administrative load. For instance, now it is almost inevitable that in wards there are lay clerks doing clerical work that used to be done by nurses. It is right that nurses should be left free to exercise their professional skills and that laymen should do the jobs that they—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That reply was inordinately long, as have been many supplementary questions this afternoon.
    Mr. Moyle: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the best way of cutting administrative costs would be to reduce useless planning? Will he, therefore, issue the long-promised and long-awaited code of practice under section 5 of the Health Services Act, and in that code of practice will he issue a prohibition to health authorities concerning the sale of human tissue and human blood as a way of raising money?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend the Minister for Health has made it abundantly clear that we entirely accept the point that transfers of human tissue and human blood are not a proper area for

    181
    commercial operation. I give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there could be vast savings in administrative and bureaucratic costs if a greater proportion of the ancillary services of the NHS were handed over to private enterprise? Is he aware that, in view of reorganisation, administrators are tending to go back more to direct labour? Will he see that the sensible circular on this subject which he sent out in the summer is heeded by health authorities?
    Mr. Jenkin: The circular that we sent out was a draft circular for consultation. We are currently consulting within the Health Service. We have it in mind to send out a full circular on this subject in the near future.
    Mr. Ennals: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that most of the slimming down that is going on is of the Health Service itself? Does he accept the deep concern expressed by the National Association of Health Authorities about the cuts that authorities are having to make in wards, nurse training and essential building tasks?
    Mr. Jenkin: It is fair to point out that this year we are spending more in real terms on the NHS than was spent in any year under the right hon. Gentleman.

    Benefits (Take-up)
    Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, if he will make a statement setting out the steps which he is taking to improve the take-up benefits.
    Mr. Prentice: This month the Department will be running an advertising campaign further to improve the take-up of family income supplement among working families with low incomes. We shall also be publishing a new edition of our guide "Which Benefit?" and this, like other leaflets about individual benefits, will include the new rates. They will be available from local social security offices.
    Mr. Dobson: Does not the Minister accept, however, that during the time of this Government-induced depression, it is vital that those who are entitled to benefits claim them? Will he, therefore, commend to other local authorities the
    182
    admirable initiative of the Strathclyde council in promoting the take-up of benefits in its area? If not, why not?
    Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. The activities of the Strathclyde council in this respect were just as much a piece of cheap political propaganda—[Hon. Members: "Rubbish"]—as are so many of the speeches that we hear from Opposition Members. But, of course, I accept that we want to see the utmost take-up of benefits in any period—whether it be a recession or any other period—by people who are entitled to them.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: While I endorse the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson), may I ask whether the Minister is aware that many of the organisations of disabled people have become more concerned that, in some localities, there are fewer and fewer benefits to take up? Is he aware of the case of East Sussex county council? What action is he taking about the charge that that council has now entirely suspended the operation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act in the matter of assessing the needs of disabled people?
    Mr. Prentice: That matter does not arise from this question, which relates to State benefits. But once again, the right hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun on information that will not be confirmed. If he looks into the matter, he will find that the situation in East Sussex is nothing like the situation which he has tried to imply.

    Radiotherapy and Renal Dialysis
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he intends to introduce legislation to amend the principal Act so that patients receiving radiotherapy and renal dialysis do not lose their unemployment benefit.
    Mrs. Chalker: The proposals which I announced in my reply to the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) on 29 October will enable anyone incapable of work through undergoing renal dialysis, or, possibly, other treatment for a serious condition, on two or three days in a week to receive sickness or invalidity benefit. This change will apply to people who are not in employment as well as those who are. Neither this change nor

    183
    the new provision it is designed to modify affects unemployment benefit.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the hon. Lady aware that we welcome her reply today and her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall)? Will she state whether this proposal will need amending legislation? If so, how quickly shall we see it?
    Mrs. Chalker: This proposal will need amending legislation, which will be brought in as soon as possible. In the meantime, however, as soon as it was discovered that this situation had occurred through the Social Security (No. 2) Act, extra-statutory steps were taken to make sure that there was no hesitation and that the benefit continued to those people undergoing renal dialysis on two or three days a week, through a statutory note from the Treasury.
    Mr. Whitehead: In view of the hardship that has been caused in the interim in some circumstances, will the Department circularise the information to directors of dialysis units so that the information is available to their patients?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am sorry to hear that there has been difficulty. Notices were sent to local offices before the date of change. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he will let me have a note of specific cases, I shall take them up myself.

    Cigarettes (Sales Promotion)
    Mr. Pavitttasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the present state of negotiations he has been having with the tobacco industry on the sales promotion of cigarettes: and if he will publish in the Official Report the dates upon which meetings have been held and the names of the negotiators, together with the company they represent.
    Sir George Young: The negotiations are continuing, and, as my right hon. Friend has said in the House on several occasions, he will make a statement when they are concluded. Both sides agreed that the details of the negotiations should remain confidential.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that it seems that the industry is running rings round the Department in the negotiations?
    184
    It seems that no one in the Department is prepared to stand up to the vested interests of the tobacco barons. Will he take the opportunity of having legislation proposed in the Gracious Speech that would expedite the negotiations?
    Sir G. Young: Nothing could be further from the truth. We have said that we shall proceed by voluntary agreement for as long as it is possible to do so. If that is not possible, we shall, as my right hon. Friend has said, consider other measures.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Have not the negotiations been continuing long enough? Is it not about time that the Department differentiated between health needs, to which the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) alluded, and interfering with the general marketing function of any consumer goods manufacturer?
    Sir G. Young: As my hon. Friend knows, there are already considerable constraints on the marketing of tobacco. For example, it is illegal to advertise cigarettes on television. I share his wish to achieve, if possible, an agreement by consent.
    Mr. Orme: Will the Minister give us a date when the Government will make a statement? The negotiations have been continuing for 18 months. The House is entitled to have a definite date and to hear the Government's proposals.
    Sir G. Young: The negotiations have been continuing for about 11 months and not 18 months. I agree that at some stage the negotiations will have to stop. I do not find it helpful to announce in advance the date on which the Government will make a statement.

    European Community (Reciprocal Arrangements)
    Miss Joan Lestorasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children born in the United Kingdom are not covered for medical treatment in EEC countries.
    Mr. Prentice: I regret that information to make a reliable estimate is not available.
    Miss Lestor: Is not the Minister aware that thousands of children whose parents

    185
    have paid national insurance contributions for many years are denied medical treatment in EEC countries because their parents are not EEC nationals? Is he aware that this causes tremendous difficulty—for example, for school parties when going abroad? When is the EEC likely to change its attitude and what are the Government doing to persuade it to change its attitude?
    Mr. Prentice: We hope that it will be changed very soon. We share the view that the hon. Lady has expressed. The Government have been taking the initiative within the Community to try to get an amendment accepted that will cover children in the position that she has described. We hope that the issue will come before the Council of Ministers on 27 November and that a solution might be reached at that meeting.
    Mr. Jessel: What is the current position for the children of self-employed persons requiring medical treatment in EEC countries?
    Mr. Prentice: That matter also will probably be on the agenda on 27 November.

    Death Grant
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest figures available for the percentage of burial and cremation expenses represented by the death grant: if he will now take steps materially to increase this grant; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Chalker: The costs of burials and cremations vary widely, but on the assumption that an average funeral now costs between £250 and £300, the death grant represents between 12 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the cost. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have for some time been considering the whole question of the death grant. We shall make an announcement about our conclusions as soon as ever possible.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the hon. Lady accept that it is high time that something was done? Is it not disgraceful that elderly persons are afraid of not being able to meet the cost of their own burial? Widows and widowers have to turn to supplementary benefit to obtain
    186
    money to meet the cost of burying their life partner. Does not the hon. Lady feel that it is time to bring the death grant to a level much more in line with the actual cost of burial and to have it linked to the cost of living?
    Mrs. Chalker: We shall resolve this issue as soon as possible. It has proved much more complicated than the Opposition have recognised.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Altonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 November.
  The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen, and this evening my Cabinet colleagues and I will be giving a dinner in honour of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
  Mr. Alton: Is the Prime Minister aware of the great resentment that has been caused throughout the country by the Government's decision to renege on the agreement with the firemen? Is it Government policy to go back on other agreements with other groups in the public sector?
  The Prime Minister: Last year, when it came to the rate support grant, the Government fixed a cash limit of 13 per cent. No one called that an incomes policy—it was not. This year the Government have fixed a cash limit for the pay bill of 6 per cent. That is not an incomes policy, either. How local authorities allocate the 6 per cent. is a matter for them, as it was a matter for them how they allocated the 13 per cent.
  Mr. Cormack: As my right hon. Friend prepares for dinner this evening, will she reflect on the fact that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is no longer the most prominent republican in the House?
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Lady say what is an incomes policy?
  The Prime Minister: I have long since wondered.
  Mr. Foot: Is it because the right hon. Lady is still wondering what her policy is that she did not take the trouble to present to the House her proposals for the supposed 6 per cent? Does she now really tell us that in the case of the firemen there was no breach of faith? Does she really say that the firemen have been honourably treated? Does she really think that the decision of the Government in this matter will ease the settlement of future industrial disputes, when no one in such circumstances will be able to trust the word of the Government?
  The Prime Minister: As I explained when asked a similar question last week, the Government have no locus in the negotiations between local authorities and firemen. If the right hon. Gentleman chooses to look it up, he will find that reply. The negotiations are conducted between the firemen and the local authorities and the Government have no standing. The Government come in two ways only—first, by deciding the total increase of the total pay bill for local authorities, which we have done, and, secondly, only in relation to those duties of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, through the fire inspection officer, about the numbers of firemen. Otherwise, the matter is wholly one for local authorities.
  Mr. Whitney: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to reassure our NATO allies that the views held by the Leader of the Opposition on unilateral disarmament—which show that he has forgotten the lessons that he learnt 40 years ago—are not supported by the great majority of the British people?
  The Prime Minister: I was so intent on the question that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) asked me, and so used to being questioned by him, that I forgot to do the courtesies that I should have done immediately. May I warmly congratulate him on the assumption of his important office? I hope that he will genuinely and truly enjoy it. From time to time Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition have to hold consultations. I know that those consultations will be pursued as amicably as they were with his distinguished predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), to whom I am
  188
  very grateful for all the co-operation that we received during his time as Leader of the Opposition. I wish him a quieter life. As regards the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), our independent nuclear deterrent has formed part of the West's shield. It is one of the things that has held the balance between the great Powers. It has, therefore, assured the peace of this country, of the West, and of the Russian people.
  Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Lady for her kind words, which were wedged between the other remarks that she made. Does not the right hon. Lady appreciate that millions of people in Britain are deeply concerned about the scale and pace of the arms race throughout the world? Is it not a crime and a folly that her Minister's statements show no recognition of that great fact?
  The Prime Minister: The people of Britain would be far more worried, and would have occasion to be far more worried, if they did not have a proper and full defence policy to protect their liberties, which the right hon. Gentleman also cherishes.

  WITCHAM
  Mr. Freudasked the Prime Minister whether she will visit Witcham.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, but should it prove possible I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish me to call in on Grunty Fen first.
  Mr. Freud: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Witcham may well lose their excellent village school so that the local education authority can save the cost of two assisted places? Does she not agree that poverty—about which she is so concerned—can also be induced by depriving rural areas of essential amenities, such as village schools?
  The Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman's wish to maintain rural schools, and I always have done. This is a matter for the hon. Gentleman and his local education authority. I understand that proposals have not yet been put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  189
  I am sure that they will be. In the meantime, I am happy that Witcham's population of 251 has a high standard of employment and very few troubles.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Dubsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 11 November.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave some time ago.
  Mr. Dubs: What consultations took place with the trade unions involved, before the Government announced their 6 per cent. pay limit on public sector workers?
  The Prime Minister: First, this is not, and never has been, a pay limit. Normal consultations took place with the local authorities. The Government decided that the ordinary people of Britain could afford to contribute only 6 per cent. to the increased local authority total pay bill. How that is allocated, precisely what negotiations are conducted, and the wage variations between the several groups of local authority employees is a matter for the local authorities concerned.
  Mr. Heddle: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to remind the country of the words spoken by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) on 28 October 1975? He said then that inflation helped to cause unemployment. At one of my right hon. Friend's informal meetings behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, will she endeavour to encourage the right hon. Gentleman to assist her in her fight to bring down inflation?
  The Prime Minister: I firmly believe that inflation creates unemployment. The only way to secure good job prospects is to pursue this Government's policies and to bring down inflation first.
  Mr. Leighton: Is the right hon. Lady looking forward to her bare-knuckle fight with the CBI?
  The Prime Minister: I am very much looking forward to seeing Sir Terence Beckett tomorrow. I hope that he is, too.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To what cause does my right hon. Friend attribute Soviet intransigence in Madrid? Is it due to their dismal record on human rights since Helsinki or is it due to the contemplation of military aggression against Poland? In either event, will my right hon. Friend make clear that it would be hopeless for the conference to proceed without a detailed and clear review of the implementation of the Final Act?
  The Prime Minister: I regret that it has not been possible for the Madrid conference on the Helsinki accords to get under way. The Soviet Union does not wish its record on political repression to be shown in its true light.
  Mr. Wigley: Will the Prime Minister find time today to consult local government on the effect of Government expenditure cuts on local services? Will she bear in mind that the county of Gwynedd faces £4 million worth of possible cuts, and that that means closing three old people's homes, one technical college, ending nursery education and doing away with large parts of the home help service? Does the right hon. Lady accept that that will be the result of the Government's policy?
  The Prime Minister: How a local authority allocates its income from taxpayers and ratepayers is a matter for the local authority to decide. Too often, many of us have seen cuts made in sensitive areas, and too little in administration. If the hon. Gentleman is correct, and I have no doubt that he is, his remarks give enormous justification for saying that people in the public sector must take into account the capacity of the private sector to finance those who work in the public sector.
  Mr. Squire: During her busy day would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on which of the many policies, previously advocated by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), will be the first to suffer a U-turn in his new capacity.
  The Prime Minister: I just trust that the right hon. Gentleman will never have a chance to put them into effect. I recall that it was a woman who defeated him in Devonport.
  Mr. English: Sexist!

  CALLANDER PARK AND HAMILTON COLLEGES OF EDUCATION
  Mr. Harry Ewingasked the Prime Minister if she will agree to meet a deputation from Callander Park and Hamilton colleges of education to discuss the change in Government policy towards Scottish colleges of education.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North (Mr. Fletcher) has already met deputations from both colleges and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed to meet a further deputation from Hamilton.
  Mr. Ewing: Does the Prime Minister recall that last time the future of colleges of education in Scotland was under consideration she took the trouble to come to Scotland and to take part in a party political broadcast on colleges of education? Does she recall that after she had accepted that there was a need to reduce the number of teachers being trained, she said that she believed that instead of merging and destroying colleges, they should be kept going? Why did she want to keep colleges going in 1977 when she was Leader of the Opposition and yet want to destroy them in 1980 when she is Prime Minister?
  The Prime Minister: I never thought that we could keep all colleges of education going. As Secretary of State for Education I had to begin a programme for reducing colleges of education, a programme that my successors in that Department have had to uphold and, indeed, extend. It is no earthly good training teachers for jobs that will not be there due to the fall of 1 million in the number of school pupils in future. Such decisions may be painful, but they have to be taken and have been taken.
  Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDITURE)
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have yet received an application from any member of the Government, particularly the Secretary of State for Employment, to make a statement on the 6 per cent. pay limit imposed on local authorities? A statement was requested by the Leader of the Opposition—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I dealt with that matter yesterday. I have had no request. It is a matter for the Government.

RAMPTON HOSPITAL
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about Rampton special hospital.
Following the showing of a programme on Yorkshire Television on 22 May 1979, I invited Sir John Boynton to lead a team to review the management of Rampton special hospital. I am today publishing the team's very thorough report. Sir John and his fellow members had a most difficult task, and I am deeply grateful to them for the work that they have done.
The report praised both the dedication and hard work of most staff at the hospital and many of the facilities there. I endorse this praise. However, the team was also critical of the way that the hospital is managed and called for major improvements in the treatment and care of patients. Some of the main proposals were discussed by the team with staff at the hospital, and I can tell the House that some changes are already being made by the hospital, including much-needed changes on the male block wards.
I accept the team's analysis of the hospital's and the Department's short-comings and the main thrust of the reforms that it proposes. It concludes that Rampton should continue to operate as a special hospital. I agree. I also accept its proposal that for the next three years Rampton should be supervised by a local board to be called the Rampton review board. This board will guide and support local management in securing the implementation of the changes that the team has proposed. The necessary order and regulations to establish the board as a special health authority will be made as soon as possible. I expect to announce soon the composition of the board. I hope that it will be able to begin its work by the turn of the year.
In addition, I have accepted the team's proposals for a reform of local management and for the appointment of a medical director, who would provide the leadership for the hospital that has been lacking. I shall be advertising for the post of medical director very shortly.
Another of the review team's main recommendations to which I attach great
194
importance concerns the transfer of those patients at Rampton who have been waiting, some of them for a very long time, for places in local hospitals. I share the team's concern on this difficult issue and I am writing personally to all regional health authority chairmen about it, urging them to make swifter progress.
Some of the recommendations by the team extend beyond Rampton and will require wider consideration. In particular, it proposes a body to inspect and monitor all institutions where patients are detained under the Mental Health Act. This proposal has already been put to me in relation to legislation to amend the Mental Health Act. Sound and effective monitoring systems are essential to the proper running of all health services in this country, including those institutions that hold Mental Health Act patients. I am now considering the various ways in which this requirement can be met.
In the interim, three of the four special hospitals will have schemes to involve in their work people from outside the hospital. Rampton will have its review board. At Moss Side and Park Lane hospitals the local community health council has, as the House already knows, arranged to make regular visits. I am urgently considering how a similar arrangement could be made at Broadmoor.
Change cannot be achieved overnight. Implementation of the review team's recommendations requires changes in attitudes as well as staff and financial resources. The team noted that management and staff appear to accept the need to examine traditional attitudes, practices and regimes and we must seek to ensure that, through the Boynton report, a much stronger impetus is given to the improved running of the hospital and higher standards of patient care. To achieve this the hospital will need the full understanding and support of all of us—the professions, the public and Parliament. The patients for whom we care deserve no less.
Mr. Moyle: We should like to join in the thanks that the Secretary of State expresses to Sir John Boynton and his staff on the hard, patient and conscientious work that they have put in on the report.
We must all hope that the report will provide the basis for resolution of the

195
problems uncovered by Yorkshire Television in May last year and for the proper care of the patients at Rampton. We endorse the report's view of the majority of the staff at Rampton and their conscientious work.
As the Secretary of State said, there is a great amount of detail in the report, and we shall want to give it careful and detailed consideration. However, broader questions arise. First, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of support and human sympathy for the staff and patients at Rampton. Will he undertake to make available any extra finance that may be needed for implementing the report, where necessary? Secondly, bearing in mind the fate of the Elliott report in 1973, which is still not implemented, will the Secretary of State consider setting a date for the full implementation of this report, which we can all work towards? Thirdly, there is much press and public interest in the matter, particularly in the area concerned. Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the Official Secrets Act applies only to discussion of the hospital's security system and is not a blanket coverage of the whole of its activities? Specifically—and the Secretary of State was not clear about this—will he review all the special hospitals and their procedures in the light of the report?
There are a number of recommendations aimed at improving industrial relations in the hospital. The right hon. Gentleman did not say whether he intended to proceed to the negotiation of their implementation forthwith. Does he intend to do so? Does he believe that the recommendations will improve the industrial relations atmosphere, bearing in mind what happened to last week's arranged press visit to the hospital, which had to be called off due to staff resentment? Does he believe that the recommendations will remove Rampton's sense of geographical and profesional isolation?
Finally, it is assessed that there are about 130 patients who should not be there. The right hon. Gentleman talks about transferring them to other hospitals. Last March his Department produced a study on the transfer of patients out. Has the rate of transfer of patients out of Rampton increased since the tabling of that study? We shall
196
be pleased to hear the answers to those questions.
Mr. Jenkin: I thank the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) for his kind words about Sir John Boynton and his colleagues.
One of the points that the report makes is that shortage of finance has not been part of the problem at Rampton.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: It is attitudes.
Mr. Jenkin: That is what the report says. The hon. Gentleman is right. The main problem is attitudes.
At present it would be difficult for me to find additional finance, but I shall want to look at that very carefully.
I am reluctant to set a date for the implementation of the recommendations. The appointment of a review board to carry forward the implementation of the recommendations is the best way to make progress.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Elliott report. Previous reports have never carried the full support of the staff at the hospital, whereas Sir John has been able to say that the staff accept the need for changes in traditional attitudes and practices. That is a cause for optimism.
The staff at the hospital are effectively civil servants and therefore are automatically bound by section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. I hope that it will be possible in future to adopt a much more liberal attitude to the publication of factual information about the hospital and professional views of matters of professional concern at the hospital. I shall want to examine carefully how we can substantially liberalise such procedures. As the right hon. Gentleman recognised, the security arrangements at the hospital must obviously remain subject to the Act.
Many of the lessons of the report will be applicable to other hospitals, though the others have not suffered problems to anything like the degree that Rampton has. In particular, the other hospitals have all accepted a proper complaints procedure whereas at Rampton that is still bogged down in negotiations with the staff interests.
It is for the review board to implement the recommendations, under, of

197
course, the general direction of my Department.
I regret that the journalists who visited Rampton last week were not able to be given the same facilities as had been given to, for instance, journalists from The Sunday Times who visited the hospital some months ago. However, I can understand the suspicions of the staff at the hospital who have not been dealt with kindly by the press in the past and who need some reassurance. I hope that we can make progress.
I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about geographical and professional isolation. We shall pay particular attention to the recommendations that there should be much more movement of staff between Rampton and other mental health institutions and that there should be many more opportunities for staff to visit other institutions and to see modern practices elsewhere.
I cannot tell the House that the rate of transfer from Rampton to other mental health hospitals has increased. It has not. That is a matter to which we wish to give urgent attention. We want to ensure that NHS hospitals realize that they have an important role and responsibility, as part of the continuum of care that makes up our pattern of mental health services, to take patients who are recognized as suitable for admission to those hospitals by the consultants in charge of them.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members co-operate I shall hope to be able to call all those who wish to question the Secretary of State.
Mr. Paul Dean: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the steps that will be taken to strengthen the management at the hospital—the new review board—and the proposal to associate people from outside Rampton and the other special hospitals with their general management. I also join my right hon. Friend in his tribute to the staff, who have an intensely difficult job at Rampton and the other special hospitals.
Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about the publicity surrounding the hospitals? Are not short press visits by
198
people who inevitably know little about the problems inside the hospitals likely to create difficulties for staff and patients and is there not a need for great discretion on the part of the media if they are not to intensify already difficult situations?
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome of the main thrust of my statement. I agree wholeheartedly that the work of the staff at Rampton and other special hospitals is intensely difficult. They are dealing with some of the most difficult patients with whom we are asked to cope. By definition, those patients are classified dangerous, violent or criminal. We constantly have to bear in mind the nature of that work when we are considering these problems. It is invaluable that my hon. Friend has pointed that out.
I assure my hon. Friend that those responsible for making arrangements for press visits carefully chose the journalists who visit hospitals. They are those who have an understanding of the problems that they will be studying and they can, one hopes, be relied upon to treat the matter seriously and not sensationally. Visits by television crews are always a difficult matter, for reasons of internal security and the personal privacy of patients. Many consents have to be obtained before there is any question of admitting television cameras to a hospital such as Rampton.
Mr. Ashton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents, particularly those who work at Rampton, will welcome the report, the fact that it states that the team found much that is good, and the tributes paid to the professional dedication and hard work of those in this dangerous job? There will be no trouble with about 200 of the 205 recommendations. On the remaining four or five, the staff are willing to talk about the flexibility of hours and other such matters. In general, it is a report to be welcomed.
However, I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to page 1, where the team reports that it found no evidence of ill treatment in Rampton. The committee was allowed access everywhere. It had its own keys, and was allowed to talk to everybody, both patients and staff.

199
It came across no evidence of ill-treatment. Yet the Yorkshire Television programme alleged that the standard practice for subduing patients was to throttle them with a wet towel; that female patients were kept naked and whipped with chains; that there was a torture chamber stained with blood, where women had scratched at the walls to get out; and that patients were kicked and beaten with rubber plimsolls. The report proves that those are not standard practices.
Is it not a fact that the Government—any Government—must do something about trial by television—show trials where the prosecution presents its case and witnesses for the defence are not interviewed, or have no chance of making a counter-statement? Statements are flashed on television screens from notoriously unstable ex-patients and broadcast as though they were the truth and nothing but the truth. Have not such programmes set back places such as Rampton many years, and soured relations between the staff and their neighbours outside the hospital? Was not that programme in general to be deplored?
Mr. Jenkin: I should like to pay tribute to the helpful and responsible way in which the hon. Gentleman dealt with an extremely difficult situation in his constituency following the showing of the Yorkshire Television film. I should like the House to know that that is sincerely meant.
I must make clear at the start that Sir John Boynton's review was not concerned with the allegations of violence and brutality. I saw a preview of the film and I decided before it was shown on television that the only way of dealing with it was to refer the matter to the police and eventually to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Sir John's review was expressly precluded from examining any of the matters that were properly the the subject of police investigation. As far as I am aware, the team had only one, rather ancient, allegation of violence referred to it. It did what I had asked, which was to refer it immediately to the police. The two matters must be kept separate. Where charges have been preferred matters are sub judice and the police investigations have not finished.
200
It would be unwise for me to pass any general comment on the television programme. It is part of the benefit of a free press that, however uncomfortable it may be for us at any particular time, when things are going wrong and someone wishes to bring the matter to public attention—I hope always responsibly—that can be done. It would be difficult for me to put my hand on my heart and say that without the YTV programme there would have been a Boynton review. I doubt whether there would have been.
My predecessor was aware of some of the difficulties at Rampton and he tried to do something about them, but some good may come from the fact that the programme brought matters to the public's view in the way that it did. However, I entirely understand and have sympathy with the stresses, strains and difficulties that the hon. Gentleman's constituents faced in the months following that programme. I hope that the report will have gone some way to clear the air and that we can look forward to the future and not dwell too much on the unhappy events of the past.
Sir Frederick Burden: I hope that my my right hon. Friend will look upon the report as an encouragement to investigate the situation in a number of other special hospitals. Will he look, in particular, into the position at Leybourne Grange, in Kent. There is no doubt that the staff are dedicated and do their utmost in the conditions, and with the equipment they possess. I believe, however, that such hospitals are often brushed aside in the general arrangements for improving such places. People are there for no other reason than a mental disability for which no blame can be attached. Will my right hon. Friend ensure, in a spirit of compassion, that proper conditions apply in these places and that the staff possess the equipment that they need?
Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend has raised a valid point. Leybourne Grange is a hospital managed by the Kent area health authority. If difficulties are being experienced there—I have had none drawn to my attention—this is a matter in the first instance for the authority. The health advisory service has a roving role to visit hospitals and to assess the quality of care and standards of management

201
being followed at long-stay hospitals. This is one way in which we can monitor the quality of care received by mental patients. By definition, mental patients are perhaps a good deal more vulnerable than many other patients. That imposes on us—Ministers and all concerned—an added responsibility to see that such vulnerability is not abused or taken advantage of.
Mr. Freud: Will the Secretary of State accept that there was great public concern over the Yorkshire Television programme, not only for the content but because of the source—the fact that this information should come through an ITV company rather than a Government watchdog committee? Was there not a strong case for bringing out an interim report to clear the air rather than waiting for the excellent but much fuller report from Sir John Boynton? Will the right hon. Gentleman say why prison visiting should not be extended to all people held in custody, irrespective of their mental or physical state? When the Rampton hospital board is set up, will the right hon. Gentleman consider having representatives both of the Prison Officers' Association and of the patients?
Mr. Jenkin: It would have been difficult for Sir John to issue an interim report, given that the main purpose of the television broadcast was to expose allegations of brutality. Those allegations were outside Sir John's terms of reference and were referred, as I have explained, to the police. I believe that Sir John's report has been well worth waiting for. It is extremely well written. It is very thorough. It provides a valuable blueprint for the review board that I hope to set up shortly.
Rampton is not a prison; it is a hospital. The persons treated there are patients. The nursing staff has special training in psychiatric nursing, either as fully trained nurses or as trainee nurses. To refer, in this context, to prison visitors is perhaps a little unfortunate, as I think the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will recognise. Part of the criticism of Ramp-ton, as the report says, relates to the nurses' uniforms. This is because some staff have seen their role as more custodial than therapeutic.
202
This is part of the inherited attitudes of the past, to which the report has been at pains to draw attention and to suggest a way out of. We want the fresh air of outside scrutiny blowing through Ramp-ton. The accusation of the secret hospital has some validity. It is in no one's interest, certainly not the staff or the patients, that the appellation "secret hospital" should remain. It will require a good deal of patience on the part of all concerned to change that, but we are determined to do it.
Sir Graham Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that two of the four special hospitals that he mentioned—Moss Side and Park Lane—are in a residential area in my constituency? I appreciate that it is necessary to rehabilitate some of the patients who are fit for it by gradually allowing more freedom, but is it not just as important to assure the residents in the area of safety against the relapse of those being rehabilitated by freedom?
Mr. Jenkin: I understand entirely my right hon. Friend's concern, which he expresses fairly and moderately on behalf of his constituents. I am satisfied that security in all four special hospitals is of a very high order. That must remain the situation. It is crucial that the safety of the public should have a high priority. At the same time, it is right that when the doctors, in consultation with the other professions, as now happens, consider that a patient can be released on parole, such a step should not be precluded because of an over-zealous attention to security. There was an unfortunate episode earlier this year at Broadmoor—the case of Ronald Sailes—which achieved wide publicity. As a result, some procedures have been strengthened and improved, notably the question of alerting the police where a patient is let out on parole.
My right hon. Friend will understand that the clinical and therapeutic work of doctors and nurses to whom we give the onerous responsibility of caring for these patients would become more difficult if they could not see, as the result of their work, the prospect of improvement, leading in some cases to the eventual release of patients into the community. If that were not possible I would have thought that any kind of work in a hospital such as Broadmoor or Rampton would become intolerable.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Minister accept that the report paints a depressing picture of a hospital that has lacked proper professional leadership and where the quality of life has fallen well below what are considered acceptable standards? While part of the responsibility must rest with the attitude of staff, the major responsibility necessarily rests at the feet of this Department, which is firmly and directly responsible for the running of the four special hospitals?
Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors failed to implement the recommendations of the Elliot report in 1973 and the more recent unpublished report on psychiatric training. Had they been implemented, many of these recommendations might have obviated the need for this sudden, important inquiry which came about only because of the public outcry occasioned by the television programme. Why, in particular, is the Secretary of State only now taking action to transfer 50 patients who have been waiting for two years for transfer to NHS hospitals? Why has he not taken action along those lines before, when complaints have been made from both sides of the House on the issue?
What is the Secretary of State intending to do about the 130 patients in the hospital whom the Boynton report says should not be there and who are therefore presumably being illegally detained? Although one accepts that it is a hospital and not a prison, the Minister must also accept that it is a maximum security hospital. There are tremendous security conditions at the hospital. It is a secret institution. While it may be inappropriate to have prison visitors, it would be right and proper to have an independent lay inspectorate of the hospital and its conditions. Will the right hon. Gentleman not think about that?
Mr. Jenkin: I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his efforts over many years to secure the right of transfer to other hospitals of patients from the special hospitals. It is a subject to which the hon. Gentleman has devoted considerable energy. He is not wholly fair to my predecessor or myself in suggesting that nothing has been done. The figures for transfers from
204
Rampton to other hospitals, including the Eastdale unit at the Balderton hospital nearby over the last five years have been 83, 72, 80, 74, and, for the first half of this year, 36. The Dell report, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, showed that the main obstacle was getting the acceptance of the receiving hospital to take the patients from Rampton.
The hon. Gentleman has been forthright in his comments about some staff attitudes. It is also possible that some of the medical attitudes have made it difficult for patients to be transferred. I am sure that the most important step to get transfers of this sort is proper consultant contact to satisfy both parties that the transfer is appropriate for a particular patient. I hope that we can build on that.
The hon. Gentleman favours a lay inspectorate. I see the role of the review board in that light. It will have the responsibility for carrying forward the recommendations but it will also be an outside lay body, which is able to supervise the implementation of the report and the running of the hospital. We have the question of wider monitoring under review and I shall direct some remarks to it when I reply to the third report of the Select Committee, to which we shall be giving an answer shortly.
Mrs. Knight: Now that the necessary and important report has been made with great scrupulousness and efficiency, and now that almost all of its recommendations have been accepted, is my right hon. Friend really convinced that, given the existence of all the other watchdog bodies, and since the report has been published and is known to all the staff at Rampton, it is strictly necessary to set up a review body for this lone hospital? How many members does he envisage will be on the board, and what will it cost?
Mr. Jenkin: It has been recognised for some time that there are considerable difficulties in hospitals that are run directly by the Department of Health and Social Security, as are all special hospitals. The report brings out clearly that the relationship between the dedicated officials who bear the burden of the work and the hopsitals is not easy, particularly when distance is involved as it is at Rampton. The central recommendation

205
of the report is that there local review board.
We are making efforts to find people from the regions concerned who can bring to bear their skills, experience and expertise to help the new management of the hospital to achieve the reforms that, as the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said, have been mooted before in earlier reports but on which little progress has been made. We must sustain the impetus. The suggestion is that the review board should exist for three years in the first instance. It is a valuable suggestion, and it is right to give it a try.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the stars of the Yorkshire Television programme, Steven Wilkins, was subsequently transferred, and immediately went out and murdered my constituent, Sidney Mowitt, of Coldstream, with a knife? Is he further aware that it is possible that the press attention that Steven Wilkins received could have contributed to his disturbed state of mind? Will the right hon. Gentleman say more about the role of the press in this sad story? Will he make it clear that the safety of society is as important as the interests of patients at Rampton and, indeed, as the freedom of the press? The Secretary of State referred to people being made uncomfortable by the freedom of the press. Does he accept that my constituent is not uncomfortable—he is dead?
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman must take responsibility for the charges that he makes against the press. I am not aware of the details of the case to which he refers. It is right to reiterate that the safety of the public must always have the highest priority. That is what a maximum security hospital is all about. Such a hospital exists to ensure that people with exceedingly dangerous propensities are held in secure conditions so that the public can be as satisfied as possible that their safety is being looked after.
Miss Fookes: May I urge upon my right hon. Friend the importance of appointing a strong medical director as soon as possible, since that would give the sense of direction, which so far has been lacking? Will he confirm that the director
206
—or whatever title he may be given—should be a will be given full powers?
Mr. Jenkin: Yes. My hon. Friend visited the hospital as a member of the all-party mental health group and saw for herself some of the difficulties. This is a central recommendation of the report. We intend to appoint a person with considerable leadership. Leadership is the key. We need someone with leadership capability who can lead the professional teams and the hospital as a whole in the work that needs to be done. I shall keep in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Ennals: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that as his predecessor I warmly welcome the very thorough report, its recommendations, and the responses in his initial statement and in his answers to questions put to him this afternoon? Is he aware how warmly I welcome the statement by Sir John Boynton in his report about the tireless care and attention that the staff at Rampton give to their patients? Does he share my hope that this will do much to raise the morale of people who are undertaking a difficult task?
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt that his remarks will be brought to the attention of the staff at the hospital. A great deal of fine work is done at Rampton in spite of the difficulties and the management problems under which the staff have had to work. We must move ahead and look to the future. An enormously valuable compendium of advice and guidance is contained in the Boynton report and we must make the best of it.
Mr. van Straubenzee: I refer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes). Does my right hon. Friend envisage this important appointment to be broadly analagous to that of the physician superintendent at Broadmoor hospital? If he does, does he appreciate that finding a man or a woman who combines qualities of leadership, professional expertise and organisational skill will not be easy, to put is mildly? However, that does not make the recommendation bad. Does my right hon. Friend understand how welcome are his understanding words about the staffs at the special hospitals?

207
As one who sought to cool it at the appropriate professional conference, may I remind him that honourable men and honourable women who are doing a difficult task are getting close to the end of their tether?
Mr. Jenkin: I understand the last part of my hon. Friend's remarks. The reports that I have seen of what my hon. Friend said in the face of the anxieties expressed to him by the staff at special hospitals are entirely admirable and I thank him.
I do not wish to add further to what I have said about the qualities that we are looking for in the medical director for Rampton. Certainly, Dr. McGrath, the medical director at Broadmoor, has established an unparalleled reputation as the manager of a hospital under extremely difficult circumstances. He deserves the highest praise. If we can find someone of his calibre to run Rampton we shall be doing extremely well.
Mr. Whitehead: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the measured words that he used about the media and other organisations involved in the welfare of patients at Rampton? As he said, without them we might not have had the Boynton report.
I refer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). Why is the right hon. Gentleman optimistic that he can persuade regional health authorities that either the Dell report or chapter 15 of the Boynton report is applicable to them, since they have consistently refused to build interim secure units and have often confined patients to Rampton when they need not have gone there, and since they are not often willing to take patients who need to be transferred from Rampton?
Mr. Jenkin: I am opening the first regional secure unit the week after next. It is a valuable stage, but I recognise that we have a long way to go. The hon. Gentleman referred to interim secure units. I have discovered something which has long puzzled me. There is a curious misunderstanding by many members of the nursing staffs in particular about what is meant by an interim secure unit. Some staff members regard such units as assessment centres where patients are sent in the interim. They are not intended
208
for that purpose. They are intended to be secure units, if necessary for long-stay patients, to be operated only until a full regional secure unit is built. I am considering how, in mental hospitals and in the places where the units will be built, we can achieve a better understanding about their precise purpose. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Christopher Price: What changes is the Secretary of State considering for the special hospitals operating committee within his Department? Is it really sensible for the four special hospitals to be operated by an anonymous committee of civil servants, which cannot be contacted by those with sensible suggestions to make about the operation of the hospitals? Would it not be better if SHOC was a more open body with the names of the individuals involved made public? It would then operate openly rather than in a secret manner.
Mr. Jenkin: There is a great deal of merit in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As the Boynton committee recommended, I shall consider carefully the future management pattern for the special hospitals. As I indicated earlier, there are difficulties with direct management of those large and important institutions by my Department. Although those concerned have carried out their work with great dedication it is not necessarily the most suitable way. I shall consider whether there is a better way that we can build into the future.
Mr. Fell: I apologise for the fact that I am only now rising. I do so because, in answer to a previous question, the Minister spoke about interim secure units. He may know that I have been in correspondence with his Department in Norwich about that issue. As I understand the matter, once a decision has been made the Minister has no power over the way in which an interim secure unit should be run. That is a serious matter, because the area health authority has carte blanche. As soon as the Minister has made his decision in principle that a unit will be built, the local health authority can do what it likes. It can start an interim unit, which can run for as long as five years, until the new unit is built in the old hospital. If that is true, it is a dreadful matter. I trust

209
that the Minister will help us on that matter.
Mr. Jenkin: I assure my hon. Friend that that is not my view of my accountability to the House about the way in which the National Health Service is run. I wish to consider in some detail my hon. Friend's remarks about the interim secure unit to which he referred. Any health authority is expected to comply with broad Government policy in the running of the Heath Service. It is a difficult and complicated question. I shall be dealing precisely with the question of my accountability and the autonomy of health authorities when I reply to the third report of the Select Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short).
Mr. Moyle: Is the Secretary of State aware that I agree with him that without the catalyst of Yorkshire Television we should not have had the Boynton report? I asked one question that he did not answer, probably inadvertently. Does he now intend to negotiate the implementation of the changes in staff conditions recommended by Boynton to improve the position in the hospital? He said that he did not require more resources but that he wanted a change in attitude. How is it proposed to do away with the 14-hour shift without buying it out?
Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not appreciate that I said that it was a matter for the review board to take forward the implementation of the recommendations in the report, including those on terms and conditions of service. That will have to be done in negotiation with the staff association involved, which is the Prison Officers' Association, which represents the nurses at the hospital.

PRIVATE SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND)
Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the spending of public moneys by the Secretary of State for Scotland without the approval of the House and in anticipation of
210
legislation that has not yet been presented to, or approved by the House, and dealing with the question of the assisted places scheme relating to private schools in Scotland."
I am glad to see that the Patronage Secretary has decided to stay in the Chamber to listen to my application under Standing Order No. 9. This is the fourth or fifth occasion during this long Session that I have complained bitterly about the way in which the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Scottish Office Ministers have treated the House. I regard this matter as being by far the most serious of all complaints that I have waged against the Scottish Office during this Session.
The Scotsman newspaper this morning printed an article under the heading
"Tories take the plunge on private schools plan".
I shall quote briefly from the article. It states:
"Publicity material for parents on the Scottish private schools assisted places scheme is being issued by the Government before they have sought parliamentary approval for the proposals.
And within two weeks the Scottish Education Department will also be publishing a list of up to 45 schools taking part at a cost next year of £750,000 and rising to more than £3 million in five years.
A leaflet, Assisted Places Scheme, a Brief Guide for Parents, describing how the scheme will operate in Scotland was published yesterday by the SED.
'ACT QUICKLY'
Though the leaflet points out that the scheme is still subject to parliamentary approval it urges parents to 'act quickly' if they want to apply for an assisted place for September next year.
The scheme will be bitterly opposed by Scottish Labour MPs when presented in an Education Bill in the forthcoming session, but the Government are confident that their parliamentary majority will ensure that their proposals are unaltered.
A Scottish Office spokesman confirmed yesterday that it had been decided to issue the guide now because many of the private schools involved were beginning to plan their intakes for next year. The Education (Scotland) Bill is not expected to receive Royal Assent until next summer."
The Education (Scotland) Bill, far from not receiving Royal Assent until next summer, has not even been intimated to the House as being part of the Government's legislative programme. We have not heard anything about the contents of the Queen's Speech, which we shall hear

211
when the new Session begins on 20 November. Of all the complaints that I have made against the Scottish Office, this is the clearest indication that the Scottish Office has a complete disregard for Parliament. I am bound to say to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House that if that sort of conduct is allowed to continue—we are told through the publication of a leaflet that a Bill not yet intimated to the House is to be introduced, and that there will be no alteration to the Bill—it is pointless for any Member of Parliament to come to the House to discuss the matter. Through the article in The Scotsman, and on the say-so of the Scottish Education Department, the Government are saying that the proposals will remain unaltered. Surely that is a most serious position to face the House in considering legislation. This matter is of vital importance to the rights of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.
I can imagine what would have happened had the previous Labour Government sought to take such measures without the approval of the House. That never happened, because no democratically elected Government would ever seek to usurp the will and the authority of the House. I cannot argue the merits of the assisted places scheme, as much as I should like to do so. The leaflet goes into great detail. It is not a general leaflet. It defines the income limits for parents, the parental contribution that will be required and the grants available—all that in anticipation of legislation that we have not yet seen, let alone had intimated to the House.
I must ask you to give the most serious consideration to my application, Mr. Speaker, because if one Department can do what I have described and get away with it, God knows what the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary
212
of State for Industry will try. If the matter is allowed to go on and the Secretary of State for Scotland is not called before the House tomorrow to answer for what has appeared in The Scotsman today, and the leaflets issued yesterday we shall be moving along the road to the time when Parliament need not meet, when all that we need wait on are edicts from various Government Departments, with our system becoming a dictatorship rather than democracy.
The Scottish Office has much to answer for because of the way in which it has treated the House. Against that background, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to grant my application.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the spending of public moneys by the Secretary of State for Scotland without the approval of the House and in anticipation of legislation that has not yet been presented to, or approved by the House, and dealing with the question of the assisted places scheme relating to private schools in Scotland."
I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said, for I have no doubt that he raised a very important issue. But I do not decide whether the House shall debate the matter; I decide merely whether there can be an emergency debate tonight or tomorrow night. I am directed not to give any reasons for my decision.
Although I listened very carefully and with concern to what the hon. Gentleman said, I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1933 (AMENDMENT)
4.21 pm
Mr. John Carlisle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 so as to provide that where a child or young person is found guilty of any offence of criminal damage for the commission of which a fine or costs may be imposed or a compensation order may be made under section 35 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 if the court is of the opinion that the case would be best met by the imposition of a fine or costs or the making of such an order whether with or without any other punishment, the court shall order that the fine, compensation or costs awarded be paid by the parent, or guardian of the child or young person, instead of by the child or young person.
The Bill will amend section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 by making it compulsory for magistrates to impose upon parents of 14- to 17-yearold offenders the fines and compensation orders that result from acts of criminal damage by those offenders. At present the magistrates can exercise their discretion whether to impose parental responsibility, and evidence suggests that they are often reluctant to do so.
The Bill coincides with the recent Government White Paper on young offenders. I am pleased to note that the Government also consider it important to emphasise that the present provisions are inadequate in this respect.
The initiative for introducing this intended legislation has come from my county authority in Bedfordshire, which formed a working party to investigate and recommend measures to combat the increasing violence in our county. Its report emphatically laid much of the blame upon poor parental control, public apathy and lack of co-operation with the police. It saw the need further to amend the 1933 Act.
I congratulate the working party on its findings and its diligence. Regrettably, it could draw on much experience of vandalism in our county, particularly in the southern area, in which my constituency lies. There are few tower blocks, schools, places of worship or shopping precincts in Luton that are not now desecrated by some form of graffiti. Daily acts of violence against persons and property are now too numerous even to be reported
214
by the local media. The better the facilities that are offered, the more they are a target for marauding thugs—which is all that they are.
For example, only a fortnight ago in my constituency the foundations of a community centre were dug. The centre has received much public support and public money. Within a week of the foundations being dug, the very people for whom the centre was built had desecrated and vandalised some of the works. Not many nights now pass in Luton without the sound of breaking glass.
Statistics tell us that crime is increasing by about 10 per cent. a year. In major cities the figures are even worse. Vandalism costs over £100 million a year to the public purse. Damage to schools is estimated at £15 million and to telephone kiosks at £1 million. British Rail's bill is over £3 million.
Since my intention to introduce the Bill was made known, I have received letters from all over the country relating terrifying personal experiences: old people's windows smashed by children; shop fronts destroyed by football hooligans; newly planted trees uprooted; new house walls sprayed with graffiti; and even warehouses and factories set alight.
If we add to that the daily national reports of Tube and train violence, daytime muggings and constant theft, we see that the backcloth to Britain's so-called peaceful society becomes a rather ugly painting.
The present Government were elected on a ticket to restore dignity and pride to family life, believing that a sound, disciplined background would add respect to our education system and responsibility to parental control. I admit that there are some parents who need assistance in bringing up their children. There are families for whom social and employment problems create special difficulties. But I believe that for too long our judicial administrators have been hiding behind that minority as the excuse for releasing the majority from their full parental obligation.
Children who suffer lack of guidance are not often beyond parental capability They are encouraged to break the law by their parents absolving themselves of all responsibility. It is too easy to hide

215
behind the "I cannot control him" excuse, or even the "His social worker does not understand him" syndrome.
Many parents do not bother with a simple form of discipline, probably because they fail to practise it in their own lives. Many would rather stay ignorant of their offspring's action, because their ignorance covers up for their own moral inadequacies and misdemeanours. Everyone apart from themselves is blamed—the school; the teachers; the council, for not providing facilities; even the State, for an inadequate supply of constant entertainment. Never is it considered that a stronger family life might have prevented the birds from flying from the family nest so early.
I commend the action of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon), who, finding that two children in his constituency had desecrated a local playgroup's premises, admonished the parents. The children went back and repaired the damage that they had done. I understand that there is no further problem there.
Parents must learn to accept responsibility, or have it forced upon them. Too often a fine or compensation order upon a young person is left unpaid, and criminal and parents alike often laugh their way out of court at their good fortune.
It must be accepted that fines are often the only sentences left open to magistrates. In these days of prison difficulties they may be the only course at present. Such a deterrent, if payment is pursued, may be as effective as the short, sharp shock, but only if it means a heavy financial imposition that will hurt the parent as well as the child. The adult choice of paying or imprisonment will be a salutary reminder to an erring parent who had thought that his child's action was someone else's responsibility.
Men who are on short-time or are receiving unemployment benefit will not take kindly to paying for the local bakery shop window, especially if the bill runs into several hundreds of pounds.
A lesson in public humiliation also would not go amiss. If the press could name the children who were persistent violent offenders, the parents would share their public shame.
216
The afflicted often receive nothing but paltry compensation, totally inadequate to deter the criminal or adequately avenge the offence. About £25 million in fines was left unpaid last year. How much longer can the public purse be expected to foot this bill? If the parents default in payment, an inevitable consequence for many of them is that the full force of the law and imprisonment must be inflicted as a further deterrent in the fight against crime.
There must, of course, be a small get out. Parents who were abroad, or those detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, would be an obvious exception. But exceptions must be rare; they must apply in an absolute minimum of cases.
The Bill should strike a chord in the hearts and pockets of every parent. It will prove an effective deterrent to the intending juvenile criminal and to parents alike. It will return responsibility to family life and discipline to dissenting households. I ask the House to grant it a Second Reading.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?
4.29 pm
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Before saying why I wish to oppose the Bill, may I say that I believe it to be a gross abuse of the House for the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) to seek to introduce a Bill when we have only two days left in this Session and when he knows very well that there is no conceivable way in which the Bill could go through any of its stages this Session? Therefore, clearly, what the hon. Gentleman is engaged in today is a mere public relations publicity exercise rather than a serious attempt to amend the law as he suggests.
The Bill would provide that whenever a court imposed a fine, a compensation order or costs upon a juvenile convicted of criminal damage, it should order that the fine be paid by the child's parents or guardian instead of by the child.
I accept that there is widespread agreement on both sides of the House that there are some occasions on which it is

217
reasonable and proper to oblige parents to pay fines imposed upon young offenders, but I think that it is equally agreed on both sides of the House that there are other occasions on which it would be both unreasonable and harmful to insist that a fine be paid by an offender's parents.
In the previous Labour Government's Criminal Law Act 1977 the courts were given the power in certain circumstances to oblige parents to pay fines. One argument for that measure was precisely the argument that has been used by the hon. Gentleman—that it may encourage parents to take more responsibility for the actions of their children. I do not think that anyone in the House would dissent from that intention and the acceptance of parents taking responsibility for the disciplining and control of their children.
Under the provisions of the 1977 Act a court may—indeed, it must if an offender is under 14 years of age—order a parent or guardian to pay a financial penalty imposed on a juvenile offender unless it is satisfied that the parents have not neglected to exercise due care and control of the young person.
The Government, in their White Paper "Young Offenders", argue that the courts may have been reluctant to use that power—it has been used very sparingly—because of their uncertainty about its precise scope. Therefore, the White Paper proposes that parents should be required to pay their children's fines unless, in the particular circumstances of the case, the court thinks that it would be unreasonable to make them pay. There are varying views whether that proposal would be an improvement on the present law. No doubt we shall be discussing that matter in the months ahead.
The point is that neither the present law nor the Government's proposals in the White Paper would require parents to pay fines in every case. I believe that such a requirement would be both unreasonable and unacceptable. In some cases parents may have done everything reasonable to ensure that their child was disciplined and controlled and abided by the impositions placed upon him. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to penalise parents who, through no fault of their
218
own, unwittingly and unintentionally are unable to control their child.
In other cases—I think that the hon. Gentleman should have made this point—magistrates may consider that if the fine is to have any value it should be paid by the offender—the child. He should not be allowed to slough off the responsibility on to his parents and blithely go on committing further offences knowing that he will not be made directly responsible for whatever restitution is called for.
It seems remarkable that if we are asking for greater responsibility and discipline it should be placed not where it would be most appropriately placed—on the offender—but, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, in all cases on his or her parents.
In other cases, young offenders or delinquents may be at odds with their parents. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must have come across many such cases. If a fine were to be imposed upon a parent without the court having any discretion, the resulting resentment, bitterness and frustration could harm family relationships even more than they currently are within that context and might place that juvenile or offender at greater risk than he was previously or would otherwise be.
There is the problem that we have to anticipate of the parent of a particularly recalcitrant offender who has done everything in his power to control him. There may be nothing more that he could reasonably be expected to do to discipline him. There may be bad blood between them and the parent may not physically be able to control his physically adult child. There may be resentment and bitterness and no ties of kinship. If such a parent is ordered to pay a fine, he may say "No. I have done everything that I can. I am not responsible. I am not physically capable of controlling the child." If that parent refuses to pay the fine, having done no wrong, perhaps being incompetent in some way but not wilfully culpable, he will end up in prison, as a fine defaulter. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that respectable, decent, law-abiding parents who are fulfilling their responsibilities to their children as best they can, albeit incompetently, should, through no fault of their own, be imprisoned.

219
The hon. Gentleman is suggesting taking away the flexibility that the courts now possess. Under the present law, passed by the previous Labour Government, and under the proposals outlined in the Government's White Paper "Young Offenders", this power would exist but would be retained by the courts for use in a flexible and imaginative manner. Magistrates have discretion to distinguish between cases where making a parent pay a fine would be an appropriate course of action and other cases where to do so would be unfair and perhaps potentially damaging.
The hon. Gentleman's Bill would give no such discretion to the courts, but would require payments in all cases where fines, compensation orders or costs have been imposed upon juveniles. For that reason alone, despite the merits of the case, I believe that the Bill should be opposed as a reprimand to the hon. Member for Luton, West for abusing the procedures of the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 133.

Division No. 493]

AYES

[4.35 p.m.

Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

Onslow, Cranley

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Grylis, Michael

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Banks, Robert

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Parris, Matthew

Best, Keith

Hawkins, Paul

Patten, John (Oxford)

Blackburn, John

Hawksley, Warren

Pawsey, James

Bright, Graham

Hill, James

Proctor, K. Harvey

Brinton, Tim

Hooson, Tom

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

Jessel, Toby

Renton, Tim

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Kershaw, Anthony

Rhodes James, Robert

Bryan, Sir Paul

Kilfedder, James A.

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Budgen, Nick

Knight, Mrs Jill

Shersby, Michael

Bulmer, Esmond

Lang, Ian

Silvester, Fred

Butcher, John

Latham, Michael

Skeet, T. H. H.

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Lawrence, Ivan

Squire, Robin

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Stainton, Keith

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Steen, Anthony

Cockeram, Eric

McCrindle, Robert

Stevens, Martin

Colvin, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Costain, Sir Albert

McQuarrie, Albert

Tapsell, Peter

Crouch, David

Marlow, Tony

Thompson, Donald

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Mawby, Ray

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Durant, Tony

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Warren, Kenneth

Fell, Anthony

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Wheeler, John

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Moate, Roger

Wickenden, Keith

Fookes, Miss Janet

Molyneaux, James

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Wolfson Mark

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Neale, Gerrard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gower, Sir Raymond

Needham, Richard

Mr. Christopher Murphy and

Greenway, Harry

Neubert, Michael

Mr. Tom Benyon.

NOES

Allaun, Frank

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Alton, David

Dempsey, James

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Dixon, Donald

Hardy, Peter

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

Dobson, Frank

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Douglas, Dick

Haynes, Frank

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

Dubs, Alfred

Hefter, Eric S.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Eadie, Alex

Home Robertson, John

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Eastham, Ken

Homewood, William

Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

English, Michael

Hooley, Frank

Buchan, Norman

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Howells, Geraint

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Evans, John (Newton)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Ewing, Harry

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Canavan, Dennis

Faulds, Andrew

John, Brynmor

Cant, R. B.

Flannery, Martin

Johnson, James (Hull Nest)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Foot, Rt Hon Mlchael

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Forrester, John

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)

Foster, Derek

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Foulkes, George

Kerr, Russell

Cryer, Bob

Freud, Clement

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Leighton, Ronald

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Graham, Ted

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Davidson, Arthur

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Litherland, Robert

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

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

O'Neill, Martin

Steel, Rt Hon David

McCartney, Hugh

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Stott, Roger

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Park, George

Straw, Jack

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

McKelvey, William

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Richardson, Jo

Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

McNamara, Kevin

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Tinn, James

McTaggart, Robert

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Robertson, George

Watkins, David

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Weetch, Ken

Maxton, John

Rooker, J. W.

Welsh, Michael

Maynard, Miss Joan

Roper, John

Whitehead, Phillip

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Sandelson, Neville

Wigley, Dafydd

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Sever, John

Winnick, David

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Short, Mrs Renée

Woodall, Alec

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Woolmer, Kenneth

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Silverman, Julius

Morton, George

Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Newens, Stanley

Soley, Clive

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Spearing, Nigel

Mr. Stan Thorne.

O'Halloran, Michael

Stallard, A. W.

Question accordingly negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL
  Lords amendments considered.
  4.46 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I might raise two related points of order but, for the sake of brevity and clarity, deal with each one in turn.
  The first concerns the availability of papers to this House. I understand that it is the convention of the House that Bills and Lords amendments to Bills which are to be discussed in this House are published in time for right hon. and hon. Members to make serious estimates of their contents before we proceed to debate them. Traditionally, that convention has been interpreted as making at least a weekend elapse between the publication of a document and its being debated on the Floor of the House.
  On Friday, the Government published 265 Lords amendments to the Bill, leaving the House with what I think all right hon. and hon. Members will agree is the minimum tolerable period—Saturday, Sunday and Monday—for the assimilation and understanding of those amendments. It transpires that, some time yesterday, 28 corrections to those amendments appeared in the Vote Office, some of them of very great complexity. Therefore, it was not possible for right hon. and hon. Members to know the contents of 28 of the Lords amendments to the Bill until after lunch time on the day before we were to debate them.
  It is intolerable that this House should be asked to examine these complex matters with literally less than 24 hours to read and understand them. If it were simply another example of the incompetence displayed at every stage of the passage of the Bill, I, for my part, would not have raised the matter today. However, if the Government want the House to discuss the amendments in a real sense, we must have time to understand them. If they simply want the House to rubber-stamp the Bill, they will proceed, saying that the time does not matter.
  224
  I wish to ask two questions. First, I ask what protection you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker himself can provide for those of us who want to understand what we are debating before we vote according to the recommendations of our respective Whips.
  My second question is directed to the Government. I do not even hope that the Government will postpone the entire proceedings on this Bill. As the Secretary of State implemented some of its provisions in September, he naturally wants to get it on to the statute book at the first opportunity so that his action can be retrospectively legitimised. However, there is a compromise which the Minister, Chief Whip, or even the Leader of the House—if he is about somewhere—might consider.
  I understand that within the rules of order it is possible for the Government to propose that the 28 amendments of which we received notice only yesterday should be abstracted from our consideration today, taken out of order and discussed tomorrow, when we will have had 48 hours rather than 24 hours to consider them. As well as asking for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask the Government to consider whether they are prepared to give that minimum courtesy to the House. It affects only 28 amendments about which we did not know until yesterday, and I suggest that they should be debated tomorrow rather than today.
  Mr. Jack Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many Opposition Members, including myself, who did not serve on the Committee have spent many hours going through the Bill and the amendments in order to make a contribution today. We tried to do some of that work at the weekend. It was, therefore, of great concern to us that when we went to the Vote Office yesterday we discovered a correction sheet.
  If you look at that sheet, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will see that these are not merely trivial omissions of a typing error kind but that some are major omissions which substantively alter the amendments already put forward in the House of Lords. For example, I draw your attention to amendment 4C, which has the effect of giving the Secretary of State

  225
  a discretion rather than imposing a duty upon him. That is of major significance. It takes time to determine what attitude hon. Members should adopt, yet effectively we have had no time whatever to consider these amendments.
  In my submission, it is an abuse of the privileges of the House for the Government to act in the way that they have. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take cognisance of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said and to put all the pressure and moral authority which the Chair can upon the Government so that they adopt his suggestion that we debate these additional amendments tomorrow.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to labour this point, but many hon. Members representing Inner London constituencies who did not serve on the Committee, and whose constituents' prospects are likely to be seriously affected one way or the other, have had a monstrous task. This place is a law factory. We may get marks for productivity at the end of today, but it is fairly likely that we shall produce some inferior and shoddy products unless we accept the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
  I understand that the convention of the House is that Lords amendments should be made available to hon. Members who should have at least a weekend to consider them. I suspect that the conventions are normally geared to the three or four pages of amendments that we can expect from the other place rather than to 94 pages of amendments, which some of us have tried to assimilate during the weekend. As a result, we were rather devastated yesterday when we were presented with four pages of further amendments, which has made a farce of what some of us have tried to do. They relate to matters of great importance.
  Certainly, with regard to the area that I represent, I have not been able to assimilate the effect of these corrections on the Inner London Education Authority. At this moment, I do not understand what the effect will be. What I do understand is that the object of the Bill is to transform
  226
  the circumstances of the ILEA, which provides an education for children in inner London, including my own area. To that extent, I declare an interest. However, presented as I am with this latest list of amendments to amendments, I cannot discharge my obligation to my electorate to assess whether the amendments improve the Bill or make it worse.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I have sympathy with the point of order that has been raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and his hon. Friends. It is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that the papers are available. The timing of the debate is not a matter for the Chair. The Minister will have heard what has been said. In view of what has happened, perhaps the most helpful thing that I can say is that, if hon. Members wish to submit manuscript amendments as we proceed, they will be considered by Mr. Speaker in the normal way.
  Mr. Hattersley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for what you have said. I understand and accept at once that you can go no further. However, if we are to be treated with even a modicum of courtesy, I hope that the Minister will comment on my suggestion. The thought that he would not even reply never struck me. Perhaps he will now bring himself to say something.
  The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): We can perhaps understand why today of all days there may be some element of hyperbole from Labour Members. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman addressed a point of order to the Chair. I do not think that it was proper for me to reply.
  As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware, there was unfortunately an error in the printing in that the amendments referred to on the supplementary list were omitted by the printer. They were supplied by the Government but, unfortunately, were not included. That is a matter for the Chair. On behalf of the Government, I apologise for the fact that hon. Members may have been inconvenienced. However, the right hon. Gentleman addressed his point of order to the

  227
  Chair and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, quite properly replied. I add my concern that there may not have been as much time as the Government would have wished for hon. Members to consider these amendments, but the matter was not within our control.
  Mr. HattersleyFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am advised that on these 28 amendments alone—I ask for nothing in relation to the other 237—it is within the Government's power to abstract them from today's business, take them out of order and give the House an opportunity to discuss them tomorrow when we have had another 24 hours to understand what they mean. Can the Minister say whether the Government are even prepared to consider that suggestion, or do they dismiss it out of hand?
  Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful for clarification. I think I am right in saying that when you replied to my right hon. Friend you said that this was a matter for the Government. However, the Minister denied that it was a matter for the Government and said that it was a matter for the Chair because this was an error in printing rather than an error in the directions given to the printers. Perhaps we can have some clarification as to whose responsibility it is. If it is your responsibility, Mr. Deputy Speaker, surely it lies within your power to insist that these matters be discussed tomorrow rather than today.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The responsibility of the Chair is to ensure that papers are available. The timing of the debate is wholly a matter for the Government and the usual channels.
  Mr. King: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern, but I do not feel that the action which he suggests would be justified. I remind the House that discussions on the Bill commenced last December. A number of these matters arose many months ago in this House and more than a month ago in the other place. Those hon. Members who have been concerned about the progress of the Bill will be aware of that. They will also be aware that most of the amendments are either technical or consequential. I have considered the right hon. Gentleman's representations, but I
  228
  cannot advise the House to proceed in the way he suggests.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that as there are more than 230 amendments the House could, if it wished, have more than 230 votes?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is correct. It would be possible to vote on each of the Lords' amendments.
  Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps I can abandon my first point, after the success that I fear we have grown to anticipate, and turn to my second point of order, which relates to a specific clause in the Bill.
  5 pm
  The provision concerning financing of trading undertakings was amended in the House of Lords. It was initially proposed by the Government and then carried against the Government's advice. On Third Reading the Government announced that they did not propose to try to reverse the decision. The decision imposed on the Government by the other place enabled local authorities to finance capital expenditure from profits on trading undertakings without such expenditure counting against annual capital allocation.
  Today the Association of Metropolitan Authorities drew the Government's attention to the need for consequential amendments to the Bill if the amendment that they had accepted—which is part of clause 63—was to be made sense of. The message was sent to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that the Government accepted that clause 63 as it now stands cannot be operated in the way in which it was intended to operate. But the Government were not prepared to put down the consequential amendments lest when those amendments were returned to the House of Lords so much time was occupied that the Bill did not make progress at the speed that the Government wished. On their own admission, the Government are offering the House a clause that is inoperable and ineffective.
  I raise two points on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The first concerns the protection which the House may receive from the Chair against Ministers intentionally

  229
  asking hon. Members to support a clause that cannot be operated in the way it should be operated. Secondly, I understand that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities was told that, as this clause is related to capital expenditure, the Government would make up for the inadequacy in drafting by making certain additional capital sums available to authorities that might be penalised as a result of the inadequate drafting. We need to know now, simply for business reasons, whether the Government are saying that they are not prepared to amend clause 63 to bring it into line with reality, and whether they will make up for that deficiency by paying local authorities moneys that they have already been promised.
  If the Government cannot give a satisfactory answer on those two points, will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or Mr. Speaker, consider accepting, very late in the day, a manuscript amendment to rectify the Government's error? With the assistance of Mr. Speaker's staff, Labour Members have tried to put together an appropriate amendment, but the Bill is so complicated and complex, and we are struggling against House of Lords amendments and corrections to House of Lords amendments, that we shall not be in a position until later this evening to put down a correcting amendment.
  I hope that the Minister of State will now tell us his attitude towards the deficiencies of clause 63, and say whether he will make an attempt to remedy them, and whether he will make up for the mistakes by paying the moneys that have been promised. If not, may I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there may be need for very late manuscript amendments.
  Mr. King: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley) suggested that this part of the Bill is inoperable unless the Government move certain further amendments. That is not correct. There has been some misunderstanding about this issue, and I am aware that discussions have been taking place. These are not consequential amendments. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if they were essential and unavoidable consequential
  230
  amendments to an amendment that was carried in another place. That is not correct. It is a matter for debate whether further amendments could be made, but the Bill is workable within the spirit of the amendments that were carried in the other place. That can be observed. When we debate the matter, I shall be happy to give the House clarification and assurance on that point.
  With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not think that we can debate the Lords amendments out of order. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook implied that the Government are proposing to accept an amendment that in some sense will be deficient or inoperable. That is not the case, and I shall be happy to enlarge on that during the debate, if the right hon. Gentleman so wishes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a political matter; it is not one for the Chair. May I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that, in view of the delay and the complexity of the Bill, Mr. Speaker would certainly consider manuscript amendments in the usual way if they are submitted to him. Shall we now proceed with the Bill?

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL
    Clause 1

      RELAXATION OF MINISTERIAL CONTROL OF AUTHORITIES
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 7, leave out from "to" to second "to" in line 9 and insert "a right of appeal"
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendments Nos. 2 to 4, 158 to 168, 223, 233 to 241, and 264.
      Mr. Fox: Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are technical and merely correct the drafting of clause 1 so that it accurately reflects the contents of the schedule that is dependent upon it.
      Amendment No. 4 makes a minor correction to the drafting of subsection (6) so as to reflect more accurately the contents of schedule 6. It adds new subsections (7) and (8) which introduce respectively the highways and road traffic

      231
      provisions of a new schedule to follow schedule 6.
      Amendment No. 168 adds a new schedule to the Bill, after schedule 6. This restores to the Bill provisions which had originally been included in the No. 1 Bill but which were omitted from the No. 2 Bill because of pressure of time. However, in the other place we were persuaded to reinstate them in the form of a schedule. They are largely uncontroversial and represent Government policy. They serve to relax ministerial controls over local authorities' highways and road traffic functions. There are many examples, such as the provision of pedestrian crossings and even disputes over bus shelters, which under present legislation have to be referred to the Secretary of State.
      Amendment No. 158 is a drafting amendment that makes the relaxation of controls more specific. Amendment No. 159 deals with the removal of the requirement for the Secretary of State to confirm orders creating smoke control areas. Confirmation will no longer be necessary for orders made in the future, but there are two exceptions for which provision is necessary. The first is a transitional exception because there are a number of smoke control orders that are awaiting confirmation. Some cannot be dealt with before this Bill becomes law because of the need to arrange and hold public inquiries. This amendment provides for those situations to be dealt with under the existing procedures, and for a decision to be made on confirmation.
      The second exception concerns future orders that might vary or revoke existing smoke control orders. Undertakings were given in Committee that the removal of controls would not lead to a lowering of national environmental standards. By this amendment we are ensuring that, in the unlikely event of a local authority wishing to revoke smoke control, the decision will be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. We regard this ultimate safeguard as important in the implementation of our agreement with the European Community for an air quality standard on smoke and sulphur dioxide.
      Amendment No. 160 is a minor correction intended to make clear that the purpose of paragraph 3 of schedule 2 is to delete the words from the second "or"
      232
      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 as to which should deal with any premises that straddle the boundaries between them.
      Amendment No. 159 rewords paragraph 2 of schedule 2 in order to provide that the power of confirmation will apply to any orders already made but not confirmed at the date of Royal Assent. They also require confirmation for any future order, varying and revoking orders already confirmed by the Secretary of State. This amendment is consequential upon the alterations to paragraph 2.
      Amendment No. 166 is consequential on amendments Nos. 162 and 163. These amendments do not alter the Government's intention to relax the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers in respect of condition and use of receptacles for the control of waste.
      Amendments Nos. 164, 165 and 236 refer to the prohibition of parking to facilitate street cleaning and are intended to clarify the position under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 now that all but one of the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers are to be repealed.
      Amendment No. 167 provides for a smooth transition in the removal of the Secretary of State's powers of confirmation of noise abatement orders. It is identical in intention to the first part of amendment No. 159 on smoke control orders and it allows noise abatement orders which have already been made to be completed under the existing procedures.
      The effect of amendment No. 223 is to preserve the right of a tenant of a cottage holding to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food against the refusal of his county council landlord to allow the improvement of that holding.
      Amendment No. 233 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 as to which should deal with any premises

      233
      which straddle the boundaries between them.
      Amendment No. 234 is a technical amendment required to ensure consistency between this schedule and schedule 2, paragraph 3(2), which excluded Scotland from the repeal of the control contained in section 31(6) of the Clean Air Act 1956.
      Amendment No. 235 is concerned with paragraph 2 of schedule 2, which removes the requirement in section 11(1) of the Clean Air Act 1956 for smoke control orders to be confirmed by the Minister. These amendments provide for further repeals consequential upon the loss of this power.
      Amendment No. 237 again refers to paragraph 2 of schedule 2, removing the requirement in section 11(1) of the Clean Air Act 1956 for the smoke control orders to be reconfirmed by the Minister. The amendment provides for further repeals consequential upon the loss of those powers.
      Amendments Nos. 238 and 239 are purely technical amendments to remove reference to two provisions which the Bill erroneously repeals.
      Amendment No. 264 is again a technical amendment to ensure that the long title is fully consonant with the detailed provisions in schedules 1 to 7. The relaxations of controls contained in the Bill extend not only to local authorities but to other public bodies such as river purification boards, thereby necessitating the amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.

    Clause 2

      DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO PUBLISH INFORMATION
      Lords Amendment: No. 4A, in page 3, line 8, leave out "and".
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 4B to 4F and Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 8.
      Mr. King: These amendments deal with the publication of information. Amendments Nos. 4A to 4F and amendment No. 6 extend the provisions about publication of information to Scotland and to certain types of authority, including police, fire authorities and the Inner London Education Authority.
      In addition, amendment No. 7—new clause A—extends the provision to certain other types of public body, including new town development corporations, water authorities and passenger transport executives. This was in response to representations made on each side of the Committee, when the point was made that the merits of the case for publication of more meaningful information should not be restricted to local authorities and that there was a strong case for extending this to other public bodies as well.
      I hope, therefore, that these amendments will be supported on each side of the House.
      Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend say what is envisaged with regard to police committees? We already have very full reports under the Police Acts.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. King: These are only enabling powers, and it will be a matter for discussion in this respect to see what might be the most appropriate form, if any, of further information. But, obviously, in legislation of this kind it is desirable that they should be included in case at a later stage there is an argument for such publication of information. It would be only after discussion with the bodies concerned, and there is no intention at the moment to move on that particular provision.
      Amendment No. 5 is the paving amendment for amendment No. 8, which places some restriction on the power of the Secretary of State to require the publication of what we call short period indicators. Hon. Members who have studied the clause will know that it deals mainly with the publication of information annually and that it is our intention to encourage the publication of certain other information more frequently than annually. For example, the joint manpower watch, which is operated by local authorities at present, is operated quarterly and

      235
      quite sensibly so, because it is not possible to identify trends meaningfully or to take any sensible action about trends in manpower if the figures are available only annually.
      To overcome some concern among local authorities that we might be asking for a plethora of different items, and that we would be asking for very frequent publication, we have made clear that we have listed the four items in which we are interested—manpower, planning, housing and land—and that otherwise it will not be possible for the Secretary of State to ask for more frequent publication than annually of any other items unless he comes to this House and by affirmative resolution, gets the support of the House for obtaining such further information. Whatever views hon. Members may hold about affirmative orders, that is a sure protection against a casual decision by some Minister that it might be interesting to get a little more information about this, that or the other matter. He would have to get an affirmative order from the House.
      That is a significant improvement and I know that it is one which local authorities have found to be of some reassurance to them.
      Mr. Ted Graham: I shall speak first on amendment No. 7 and I intend, after I have had a response on that, to deal with amendment No. 8.
      As the Minister quite rightly points out, amendment No. 7 seeks to extend the scope of the application of the powers in the original clause 2 to force, request, direct or order—whatever may be the term to be used in the legislation—local authorities to publish information.
      Already the Government have seen fit in clause 2 to lay these obligations on county councils, district councils, the GLC, the London boroughs, the City of London and the Isles of Scilly. Now the Government are intent on adding to that list development corporations, the Commission for the New Towns, water authorities, urban development corporations, passenger transport executives, London Transport Executive—what the Minister in another place called a collection of bodies.
      I should like the Minister to be a little more explicit concerning the case that was made in another place for adding
      236
      what local authorities—I shall say more about that in speaking to amendment No. 8—say that they are willing to do in this particular matter. The Minister has said that, in effect, he is responding to representations made by, among others, Labour Members in Committee. Frankly, I am not too certain that we were urging the Minister to extend the list of bodies upon which are to be laid the obligations and duties in this matter. We took a very sceptical and caustic view of the necessity for calling upon local authorities at present to spend their money and their time, and the time of their officers, in making available a great deal of that which, as we shall say when we discuss the next group of amendments, is already available.
      The Minister in another place talked about widely supported objectives throughout a range of bodies in the public sector. Of course, he gave the game away by referring to many public bodies which already have adequate power to make this information available. He said:
      "having consulted the various individual organisations concerned, we should take such broad enabling powers as this new clause seeks to provide."
      I want the Minister of State to tell the House that, in effect, all of the bodies that are listed have said not only that they are willing to do what the Minister orders them to do but "We want you to order us to do that which the original clause 2 lays down."
      Is the Minister of State saying that this additional range of local authorities and public bodies are saying "Please bring to bear some power and force, and insist that we do this in addition to the publicity that we already give to our activities"? For instance, water authorities are already giving some information in their billings and demands for water rates. Is the Minister saying that they have said "Lay upon us a duty to conform in such manner as you prescribe with additional ways of making information about our activities available"? Is the Minister saying that the London Transport Executive has said to him that, in addition to the posters carried on buses about a range of matters and in addition to its annual report which is made available, it wants the Government

      237
      to tell it that it has an obligation to do more?
      The Minister in another place said that the various individual organisations had said that they were prepared to have these broad enabling duties laid upon them.
      We now come to the nub of the matter and the Government's great difficulty. The Minister in another place said:
      "one of the purposes of this is to make reasonably straightforward comparisons between one authority and another in the case of local authorities"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 October 1980; Vol. 413, c. 129–32]
      Ministers in this House have said that they genuinely believe—and I believe in their genuineness—that ratepayers want to know how much is being spent by neighbouring authorities on a range of matters, so that, when they compare what their council is spending, they have some yardstick by which to judge and criticise their council.
      My authority of Enfield has the two neighbouring authorities of Barnet and Haringey, one of which is Conservative-controlled and the other Labour-controlled. Does the Minister believe that the straightforward comparison—as suggested by the Minister in another place—of a number of functions would be helpful? For instance, £149 per head is spent on education in Barnet. Enfield spends £146 and Haringey spends £176. Does the Minister believe that the possession of those statistics by ratepayers in those three authorities, without the additional gloss explaining the various factors present in the three authorities, and a straightforward comparison of statistics will be helpful?
      Then there is the comparison between library services. Per head of population, Barnet spends £7, Enfield spends £6, and Haringey spends £11. The figures for social services are Barnet £34, Enfield £30 and Haringey £65.
      Does the Minister believe that the simple regurgitation of statistics will be helpful to ratepayers in any of those three places without the provision of a lot of background concerning the age of the population, whether there is an undue proportion of elderly people or children, and whether there is an adverse ethnic mix which will cause the local authority to spend more? There are factors such
      238
      as the age of housing, the percentage of industry, the percentage of open space, the number of people who are housebound, and the question of how wide is the net of voluntary help. All of that needs to be understood before one can validate the statement by the Minister in another place that all that we want is a straightforward comparison.
      Mr. R. B. Cant: Although my hon. Friend is relating his remarks to this very narrow amendment, is he not launching, a massive indictment of the grant-related expenditures of the new block grant, about which we spoke in Committee and which make the present multiple regression analysis in respect of rate support grant look like childs play?
      Mr. Graham: I am prepared to take my hon. Friend's word for that. What we have is the nonsense of the Government claiming the relaxation of controls, setting the people free and giving local government the opportunity to determine its own affairs, but at the same time and in the same Bill, by virtue of the financial stranglehold which they will be imposing in relation to rates and capital allocations, they are laying upon local authorities a duty to provide this additional information, which will make nonsense of that freedom.
      Already we are seeing some of the problems. In the Education Act a duty to provide certain information concerning schools and acedemic records was laid on authorities. The Enfield Gazette of last weekend said:
      "In a report to the sub-committee, Mr. Hutchinson"—
      the education officer—
      "said if the Department of Education model were followed, the council would have to produce a booklet of about 250 pages each year."
      This is nonsense. People are interested in education and want more information about social services. They want to hear more in relation to accountability of the range of additional bodies. However, the Government have got completely out of balance. They have a desire to force authorities to make known to the public what they are doing, but at the same time they are making it impossible for local authorities to carry out their remit.
      Therefore, before we agree to Lords amendment No. 7, I hope that the Minister

      239
      will be able to justify these additional authorities having to carry these extra imposts.
      Mr. Dobson: I should like your assistance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or possibly the assistance of the Minister. Am I right in thinking that the Minister moved the whole group of amendments?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Member. When we have these groupings, the Minister moves the first amendment and speaks to the others. I then put from the Chair the amendments as we come to them in the list of Lords amendments.
      Mr. Dobson: I can assume therefore, that except in reply to anything that is said in the debate, the Minister has done all the speaking that he intends to do on the whole group of amendments.
      Mr. King: I shall reply.
      Mr. Dobson: In view of the representations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and myself, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—who is temporarily absent—I am rather surprised that the Minister chose not to refer—at least not in my hearing, and I have been present throughout the whole proceedings this afternoon—to one solitary syllable of these amazing amendments.
      There was not a shred of apology for the way in which these amendments have been presented to hon. Members who are trying to do their job. I do not know whether this is characteristic of the way in which the Bill has gone through Parliament. If it is, I find it a very cavalier treatment of the House and those whom we are trying to represent.
      We have an enormous Bill, an enormous number of amendments and amendments to amendments. The Minister is aided by another Minister, a Parliamentary Private Secretary, a cast of thousands at the Department of the Environment and by no fewer than nine persons in the communal coffin behind the Chair. The Minister has his advisers as near to hand as possible. Back Benchers are reduced to trying to find out for themselves the effect of the proposed amendments that were sprung on the
      240
      House yesterday. It is difficult for us to do so. I must protest. I repeat my protest about the cavalier treatment that we have had from the Minister.
      5.30 pm.
      As I attempted to explain when pursuing a point of order, my main concern lies with the Inner London Education Authority, which is referred to by name in no fewer than four places in this series of amendments. I do not understand why these late amendments have to be introduced. Did the Department forget about ILEA until it reached this late stage in the game? I think that it was Lady Bracknell who said that to lose one parent was unfortunate but to lose two was carelessness. It seems that we lost ILEA on no fewer than three occasions. That must amount to gross negligence on the part of the Minister and his advisers.
      I have not had the opportunity to consult the GLC member and the ILEA member in the area that I represent. I have not had the opportunity to consult ILEA at officer or member level to ascertain the impact of these amendments. ILEA may have felt that it was caught by the Bill already. Presumably the Minister and his officials took that view before late amendments were tabled. Alternatively, ILEA may have thought that it was not caught. The result of this trivial piece of paper containing the amendments that we are now discussing will be to catch it.
      Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman talks about late amendments and seems to suggest that the Government printed them on Monday, did not go through the House of Lords and merely produced them as their amendments. The hon. Gentleman is holding the corrigendum on the Lords amendments that came from another place. A number of the amendments were tabled more than a month ago. There has been discussion in another place over a considerable period. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this is a quick print-off by the Government of a few amendments that no one else has ever seen is inaccurate.
      Mr. Dobson: I regard that intervention as even more insulting to the House than what has gone before. I find it difficult enough to do my job in this

      241
      House and to read the reports of debates and the papers that come before me. I see it as no part of my duty to go through all the ramblings of the geriatrics at the other end of the building.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is definitely an unparliamentary remark. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark.
      Mr. Dobson: What it boils down to—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A withdrawal is appropriate.
      Mr. Dobson: I withdraw whatever it was that I said that was out of order. In the time available to me since these papers came before the House, I have found it impossible to assess the impact of the amendments on my constituency. Whether the Opposition Whips like it or not, I propose on all matters in the corrigendum that refer to ILEA to seek to divide the House.
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I suffer from the disadvantage that I was not a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill.
      Mr. Latham: That is an advantage.
      Mr. Brown: I hope that I shall have the tolerance of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when I raise matters of which I have not given him notice.
      In my brief perusal of the documents that I have amassed within the past half hour, I find that we are discussing issues of considerable importance in Scotland, namely, the way in which the code will be produced, local authorities being obliged to give information on manpower and services, and who will draw up the code, the second issue being a bone of contention in Scotland.
      The House considers Bills that include Scotland at its peril. Originally clause 2 did not apply to Scotland. The result of the Lords amendments is that the clause will apply to Scotland. In requiring information from local authorities on manpower and services, the Government are introducing a gimmick. The Government, certainly in Scotland, do not have as much statistical information from local authorities as I think they are entitled
      242
      to receive. However, the reasons for requiring the codes seem to be outrageous.
      We tried long and hard to establish some element of acceptability in making comparisons of costs of repair and maintenance in local authority areas when dealing with housing subsidies. We found it almost impossible to obtain any information from authorities. They were not unwilling to provide it. The difficulty arose because of the variation of practice between local authorities.
      How can we make meaningful comparisons between police authorities? I represent an area that is classified by the Strathclyde regional council as an urban area suffering massive deprivation. How do we make a comparison between the cost of providing the police service in such an area and the cost of so doing in a residential area in another part of the country where the police presence is not nearly so demanding and certainly less costly? The Government are placing, for doubtful reasons, further obligations on local authorities that will add to costs at a time when they are trying to reduce local authority expenditure.
      I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to say whether he is likely to use the powers that are being sought. Will he proceed in a relaxed way, seek voluntary compliance and ignore the almost hysterical approach that is being adopted by some Conservatives in Scotland, who seem to think that the attack on bureaucracy is the answer to all our economic problems?
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I must add my protest to those that have already been made about the cavalier way in which the Government have treated the House in producing the corrigendum which appeared only yesterday. The fault may not lie with the Government. It may be the fault of the printer. I do not mind whose fault it is. If the Government had wanted to show some sympathy for the House, they could have accepted the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and agreed to deal with these amendments tomorrow. That would have given us a better chance to consider them. It is disgraceful that the Government should have acted in this way.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) talked

      243
      about the difficulty of making comparisons between police authorities I agree that it is difficult to do that.
      Recently, I was with Hampshire county council. It boasted that it had increased the number of police officers by 65. It said that that was good, because it was in line with Government policy on law and order. When I probed further, I discovered that Hampshire county council had increased the number of police officers by 65, but had reduced overtime to such an extent that it represented a reduction of more than 65 in the number of police officers. As a result, the council was worse off than before. Such figures would not appear on any comparison. Only the number of policemen would appear on the table.
      If I had had more time to look at the Bill, I might not have had to ask my next question. I refer to amendment No. 4C. It seeks to leave out
      "It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to"
      and to insert
      "The Secretary of State may".
      If amended, the Bill will read:
      "The Secretary of State may issue for the purposes of this section a code of recommended practice".
      According to the original provision, the Secretary of State would have had to issue a code of practice that embraced all the authorities covered by part II of the Bill. The same code of practice would apply to the Inner London Education Authority, to district councils, to the GLC and so on.
      The Lords amendment seeks to alter the wording to "may". Does that involve any change? Does it mean, for example, that the Secretary of State could issue a code of practice that applied only to the Inner London Education Authority, or only to a county council, and not to the other bodies mentioned? If I had had a chance to look through the Bill more carefully, I would probably know the answer. I hope that the Minister will help.
      Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Will the Minister elucidate amendment No. 4D further? It is extraordinary. I was under the impression that under the London Government Act 1963, ILEA gained the powers conferred by the Education Act 1944. I understood
      244
      that every subsequent Act had been amended. I thought that ILEA appeared in all those Acts. I cannot understand why a special amendment is needed to take care of ILEA's functions in accordance with the Education Acts 1944 to 1980. I am worried about the purpose of the amendment. Even the wording is odd. It states:
      "In relation to the Inner London Education Area functions conferred on education authorities by the Education Acts 1944 to 1980 shall be treated for the purposes of this section as conferred on the Inner London Education Authority".
      The Inner London Education Authority is the authority in the inner London education area. If we confer functions on the authority, we shall confer them not on the area but on the authority. I do not understand the preamble. I have become suspicious. At first, I looked at the amendment and thought it not unreasonable. However, the more I re-read it, the more I see that there may be some harm in it. I hope that the Minister will explain its purpose. Am I wrong to think that ILEA has always been covered hitherto by the Education Act 1944 and by that Act, as amended, up to and including the Education Act 1980? If not, has not much of its work been ultra vires? It has carried out the functions required by the Education Acts 1944 to 1980. Why does the whole thing have to be wrapped up in meaningless words? If we are conferring additional powers on ILEA why do we not say so in a simple way?
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Straw: Despite the Department of the Environment's great resources and the expertise of its officials, the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services and the Secretary of State have made a series of staggering blunders from beginning to end. They began when they introduced a major constitutional Bill in the House of Lords. That resulted in such opposition from Conservative peers as well as from Labour peers that the Bill had to be withdrawn.
      Such ill consideration was given to the Bill that it had to be amended repeatedly in Committee, on the floor of the House and in the other place. As a result, we are faced with 94 pages of amendments and four pages of corrections to those amendments. The Minister has presided

      245
      over the biggest mess in our legislative process since the war and over one of the largest and most iniquitous Bills ever produced, yet he has had the cheek to come to the House and to suggest that we have no reason for our complaints. We have complained that we have had only 24 hours in which to read the corrections and in which to understand them.
      It is characteristic of the conduct of the Minister and of the Secretary of State that blunders and misjudgments have been made and that they have failed to work out in advance the policy that they wished to see incorporated in the Bill. In addition, they have both acted in a manner that shows great contempt for the conventions of the House.
      I was always taught that one advantage of an unwritten constitution was that it was flexible. I was also taught that an unwritten constitution could work only if it was held in respect by its legislators. The conduct of the Minister and of the Secretary of State has shown that the conventions of this House, as regards the publication of amendments in good time for hon. Members to consider them and in relation to many other issues, are no match for those who wish to ride roughshod over its interests.
      A lesson can be drawn from the saga of this Bill. Many of our conventions, which exist for the benefit of all hon. Members, need to be incorporated into Standing Orders. If that were done, we should not have to rely on the grace and favour of Ministers. I accept that some Conservative Ministers have had the grace to back down, to accept that they had broken our conventions and to give way to the wishes of the House. However, there are others—including the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services who is sitting on the Front Bench—who show no such grace.
      Dr. Keith Hampson: Rot.
      Mr. Straw: It is not rot. It is absolutely true. If it was not true the Minister would have stood up and acceded to the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He would have agreed to further debate tomorrow. It is no good saying that this has nothing to do with the Government. This is the Government's
      246
      legislation and it is their job to ensure that it is in order. It is no good suggesting that we should have followed every dot and comma of the debates in the other place. How are we to know the results of those debates until they have been concluded? How are we to know the Government's attitude to the Lords amendments?
      Mr. Cant: While my hon. Friend is on that philosophical and constitutional point, will he concede that the Opposition made something of a tactical blunder when they insisted that the Bill should have begun in this Chamber? Does not he agree with those who suggest that if the Tory Lords from the shire counties had tackled the problem of the block grant—An HON. MEMBER: "It is too late now." It may be too late now, but perhaps we should be allowed a little time in which to reflect on our possible errors. Had the Opposition not been persuaded by the Government that the Queen's Speech could not be further delayed and that the rate support grant had to be introduced on 21 November, we might have seen united opposition from the counties, district councils and metropolitan authorities. That would have saved us from the nonsense of allegedly simplified, but really more complicated, financial procedures.
      Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend's speculation on the alternative course of history is interesting. However, even if the Tory Lords from the shires had had 12 years and not 12 months to consider the principles raised in the Bill, they still would have come down in favour of this Government, despite all their huffing and puffing. When faced with a Conservative Government, the other place is a toothless bulldog. It is a toady.
      Mr. Robin Squire: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that within the past 12 months on two major Bills the other place has demonstrated the reverse? It has gone against the Government on items of major legislation.
      Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. Noble Lords have to prove that they are doing something for their money.
      Mr. Frank Dobson: Not a lot.
      Mr. Straw: That is right. However, they make those gestures and occasionally

      247
      they make pinpricks or dents in legislation—in the tanks that this Government are driving through the rights of people in this country. Had their noble Lordships really been determined to oppose the Housing Bill and this Bill they would have followed the advice of the present Secretary of State when in opposition and thrown the Bill out, as they did in respect of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. It is a mark of the ultimate loyalty of the other place to a Conservative Government that, when the chips are down, they will support them whatever they may do. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) should need no other evidence than the response of the Association of County Councils to the new policy imposed by the Government. If that association—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is straying wildly, first in his criticisms of the other place, and now in dealing with pay policy. May we get back to the amendment?
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I do not want to mislead my hon. Friend, but how does he believe that noble Members would have reacted had they had only 24 hours to discuss the amendments?
      Mr. Straw: I do not wish to speculate. I visit the other place so rarely that I am not in tune with their Lordships' sense of convention. I dare say that they would have objected even more strongly than we have and that Government Ministers, being noble gentlemen, would have conceded the point and allowed a delayed debate the following day.
      Returning to the substance of the amendments, I accept that there is information that local authorities may wish to publish, which could be a benefit. For example, I have here schedules of the value of works carried out by the direct labour department of the borough of Blackburn, which show conclusively how much of a saving that department has made for the people of Blackburn in the 12 years from 1967 to 1979. I shall be happy to provide the detailed figures to anyone who is interested. On 25 housing schemes it has saved £937,020 and on 41 other Capital works schemes it has saved £969,194.
      Local authorities should be encouraged to supply as much information as possible
      248
      to ratepayers. However, we all know that
      "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies,"
      and information cooked up by the Secretary of State. His intention is not to provide ratepayers with information that may assist them but to damn those authorities which, with good reason and with the backing of their electorate, have been high spenders and provided adequate social, educational and housing services.
      In the code I believe that the Secretary of State would seek to lay enormous emphasis on expenditure per head and little or no emphasis on the service that should be provided to the community in order to meet demand. That is why I am deeply suspicious of the motives behind part II of the Bill and why I believe that it will be of no service to local government or local democracy.
      I am also concerned about amendment No. 4C. As the Bill stands, if Parliament agrees to the publication of information, the Secretary of State has a duty to lay down a code of procedure. Even greater uncertainty is now being introduce. The Secretary of State no longer has a duty but merely a discretion. What lies behind that change?
      Finally regarding the Inner London Education Authority, although I now represent Blackburn I was once deputy leader of that authority and know a little about its operations. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) is right. The Inner London Education Authority was always included in the Local Government Acts that applied to education authorities. Under the London Government Act it merely took over the powers and duties previously exercised by the education department of the old London county council. I, too, am deeply suspicious of the Government's motivation in including the Inner London Education Authority.
      Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Also, in amendment 4B at subsection (j) police committees are included. The Police Act 1964 is quoted. However, the Metropolitan Police are not included. The Inner London Education Authority has been mentioned, but the Metropolitan Police, who are responsible to no one in local government, are left out.
      Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. Had the term used been "police authority", the Metropolitan Police would have been included.
      If the omissions are innocent, why were they not spotted earlier? Is it another printing error? Why have these four categories now been included? Until we have a satisfactory explanation, we shall remain highly suspicious of the Government's intentions.
      Mr. David Alton: I share some of the suspicions of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), but I intend to vote with the Government on the clause. The publication of information by local and statutory authorities is a good thing.
      I have many reservations about the way in which the Bill has been introduced. The fact that their Lordships have had to draft 265 amendments is an indication that the Bill's passage has caused concern, and not only in another place, but in local government, too. People in local government feel that the Government have treated them arrogantly. The Secretary of State is well aware of the concern of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and of local government associations.
      It is ironic that we are considering a clause dealing with the publication of information, when certain information regarding the Bill was received only in the past 24 hours. I do not know whether that was caused by printing errors or blunders. Even if, as the Minister says, it is purely because of printing errors, he should still accept that there is insufficient time for us to consider the information and come to a reasonable conclusion on many of the propositions that we are being asked to discuss.
      6 pm
      I support the Government on the publication of information, but I am concerned about the pistol that is being held to our heads. We are told that we must pass the Bill because of the pot of gold that is at the end of the rainbow. We all know that we are being subjected to pressure to get the Bill through as quickly as we can, because if we do not approve the Lords' amendments tonight the money that is to be provided for Opposition parties could be jeopardised. Hon. Members
      250
      are being told by their Whips that because of the pressure being applied by the Government to get the Bill through we must abide by their wishes. That is indicative of the arrogant way in which the Bill has been handled from start to finish.
      If we consider the Government's record towards local government, we must think back to 1973, when the worst disaster that ever befell local government was enacted by the House. Surely it behoves us to have a little more humility in considering a measure that will have equal repercussions for the whole of local government.
      In many ways the Bill will bring about the mutilation of local government. We shall no longer have local government at local level, but merely administration. The Secretary of State is arrogant, stubborn and dogmatic—and they are only his good points. Many feel that his absence today—he has not even bothered to turn up to justify a major piece of legislation—is typical of his arrogance.
      Mr. Cant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State did not attend a single meeting of the Standing Committee on the Bill throughout the two and a half months that it sat?
      Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. The Secretary of State's absence is another indication of the cavalier way—that expression has been used by other hon. Members—in which the Government have treated the House and the democratic processes by foisting on us legislation that is resented by local government, many noble Lords and many hon. Members.
      Mr. Graham: By leave of the House, I should like to refer to amendment No. 8. I shall be inviting my hon. Friends to reject it as an expression of their dissatisfaction with the Government's attitude.
      Amendment No. 8 had its genesis in another place. In moving the amendment on Report, Lord Mackay said that it was the Government's response to the manuscript amendment tabled by Lord Ridley, who had said that the purpose of his amendment was to ensure that there should not be too wide an extension of requirements on authorities to publish information at short intervals without

      251
      reference back to Parliament. If that was the object of the original amendment, something seems to have gone wrong, because amendment No. 8 is a big extension of the Secretary of State's powers over local authorities in the provision of information.
      At the time, it was said that the Government amendment smacked of instant legislation and, on reflection and in consultation with the local authority associations, that view is confirmed. The Government have made a great deal of the collaboration and co-operation that they have received from the local authority associations. I have been assured by the associations that they have co-operated fully with the Government in the production of voluntary codes of practice for the supply of information. We should bear in mind that the AMA and the ADC cover 100 per cent. of local authorities.
      We all know that there has been co-operation, because the code of practice dealing with rate demand notes and the supporting information has been published and will be acted upon by local authorities next April. A code of practice for annual reports and financial statements is well under way. But, before we go further, let me assure the House that there is nothing new in all this. What is enshrined in the codes of practice has been carried out by local authorities for many years. The majority of local authorities already supply to their inhabitants a wealth of information about their activities. This is picked up by the local press in part from council minutes and in part from documents and publications available in local libraries and newsletters put through letter boxes.
      Why is it necessary to take further control over local authorities in this sphere? The question is of particular relevance when one considers the long title of the Bill, the first line of which states:
      "An Act to relax controls over local government".
      In leaving amendment No. 8 as part of the Bill, can we say in all honesty that we have relaxed controls over local authorities?
      In any event, two of the matters dealt with under the amendment, namely, information about employees and on planning aplications, are already well under way. Indeed, on the first item it has
      252
      been part of local government and central Government policy for some years to produce information, first on an annual basis and, more recently, on a quarterly basis, without any requirements for compulsory powers over individual authorities. At a time of public expenditure cutbacks—and we have a vivid illustration of them only a week ago with the moratorium on housing capital expenditure—does it make sense to cause local authorities to spend money in producing statistics that may be of little value to anyone except the gatherers of numbers? The Government seem determined to use statistics as a drunken man uses a lamp post—more for support than for illumination.
      In all my experience of local government, I have never known there to be a shortage of information available for either elected members or the public. I suggest that if any legislation is required it is in a completely different direction—to force people to read the information that is already put out by their local authorities at considerable expense.
      Amendment No. 8 is not required and the Secretary of State has sufficient powers under clause 2 to obtain his objectives for basic information to be provided by local authorities about their functions and activities. I shall be asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment.
      Mr. King: By leave of the House, I shall reply.
      The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) earlier made most strident objections to the amendments and he accused me of cavalier behaviour. I have apologised to the House. An unfortunate error was made but not by the Government. As soon as we discovered that certain amendments were missing from the printed list, the matter was immediately drawn to the printers' attention and the amendments were published.
      I know that the hon. Gentleman could say that the Government have the power to change the business of the House. He made a righteous speech in defence of the House and our constitution, and there is a convention that a weekend should be allowed to elapse before Lords amendments are considered, but the hon. Gentleman worked for the previous Labour Government as a

      253
      political adviser, and I am checking how many times they put Lords amendments to the House without even 24 hours' notice. If I am wrong, I shall withdraw, but I suspect that that happened.
      We produced a corrigendum of mainly technical errors, but the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported put Lords amendments to the House at short notice on a number of occasions. I have apologised to the House. What happened was unfortunate, but it has not made our proceedings unworkable. It is not treating the House in a cavalier manner. If I thought that substantial amendments had been sprung on the House without its knowledge, I should consider that situation. The amendments to which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) referred were moved in the House of Lords on 6 October. I think that he withdrew his remarks, but they indicate how little contact he has maintaned with the progress of the Bill.
      I pay tribute to members of the Labour Party in another place for the constructive way in which they debated the Bill. It may upset the hon. Gentleman to know that it was a member of his own party who proposed the inclusion of ILEA in the amendment in the other place. Members of the Labour Party in the other place put in a considerable amount of time on the Bill. They were far from geriatric in their approach. The work of the revising Chamber was carried out with great distinction both by my noble Friends and by the noble Lords on the Opposition side.
      I hope that I have not misled the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) in suggesting that there had been representations from local authorities, water authorities and other bodies seeking that these powers be imposed on them. I am glad to say that considerable numbers have made it clear that they accept that this is a proper exercise of power by the Government but that they prefer and hope that the voluntary approach can be made to work.
      I was pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton). I believe that we reached agreement in Committee. No one was against the publication of more
      254
      information. Only those with something to hide could possibly resent that. We are opposed to bureaucracy in the sense of overbearing demands for unnecessarily elaborate information. I trust that all hon. Members would expect this House, the Government, local authorities and other public bodies to be prepared to publish meaningful information.
      The phrase "straightforward comparison" was picked up. There has been some bandying about of the question of how one can make a meaningful comparison with anyone, anywhere. I can understand, in the give and take of debate, that hon. Members will make that point. One cannot compare a metropolitan district with a shire county. There are different types of metropolitan districts. There are inner London and outer London boroughs. I do not accept, however, that it is impossible to make any meaningful comparisons of cost information, personnel information, information on procedures and levels of performance between 454 different authorities in the country. It can be an additional aid to management and a tool for councillors in trying to assess fairly the performance of their own authority. I hope that those who favour greater accountability will recognise the merit of what I say.
      Mr. Cant: This is an extremely important point. I have intervened already in the debate to explain the difficulty that has arisen with grant-related expenditure. All the statistical evidence that has become available since the Standing Committee met supports the view of those who say that many of these comparisons are less than meaningful. If one looks at primary and secondary schools in terms of grant-related expenditure, one gets an enormous number of variables and 37 different sets of weightings. In the exemplifications undertaken by the Department there is a 10 per cent. variance in expenditure in different areas. I am all for information. I believe, however, that the Minister is trying to pull a little wool over our eyes, and is trying to mislead, unless he can show that there is some magic, statistical technique to make these statistics more meaningful.
      6.15 pm.
      Mr. King: I should not wish to debate the grant-related expenditure assessment

      255
      now, although I appreciate that the matter may come up later in the proceedings. I say only that this is a tool that is used in industry and in comparisons between firms. It is a well-established practice, which managements find useful in assessing the performance of their own companies. I accept that there are pitfalls. The matter will need handling with care. There are, however, areas in which it can be valuable. I welcome the widening of the debate. The matter has not been previously much discussed.
      The publication of comparative information does not answer any questions, but it might start to ask a few that are worth pursuing, to see whether reasons can be found to account for what seem to be surprising divergences. One simple statistic is the cost of running a planning department. The average cost, among what would seem to be similar types of authorities, varies between £2,000 per 1,000 electorate and £8,000 per 1,000 electorate, with the average coming out at £4,000. One authority may be under-provided for, while another is grossly extravagant. One can, nevertheless, start to ask questions and investigate further if one's authority happens to be an £8,000 authority. I should have thought that councillors in that authority would want to ask more questions.
      I should like to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown). The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities declined the invitation to prepare codes of practice. These have been prepared in England by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, but the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities thought that this was a proper role for the Government. I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that this is now in preparation by the Government. There will be discussions with the convention. It is the intention in England that the codes of practice should be introduced on a voluntary basis. I hope that further discussions will help to resolve any tension that the hon. Member for Provan feels may exist on the matter.
      The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) asked whether there would be different codes of practice for
      256
      different types of bodies. The answer is "Yes".
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: It is not a question whether there is any difference. Has the Minister the power to pick out one of the items in the list relating to the code of practice for one authority and not do it for the others?
      Mr. King: There is no great trap involved. The codes of practice are voluntary procedures. It is possible that ILEA is like no other body. I should have thought, however, that all education bodies would tend to fall within the same broad remit for the sort of information that is meaningful about their performance.
      Mr. Dobson rose—
      Mr. King: The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) asked why ILEA had suddenly been mentioned and whether this was a sinister move. I assure him that it is not. The extension of the clause to cover ILEA is necessary because, under existing statutes, the education function in inner London is conferred on the GLC, acting through the special committee known as the ILEA. For ILEA to be able to publish information about discharging functions in accordance with the code of practice issued under clause 2(2), it is necessarily formally to confer those functions on ILEA.
      The hon. Member for Blackburn asked why the duty had been replaced by the permissive power under amendment No. 4C. The Government's firm intention is to issue codes of practice covering the provisions of information for ratepayers and local electors. However, we have not yet taken a decision on the other types of bodies included in the extension to the clause that was passed in another place. For that reason, we thought it appropriate to make the power permissive, since we shall not seek to introduce a code of practice for some of the bodies.
      The hon. Gentleman was interrupted by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, who spotted the point about the Metropolitan Police. The authority for the Metropolitan Police is the Home Secretary. It is not appropriate to include the Home Secretary in clause 2(2), although his intention is that the Metropolitan Police shall abide by the;

      257
      principles in any code of practice that might be prepared for the guidance of other police authorities.
      Mr. Straw: The Minister heard me correctly. The Home Secretary is the authority for the Metropolitan Police area, and in that sense is no different from any other police authority. If the term "police authority" had been used in the amendment, the Metropolitan Police would have been included. Why is it not appropriate to impose a statutory duty on the Home Secretary, in his capacity as police authority?
      Mr. King: It is not normal in legislation to take powers for one Minister to lay a duty on another Minister. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has authorised me to say that his intention is that the Metropolitan Police shall abide by the principles in any code of practice that might be prepared for the guidance of police authorities. The Metropolitan Police will not be exempt, but the legal position is different from that of other authorities.
      I made an outrageous allegation, which I should not have made if I had not been able to substantiate it. I told the hon. Member for Blackburn that on occasions his Government did not give the House all the notice that might be expected. I speak with the kindest spirit. His Government introduced the Community Land Bill. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was working with the Government on 11 November 1975, but they produced 186 Lord amendments. The House was invited to disagree or amend 29 of them, and the Amendment Paper was available only on the morning of the debate.
      Mr. Graham: In view of the unsatisfactory nature and inadequacy of the reply, I invite my hon. Friends to unite in their detestation of the many aspects of clause 2 and to vote on Lords amendment No. 8.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 4F, 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.

    New Clause B

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO CODES OF PRACTICE ON PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION
      Lords amendment: No. 8 after clause 2, in page 4, line 31, after the words last inserted insert new clause B—
      "B—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring authorities to whom section 2 above applies to publish any description of information specified in a code issued under that section if in his opinion it is necessary to make such regulations in order to ensure that authorities publish information of that description.
      (2) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring such authorities to publish any description of information specified in a code issued under section 2 above in the manner and form specified in the code, if in his opinion it is necessary to make such regulations in order to ensure that authorities publish information of that description in that manner and form.
      (3) Where the occasions specified in a code for the publication of any description of information recur not more often than once a year the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring authorities to publish information of that description on the occasions specified in the code, if in his opinion it is necessary to make such regulations in order to ensure that authorities publish information of that description on those occasions.
      (4) Where the occasions specified in a code for the publication of any description of information recur more often than once a year, the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring authorities to publish information on the occasions specified in the code if—

      (a) the information is of a description to which this sub-section applies; and

      (b) in his opinion it is necessary to make such regulations in order to ensure that authorities publish information of that description on the occasions specified in the code.

      (5) The descriptions of information to which subsection (4) above applies are—

      (a) information about the discharge of authorities' functions relating to housing or land;

      (b) information about the number of their employees or the number of any description of their employees; and

      (c) information about the determination of applications for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.

      (6) The Secretary of State may by order direct that subsection (4) above shall apply to descriptions of information other than those specified in subsection (5) above.
      (7) Any regulations under this section and any order under subsection (6) above may make

      259
      different provision in relation to authorities in England, authorities in Scotland and authorities in Wales.
      (8) The power to make any such regulations or order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
      (9) A statutory instrument containing any such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
      (10) No order under subsection (6) above shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
      (11) Before issuing a code under section 2 above or making regulations under this section or an order under subsection (6) above the
      Secretary of State shall consult such associations of authorities to whom section 2 above applies as appear to him to be concerned and any such authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.
      (12) A code may specify and regulations under subsection (2) above may require that any description of information shall be published to the public in general or to any section of it."
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 135.

      Division No. 494]

      AYES

      [6.27 pm

      Alton, David

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Grist, Ian

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Ancram, Michael

      Grylis, Michael

      Parris, Matthew

      Arnold, Tom

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

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Beith, A. J.

      Hawkins, Paul

      Porter, Barry

      Bendall, Vivian

      Hawksley, Warren

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Heddle, John

      Raison, Timothy

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Henderson, Barry

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Best, Keith

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Renton, Tim

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hill, James

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Bright, Graham

      Hooson, Tom

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Brinton, Tim

      Hordern, Peter

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Howells, Geraint

      Rost, Peter

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Budgen, Nick

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Jessel, Toby

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Butcher, John

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Shersby, Michael

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Silvester, Fred

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Chapman, Sydney

      Lamont, Norman

      Speed, Keith

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Lang, Ian

      Spence, John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Latham, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Squire, Robin

      Colvin, Michael

      Lawson, Nigel

      Stainton, Keith

      Cope, John

      Lee, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Steen, Anthony

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Critchley, Julian

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Crouch, David

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Thompson, Donald

      Dover, Denshore

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Major, John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Marlow, Tony

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Eggar, Tim

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Trippler, David

      Emery, Peter

      Mather, Carol

      Waddington, David

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Mawby, Ray

      Wakeham, John

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

      Fell, Anthony

      Mellor, David

      Waller, Gary

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Warren, Kenneth

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Watson, John

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Moate, Roger

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

      Forman, Nigel

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Wheeler, John

      Fox, Marcus

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Wickendon, Keith

      Freud, Clement

      Murphy, Christopher

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Myles, David

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Neale, Gerrard

      Wolfson, Mark

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Needham, Richard

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Nelson, Anthony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Neubert, Michael

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Gray, Hamish

      Newton, Tony

      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Mr. John MacGregor.

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

      Graham, Ted

      Palmer, Arthur

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Park, George

      Bernett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Parry, Robert

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Pendry, Tom

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Hardy, Peter

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Bradley, Tom

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Richardson, Jo

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Haynes, Frank

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Home Robertson, John

      Robertson, George

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Homewood, William

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Cant, R. B.

      Hooley, Frank

      Rooker, J. W.

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Roper, John

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      John, Brynmor

      Ryman, John

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Cook, Robin F.

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Silverman, Julius

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Soley, Clive

      Crowther, J. S.

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Spearing, Nigel

      Cryer, Bob

      Lamborn, Harry

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Leighton, Ronald

      Stallard, A. W.

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

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

      Stott, Roger

      Dempsey, James

      Litherland, Robert

      Straw, Jack

      Dixon, Donald

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Dobson, Frank

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Dormand, Jack

      McKelvey, William

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Douglas, Dick

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Dubs, Alfred

      McNamara, Kevin

      Tilley, John

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McTaggart, Robert

      Tinn, James

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Eastham, Ken

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Watkins, David

      Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Weetch, Ken

      English, Michael

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Welsh, Michael

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

      Ewing, Harry

      Molyneaux, James

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Field, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)

      Winnick, David

      Flannery, Martin

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Morton, George

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Forrester, John

      Newens, Stanley

      Mr. Hugh McCartney and

      Foster, Derek

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Mr. Joseph Dean.

      Foulkes, George

      O'Neill, Martin

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 5

      LIMITATIONS ON POWER TO ENTER INTO WORKS CONTRACTS
      Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 6, leave out lines 39 to 43.
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment removes an error that remained after other changes were made to the clause in the House. Subsection 4(a) would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that could remove the requirement that direct labour organisations should be subject to competition before undertaking contract work and substitute conditions of quite a different sort. That is far too wide an Executive discretion, which the Government do not want to take, and which I have no doubt the House does not want to give them. I
      262
      invite the House to agree to the amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 7

      REGULATION OF FUNCTIONAL WORK
      Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 8, line 23, leave out "other".
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we shall take Lords amendment No. 11.
      Mr. Fox: The amendment removes an inappropriate restriction on the conditions that may be imposed on an authority's allocation of work to its direct labour organisation. The simple competitive conditions are fully detailed in subsection (4)—the requirement that

      263
      tenders be invited from three other contractors and that the authority publish the results of that competition. It had always been our intention to impose these conditions, but we found on close examination that we had restricted the power to the imposition of other conditions, of an unspecified sort.
      I hope that the House will agree that that is wrong. The amendment puts it right.
      Lords amendment No. 11 clarifies a difficult piece of drafting in a delicate area of policy. We want to be sure that tender competitions are above board, and we therefore need to ensure that their results are open to scrutiny. At the same time, we do not want to expose the sometimes very sensitive details that lie behind many tender offers. We must respect tenderers' commercial confidentiality, or soon very few people will tender.
      The amendment is also a welcome simplification of the drafting. I invite the House to accept it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 11 agreed to.

    New Clause C

      EXEMPTION FROM REQUIREMENT TO KEEP SEPARATE ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 8
      Lords amendment: No. 12, after clause 8, in page 10, line 33, at end insert:
      "C.—(1) Subsection (1) of section 8 above does not require a local authority or development body to keep—

      (a) in respect of any description of construction or maintenance work specified in subsection (2) of that section; or

      (b) in respect of any description of such work specified in regulations under subsection (4) of that section,

      accounts for any financial year separate from accounts kept for that year in respect of any other description of construction or maintenance work, if the local authority or development body did not at any one time in the previous financial year employ more than thirty persons, other than persons excluded by subsection (2) below, who were engaged (whether wholly or partly) in carrying out construction or maintenance work of that description.
      (2) The persons excluded by this subsection are persons engaged wholly or mainly upon the design, development or control of construction or maintenance work.
      264
      (3) The Secretary of State may by order specify for the purposes of subsection (1) above a number of persons less than thirty.
      (4) The power to make an order conferred by subsection (3) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
      (5) A statutory instrument containing any such order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 19.
      Mr. Fox: The new clause in Lords amendment No. 19 honours the commitment that we gave in Committee to put down amendments to exempt authorities with the smallest direct labour organisations from the provisions of this part of the Bill. The new clause in Lords amendment No. 12 extends the principle to the accounts as well.
      I believe that the idea of a de minimis exemption is generally welcome, but that exemption must be genuinely de minimis. Only the very smallest can be allowed to escape. The figure of 30 operatives is still large by the standards of the construction industry, in which the overwhelming majority of firms employ fewer than 10 men. It will still allow 30 or so councils to avoid the provisions of this part of the Bill, some of them with an annual output of about £ ¼ million each; so the concession is not negligible.
      The new clauses are drafted with a view to simplicity of operation. There would be no point in obliging authorities to make elaborate arrangements, simply to determine whether they were in or out of the scope of this part of the Bill. Authorities will, therefore, merely have to ask themselves at the beginning of each financial year whether in the previous financial year they ever had 30 or more DLO manual workers on their books. They will not have to delve into questions of part-time working or overtime working, so the answer should be easily found.
      The authorities' professional and technical staff engaged on building work will not be included in their count. They would probably be needed to design and supervise work, whether it was carried

      265
      out by direct labour or by private contracting. Nor should fear of losing their de minimis status inhibit authorities in dealing with genuine emergencies, such as flooding, storms and major accidents, as the Secretary of State will be able to direct that any extra hands put to that sort of work are not to count in the reckoning of their labour force for the purpose of the clause.
      We believe that the new clauses represent a fair and sensible relaxation. They will save the smallest authorities some work and ensure that safeguards are maintained in all the more significant direct labour organisations. I therefore invite the House to agree to them.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Gordon Oakes: It is said that one should be grateful for small mercies, it is, indeed, a small mercy that the Government have provided. When the Under-Secretary says "de minimis", he really means it when he is talking about 30 employees. I think he will agree that primarily it is a matter for district councils; it does not apply to county councils or metropolitan districts. How many district councils would have been exempt from the provision if the figure had been not the 30 that the hon. Gentleman magically plucked from the air, but, say, 50?
      The Association of District Councils, although it is grateful for this small concession, wanted the figure to be considerably higher than the 30 that the Government have proposed. That is my first quarrel with the Government on the amendment—that they have not gone far enough and they have unnecessarily burdened a number of district councils that have just a few more than 30 employees. They will have to undertake all the paperwork, accounts and so on, and employ staff to do so, because the Government have set such a low number.
      The Minister may say "Whatever number we chose, you would have said 'We object to it; it is not big enough'", but I assure the hon. Gentleman, who has known me long enough to believe me, that I should not have taken that attitude. I think that 50 would have been a far more appropriate number. Do the Government know how many more councils
      266
      would have been exempted from this burden of work had the figure been 50?
      The provisions of the clause will not be as smooth to operate as the Minister has suggested. It will not be simple for a local authority to abide by the clause and to know whether it has erred in straying over 30. I can understand why, under subsection (2) of both clauses, the Government have excluded
      "persons engaged wholly or mainly upon the design, development or control of construction or maintenance work"
      and have confined the provision to people
      "engaged (whether wholly or partly) in carrying out construction or maintenance work".
      It will not be easy for local authorities. Where do they draw the line? For example, would the foreman be counted? Is he not supervising, and not actually working? Where does the teaboy come in? He is not building anything but is making tea for the workers.
      These are not facetious points. Someone, somewhere, in a local authority must spend time and money—the ratepayers' money—on working out these matters for a particular year. He will have to decide whether a particular workman is included in the category. It can be very important to a member of a small district council that is near the marginal figure of 30. Many district councils will be worried about that, and they have expressed their fears to the association. The provision is unduly complex.
      The amendment specifically provides:
      "The Secretary of State may by order specify for the purposes of subsection (1) … a number of persons less than thirty."
      It would have been prudent of the Government to make that much wider and allow the Secretary of State to increase the figure if he thought it just and proper to do so. Instead by merely giving the Secretary of State the power to reduce the figure below 30, the amendment makes matters even worse.
      The difficulty is that local authorities feel uncertain. They have to establish a labour force. They have to establish their direct works departments. If the Secretary of State subsequently reduces the number below 30, they have all sorts of problems over whether they declare certain people redundant in order to escape the provisions of the clause or do the necessary paperwork. Again, there is uncertainty for them.

      267
      The last part of Lords amendment No. 19 deals with the "all hands on deck situation", which can arise frequently for local authorities. The difficulty is that under the wording of subsection (6) the Secretary of State determines whether he exempts the authority, it having gone over 30, on the basis that
      "it was necessary to exceed that number in order to carry out urgent construction or maintenance work whose necessity could not reasonably have been foreseen by the authority or body."
      Again, local authorities will find themselves in some difficulty. If there were a breach in a sea wall and a local authority put the whole of its labour force to work to prevent a flood, as it probably would, that would be an occasion on which the Secretary of State would intervene to say that it was necessary, as the breaking of the sea wall was unexpected.
      On the old vexed question of snow, snow clearance and inclement weather, would not a prudent authority expect cold weather in winter and realise that there might be frost and snow? If, in an emergency, an authority brought out its whole force to clear its streets, would the Secretary of State say "But you knew, or ought to have known, that it sometimes snows in winter"?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) is in the Chamber. In most authorities it would be highly unusual for there to be earthquakes, but that would not necessarily be so in Stoke-on-Trent, because one hears of earth tremors in that area. Therefore, ought not a prudent engineer in Stoke-on-Trent make provisions for that eventuality? Were there to be an earthquake in Stoke-on-Trent, God forbid, would the Secretary of State say "You ought to have known about that factor"?
      These points worry many small district councils. The matter is not as simple as was outlined by the Under-Secretary of State. There are many problems of definition in the wording of the clause inserted by the other place. We do not propose to oppose it, but I wish that the figure were more than 30. I should prefer that it were 50. I wish that the Secretary of State would take the power to "up" as well as to "down" the limit.
      Mr. Charles Morrison: I think that Lords amendment No. 12 is a
      268
      useful addition to the Bill. As the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) said, it would make life easier for district councils, and perhaps for some county councils, if the number were extended to 50. On the other hand, if that were done, it could undermine part of the purpose of clause 8 because it would in a sense allow too much freedom.
      Has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State given any further consideration to the possibility that clause 8 should not be implemented until 1 April 1982? I ask that not because I am against the clause but because, if this provision is implemented forthwith, it will allow very little time for local authorities—particularly county councils—to set up the accounting machinery. This is important because, from a preliminary consideration, it seems likely that, for example, the implementation of clause 8 could give rise to a direct increase in staff of up to 330 in the highways departments of county councils. The county councils do not want to increase staff and the Secretary of State does not want to increase staff. However, it is possible that such an increase, or a lesser increase, can be avoided if the local authorities have reasonable time to consider how to implement this provision without adding to their bureaucracy.
      This matter was referred to in another place. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend could indicate how far his thinking or that of the Secretary of State has got on this matter.
      Mr. Cant: I support the observations made by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison). As a member of a county council, I fully appreciate the difficulties to which he referred.
      The figure of between 300 and 400 extra staff with which local authorities will be burdened to carry out some of these changes relating to direct labour organisations contrasts vividly with the experiences that some members of county councils are facing. A week or so ago a member of the Staffordshire education committee had to sit for six hours—to some extent, this was a self-inflicted ordeal—paring the education budget by £10 million. Every possible economy was insisted upon by the draconian chairman of the education committee who, for some

      269
      unknown reason, has a pathological loyalty to the Government. At the same time, to say that any additional work must be taken on by local authorities in consequence of new legislation will produce what often happens in local government—namely, a situation in which financial constraints seem to go along pari passu with extra responsibilities.
      I am interested in this matter from the point of view of district councils. Without doubt, all direct labour organisations—or the city works department in Stoke-on-Trent—are going through a terrible ordeal. This is a consequence of the recession that is afflicting the country. Shortage of finance, the ending of agency arrangements with county councils in the next year or so and the housing moratorium are, for the first time, causing redundancies in the Stoke-on-Trent city works department. In this trauma through which the direct labour organisations are passing, it is an excess of bureaucratic zeal to insist that changes in the accountancy procedures and so on must be carried out by 1 April 1981.
      The Minister must appreciate that what might have been the timetable for this legislation is certainly not being carried out in practice. Royal Assent will be a good deal later, even at mid-November, than was originally anticipated. Therefore, the Minister will presumably issue his various regulations and directions in January 1981. I find it difficult to believe that even the most efficient direct labour organisation will be able to come to grips with the essential changes when this legislation comes into effect. The Association of District Councils places great emphasis on this point. In the brief that the association has issued to hon. Members it states that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy is producing some guidance on revamping costing systems and so forth in the context of the inevitable computer operations.
      The association also states:
      "The Chartered Institute are also producing a code of guidance for use by authorities setting out the appropriate accountancy practice that authorities should follow to implement the legislation."
      This, again, is not yet available.
      7 pm
      I cannot understand why, with so many problems on their hands, this Government,
      270
      and Ministers in the Department of the Environment in particular, are demonstrating such indecent haste in trying to rush through all these changes as though change was wholly a virtue and carried no disadvantages.
      Mr. Don Dixon: The other point about direct labour organisations is that many of them are tied by central purchasing. By their standing orders, various councils must have central purchasing departments. For councils to alter that, they have to alter their constitutions. That means going through the entire council procedure, and it will be virtually impossible to do this by the date decided by the Government. Many people know why local authorities have to be careful about central purchasing and tendering after the problem some years ago in local government. If direct labour departments are not free to do their own ordering and tendering, they are competing with private contractors with their hands tied behind their backs.
      Mr. Cant: My hon. Friend has raised a very important matter, and obviously he has a great deal more practical experience in these matters than I do. However, I should have thought that the Government would have taken my hon. Friend's point into account. Unfortunately, however, they seem to be imbued by some sort of philosophy which leaves aside such practical details. It may be that the CBI, consisting of industrialists and so forth, takes such a poor view of the Cabinet because it has so little industrial experience.
      This is just another facet of the problem. I know that the Under-Secretary of State has experience of local government. We do not have the good fortune to have the Secretary of State present in order that we might make inquiries of him, but it is doubtful whether the hon. Gentleman's two colleagues in the Department have that experience. I hope that, as he has so often demonstrated, he will be willing to listen to the arguments of the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and other local government bodies about the practical difficulties of implementation.
      The Government can pass their legislation, of course, and the local authorities, being law-abiding institutions, will

      271
      accept their new role. But, for the sake of a year, it would seem so much more sensible to have this legislation implemented a great deal more efficiently. If, over the period between April 1981 and April 1982, these direct labour organisations—assuming that there are many left as a result of the policies which this Government are pursuing—are given time to set out their stores properly in terms of accounting procedures and so forth, this legislation will be capable of being measured more effectively in the following year.
      What would be lost by giving this suggested transitional period in which these changes could be introduced more effectively? Sometimes one is driven almost to the conclusion that this Government feel that they have a much more limited period of time in which to exercise their malevolent influence over the country's affairs than the constitutional period of five years and that they are determined to do their worst within that limited period.
      I plead with the Minister. I hope that he will exercise some personal initiative whilst his colleagues are out of the Chamber and say that he has been persuaded by speeches based on practical experience of local Government and that he is prepared to concede that the operative date shall be I April 1982 and not 1981.
      Mr. Fox: With the leave of the House, shall reply briefly to the debate.
      The right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) conceded in his usual fair manner that in Committee we said that we would look carefully at this proposal following representations made to us. After the fullest discussion with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, we came to the conclusion that the biggest concession that we could make was this upper limit of 30 work-people. The right hon. Gentleman asked me why we had not gone further, to 50. He put his finger on the problem, because we found that, had we gone to 50, the number of exclusions would have been considerable. Speaking from memory, I think that it would have taken more than 100 authorities out of any accounting. We felt that that would have been far too big a move, bearing in mind that originally there were to be no exemp-
      272
      tions. It is not a matter that we did not consider. We felt that in no sense could we go as far as the right hon. Gentleman wanted because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) pointed out, it would have had a major effect on our intentions.
      The right hon. Member for Widnes asked about the ease of deciding the definition of the 30 people. I thought that, by my fairly generous description of manual workers, excluding design teams and people of that sort, the right hon. Gentleman would have seen that we were not being rigid about this. He asked about the foreman. Of course, foremen involved in this sort of work would count. Given a figure as low as this, I hope that the tea boy would not spend all his time making tea. If I am wrong, the state of British industry is worse than I thought, and the state of the construction industry is even worse than that in those circumstances. But, again. I expected the right hon Gentleman to welcome the Government's concessions.
      As for the idea that the Secretary of State should be allowed to increase the number, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that in no circumstances do we see these de minimis figures being increased. Hence our reason for being emphatic that this is the upper limit and that any movement can only be downwards. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman will not like this because, if anything, he would prefer to have the limit set higher than 50.
      The right hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that there might be an earthquake in Stoke-on-Trent. I find that a formidable thought. I gather that there have been one or two tremors in that part of the United Kingdom. At one stage. I nearly had my boots on to go there. Strangely enough, whenever there is an emergency, it always seems to be me who is sent to the scene. With that in mind, in no circumstances would I want to face an accident or tragedy of this kind on the basis that the number of people available to assist would be accountable under the DLO accounting or under the de minimis principle.
      I reinforce what I said. In the event of serious flooding or a major accident of any kind, the Secretary of State would

      273
      ensure that it was excluded from the standards which we have been discussing.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes is right about clause 8 and our concern to see that it is not undermined. I have to disappoint him, as I have to disappoint the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant). In Committee we rehearsed the argument about the date of operation. We emphasised that we hoped that local authorities followed our deliberations in Committee very carefully and that, as a result, they knew that we intended to introduce these reforms on 1 April 1981 and that, despite the pleas made to us, we were determined to hold to that. Nothing that I have heard since has changed my mind that this is possible.
      I cannot believe that direct labour organisations—or, in Stoke, the central works department, which I am told is very efficient—will find that it takes long to adapt to the very simple procedures that we intend to introduce. I am not certain that they will be as complicated as CIPFA has suggested, although we shall look carefully at its proposals. I understand that it would make the transition easier if we were to allow the slippage of a year, but we are determined to press on with this new regime as soon as we can, and on that basis I must disappoint hon. Members.
      Mr. Oakes: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to two Freudian slips which indicate the Government's thinking. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) said that he could well understand why the Government did not want the figure of 50. The words that he used—remarkable, coming from him—were that they would allow too much freedom for local authorities. But, according to the Bill's long title, the Government are supposed to be giving freedom to local authorities.
      The Minister said that he had had discussions with his hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. It is significant that he was the fellow Minister with whom the Under-Secretary held the discussions. It is my feeling that the Government are thinking only in terms of direct works departments which are building departments. Many authorities do not have a building department at all, although they employ more
      274
      than 30 people, for example, in the maintenance department in respect of highways. Surely it would have been prudent for the Minister also to have had discussions with his hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) said, the debate has revealed the Government's complete lack of understanding of the workings of local government. Those are the sort of authorities among the small district councils which have direct works, although in many cases they are highways departments rather than building departments. Even if 100 or so authorities were set free from these provisions because they employ between 30 and 50 people, it does not represent a massive public works programme, yet that is what is being suggested by the Government.
      Mr. Charles Morrison: Perhaps I can clarify the point that I tried to make. I did not mean that I thought that local authorities would have too much freedom. I meant that, in the context of clause 8, it was clear that the Government might think that local authorities would have too much freedom.
      7.15 pm.
      Mr. Oakes: I appreciate that correction by the hon. Gentleman. He has a great deal of local Government knowledge, particularly in county councils, and he gives the benefit of that knowledge to the House and to his hon. Friends. I only wish that his hon. Friends on the Front Bench would take notice of what he said.
      We do not propose to oppose the amendment because it would be nonsense to oppose a consession. However, I wish that the consession had been a greater one.
      Mr. Fox: Perhaps I can make it quite clear that the reason I mentioned my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction was that it is his responsibility to look after direct labour organisations. That is within his remit. I assure the House that they were not the only discussions that took place. Throughout the course of this part of the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly suggested, we consulted closely with our colleagues in the Department of Transport.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 10

      ANNUAL BALANCE SHEET ETC.
      Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 11, line 35, leave out "each description of".
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 14.
      Mr. Fox: We accept that, as long as the requirement for separate calculation of the rate of return remains, little would be lost in the way of clarity or informativeness of the annual financial statements if authorities were allowed to prepare merely a single overall balance sheet covering all their construction or maintenance activities. The single balance sheet would still have to show a true and fair view of the authority's position, and those who wanted to examine matters more closely would be enabled to do so by means of the separate statements of rates of return earned on the assets listed in that balance sheet. The amendment might save authorities a minimal amount of work, and I therefore recommend that the House accepts it.
      Amendment No. 14 is consequential to amendment No. 12.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 14 agreed to.

    Clause 13

      GENERAL FINANCIAL DUTY: TREATMENT OF SURPLUSES AND DEFICITS
      Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 12, line 41, at end insert "work".
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment needs little explanation. It is necessary to put right a printing error and to insert the word "work", so bringing this sentence into line with a similar reference to "construction or maintenance work" throughout part III of the Bill. I invite the House to agree to it.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 14

      RATES OF RETURN: POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE
      Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 14, line 9, leave out "the".
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a purely technical amendment. By removing the word "the" it is 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. The amendment will merely make the drafting coincide with that understanding. I ask the House to agreed to it.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 17

      INTERPRETATION OF PART III
      Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 17, line 5, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsections (2) and (3)".
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 18.
      Mr. Fox: These amendments would exempt from part III those labour forces employed by local authority port undertakings. The argument is that these work forces are integral parts of the ports' operational staff, that the undertakings as a whole are already subject to competitive stimulus and to the requirements to act as commercial businesses, and that the requirements of this part of the Bill are thus in substance already met by them. We accept that argument, and I therefore ask the House to agree to these related amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19 agreed to.

    Clause 20

      RIGHT OF COUNCILLOR TO OPT FOR FINANCIAL LOSS ALLOWANCE
      Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 19, line 28, at end insert "notice".
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 21.
      Mr. King: These are technical drafting amendments, and I ask the House to agree to them.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 21 agreed to.

    New Clause E

      VICE-CHAIRMEN OF COUNCILS IN SCOTLAND AND APPLICATION OF PART IV TO SCOTLAND
      Lords amendment: No. 22, after clause 22, in page 22, line 37, at the end insert:
      "E—(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 3 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973:—
      "VICE-CHAIRMAN
      3A.—(1) A council may appoint a member of the council to be vice-chairman of the council.
      (2) The vice-chairman shalt hold office until the expiry of the term of office of the council.
      (3) A person holding the office of vice-chairman shall be eligible for re-election as vice-chairman but shall cease to hold that office upon ceasing to be a councillor.
      (4) Subject to any standing order made by council, anything authorised or required to be done by, to or before the chairman may be done by, to or before the vice-chairman.
      (5) A council may pay the vice-chairman, for the purpose of enabling him to meet the expenses of his office, such allowance as the council think reasonable."
      (2) Section 20 above does not extend to Scotland and this section applies to Scotland only."
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The effect of the amendment is to extend the payment of allowances to vice-chairmen of Scottish authorities. It extends to Scottish local authorities a power that has been available to English
      278
      and Welsh local authorities since the reorganisation of local government, and I know that the amendment has wide support, including that of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
      Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause F

      RATING EXEMPTION FOR FISH FARMS
      Lords amendment: No. 23, after clause 25, in page 26, line 27, at the end insert:
      "F. After section 26 of the 1967 Act there shall be inserted—
      "FISH FARMS.
      26A.—(1) Neither of the following—

      (a) land;

      (b) buildings (other than dwellings),

      shall be liable to rates or to be included in any valuation list or in any rate if used solely for or in connection with fish farming.
      (2) The gross value for the purposes of section 19(2) of this Act of a house occupied in connection with land or buildings used solely for or in connection with fish farming and used as the dwelling of a person who—

      (a) is primarily engaged in carrying on or directing fish farming operations on that land or in those buildings; or

      (b) is employed in fish farming operations on that land or in those buildings in the service of the occupier thereof and is entitled, whether as tenant or otherwise, so to use the house only while so employed,

      shall, so long as the house is so occupied and used, be estimated by reference to the rent at which the house might reasonably he expected to let from year to year if it could not be occupied and used otherwise than as mentioned in this subsection or in section 26(2) of this Act.
      (3) In determining for the purposes of this section whether land or a building used for or in connection with fish farming is solely so used no account shall be taken of any time during which it is used in any other way, if that time does not amount to a substantial part of the time during which the land or building is used for or in connection with fish farming.
      (4) In this section—
      "building" includes a separate part of a building; and
      "fish farming" means the breeding or rearing of fish or the cultivation of shellfish (including crustaceans and molluscs of any description) for the purpose of producing food for human consumption or for transfer to other waters but does not include the breeding, rearing or cultivation of any fish or shellfish—

      (a) which are purely ornamental, or

      (b) which are bred, reared or cultivated for exhibition.""

      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 24.
      Mr. Fox: This new clause, which the Government accepted during progress of the Bill in another place, extends derating to fish farming. Opposition Members may be surprised to know that this is a serious matter. When certain people started to produce fish it was felt that they were for stocking rivers, but this process is now a major source of food. Amendment No. 24 relates to Scotland. We have never rated this process in England. A case was challenged on this point, and the amendment is designed to put it right. I know that Opposition Members were not laughing from any amusement in relation to fish farming.
      The new clause generally follows the corresponding provision for agricultural derating in the General Rate Act 1967. This is right, because in almost all other respects fish farming is treated in the same way as other agricultural pursuits. The farming of fish, either for human consumption or for sporting purposes, will be exempted from rating, but the rearing of ornamental fish will not. Nor will the exemption extend to research establishments or further down the chain to food manufacturing.
      Amendment No. 24 relates purely to Scotland and will bring Scotland into line with what we are proposing. As I said, certain people in Scotland are already paying rates.
      Mr. Oakes: What is the present position in England and Scotland with regard to fish farms? Presumably they are now rated. What is now happening is that another category of derating is taking place. We have had agricultural aerating for some time, and many hon. Members worry about its effect. Is this the thin end of the wedge, and will another industry, which could become a large industry, escape rates?
      Mr. Dobson: Does not the Minister consider that under these circumstances it would be better to start rating all farming property, rather than have this additional element of derating for fish farmers? I know that the Minister and his
      280
      colleagues are dedicated to cutting down the number of local government staff, but how many does he suppose will have to be deployed in verifying that no ornamental fish are being bred, because, as I understand, they will be distinguished from those that are bred for sporting or food purposes. The Minister may have failed to consider the staffing implications of this measure.
      Mr. Cant: Not having react with my customary diligence through all the amendments, the announcement just made by the Minister has shocked me. The Government stated—I think during the recess—that they had reluctantly reached the conclusion that they could not abolish the property tax called rates. Irrespective of what they had said previously, it was such a large source of income and, as they were also dedicated to lowering income tax, they would have to retain it.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) said, if we are retaining rates as part of the tax system, why erode the tax base even further? It is essential—whatever we may feel about the Lords, shire counties, and so on—that we should appreciate that the farmers of the country are a highly privileged group of operators. They do not pay rates. But then to say that the fish farmers should not pay rates is ludicrous. As my right hon. Friend also said, this is one of the growth industries of the future. We talk a lot about micro-electronic processors, silicon chips and so on, but the real scientific revolution that will take place is in the area of biotechnology. That is the industry of the future. Fish farming may be part of that revolution one day. We may be feeding ourselves on a greater scale from protein from that source—not from the sea, but from our fish tanks—than vie ever believed would be possible.
      But the Minister, with his usual charm and courtesy, says that because of pressure from the Lords, who now see a method of revitalising the countryside through fish farming, he is prepared to concede that fish farmers need not pay rates. I hope that he will reconsider that decision, and, for once, have enough courage to change his mind. I do not feel that this amendment is acceptable.
      Mr. Fox: This is not the occasion on which to debate whether fish is food. I

      281
      find it difficult to argue that the provision of fish should not be treated in the same way as any other food. It was said that at present agriculture is derated to a certain extent, but that is a different issue. All other types of food production are derated, and yet there is a divergence of opinion as to whether we should extend that derating to fish farming. In the other place there was considerable discussion on the matter. I point out to the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) that no fish farms have yet been rated effectively in England, although a number have been rated in Scotland. This decision results from the decision of a court of appeal, where it was made clear that rating should take place. The argument that carried conviction in the other place was that fish farming was a new industry, seeking to increase production in line with others. On those grounds I am happy to support the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Cant: This is an important point. The Minister is not saying that this is a struggling industry with a future and that we should try to encourage it. In effect, he is saying that in the standard industrial classification fish are regarded as a food, and therefore the operation should not be rated. After the war the brewers in Burton on Trent were able to build massive new factories, plants, operations and so on, and when people asked why that building should take place in order to produce beer, when people could not get houses—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is making his intervention into a speech. I hope that he will reach a conclusion.
      Mr. Cant: They were able to do that because technically beer is regarded as a food. I would not contest that for one moment. But the Minister should be wary.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 24 agreed to. [Special Entry]

    Clause 26

      DOMESTIC RATE RELIEF
      Lords Amendment: No. 25 in page 26, line 34, leave out "dwelling-house" and insert "domestic"
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28.
      Mr. Fox: The purpose of these amendments is to extend the provisions of clause 26, which amends section 48 of the General Rate Act 1967 to include certain garages and private storage premises that are free standing and form a separate hereditament. These amendments provide that domestic relief be applied at full rate to such premises. Under existing legislation domestic relief does not extend to garages or storage premises unless they form part of a hereditament which is a dwelling-house or mixed hereditament. The absense of relief for free standing garages and private storage premises gives rise to anomalies, and it is a significant source of complaint by domestic ratepayers. It is particularly unfair to flat dwellers as a class of householders.
      The matter was brought to the Government's attention when the Bill was discussed in Committee. On that occasion I promised that the Government would consider the matter. These amendments were introduced as a result of that consideration.
      Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Does this amendment in any way assist people who rent a garage away from their own home, and who are charged rates on that garage? Water rates are also levied, even though there is no water, and no sewerage facilities. Will this amendment mean that the Thames water authority, in the case of my constituency, will not be able to rate that empty garage that has no water supplies?
      Mr. Fox: This amendment helps with regard to rates, but not with regard to water.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Oakes: What the Minister has said left a query in my mind. I regret

      283
      the fact that the good Anglo-Saxon word "dwelling-house" has been replaced in the clause by "domestic hereditament". I could have understood the Minister allowing domestic relief on a garage that was within the curtilage of a dwelling-house, or on a garage that was separated, as in the case of a flat dweller, from the actual dwelling-house, but it seems to me—I hope that I am wrong—that, under the clause as it stands, it will be open to someone who owns free-standing garages which he lets to other tenants to claim domestic relief. I can see nothing to stop him from doing that, so I should be grateful if the Minister would answer that point before we all leave the Chamber and return to our domestic hereditaments.
      Mr. Fox: I do not think that the relief that we envisage should produce such a spirit of capitalism in the right hon. Gentleman. I was thinking that he might rush out and buy a few garages as an investment. I shall look carefully at what he has said. If that sort of abuse could develop it would be a matter of concern to us, but as I understand the position, it would not apply in the case that he has instanced.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry]
      Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 28 agreed to. [Special Entry]

    Clause 27

      RATING OF OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS
      Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 28, line 4, at end insert—
      "(7) The power to prescribe sums conferred by this section includes power to prescribe larger sums in relation to hereditaments in Greater London than in relation to hereditaments elsewhere."
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The purpose of clause 27 is to extend to the occupiers of certain non-domestic property the right to elect to pay rates by instalments—a right that is currently enjoyed only by the occupiers of dwelling-houses. The right will be limited to property with a rateable value between the
      284
      minimum and maximum limits specified by order.
      The amendment makes the necessary provision for any order to be able to prescribe higher limits for property in Greater London than elsewhere. This is desirable because evidence shows the average non-domestic rateable value in Greater London in 1979 to be more than double that outside approximately £1,757 compared with £827. I therefore submit that the amendment is necessary.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 33, leave out lines 6 to 21 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 in any valuation list or in any rate, unless it appears that the relevant provisions will so exempt it when it is next occupied."
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      In the Bill as previously drafted, subparagraphs (ii)(a) and (ii)(b) of clause 27(4) were 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 amendment now goes further, in that it covers all empty electricity and gas board premises—showrooms, offices and dwellings—which, when occupied, are subject to normal rating provisions. It also applies to the premises of British Rail, London Transport and British Waterways. It removes any doubt that, when unoccupied, such premises should be liable to empty property rating in the same way as premises owned by any other person or organisation. This is a minor amendment but one that clarifies the purpose behind the original legislation, and I ask the House to agree with it.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 35

      RATING OF UNOCCUPIED PROPERTY
      Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 34, line 37, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
      "(b) such notice as is mentioned in subparagraph (2) below is given by the charity or, as the case may be, the trustees"
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 32 to 34.
      Mr. Fox: These are technical amendments, and are necessary to correct flaws in the drafting of the clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 32 to 34 agreed to.

    Clause 40

      COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 37, line 18, leave out "and 30" and insert "30 and 37".
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 41.
      Mr. Fox: These amendments, which either stem from the drafting of the Bill or are consequential upon other provisions that have been introduced, deal with the commencement provisions for part V and certain of the amendments and repeals in schedule 29 and part VII of schedule 30. They are all of a technical nature.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 41 agreed to.

    Clause 41

      GENERAL POWER TO REDUCE RATE SUPPORT GRANT
      Lords amendment: No. 42, in page 38, line 11, leave out "any year" and insert
      "the year 1980–81 and any subsequent year before the commencing year".
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 43.
      Mr. King: The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the terminology on the introduction of the transitional arrangements. The transitional arrangements are, of course, terminated by clause 46(3) when the new grant proposals are introduced.
      Amendment No. 43 is technical and makes it clear that the term "notional uniform rate" has the value assigned to it for the year 1980–81 in the report on the Rate Support Grant Order 1979.
      I ask the House to agree to it.
      Mr. John Tilley: It is worth while for the House to spend a little time in considering these two amendments. They are the first amendments that bring us into the area of the rate support grant, which is in many ways the guts of the legislation. The first amendment shifts, although only slightly, the balance between the degree to which the Bill destroys local democracy and the way in which the Government, in bringing forward the Bill and implementing it before all its stages were completed, have to some degree detracted from parliamentary democracy.
      This is also the first time that the House has had the opportunity to consider the transitional arrangements since they have been put into operation. When the House and, indeed, the Committee were considering these classes on the transitional arrangements of trying to penalise authorities which did not meet the Government expenditure guidelines in this year, we were only looking forward to what might be happening. We can now say that our worst fears have been realised. Although the clauses to which the first amendment refers are only a part of the general derogation from local democracy, in that they are Government attempts to control the way in which local authorities spend their finances, it is clear, from the way that the Government have operated, that it has been a very serious insult to the House. I believe that these clauses were put into operation before the amendment or other amendments could be considered.

      287
      With regard to the question of lack of local democracy, it is very sad that the Conservative-controlled authorities—largely the ACC and the GLC—have agreed to go along with these provisions in general. I do not know what price they got for it; it would be wrong of me to speculate. All I know is that it is the last chance that they have to exact a price for acquiescence with Government on this issue, because from now on, when the Act goes on to the statute book, they will have very few powers of local determination.
      But the specific aspect that is contained in the clause and is affected by the amendment is that of parliamentary democracy. I do not think that Ministers can disagree with the fact that they have used these powers and that they have specified the councils against which they will use them more than a month before tonight, when this House is considering the detail of the legislation. The Bill could still go back to the Lords and come back to the House before the end of the sitting on Thursday.
      Whether or not the Government will accept that the legislation is retrospective, in that it applies to decisions taken by local authorities several months ago, there is no doubt that they were anticipating the legislation in their pronouncements of a few weeks ago on what became known as their hit list of the councils that they had decided to penalise.
      In discussing the matter, perhaps the first point is that no councils have really been penalised, and no councillors have lost anything out of this. In no sense has any individual member of a local authority been surcharged or penalised. What has happened is that it is people living in those local authority areas such as my constituency of Lambeth who will suffer because the Government intend to deny the resources necessary for the services those people need.
      The amendment is relevant because it deals with the period during which this transitional power might remain with the Government. The House should look at how the Government went through the operation of implementing this clause. Time and again in Committee hon. Members said that this gave arbitrary powers to the Secretary of State, and that he was making, if not subjective judgments about
      288
      what levels of spending should be in a particular council, certainly judgments for which he was not accountable to any authority, be it this House or a court of law.
      The hit list of councils was originally 14. It included the London borough of Hammersmith. Because that borough is under a Tory-Liberal alliance control, it was possible for the Government to say that they were not attacking merely Labour-controlled councils. Following that decision, however, Hammersmith and some of the other boroughs involved have been able to get off the list and avoid the penalties by making representations to the Minister. From the accounts that I have seen in the press and the information that I have been able to gather otherwise, in some cases they have been reprieved, not because they have said that they would mend their ways because of the threat of this penalty but because they have been able to show to the Minister that the information on which the Minister took his decisions and the projections of spending of that local authority were incorrect.
      Mr. Graham: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is the first instance of what Opposition Members said would happen? We said that, dependent upon the Minister's whim and the kind of yardsticks, measuring rods and criteria he wishes to apply, in effect, whether it is sinister, malicious or merely argumentative, under these transitional arrangements and other parts of the Bill it is now possible for any Minister to determine the kind of punishments, hit lists and penalties that he wishes to dish out, according, at his own suggestion, to whatever line of policy he wishes to pursue from year to year.
      Mr. Tilley: I could not have put it better. I thank my hon. Friend for amplifying the point. He served on the Committee; I did not. I am glad that his predictions—although it is unfortunate for the councils involved—have proved to be only too true.
      Now that we have a Star Chamber approach in Marsham Street, either the criteria on which the initial decisions were taken for the 14 on the hit list were wrong, or the information on which those decisions were based was wrong. But this House cannot judge either question

      289
      because we have not been told by any Minister—let us hope that we shall be told tonight—what the criteria were or what the information was.
      Therefore, it seems that this clause, whether or not amended in the way suggested, gives Ministers the absolute power to decide quite arbitrarily whether to put the heads of local authorities on the block—perhaps that is the origin of the phrase "block grant" in the Bill—and then simply wait to see whether they get executed or are reprieved at the last moment.
      I want to talk briefly of the sort of effect that we are experiencing in Lambeth, which is one of the local authorities affected. We are talking of a total package of cuts of £2·1 million because Lambeth was on the hit list of 14 boroughs, £1·4 million because of the Secretary of State's equally arbitrary cut in the overall level of rate support grant in the increase order this year, and—I shall return to this matter—a £7·5 million cut in the inner city partnership money for the Lambeth area over the next few years.
      7.45 pm
      That is a massive scale of cuts imposed in this quite arbitrary way by the Government. It seems to many of us to coincide with ensuring that the Secretary of State got his traditional cheers at the Tory Party conference. I am afraid that the result is not that any councillors have been penalised in any direct way or that any chief executives have been humbled, surcharged or anything else. It is that services for the old, which are desperately needed in Lambeth—such as home helps and meals on wheels—cannot now be funded at present levels, which are widely recognised as inadequate; that services for children, and day nurseries for the under-fives cannot be maintained as they are now even though there is a need for much more; and that there is now no chance of providing the desperately needed services for the sick and the disabled in an area of inner city deprivation.
      That is the situation that results from this clause and from Ministers acting before this House gives them the authority to do so. It is a serious constitutional point as well as a serious point in terms of my constituents' problems.
      My last general point on this subject is the issue of the inner city partnership
      290
      which has been affected in Lambeth. This has exposed the Government's hypocrisy. When they came into office, they paid lip service to the need to maintain a bipartisan approach to tackling the problems of the inner city. I am quite happy to pay tribute to the fact that these problems were first pinpointed by the former Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). There had been a bipartisan approach. It was recognised that areas of special need require special help, yet the paradoxical situation is that the present Government, using this clause, are attacking those areas of special need, not only in terms of taking away the extra inner city partnership funds which had been allocated but also of cutting into their main RSG allocation.
      That is the lesson that must be drawn from the Government's action and their anticipation of this legislation. If that is how the clause is to be used before it reaches the statute book, surely that is a very strong argument for the House to reject not only the Lords amendment but the clause and the Bill as a whole.
      A final example of the arbitrary nature of the cuts is the Brixton recreation centre, on which £7 million has been spent. The centre requires another £2 million to be spent to make it at least weatherproof. It is an area of great recreational deprivation as well as all the other forms of deprivation, yet the Government have chopped the money that would have finished that centre.
      Mr. King: That is quite untrue.
      Mr. Tilley: The centre will merely stand empty, as £7 million worth of public investment has been lost because the Government, for some trivial reason, to make a political point, have refused to provide the remainder of the money needed for it.
      Tonight the economic activities committee of Lambeth borough council is meeting to hear that the employment projects at Dive Road, Hamilton Road and Coronation Buildings, projects that would have provided factory space for new firms coming into the borough, have had to be scrapped, because there is no longer public money available for them, even though the Government were saying earlier this year that the money would be available.

      291
      I have taken a lot of the time of the House on this Lords amendment, but those are just a few of the examples of how the Government, anticipating the use of this legislation before its approval by the House, have misused their powers and have proved that all the dire predictions of my right hon. and hon. Friends in Committee were only too true.
      Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I support the protestations of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) on behalf of my authority, which is also on the Secretary of State's "hit" list. It is on the hit list for one reason only—namely, the confrontation between the deputy leader of the council and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). Government and local government are suffering because the Minister apparently finds it impossible to be civil to the deputy leader of the council and the deputy leader finds it impossible to deal with the uncivil Minister. As a result, people in Hackney are suffering badly. It is a scandalous state of affairs. A new word has been coined in Hackney. When someone wants to vacillate, to lie or to cheat, it is said "Do not do a Finsberg".
      I pay tribute to Lord Bellwin, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who was kind enough to see me and to engage in long discussions. I found him understanding. He wanted to be helpful. I thought that he was understanding of the problems in every way. I described to him the difficulties in Hackney. Hackney is at the top of the list for all criteria of deprivation. However, the Secretary of State decides to take action against Hackney because, for the base year that he has chosen—he did so without consultation—Hackney borough council overspent on a notional sum. I have explained to the Minister and to Lord Bellwin why it was wrong to select the base year chosen by the Minister. There was not over-expenditure. Certain expenditure was taking place because the council was overcoming the industrial disputes that had taken place earlier which resulted in under-spending in 1978/79 the base year chosen.
      292
      The Secretary of State argued that he had selected an average year and that there was evidence that the council had been deliberately profligate and had been spending money willy-nilly. That argument does not stand up to examination. It is not true. I put my argument to Lord Bellwin and he could not fault it. However, the Government have gone ahead.
      The Government say that local authority representatives in Hackney must go to them cap in hand and plead for special facilities. I have told them that the people of Hackney will never do that. They are too proud to do so. They will not go cap in hand to any Government of any persuasion. In the first place, they do not believe that they are wrong. I ask the Minister to check on the year that has been chosen. If he does so, he will find that it is an unusual year. It was unfair to select that year because of the circumstances of that year. They were specific to Hackney. If he checks on previous years and subsequent years, he will find that the allegation of overspending is not true.
      Hackney has done as much as it can to ensure that it makes the best use possible of the money that is spent. Nobody has charged Hackney until now with not doing its work properly. On the contrary, there have been many letters from Ministers in both Labour and Conservative Governments, congratulating those in Hackney for the remarkable job that has been done and how they are pleased with it. Many Ministers have visited Hackney to observe the way in which the work has been done. There has been a partnership scheme and both the Ministers concerned have paid tribute to the authority for the work that it has done. They have agreed that it would be impossible to charge Hackney with profligacy.
      Both the right hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues have commended Hackney and have set out their commendations in writing. It cannot be argued that Hackney has been a bad authority. Indeed, I do not believe that it is for the Government to argue that case. It is for the people of Hackney to decide whether the borough council is being run properly and efficiently and in the way

      293
      that they expect. In any event, the Government cannot indicate that Hackney has been profligate.
      Tomorrow Prince Philip will open one of the complexes that has been built as a result of the partnership scheme. The area in which the complex has been built was derelict for many years. In 1971 the House transferred the open spaces from the control of the GLC to that of the boroughs. The GLC had not done its job. I said on that occasion that I thought it would be years before the open spaces would be properly developed. The then Minister, the right hon. Member for Crosby, (Mr. Page) sent me a four-page letter after the debate assuring me that I was wrong. He told me that he had received assurances that the development would take place quickly. Ten years have passed. The derelict land has been developed only because it was agreed during the term of the previous Labour Government that Hackney should become a partnership area.
      The development that has taken place cannot be finished because of the many millions of pounds that the Government have taken away from Hackney. Further facilities cannot be provided. If there were any truth in the allegation that Hackney had been profligate, I should not support the council. If the allegations were true, I should inform the House. I urge the Minister to reconsider the decision that has been made. I will see him at any time to explain once again the council's case. Lord Bellwin wrote to me only three days ago to inform me of the results of my interview with him. It seems that he clings to a sentence that has been coined in the Department to the effect that the Government agree that partnership is partnership and that it means partnership between the Government and the local authority. It is argued that there can be no partnership unless the local authority is of the same political persuasion as that of the Government of the day.
      That is a dangerous precept to argue. It is one that will destroy local government. Is there to be a fight every time there is a change of Government? On the regional health authority on which I serve three Labour members have been sacked for no reason. They were perfectly good
      294
      guys who did a perfectly good job. I have always fought against that type of political intervention. It will be sad for local government if we are to witness further examples of this type of behaviour in future.
      I urge the Minister to review the decision on Hackney. The borough council has acted in conformity with all the standards that are laid down for good local government. It is doing its best in the most desperate circumstances. It is not wasting money. Ministers have approved the expenditures that have taken place. The base year that has been selected cannot be argued to be a year in which normal expenditure took place. I invite the Minister to meet me tomorrow or at any time so that I can once again place before him the facts about Hackney. If he checks the facts that I have presented he will realise that they are true. If he does so, the people of Hackney will not be subjected to further harassment and additional expenditure will not fall unfairly and unreasonably on their backs.
      Mr. King: The hon. Members for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) and Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) have taken the opportunity on a narrow amendment to debate the wider issues of transition. I make no objection. It is their privilege to do so.
      The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central seems to be under the impression that he can vote against the clause. The clause has been approved by the House and the only matter for discussion is the narrow and technical amendment that is before us, with which the House will either agree or disagree. The hon. Member made another gallant attempt to try to get a bird to fly. His right hon. and hon. Friends have often tried to get the bird to fly, but it has remained resolutely and firmly on the ground.
      It is rubbish to suggest that we have put something into operation that has not been sanctioned by Parliament, or that there is some arbitrary power in the hands of Ministers that is outside Parliament's control. Nothing will happen under the transitional arrangements unless the Bill becomes an Act. Only when an order has been laid before this House and has been approved separately by this House under the rate support grant arrangements will anything happen. The

      295
      House always debates the increase order and has an opportunity to vote, if it so wishes.
      8 pm
      When he has reflected, I hope that the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central will not seek to sustain his suggestion that some arbitrary power is involved that is outside Parliament's remit. The hon. Gentleman might say that it is outrageous to give advance information on how the powers are likely to work. His right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will tell him that he has spent most of the past six months asking me to give him the earliest possible indication of the way in which the powers are likely to be used. The complaint might be that we should have made this announcement earlier. We were anxious to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's request, and that is why we announced at the earliest possible moment how the arrangements would operate.
      May I tell the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch that the first criteria have nothing to do with base years. The first criteria were laid down last December, nearly a year ago. We gave local authorities advance warning about the way in which we envisaged that the transitional arrangements would operate. It involved the rate level in individual boroughs. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in theory, the rating system was geared to providing an equivalent level of service for an equivalent rate poundage. We based that round the notional uniform rate. That was the advance warning that was given to Hackney, Lambeth and to other authorities.
      Mr. Hattersley: I do not wish to correct every error. Let us take an example. The right hon. Gentleman said that he gave notice in December that councils were likely to be penalised if they exceeded the notional uniform rate. Since the notional uniform rate that he stipulated excluded virtually 50 per cent. of the councils, does he not agree with every local authority association that that did not constitute a warning? There was a wide criterion within which the Secretary of State made a narrow, arbitrary, biased and politically orientated judgment.
      Mr. King: I am interested to hear that. The right hon. Gentleman will
      296
      recall that the rate set was substantially in excess of the notional uniform rate. We envisaged that not fewer than 10 and not more than 20 local authorities would be affected. It was possible for certain outside pundits to make an early prediction about who would be affected by such criteria. The idea that the Secretary of State made a narrow judgment at the last minute is nonsense. It was the logical result of the scheme that we had outlined. It will not come into effect unless the House approves it.
      We have published a provisional list. It is only provisional because until those orders are passed it will not come into effect. There is no question of inviting authorities to come on bended knee to us. Some authorities said that they made errors in the figures that had been submitted. There was some suggestion that we should not be anxious about receiving the correct figures. If we were to make a decision that was based on the wrong figures, it would be intolerable. If authorities have made errors, they should let us know. We are ready to take account of that.
      If authorities wish to do so, they can consider their position and their budget and decide whether to make economies. They can still decide whether it remains possible for them to qualify. Nothing would give my right hon. Friend or I greater pleasure than that nobody should be on the transitional list. I shall consider the points raised by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch and I shall discuss them with my noble Friend the Minister. I am sure that he will consider them carefully.
      It has been suggested that the authorities do not know what the criteria are on which they have been judged. That was made clear last month, when we announced the initial provisional list. The criteria were stated clearly. As the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central raised this question, he will have to take my reply as it comes. The account that he gave of the Brixton recreation centre was a travesty of the truth. I shall give him the benefit of the doubt. I trust that that account was based on ignorance and not on any attempt to distort the truth about Brixton recreation centre.
      The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that centre was a project of Lambeth

      297
      council. It has nothing to do with the urban programme or with Government funds. It was budgeted to cost £3·4 million. I may be wrong about that figure, but when it was launched it was within the £3 million bracket. So far, it has cost over £7·5 million. Contrary to the sum that the hon. Gentleman mentioned of £2 million, the latest information is that it will cost in excess of a further £7 million to complete it. I do not place all the blame on Lambeth council, because there were inter-union disputes on the site which led to problems. The disputes caused considerable delay and cost inflation. The project has nothing to do with the urban programme.
      As a result of Lambeth council's financial difficulties, it approached the urban programme and the partnership. Certain other authorities in the partnership and, not least, the voluntary bodies in Lambeth realised that possible sources of revenue from the urban partnership would be swallowed up by a Quatermass that was growing and that could swallow all the funds. Contrary to their views, we agreed to make some contribution from the urban programme in order to help Lambeth.
      I am sure that the hon. Gentleman respects the truth because he is an hon. Member. If he does, he will ensure that that correction is understood in the borough. He will not allow the canard to spread. He will not allow it to be said that this is a Government project that we have stopped, and that the Government are responsible for that. He knows that what I have said is true.
      Mr. Tilley: The Minister has started a canard of his own, which will not fly. He cannot have it both ways. In this year's inner city partnership programme there is £800,000 of Government money, which will enable Lambeth to continue the project. As a result of the decision that the right hon. Gentleman took last month about penalties, £800,000 has been taken out. As a result 140 building workers are out of work and £7 million of public investment will be wasted. The building will be left open to the wind and rain for the foreseeable future. His arbitrary and recent decision has led to that. In addition, the right hon. Gentleman exaggerated slightly when he said that it will cost another £7 million.
      Mr. King: I am worried by the hon. Gentleman's last comment. I suggest that he keeps in closer touch with his borough. I think that I understated the figure. He should check up. The council got into trouble and came to the Government to ask them to contribute a further sum to help with this year's bills. Now that the Government have decided against that, we have been accused of sabotaging the project. No other hon. Member who has listened to the story would consider that, against that background, the Government have to take full responsibility for what has happened.
      I draw the hon Gentleman's attention to the recent remarks of the director of housing in Camden, who, he may have noticed, has tendered his resignation. I believe that the observation may be applicable to other London boroughs. If we are to protect services, it is necessary for economies to be made at a time of straitened circumstances. Boroughs that have set their hearts and minds against any economies anywhere are the biggest threat to services in their boroughs—far greater than may sometimes be indicated by their public statements.
      I agree with the comment of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shore-ditch about partnership. It would be a sad day if there had to be the same political persuasion at each tier of government for there to be successful partnership. I am proud to say that that is not the case in the majority of our partnerships, which are proceeding satisfactorily. Unfortunately, in one or two cases it is not so. I say this out of the top of my head, but I believe that all the other partnerships are with Labour authorities and the Conservative Government, and are proceeding with co-operation and good sense on both sides. That demonstrates that there is no political vindictiveness on our part in partnerships. I endorse the comment that, at a time when there need to be economies right across local government, partnership means partnership. If certain authorities are not prepared to take one step in the direction of economy throughout local government, it is difficult for the Government to undertake yet further to subsidise what by any standards could be considered further substantial expenditure.
      Mr. Hattersley: I do not want to follow the two examples of the Secretary of State's behaviour that my hon. Friends gave. However, I very much sympathise with the authorities in their dilemma and applaud the defence of their position by their Members of Parliament.
      Lest there should be some who read only one page of Hansard, I rise to say one thing now. I hope to have an opportunity in an hour or so to discuss and describe the way in which the Secretary of State has operated the transitional provisions. I have tabled an amendment to limit his discretion in another area, in an attempt to demonstrate that he is not fit to be given the discretion that the Bill constantly provides.
      The Minister's speech should not pass without my saying that his description of the Secretary of State's behaviour in applying the transitional arrangements is not understood or recognised by me; nor will it be acknowledged or recognised by any local authority association. His description was of how the Secretary of State might have behaved had he been a reasonable man. It was not, in fact, how he behaved.
      Question put and agreed to [Special Entry]
      Lords amendment No. 43 agreed to. [Special Entry]

    Clause 44

      SUPPLEMENTARY GRANTS FOR TRANSPORT PURPOSES
      Lords Amendment: No. 44, in page 40, line 5, after "exercised" insert "separately and".
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47.
      Mr. King: By the amendments, the rate support grant arrangements will be operated separately for England and Wales. These technical amendments clarify the ways in which the arrangements separated. The transport supplementary grant can be similarly operated in England and Wales by the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for Wales, respectively.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Under the change inplemented this year, questions which would have gone to the Department of the Environment concerning the rate support grant settlement will next year be transferred to the Welsh Office. Will the diverse problems that might arise in Wales over local authority spending, and problems similar to those that were dealt with a moment ago concerning certain London boroughs, be resolved and any action taken by the Secretary of State for Wales? Will the whole package be handled by him, without any split in function?
      Mr. King: Subject to the amendments being accepted, for the coming year, 1981–82, that will be so. The 1980–81 arrangements remain within the existing practice.
      I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I know that he had a bit of bad luck and found that he had slipped down the queue when he got back into the right place.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry]
      Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 48 agreed to. [Special Entry]

    Clause 48

      THE DOMESTIC RATE RELIEF
      Lords amendment: No. 49, in page 44, line 43, leave out "determined" and insert "calculated".
      8.15 pm
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 59, 64 and 174.
      Mr. King: The amendment is essentially a change in terminology. If the word "determined" was left in, the domestic rate relief grant payable to every local authority would have to be specified in the initial rate support grant order, which is impossible. It has to be calculated subsequently.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry]

    Clause 49

      THE BLOCK GRANT
      Lords amendment: No. 50, in page 46, line 1, leave out "The" and insert and insert
      "Subject to subsection (6A) below, the"
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 51, 53, 54 and 55.
      Mr. King: This is a paving amendment for an amendment which prevents the amount of grant payable to an authority exceeding its total expenditure. It may appear to be an additional complication, but an authority may choose not to receive a grant, and another tier of authority may receive the grant on its behalf.
      Amendment No. 55 is what used to be called the "Squire" amendment. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) is not here.
      Mr. Graham: An absent squire.
      Mr. King: My hon. Friend tabled an amendment on Report, with which expressed sympathy but which was not technically correct. Under the block grant schedule, the amendment will avoid the problem of a positive incentive to decrease expenditure below the grant-related level. Alternatively, it will prevent a further incentive to increase expenditure above that level. A number of representations have been made by local authorities. The Government were pleased to accept the amendment, tabled on behalf of an association, in their Lordships' House.
      Mr. Cant: Will the Minister give us a political interpretation of the amendment? It is believed by many—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will disabuse me and others—that the amendment is one of the concessions that the Government made in another place to persuade their Lordships not to oppose the block grant and capital expenditure controls.
      Am I right in believing that the amendment will make it difficult for any future
      302
      Government to bring financial pressure to bear on authorities to make them increase their expenditure if they are underspenders? The Squire amendment permits Tory authorities to continue in their rather backward ways of not spending enough on local government services, without any coercion being able to be brought to bear in order to make them do so.
      Mr. King: This could not have been a concession made in another place, because I announced on Report that we accepted the principle of the amendment. It needed redrafting on technical grounds, and it was retabled in another place.
      The concept that the hon. Gentleman has defined is broadly correct. There is a neutral stance below grant-related expenditure. As at present, the line will be constant. I do not want to get into the technicalities of the matter, but the line is constant, regardless of the level of expenditure.
      The difference will be that, in future, above grant-related expenditure it will be possible to allow the line to taper upwards. The amendment provides that below grant-related expenditure the line must remain constant and may not be moved either way. There may not be an incentive to reduce expenditure or an incentive to spend up. It works both ways.
      I do not think that hon. Members would wish to interfere with the normal determination by authorities of their spending levels—except when they start to move into the area where they could otherwise pre-empt more of the grant when they are, by any criteria on an average assessment, spending substantially more than other authorities need to spend.
      Mr. Hattersley: We shall not vote against the amendment, because it removes one coercive element in the Bill. We are against the coercion of local authorities to observe spending patterns determined by the Government. Any reduction in that coercion is to be welcomed, and we are delighted that another place improved the Bill on the Government's behalf.
      Of course, the Minister let the cat out of the bag and it is worth reiterating in simpler terms what he said. The Government are establishing levels which they,

      303
      arbitrarily and, in my view, without sufficient information, regard as the appropriate levels of spending of local authorities. They are creating the apparatus by which they can hold down authorities to that level. The Government are removing from their armoury any power to push authorities up to that level. As long as they do not spend above the figure, the Government will be delighted and will not attempt to increase the spending to the level that they have determined. If authorities spend above the determined level the Government will use their power to reduce that expenditure. That is typical of the Government's attitude, but we propose to support the amendment because it removes one coercive element from the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry]
      Lords amendment No. 51 agreed to. [Special Entry]
      Lords amendment: No. 52, in page 46, line 12, after "means" insert
      ", subject to paragraph 6 of Schedule [Metropolitan Police District] below,"
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 177.
      Mr. King: This is a technical amendment in relation to the Metropolitan Police. It makes the definition of grant-related poundage subject to paragraph 6 of the schedule. Its effect will be that in arriving at the grant-related poundage applicable to a local authority in the Metropolitan Police district, total expenditure will mean expenditure after the deduction of a relevant portion of police expenditure.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry]
      Lords amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry]

    Clause 51

      ADJUSTMENTS OF DISTRIBUTION OF BLOCK GRANT
      Lords amendment: No. 56, in page 48, line 3, leave out from "authorities" to end of line 20 and insert—
      "(4A) Except as provided by subsection (4C) below, the power—

      (a) 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; and

      (b) may only be exercised for any such purpose as is specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (4B) below.

      (4B) The purposes mentioned in subsection (4A) above are—

      (a) limiting the change in the amount of block grant payable to an authority for the year from the amount payable in the previous year;

      (b) taking account of less than the gross rateable value of an authority or group of authorities in calculating the amount of block grant payable;

      (c) reducing, whether in whole or in part, disparities in the rates levied in different rating areas of Greater London other than the Temples; and

      (d) any such other purpose as the Secretary of State may determine.

      (4C) The power may also be exercised in accordance with principles to be applied to the councils of counties to whose police expenses section 57 of the Police Act 1964 applies (counties falling partly within the Metropolitan Police District)."
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Hattersley: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, to leave out paragraph (d).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 57 and 58.
      Mr. Hattersley: I wish that the Minister had moved the Lords amendment first, because he would have had the task of describing the contents of the principal amendment. It concerns the complicated subject of multipliers. Out of respect and sympathy for the Government, I always point out that when they talk about multipliers they do not mean what John Maynard Keynes meant when he talked about multipliers. It is a term invented by the Government in the

      305
      past year for what amount to index numbers—a figure that is used to adjust the amount of grant received by each group of local authorities.
      When the block grant allocation has been made the multiplier allows the Secretary of State to change the actual receipts of a group of local authorities. The multiplier for one group may be more than one. If so, those authorities' receipts will increase. The multiplier may be less than one, in which case the receipts will diminish. It is essentially an arithmetical mechanism by which the Secretary of State can change the initial block grant receipt to authorities in a certain group or class.
      I say "in a certain group or class" because that was the essential condition that the Minister described to us when we debated the matter in Committee. We were told that a multiplier could not apply to a single authority, but had to apply to a group. There is now some ambiguity about that, because the Lords amendment refers to "an authority". I hope that the Minister will make clear that the multiplier provision cannot be used by the Secretary of State to adjust the grant to an authority, but only to a group or class of authorities.
      London is the example that is normally quoted, because it comprises the group of authorities that are said to have special problems. As we debated multipliers in Committee and on Report, London was almost always given as the example of how multipliers should be used.
      Multipliers would be used to assist with what is called, in the jargon of the rate support grant, dampening—that is, averaging out the receipts from one year to another when the crude rate support grant distribution might mean that receipts so differed from one year to another that an authority's finances could be put in peril because it suddenly discovered that its receipts for one year were appreciably lower than receipts for the previous year. Multipliers, we were told, might be used for the safety net.
      8.30 pm
      This year, London, on the rate support grant system, had it been applied crudely and simply to London, would have lost more grant than even this Government
      306
      were prepared to tolerate. A safety net provision was therefore introduced which said that London should get slightly more than the crude RSG distribution would have provided. Multipliers, we are told, could be used to accommodate that situation in future years. The entire London clawback to make adjustment for difference in needs and difference in standard expenditure was possible under the multiplier. It was for that sort of technical reason that the multiplier was necessary.
      If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am sure was the case, were in the Chair during the long debates on the Bill, you will recall that the opposition constantly objected to those provisions which give the Secretary of State unfettered discretion and the right to use his own judgement about how an authority should behave, how an authority might be penalised and the level of grant it might receive. We mad:, clear that if a multiplier could be conjured out of the air by the Secretary of State for virtually any purpose and then multiplied by the grant to be received by a local authority or a group of local authorities, this would give the Secretary of State unfettered power to change a grant according to whim or prejudice.
      We took the view that the use for multipliers should be stipulated in the Bill. So, I am happy to say, did the House of Lords. My noble Friend, Baroness Stedman, who, if I may say so without offence through suspicion of being patronising, made some of the most informed, authoritative and damaging speeches about the Bill that have been made on any political subject for a long time, described the three areas in which multipliers might be used and could properly be used and moved an amendment to limit the Secretary of State's discretion to those three areas. One was limiting grant changes from one year to the next, colloquially called dampening. One was to take account of less than actual gross rateable value for an authority or group of authorities—the special considerations of a special area. One was to give effect to the equalisation of resources in London—the special acknowledgement of the special needs of London.
      The limitation of the multiplier to those three specific areas was a proposition that was put to the House of Lords not

      307
      only by Baroness Stedman but by Viscount Ridley. It has already been mentioned in the House today that Viscount Ridley was leader of the delegation to the Secretary of State at the outset of the Lords consideration. The delegation was given information about what the rate support grant would be next year—information that the House of Commons, if it is lucky, will receive on or about 21 November. At the end of the conversations that the noble Lord Viscount Ridley had with the Secretary of State, he withdrew much of his opposition to the Bill. It has been said that the spirit of compromise was encouraged by the information that he received.
      Mr. King: One understands that there is a certain latitude in debates of this kind. I would simply like to say that what the right hon. Gentleman says is totally untrue. I state that on behalf of the Government and on behalf of my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Hattersley: I shall remind the Minister of State of what I said. The right hon. Gentleman will tell me whether the facts as I recount them are incorrect. At the point when the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me, I had not drawn any conclusions, but four facts are undeniable. The first is that Viscount Ridley, on behalf of the Association of County Councils, began Lords consideration of the Bill in an almost bellicose mood about parts of the Bill. He did not like it. The second fact is that he met the Secretary of State before the Bill was debated. If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to write to him with dates and times I can do so. He does not need that information because he knows that it happened. The third fact is that Viscount Ridley and the association were given advance information about next year's rate support grant. A statement was put out by the Department of the Environment that he was not given advance information but given some projections. That appeared in the newspapers the following day. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to contradict what I say, I shall sit down. I shall sit down for whatever he wants to say.
      Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman said that the noble viscount led a deputation to the Department at some time he did not specify. My right hon. Friend and I and other Ministers have met Viscount
      308
      Ridley and leaders of the Opposition in the House of Lords. We discussed matters connected with the Bill. Delegations come to see Ministers on all sorts of matters. The suggestion that rate support grant was divulged to any visitors to the Department of the Environment by my right hon. Friend or by myself that has not been disclosed to the House—it will not be possible to disclose such information to the House or to local authorities before some weeks from now—is totally untrue.
      I would be grateful if the right. hon. Gentleman would take that from me. What have been discussed with a number of local authorities as part of the consultative council are exemplifications—the right hon. Gentleman knows that this is normal practice—of possible grant distributions. This is the system that his own Government operated. This is the way that it works. They are shown exemplifications. No one in the local authorities knows which exemplifications are likely to be adopted. It is ultimately a matter for Government decision. Although the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make the best case that he can, the suggestion that people have received privileged information is untrue. I should be grateful if he would accept that.
      Mr. Hattersley: It is my duty to accept what the right hon. Gentleman tells me and I do accept it. The difference between us is that I said that Lord Ridley was given projections of possible grant patterns and the Minister says—with some disapproval that I should have traduced his noble Friend—that that is not true because exemplifications of possible grant distribution were given. I accept that correction without a second's hesitation.
      I must take a further step along the road and remind the Minister of what call the "Ridley meeting". The leaders of the other local authority associations were outraged that the county council representatives met the Secretary of State without them. The meeting was not a routine meeting of the consultative council. That was why it was peculiar and was featured prominently in the press. The meeting did not even represent the common conversations between the Government and the local authorities. The meeting was something special for the county councils. I am delighted

      309
      that the Minister has drawn so much attention to that episode because it was only an aside in my speech.
      The spirit of compromise, which seemed from that moment to characterise most of the actions by Lord Ridley, spilled over into the amendment that he tabled to limit—as was thought—the Secretary of State's discretion over the use of multipliers. That amendment was almost exactly identical to that proposed by my noble Friend, Baroness Stedman. However, Lord Ridley's amendment added an extra sentence. The original amendment was agreed by both sides in the Lords. It provided that the multiplier could be used only for three specific purposes, Lord Ridley added the immortal phrase:
      "any such other purposes as the Secretary of State may determine."
      That totally destroys any limitation that the original amendment placed on the Secretary of State's actions.
      Lord Ridley clearly recognises an elephant's trap when he sees one. When he moved the addition to the amendment he said:
      "That might be thought to give the Secretary of State a total freedom to do anything he likes in the most dastardly way with the multiplier, and to use it for political purposes, which is what no doubt he would like to do from time to time."
      The noble Viscount is right. That is what is thought by my right hon. and and hon. Friends. That is why we wish to remove it from the Bill. Lord Ridley continued:
      "No one really suspects that the Secretary of State wants to do that in the future."
      —[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 Oct 1980; Vol. 413, c.685]
      I make it clear that I have every suspicion that the Secretary of State would want to use it for that purpose. I have that suspicion for the simple reason that that is how he has behaved in the past.
      I shall demonstrate why the Secretary of State's behaviour is not that which justifies such discretion being placed in his hands. We are utterly opposed to a Bill which contains clause after clause which amount to no more and no less than enabling powers. One of the most unhappy features of the Bill, to which the right hon. and learned Member for
      310
      Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has drawn attention, is that where there is any doubt about how the Bill should be applied the parliamentary draftsmen are required to write in words such as "or whatever the Secretary of State shall provide", or "in whatever way the Secretary of State feels appropriate." Time after time the operation of the Bill is left to the Secretary of State. It is absurd to leave to him the ability to construct an index number which can be used to reduce or increase grant to a group of local authorities.
      I return now to a subject about which I warned the House half an hour ago. The reason why the Secretary of State is patently an unsuitable person to be given this discretion concerns the way that he behaved with the 14 councils that he penalised during the transitional arrangements. I shall remind the House of what happened then.
      On Second Reading the Secretary of State announced that he would be taking powers to penalise a group of authorities in a way that he would later stipulate. When pressed to tell us the offence for which they could be punished, he said that it would be if any authority exceeded a notional rate level that he would announce and determine. He then announced a notional rate level that 50 per cent. of councils had exceeded, or would exceed, leaving himself free to choose within that group those that he wished to pick on and penalise.
      It is nonsense for the Minister to say that the criteria for punishment and penalisation were announced as early as possible out of courtesy to the Opposition. We asked for the criteria to be published before the House rose so that we could debate them. The Government refused to do that. Suddenly, in September—a few weeks before the Conservative Party conference—the Secretary of State announced that he had picked 14 councils for punishment. I am sure that the Minister is too honest to deny that until those 14 councils were picked for punishment they had no way of knowing the crime that they had committed. They did not know how to avoid committing that crime.
      Fulham and Hammersmith council—the only council of the 14 not under Labour control—continues to insist that it was included in the list by mistake.

      311
      It attempted to find out from the Secretary of State the criteria that it had to avoid. The Secretary of State could not tell the council the criteria, but led it to believe that it would not be punished. It was punished. That council is not controlled by the Labour Party, but it says that although it attempted to discover the crime that it might commit and thus be punished, no one was able to give it that information until the crime was announced and the punishment determined. That is an intolerable way for a Minister to behave.
      It is equally intolerable that there should be weeks of discussion thereafter about whether the criterion eventually determined for judging the 14 malefactors was the most appropriate measure of overspending. I cannot go into the matter in any great detail, but some of the councils will test in the courts whether the Secretary of State used his discretion in a reasonable way, or whether he used it in a way that was both arbitrary and capricious. I do not believe that a widened discretion should be given to a Minister who put himself in a position where there appears to be a case to answer, because, on a previous occasion when he had wide powers he exercised them in a way that probably was not legally enforceable and had to be challenged.
      There is no doubt about the reasons why 13 of the 14 councils were chosen for punishment, with the fourteenth being included by mistake. None had done anything remotely illegal. They had exercised their proper rights under the Local Government Acts and used the judgment of the elected councillors about what rate level and spending pattern was best for their areas. That is not only their right but, in successive Local Government Acts, it is the duty of councillors to make up their minds according to local circumstances. Having done that, they are now being punished.
      For what reason are they being punished? They are being punished for applying Labour Party spending policy rather than Conservative Party spending policy. They are being punished because they do not accept the philosophy of, and the theory about, local authority expenditure which is the philosophy of the Secretary of State. That is why the
      312
      14 authorities were chosen to receive this severe punishment.
      The House does not have to take my word, but it must take the opinion of every local authority association, every serious newspaper that has written on the subject, every informed commentator. The way in which the Secretary of State has exercised the discretion over financial matters during the past year has not one friend in the world. The Minister of State has the sad job of trying to justify it.
      I shall not vote for the Secretary of State's discretion being extended an inch wider. Neither should any Conservative hon. Member who values local authority autonomy or the proper rights and responsibilities of this House.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Cant: I should like to comment on what is a controversial issue. I have come to the conclusion, partly based on practical experience, that in this age of leaks one can rely with a fair degree of confidence on what on reads in the newspapers. I had never thought that I would stand up in a quasi-public place to make that sort of confession. Most of the leaks in the past few months have turned out to be quite correct.
      The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made about what amounts to a biasing of the distribution of the block grant in the direction of the shire counties is without doubt correct. Whatever the mechanism, the important thing is the fact.
      At a county council meeting on 16 October, on the basis of what had been leaked in The Guardian, the Financial Times and other publications, I suggested that the county council was attempting to go far beyond what the Government required of it, in that it was making cuts not of 2 per cent. but of 5½ per cent., but that one might regard that with more moderation because the Government would be quite generous to the shire counties. The amazing thing was that this was not denied. Nobody on the Tory side of the county council said "We don't know."
      There had been a meeting of the consultative committee on 15 October at which councillors had been shown various

      313
      extrapolations and exemplifications. They were not prepared to deny that there had been this pattern of distribution but only made the counter-accusation "Your Government did the same for the inner cities."
      I think that the Minister is being a little naive, or thinks that we are being a little naive. As was said in the Standing Committee, the whole apparatus of the distribution of the block grant lends itself to this kind of behaviour by the Secretary of State. It is a technique that he can use for the end that he desires. When we consider how much block grant an authority is to receive, we also consider expenditure, poundages and so forth. But the grant that the authority will receive in the last resort is a consequence of the fact that far beyond the threshold a marvellous tapering effect begins. Here is an element of uncertainty for local authorities, uncertainty that did not exist under the rate support grant. That would be bad enough if for some reason the Secretary of State decided to draw the line one way or another. This clearly will make a great difference to how much an authority receives. When we go further and at the end of the process say that the Secretary of State can multiply the amount that a group of authorities or an individual authority can get by a factor that he decides, the situation is completely transformed.
      In Committee I quoted from an article in the Local Government Chronicle in which it was stated that the multiplier concept had been introduced because the Government had not the slightest idea how all these calculations would work out. Therefore, they had to have a reserve power which it was believed would be used in such a way that, having made all these changes in the block grant mechanism, at the end of the day the Secretary of State would say "I shall apply these multipliers so that the situation in respect of different authorities is not changed in any dramatic way."
      This is an extremely important device. How the Secretary of State uses it can seriously affect the financial fortunes, or misfortunes, of different local authorities. Therefore, I support my right hon. Friend's amendment.
      Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham,
      314
      Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant). I have grave misgivings about the use of the multiplier.
      I intervened earlier to point out how the Minister's decision that Hackney was an overspender arose. I referred to a base year. The Minister in reply—and I thank him for saying that he will look into the matter—said that it was nothing to do with base years. I should like to draw his attention to what he did. There were three different ways in which this attack on the hit list was made.
      Mr. King: I said that it started not from any base year calculation, but from the notional uniform rate and something substantially in excess. I did not go on to explain about the waiver and the way in which the two work because one relates to the outturn expenditure in 1978–79.
      Mr. Brown: On the first issue Hackney was determined as having overspent by £24 million. It was so obviously stupid that the Minister had to back off and produce another figure. He then produced a third one. The Municipal Journal refers in glowing terms to how stupid the whole exercise was. Indeed, it finished by saying:
      "The result is that there are almost as many different answers to the question who is overspending as there are methods of assessment."
      Hackney came out in that first attempt to put it on the hit list as being £24 million overspent, and that was not correct. The decision then was to take a base year, and the base year taken for Hackney's multiplier was 1978–79. By taking that as a notional amount and reducing it by 2 per cent., the Minister said that Hackney on its actual expenditure in 1978–79, minus 2 per cent., was 21·5 per cent. overspent on its estimate for 1980–81. That is the basis upon which Hackney is being penalised. It is because of this notional overspending of 21·5 per cent. It is said to be the highest in the country, and it results from the difference between the 2 per cent. less of the actual expenditure of 1978–79 and the estimated expenditure for 1980–81.
      In taking 1978–79, Ministers have taken a year when we had heavy industrial action in London. As a result, there was heavy under-expenditure. To take 2 per

      315
      cent. less than that is not being reasonable in arguing that that is an average figure which people should take.
      What is more, in 1979–80 and 1980–81, Hackney has been encouraged under its partnership scheme to go on spending its money under partnership with the help of the Government. As a result, the estimate for 1980 will be much higher because of the commitment, with the Government, for increased expenditure. As a result of co-operation with the Government, by their choice of a year to make it look bad, Hackney is on the hit list. Therefore, when we talk of a multiplier and the ability of the Secretary of State to choose how and against whom he will use it, the evidence of Hackney indicates the danger of that procedure. I shall want to see it dealt with very much more closely, first to determine exactly what the Secretary of State has in mind.
      In the cases that I am identifying, there are a number of boroughs which can be found wanting. The London borough of Wandsworth, for example, under the same examination system that is being applied to Hackney, should be spending only 81 per cent. of its expenditure. Nothing has happened to Wandsworth. Of course, the sceptic will say that it is Tory controlled. I make no such accusation, but it takes a lot of explaining. The same is true of Southwark, which should be spending only 70 per cent. of its expenditure. Southwark is not on the hit list, either. However, one can go to other areas and consider Cambridge, Cornwall, the Isle of Wight, Lancashire, Northumberland, Salop, Somerset, West Sussex and, nearer home, the City of London. They are all overspent under that notional scheme, yet the Minister says that they are different. Of course, they are different. They are Tory controlled.
      I know that the Minister feels a little irked when I make these points but, if asks that any Secretary of State be given carte blanche to use any form of system, he has to justify it.
      There is now enough evidence to show that there are dangers in giving any Minister carte blanche. It may not be the present Secretary of State. It may be another Minister. It is unwise of the House to give carte blanche unless it is satisfied that it is under parliamentary control. I do not think what we are seeing today is right.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: We are talking about a principle here and not about individuals. We know that the Secretary of State, who appears here so rarely, is given to sudden, furious aberrations. He is, after all, the man who twirled round the Mace for some extraordinary reason. It may be that he will have another rush of blood to the head in his Marsham Street office and produce some outlandish multiplier. We have seen the evidence.
      I regard that as a trivial aside, of course, because, if the Secretary of State is successful and gets a genuine standing ovation at the Tory Party conference instead of the usual form, he will be shifted, as he was shifted from industry to the environment, the reason being that he was a threat to the Leader of the Tory Party.
      Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend mentions the antics of the Secretary of State with the Mace. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is trivial compared with some of the right hon. Gentleman's other previous convictions such as his conduct in respect of answers on tracked hovercraft in 1973?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Are they included in this amendment?
      9 pm
      Mr. Cryer: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to take into account the replies on tracked hovercraft mentioned by my hon. Friend. However, the replies on the cost of selling off local authority houses did not exactly inspire the House with confidence in the estimates and ability of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
      On the evidence presented to the House, it looks as if this device is a squalid and shoddy political manoeuvre in order to give the Secretary of State the opportunity of producing multipliers which he will use for political advantage and nothing else. We know that the Tory Party is deeply prejudiced against the urban areas. In sheer practicalities, it means that the urban areas will be deprived and that the money will go to the counties.
      Labour-controlled local authorities are almost at their wits end in an endeavour

      317
      to maintain decent local authority services, which by and large serve the worse off in the community. Educational and social services facilities are the sort of facilities which are most used and appreciated in the urban areas by those in the lower income brackets, yet they will be the people who will be most hit by this sort of potential shift of resources.
      The Minister might well say "Of course, that is not what we have in mind". However, unless amendment No. 56 is approved and paragraph (d) deleted, it is possible for the Secretary of State to have virtually anything in mind, because it gives him absolute discretion. I should have thought that the Tories, who pride themselves on their concern for such notions as democracy, the power of Parliament and other such related items, even if they were determined to give the Secretary of State some discretion in the matter, might at some stage or other have thought of consulting Parliament. It would have been easy to have had the phrase
      "any such other purpose as the Secretary of State may determine"
      made subject to an order approved by both Houses of Parliament. It is not uncommon for such a procedure to take place, even though that procedure is not all that satisfactory. But at least it involves some sort of scrutiny, whereas amendment No. 56 as it stands does not. The decision is left entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of State for the Environment. That is completely unsatisfactory, especially in view of his background.
      Quite apart from the personal characteristics of the present Secretary of State, any Secretary of State in a Conservative Government could be sufficiently prejudiced to move funds away from the urban areas in the way that has been outlined, because he will have the power to produce a multiplier, or any combination of multipliers, that will enable him to do so. It is scandalous that the Tory Government and the Tory Party, who make such play with democracy, are so much prone to trample on the rights of Parliament. That is precisely what they are doing, and they are doing it time after time.
      I hope that our amendment will be supported. I do not suppose that we shall
      318
      get a majority, but it will be something that we shall ram down the throats of those Tories who oppose it every time they open their mouths about democracy. If they support the amendment as it stands, they are voting for total and absolute discretion by the Secretary of State without any reference to Parliament, and that is a disgrace.
      Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). If I understand him correctly, he feels that the further discretion contained in paragraph (d)—
      "any such other purpose as the Secretary of State may determine"—
      would be outrageous if it remained a discretion of the Secretary of State. He feels that it is a matter that should come before Parliament.
      Mr. Cryer indicated assent.
      Mr. King: I am glad to have that on the record. I can understand that the hon. Gentleman may have been misled by the comments of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who referred to "anything that the Secretary of State might decide", or "anything that came into his mind".
      I draw the attention of the House to the wording of the amendment. It refers to
      "any such other purpose as the Secretary of State may determine."
      "Determine" is the word, not "decide", not "think for himself", and not "decide on a casual whim." In this respect, the word "determine" has a specific legal meaning. It means "to make a determination", a determination which has to be laid before Parliament. It therefore fits precisely within the criteria that the hon. Member for Keighley said could make it more acceptable to him. It is subject to the approval of Parliament. The Secretary of State must spell out the purpose in a formal determination in his annual report to Parliament, which must be subject to a vote in this House before it can take effect.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook introduced the dangerous new word "multipliers" and reflected for a moment on what would have been Keynes' interpretation of multipliers. The new block grant system has introduced a dangerous new

      319
      concept. I do not think that many hon. Members are familiar with the present rate support grant system, and I do not blame them, because it is incredibly complex. I have with me a document containing about 15 pages of close print, and every page, line after line, contains separate multipliers. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) is concerned about the multiplier. Did he know that last year his multiplier was 1·0800? Did he rise in his place and ask why the multiplier for Hammersmith and Fulham was 1·0259 and say that it was an outrage of constitutional dimensions that that factor was not revealed? This document is the rate support grant order for 1979, on which he voted.
      I agree with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and with the hon. Member for Keighley that if there were an unfettered power and that if without the sight of Parliament and without the publication of that information the Secretary of State could do what he liked, that would be unacceptable. That is why the Lords amendment is so worded. It states that the Secretary of State "may determine", and I have sought to make clear to the House the determination.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked whether the amendments would apply to individual authorities. They could apply to local authorities, but they would be different for individual authorities for one good reason, which exists under the present system. For instance, there is a safety net. If it is determined by a general principle that there shall be a safety net at a certain level, it will need the calculation of different multipliers to determine what the multiplier should be for each authority to ensure that they do not go below the safety net. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that example, although I appreciate that it may be complicated for hon. Members who have not been so involved in these matters. I took the inner London multiplier for last year. They are all different, but they are applied according to common principles, which have to be set out in the Order, and which have to be clearly specified. There are also certain single class authorities, such as the City of London and the Isles of Scilly.
      I shall not go off into the highways and byways of the transitional arrangements.
      320
      I made a moving address on that subject earlier, and hon. Members who missed it may care to reflect on it in Hansard. These amendments deal specifically with multipliers, and I hope that, even if I have not totally reassured the hon Member for Keighley—I do not think that that has been done in the last 10 years—I have at least made some slight contribution towards it. If he reflects on his remarks in Hansard, I think he will find that his points have been met completely.
      There are two other technical amendments in this group. As one of the multipliers, one amendment merely limits the change in the amount of block grant payable, so that no authority will suffer too great a loss by a change. There has to be a technical adjustment every year to make sure that the comparison is fair. The other amendment is a technical restatement in the Bill.
      Mr. Straw: Will the Minister explain whether the approval of the determination under the proposed subsection (4B) (d) is given separately in Parliament—in a separate debate lasting 1½ hours—or whether that is subsumed into all the other determinations that are contained within the single rate support grant order and its successors?
      Mr. King: The rate support grant order and the multipliers have been done every year. It is done in a single report in which all the facts on the basis on which the RSG settlement has been made are laid before Parliament, on which Parliament votes. That is the way in which it has always been done before.
      Mr. Hattersley: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks.
      I do not think that any Opposition Member is disposed to argue with the technical point of determination that the Minister of State made. Indeed, those who spent much time with him in Committee will recall that every time we objected to the Secretary of State being given discretion, the Minister of State told us not to worry, because some time, either late at night or early in the morning towards the end of the Session, shortly after Prayers, the Secretary of State would have to have his decision ratified by the House.

      321
      I must tell the Minister, as I told him many times in Committee, that the idea that the Secretary of State, having used his arbitrary and capricious judgement, will be held in check by Conservative Members, acting with the objective interests of democracy close to their hearts, is a theory of the present Parliament which Opposition Members find wholly unconvincing. We do not believe for a moment that if the Secretary of State behaves as badly towards any authorities under these provisions as he is behaving towards the 14 penalised authorities under the transitional
      arrangements, the "village Hampdens" opposite will rise up and smite him with their constitutional might. Indeed, I do not believe for a second that Conservative Members are likely to stop the Secretary of State from using his discretion in whatever political way he chooses, to prove which they will vote against my amendment tonight. I press my amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 170.

      Division No. 495]

      AYES

      [9.15 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)

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

      Forrester, John

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Foster, Derek

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Beith, A. J.

      Foulkes, George

      Morton, George

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Graham, Ted

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Bradley, Tom

      Hardy, Peter

      Palmer, Arthur

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Park, George

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Parry, Robert

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Haynes, Frank

      Penhaligon, David

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Cant, R. B.

      Home Robertson, John

      Richardson, Jo

      Carmichael, Neil

      Homewood, William

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hooley, Frank

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Howells, Geraint

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Roper, Jonn

      Cook, Robin F.

      John, Brynmor

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Silverman, Julius

      Crowther, J. S.

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Soley, Clive

      Cryer, Bob

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Stallard, A. W.

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Dempsey, James

      Lamborn, Harry

      Stott, Roger

      Dixon, Donald

      Leighton, Ronald

      Straw, Jack

      Dobson, Frank

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Dormand, Jack

      Litherland, Robert

      Thome, Stan (Preston South)

      Douglas, Dick

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Tilley, John

      Dubs, Alfred

      McElhone, Frank

      Tinn, James

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McKelvey, William

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Watkins, David

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      McNamara, Kevin

      Welsh, Michael

      Eastham, Ken

      McTaggart, Robert

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Winnick, David

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Maxton, John

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Ewing, Harry

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Field, Frank

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Mr. Terry Davis and

      Flannery, Martin

      Molyneaux, James

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      NOES

      Ancram, Michael

      Blackburn, John

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Arnold, Tom

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Bright, Graham

      Chapman, Sydney

      Bendall, Vivian

      Brinton, Tim

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Colvin, Michael

      Best, Keith

      Buhner, Esmond

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Butcher, John

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Critchley, Julian

      Crouch, David

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rathbone, Tim

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Lee, John

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Dover, Denshore

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Eggar, Tim

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rost, Peter

      Emery, Peter

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lloyd, peter (Fareham)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      MacGregor, John

      Shersby, Michael

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Sims, Roger

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Forman, Nigel

      Major, John

      Speed, Keith

      Fox, Marcus

      Marlow, Tony

      Spence, John

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Squire, Robin

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mather, Carol

      Stainton, Keith

      Garol-Jones, Tristan

      Mawby, Ray

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mellor, David

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Gray, Hamish

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Grist, Ian

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Thompson, Donald

      Grylis, Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

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

      Moote, John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Frippier, David

      Hawkins, Paul

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Waddington, David

      Hawksley, Warren

      Murphy, Christopher

      Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Myles, David

      Waller, Gary

      Heddle, John

      Neale, Gerrard

      Ward, John

      Henderson, Barry

      Needham, Richard

      Warren, Kenneth

      Hicks, Robert

      Nelson, Anthony

      Watson, john

      Hill, James

      Neubert, Michael

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Newton, Tony

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

      Hooson, Tom

      Onslow, Cranley

      Wheeler, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Hum, John (Ravensbourne)

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Wickendon, Keith

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Parris, Matthew

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      Jessel, Toby

      Pawsey, James

      Wolfson, Mark

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Porter, Barry

      Lamont, Norman

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Lang, Ian

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Mr. John Cope and

      Latham, Michael

      Raison, Timothy

      Mr. John Wakeham.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendments Nos. 57 to 59 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    New Clause H

      ADJUSTMENT OF BLOCK GRANT IN CONNECTION WITH EDUCATION ETC.
      Lords amendment: No. 60, after clause 54, in page 50, line 33, at end insert new clause H:—
      "H Block grant shall be subject to the adjustments arising out of expenditure by local authorities on education and for connected purposes specified in Schedule [Adjustment of block grant in connection with education etc.] to this Act."
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments No. 61, 64A, and 176. Privilege is involved.
      Mr. King: These are technical amendments to do with the education pooling arrangements. Unless they substitute for the arrangements under the previous rate support grant arrangements, they are—
      Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for delaying the House. After voting in the Division, I walked over to my office in Norman Shaw, North. On arriving in the building, I noticed that the television annunciator said "Division off". As I walked in the annunciator said that the Division had been timed at 9.12 pm. I see from the official board, kept by the Doorkeeper, that the last Division was at 9.12 pm. The annunciator then said "Division off". The bell went on the annunciator—I do not know about the real bells—and the annunciator showed "Division". I flogged back from Norman Shaw, North to join our enjoyable deliberations. The annunciator must make up its mind. Does it mean what it says?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for any inconvenience that he or any other right hon. or hon. Member may have suffered. Unfortunately, I misinterpreted the signal that the time had come for the door to be locked. I was immediately informed that it was not time for the doors to be locked, and I cancelled the order. The doors were immediately unlocked. I understand that the Tellers are all agreed that everything is satisfactory.
      Mr. Dobson: In his brief reference to the amendments, including amendment No. 176, the Minister, in his usual casual way, referred to them as "technical amendments". The addition to schedule 8 is a technical amendment that adds nine pages to the schedule. That makes it a remarkable piece of technicality. Furthermore, it has a significant bearing on the future of local authority funding. The amendment particularly affects the Inner London Education Authority, which is made a local authority for the first time. The ILEA has been transformed into a local authority, instead of being left as a committee of the Greater London Council, not for technical reasons, but to allow the Minister and the Secretary of State to exercise the political bias that earlier clauses permit them.
      9.30 pm
      I am particularly concerned about the extension of substantial enabling powers in the eight or nine pages of the technical amendment to schedule 8. Those powers give considerable discretion to the Secretary of State and it is fair to assume that, in line with promises he has been making to, and arrangements he has been making with, representatives of county councils, the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that funds will continue to be shifted out of urban areas and into the shire counties. An earlier amendment excluded fish farming from rating provision and brought it in line with other forms of farming. Those living in urban areas feel strongly that the sooner that agricultural buildings become liable for rating, the better.
      We shall not see a more blatant example of the shift of resources than in the settlement for the ILEA when the present system of funding is destroyed by the Bill. In future, the Department of the Environment will be able, presumably after consultation with the Department of Education
      326
      and Science, to deal directly with, to fund directly and determine directly the sums given to the ILEA by the Government. The object of the exercise is clearly to take funds away from the authority.
      Mr. Cant: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that an article in the current issue of Municipal Review sets out the authorities that are most likely to be at risk because of poor quality GREs, and the first authority mentioned is the ILEA.
      Mr. Dobson: That is certainly the view of those who, I assume, not even the Government could accuse of political motivation. Even the technicians of the various local authority associations are convinced that the ILEA is the prime target to lose Government funds which will be transferred to the shire counties.
      In the past year we have been exposed to the gross prejudices of the Conservative Party against the ILEA. The Baker report emanating from the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) was one of the most pathetic propaganda documents ever produced. It was denounced by the technical education press as a shoddy and trivial piece of work. Nevertheless, the trivial and shoddy Government Front Bench took it seriously, as the Government take seriously any document that appears to damage or threaten any organisation attempting to assist working class people get a better chance in life. Despite the fact that it was a pathetic report, the Government set up a ministerial committee chaired by Baroness Young. All sorts of information has been leaking out of the Department of Education and Science, mainly on the lines that, having looked at the matter, it has been concluded that the Inner London Education Authority, as a unitary service, should survive. I hope that the late inclusion of references to the Inner London Education Authority in the amendments is confirmation of that. There are, nevertheless, ways of doing down the Inner London Education Authority and damaging the standard of the education service that it provides besides breaking it up.
      It is clear that the Government now intend to retain the unitary service. This committee of Ministers, if they have any grain of sense, could scarcely come to any other conclusion. They are now clearly

      327
      attempting to say that they will deny the Inner London Education Authority the money that it needs to continue to provide the present standard of education and will refuse to provide the additional funds considered necessary by those who believe that Inner London Education Authority standards should be improved. I am one of those people.
      I am fearful of the consequences of these small technical amendments to schedule 8 that the Minister introduced so casually. I should like to have from the Minister some indication of the processes that it is intended the Government should go through before determining the level of grant to the Inner London Education Authority. There are no criteria applying to any other authority that can be applied to the Inner London Education Authority. Only one one-purpose authority is found in the Bill—the Inner London Education Authority. According to my reading of the Bill, the grants to all other organisations will be determined by assessing the various functions that those councils—district councils, metropolitan district councils, London Borough Councils and so on—carry out. We need some indication of how the Secretary of State for the Environment is to exercise the discretions that he receives under schedule 8 in so far as they affect the Inner London Education Authority.
      We need to know what input we can expect from the Department of Education and Science which is supposedly pursuing a policy of improving educational standards and achieving standards of excellence. That clearly is not the case. The impact of the measure before the House is clearly intended to lower the standard of the education service in the London area. I should like to know how the Secretary of State intends to determine this matter. Will the Secretary of State for Education and Science have chats with his right hon. Friend so that his right hon. Friend can exercise the wide discretions granted to him throughout the financial provisions of this Bill before deciding to do down the Inner London Education Authority? These two Secretaries of State, like Burke and Hare, will be descending upon the ILEA and trying to kill it. That will no doubt be followed by the Prime Minister appearing at the Dispatch Box and, when asked about standards of education in the inner London
      328
      area, saying "All we have done is to introduce these restraints. It is entirely up to the elected members to decide how to cope with the fact that they have no money". We have the two Secretaries of State acting as Burke and Hare together with the usual Pontius Pilate attitude of the leader of the Government. The Minister owes the House some explanation of how the Inner London Education Authority is to be funded. Such explanations have not yet been proffered by anyone.
      Mr. King: I gave the amendments a fairly brief introduction. They are technical, and have nothing to do with the matters that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) sought to raise. They merely consolidate existing statutes and provide for the existing education pooling arrangements and those under the Education Act 1980 to be incorporated in the new legislation. The hon. Gentleman raises much wider issues. If he finds mention of the Inner London Education Authority anywhere in the Bill, no matter in what connection, he appears to see it as an opportunity to deliver the speech that we have heard. I shall, none the less, respond.
      He asks how ILEA will be assessed under the grant-related expenditure assessment. It has been done under the expenditure subgroups that have been working in conjunction with the associations, and of course a lead role is played by the Department of Education and Science to try to find, as happens every year, the fairest way in which education expenditure can be assessed. It is not in the Bill and nor was it in previous Bills. It is a matter that is handled separately, outside the legislation. It does not arise on these amendments. I apologise if I am straying outside the strict terms of order of the amendment.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: For the sake of accuracy and in order not to mislead the House or those who may be listening, will the Minister agree that in the Bill there is a change in the funding arrangements for ILEA, in that it becomes eligible for direct control of direct funding, other than precepting on the boroughs, which it does at the moment? For the sake of accuracy and completeness, the Minister should admit

      329
      that that is so and that the controls that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn, and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) mentioned can and will operate.
      Mr. King: I have made it clear that the matter does not arise on these amendments. It was raised on the previous debate. I have already confirmed that ILEA will, for the first time, receive grant direct. It will, however, continue to have powers to precept on the member boroughs. Regarding the pooling arrangements with which these amendments deal, the amendments merely consolidate existing statutes. It is only a change of nomenclature.
      Mr. Dobson: I normally find it fairly easy at least to understand what the Ministers attempts to tell us. However, I find it difficult to believe that the points that I make are entirely irrelevant or out of order. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be criticising you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rather than me.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not make another speech. He may only make a short intervention in the Minister's speech.
      Mr. Dobson: Does not the Minister agree that these technical amendments include provisions that will have an impact on ILEA, for instance, on the apportionment of the English block grant?
      Mr. King: The amendments merely consolidated the existing statutes. They make no difference to the previous position under existing statutes.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendments Nos. 61 to 64 and 64B agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 59

      RATE SUPPORT GRANT—SUPPLEMENTARY
      Lords amendment: No. 64B, in page 53, line 35, at end insert—
      "(5A) Any power to amend regulations made under Part I of the Local Government Act 1974 or section 32 of the Education Act 1980 shall include power to make any such amendments in the regulations as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the provisions of sections 46 to 58 above.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 64C.
      Mr. King: These are technical amendments, to provide for the education pooling arrangements.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords Amendment No. 64C agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 63

      EXPENDITURE WHICH AUTHORITIES MAY MAKE
      Lords amendment: No. 65 in
      page 55, line 22, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection 3(A) below,"
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 6669 and the correction thereto.
      Mr. King: Amendments Nos. 65, 68 and 69 are technical. It might have been inferred from the wording of the Bill that authorities receiving payments would be able to use them for purposes outside those for which they have statutory powers. The amendments clarify that they are not entitled to make payments for those things for which they do not have statutory authority.
      Amendment No. 66 was introduced by the Opposition in the House of Lords and provided that Ministers may not make an allocation to an authority later than 1 November if the authority is not agreeable to receiving it. It is an unusual amendment, but, in a spirit of compromise, we were happy to accept it.
      Amendment No. 67 was introduced to exempt from the prescribed expenditure profits from trading undertakings. On reflection, the Government agreed to accept it.
      Mr. Oakes: You have indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we may discuss the

      331
      following manuscript amendments to Lords amendment No. 67:
      In page 56, line 8, leave out "and (d)" and insert "(d) and (e)".
      In page 58, line 44, leave out "and (d)"and insert "(d) and (e)".
      The amendments have been tabled by the Opposition to get the Government out of a hole that they dug for themselves. In essence the amendments that we are discussing give the right to a local authority that runs one of the many trading undertakings that are discussed in this part of the Bill to use the profits of that undertaking either to advance the undertaking itself or for other purposes, but not to have that sum of money deducted from its capital allocations. That is a principle that the Conservative exponents of private enterprise, or past exponents of public enterprise, should heartily applaud.
      If someone is making a profit it should not be taken away from him by the Government when the enterprise is flourishing, whether it be a private or public enterprise. We see a great deal of common sense in that philosophy, and I hope that Conservative Members see it also.
      The Minister, in an offhand manner—I shall not use the word cavalier—said that the amendment was moved in another place and consequently accepted by the Government. The amendment was moved in Committee on behalf of all the associations. The Minister roundly denounced it, and rejected it with the aid of his majority. It was moved again and spoken to on Report, but again the Government introduced their Whips and their majority to beat it down. Now, because their Lordships have moved almost the same amendment, and because of political convenience, the Government have decided to accept it. They dare not fight with their Lordships about the Bill. They have put themselves into that dire position because of their timetable for the Bill.
      The Lords' amendment moved and accepted in another place, despite the Government's wishes, goes much further than the amendment that was tabled by myself and my hon. Friends in Committee. It includes any civic catering undertaking. We did not have the temerity to include that, but their Lordships did,
      332
      and it was accepted. We did not include any exhibition—that is a wide terminology—but their Lordships did so, and the amendment was carried in another place. Although the Government had said in Committee and on Report that our amendment was wrong and not in accord with their policy, for some strange reason they are now prepared to accept not only amendments almost identical to ours but further amendments put forward in another place.
      Mr. Keith Best: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that Lord Bellwin was very sympathetic, certainly towards what was then amendment No. 107? If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept that, and if he has not had the opportunity to read the Official Report of the noble Lord's speech, I can assist him because I have a copy with me.
      Mr. Oakes: The hon. Gentleman has the advantage over me, because I do not have in front of me the Official Report of the debate in the other place, but I understood that, no matter how sympathetic Lord Bellwin may have been to the amendment, the Whips in the other place tried to vote it down, but lost. Because they lost, the Government are now constrained to accept the amendment.
      I think that the amendment makes good sense. I cannot quote the noble Lord, but I listened to the radio reports of the debate and I can say that the Government were told that the undertakings in question were examples of enterprise, which a Conservative Government should support. They were told that they should not penalise enterprise, whether by a public authority or a private individual. That should make good sense to Conservative hon. Members.
      Mr. King: We are accepting the amendment.
      Mr. Oakes: That is because the Government were beaten in the other place. It is not that they accepted the amendment there. They cannot vote the amendment down in this Chamber, because they dare not, for fear of the Bill's returning to the Lords.
      The amendment seems to embody self-evident truth. It is supported by all the local authority organisations, because it

      333
      is a common-sense amendment with wide implications for local authorities.
      Lord Hill of Luton was clearly concerned about the airport in the constituency that he represented in this House. That is why he moved the amendment. As with so much else in the Bill, the Government did not do their job properly, so the House must make the difficult decision whether to pass legislation that is inoperable.
      Mr. King: Nonsense.
      Mr. Oakes: It is the function—indeed, the duty—of Parliament to pass legislation that is operable, and not to fear the consequences of the Opposition's manuscript amendment having to return to the other place for it to reconsider the matter. That is our bounden duty as hon. Members. All that my amendment seeks to do is to get the Government out of the hole that they have dug for themselves by their inefficiency. Having been defeated in the other place, they then did not amend the Bill properly to cover their undertakings there.
      The question of airports is crucial. Within the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) there is the biggest, and I would say the best, airport in the country—certainly outside London, and probably vying with the London airports. On 6 November, worried about the discrepancy that he could see, my right hon. Friend asked the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services:
      "if he will make a statement on the implications of the amendment made in the House of Lords to clause 68 of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, which would permit a local authority to increase its expenditure allocations by the amount of the profits of a trading undertaking, such at an airport"—[Official Report, 6 November 1980; Vol. 991, c. 658.]
      That is a fair and proper question. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
      "The amendment to clause 68 (now cause 72) of the Bill to permit an authority to increase its expenditure by the amount of profits on a trading undertaking will permit increased capital expenditure by certain local authorities. It will not, however, permit the national ceiling"—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brooke.]
      Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Oakes: The reply continues:
      "It will not, however, permit the national ceiling on the aggregate of local authority capital expenditure to be increased."—[Official Report, 6 November 1980; Vol. 991 c. 685.]
      Where are we in view of that reply to my right hon. Friend who is obviously vitally concerned about the great and important Manchester airport in his constituency?
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) raised a point of order earlier today on the whole question of what the Government were doing, or were not doing, as the case may be.
      I understand that there have been communications between Government officials at the Department of the Environment and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and, I believe, with the Association of District Councils, which is equally concerned about, I was going to say, a hiatus in the Bill. It is not a hiatus. It is a wrong clause. The Government have made a mistake which they now have the opportunity to put right in accordance with what they said in the other place and in accordance with the wishes of the other place. The Opposition are seeking to get the Government out of that hole.
      The effect of the manuscript amendment is rather technical. To save the time of the House, I shall read what the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has said rather than try to interpret it. The AMA states:
      "When the Bill was in the Lords an important principle was established for local authorities to finance capital expenditure from the profits of their trading undertakings without such expenditure counting against their annual allocation for capital expenditure. Thus, places like Luton, with a profitable airport, to give one example, would have uninhibited use of the profits generated by the airport to use those profits for airport improvements, if they so wished, with a view to making the airport even more profitable.
      An appropriate provision was written into the Bill, now Clause 63(3)(e) of the latest

      335
      version. The Government opposed this provision but the vote went against them. The Government made it dear at Report Stage that they accepted the position and indeed included some of their own consequential amendments.
      What was overlooked, however, was that certain further consequential amendments were needed to Clause 63(6) and Clause 69(1)(a). What in effect the former provision says is that any overspend in capital expenditure in the year has to come off next year's allocation. To prevent in regard to expenditure of the kind covered by Clause 63(3)(e), subsection (6), in addition to specifying paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of subsection (3), should also specify paragraph (e) of subsection (3). Clause 69 is the one that gives the Secretary of State power to give directions in relation to capital expenditure where the same consequential amendment is needed."
      I understand that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, having discovered this error in the Bill, contacted the Department of the Environment and was assured that the technically defective clause should not operate in such a way as to frustrate the Government's acceptance of the amendment inserted in the other place. But the Department said that it was too late to amend the Bill because it would mean that the whole Bill amended in this way would have to be returned to the other place. That is what we are about. That is why we are sitting here. We are dealing with their Lordships' amendments. If we consider that there is a defect in one of those amendments, it is our duty to say so clearly and to put it right.
      The solution found by the Department was a most ingenious one. The solution which the Department had in mind was
      336
      to provide an additional allocation of expenditure for the authorities affected. I hope that at least the Minister will assure the House that that additional expenditure really will go to the authorities concerned. I hope that he says so clearly in this House.
      That is not the point, however. We touch upon a very important constitutional issue here. I have outlined to the House a defect in the Bill. We have the opportunity, the power and the duty as a House of Commons to put that right. It is our job to send it back to the other place, where I have no doubt their Lordships will accept the amendment which we propose.
      I am not asking for an assurance about the devious means suggested by the Department to the AMA, though I hope that the Minister will say that he will adopt that method. I am seeking much more than that. I am asking the Minister to say that the Government have made a mistake. They have made a number of mistakes in the Bill. Half our discussion today has been about mistakes. We made mistakes. Printers made mistakes. All sorts of people made mistakes in the haste to get five years' legislation through in five months. This is another mistake. We have the opportunity to put it right. I ask the Minister to say "We thank the Opposition for giving us the opportunity to put it right. We accept the manuscript amendment, and we shall send the Bill back to the other place with the amendment so that the defect may be corrected."
      Mr. Charles Morrison: I hope that the state of Government legislation has not become so chaotic that it is necessary at this late stage of legislating on this Bill to accept a manuscript amendment. It may be that in practice what the Government propose in the Bill will prove wrong. If that happens, it will be up to the Government to come back to the House and ask for amending legislation. I cannot believe that it is right at this stage to accept a manuscript amendment, even though it is moved by someone with the experience of the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes).
      The right hon. Member said that the Government had been constrained to accept Lords amendment No. 67. That is not so. They have not been constrained to accept it. They have decided very sensibly that another place has done what it is meant to do and improved the legislation.
      Having said that, I must admit that I regret that the Government, either in this House or in another place, were not prepared to draft clause 63 more flexibly. It is not uninteresting to note that once again a proposed clause demonstrates a certain contradiction in the attitude of the Government towards local government.
      Looking at the long title of the Bill, we see that it is entitled
      "An Act to relax controls over local government."
      However, a little later, the long title points out that the Act is also for
      "controlling the expenditure of local authorities."
      I do not think that the two can be reconciled. Nevertheless, the Government have tried to reconcile these two contradictions within the Bill, and that is one of the reasons why some of us have considerable doubts about some of its provisions.
      It is relevant, even at this late stage, to note that even after all the debate on the Bill and this part in particular in this House and another place, the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils remain extremely perturbed about the effect of clause 63 and the related provisions in part VIII. It is still felt that the principal effect of the new system proposed in the clause will be
      338
      to end the existing freedom of local authorities to supplement capital spending direct from the rates without recourse to borrowing. It is still felt that the existing loan sanction agreements have proved effective in the past in controlling total capital spending. It is still felt that the new proposals have significant disadvantages. In particular, they will treat the capital spending allocations of local authorities one year at a time, yet, as we all know, capital expenditure must by its nature be planned over a period of years.
      The local authority associations remain extremely perturbed about the provisions in part VIII. Although I believe that at this late stage we can but go along with what is proposed, and we can but accept the amendments that have come from another place as a means of introducing a little more flexibility than was originally proposed, on the other hand the fact remains that the local authority associations have grave doubts about the capital expenditure provisions.
      It is right that a marker should now be put down that many of us in the House, apart from people in local government, will look carefully at the way in which these provisions work out in practice. If the fears that have been expressed about them prove well founded, there is no doubt whatever that there will be great pressure from the House and from local government for further amending legislation.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) for his kindly reference to my keen interest in this important debate. He referred to my parliamentary question of 6 November and to the Minister's reply. The Minister's reply to me has revived fears about the Government's intentions with regard to the trading undertakings of local authorities. In particular, there is concern among my constituents about the future development of Manchester international airport, where a great many of the people whom I represent are employed.
      Our airport is a highly successful enterprise of the first importance, not just to Greater Manchester, but to a very much wider area. Indeed, it is not too much to say that it is now an enterprise of

      339
      national importance. Again, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for marking the significance of the airport in national terms. Those concerned were deeply concerned about the effect of the Bill in its original form on the future development of the airport. The relief that greeted the inclusion of what is now clause 72 has been replaced by renewed concern.
      10.15 pm
      My right hon. Friend said that the Government were in a hole. Our amendment gives reassurance and practical help to local authorities. I want a plain assurance from the Minister of State that the Bill will not damage the future development of Manchester international airport. We need an unequivocal statement from the Minister. He knows that there is concern, and if he is any doubt he should consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I am not satisfied that there has been proper co-ordination between the two Departments on this important issue. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply. As I said, I want from him an unequivocal statement that the future development of Manchester international airport will not be damaged by the Bill.
      Mr. Best: I welcome the amendments moved in the other place by the noble Lord Hill, who in his distinguished career managed to notch up the position of Minister for Welsh Affairs in 1961–62, so, naturally, I follow what he said closely.
      The amendment demonstrates the old dilemma of democracy, the question of the reconcilability or otherwise—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) has doubts about whether they can be reconciled—between local autonomy and the need for the Government to control local government expenditure. It is an uneasy relationship, and I am not convinced that it is reconcilable. I welcome the amendment because it is an attempt to achieve that.
      I accept the need for this Government to control overall local government expenditure, but the amendment points to the fact, which is cardinal, that the Government should not interfere in trade undertakings that are entered into by local authorities, especially when consideration for payment is given which requires the loss of, or prejudice to, an existing
      340
      amenity. I refer particularly to the Anglesey marine terminal at Amlwch in my constituency. It has a single buoy mooring that can take any tanker that has so far been constructed of more than 500,000 tons, whereas the Mersey can take only a fully laden tanker of 90,000 tons. The oil is then pumped 78 miles by underground pipeline to the Stanlow refinery.
      A Private Member's Bill was introduced in the House, which led to the Anglesey Marine Terminal Act 1972. I pay tribute to my predecessor in the House, now Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who played a significant part in the promotion of that Bill.
      Lord Hill moved the amendment in the other place on the basis of a point of principle namely, that where a local authority undertaking makes a profit the local authority should be permitted to deal with that profit as it thinks best in relation to the needs of its community. He pointed to the fact that this principle obtained in the way in which the Government put pressure on nationalised industries to find capital for development from their profits, and in the way in which a private operator hoped to function, in that he should find the cash for his developments from the profits from his undertaking.
      I am optimistic that the amendment covers a trading undertaking such as the Anglesey marine terminal, and I am encouraged in that view by a letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, in which he said:
      "We would regard the harbour at Amlwch as being within the definition of a trading undertaking. Therefore, any profits arising in a year from the operation of the harbour may be used to supplement Ynys Mon borough council's capital expenditure allocation."
      This is not a small matter. Shell pays about £500,000 a year to Ynys Mon borough council in respect of the Anglesey marine terminal. I said earlier that this was an undertaking entered into by the local authority which might prejudice a local amenity. That is right. The inhabitants, through their representatives on the borough council, accepted that there was a danger of oil spillage and other unpleasant occurrences and the quid pro quo was a generous annual payment from Shell. That money has been used by the local authority to support local charitable, cultural and sporting

      341
      organisations and, on the capital side, to encourage recreation centres or sports centres in places such as Holyhead and Amlwch.
      I welcome the amendment, which is realistic. I am glad that the Government have accepted it, because it points the way towards realism in local government. It is a marker in the direction of continued autonomy of local government, which many of us on the Conservative Benches would like to see.
      Mr. Graham Bright: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has accepted the amendment tabled by Lord Hill. I also welcome it on behalf of my constituency, which houses Luton airport. Luton airport last year made a profit of about £2½ million. I should like to ask the Secretary of State to confirm that the legislation, as it is set out at the moment, will not mean that Luton is penalised in any way for spending that £2½ million on the development of the airport by having its allocation in future years cut down.
      The point mentioned by the Opposition is a technical one. I welcome the spirit in which the Government have accepted the amendment, but we should like the Secretary of State to tell us exactly how he will operate particularly the references in clause 63 at page 56, lines 12 to 13. It is a little difficult to understand how it will operate, and this has caused some concern to my borough council.
      Mr. King: I should like to respond to to the comments which have been made and particularly to reply to the two manuscript amendments.
      I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) said. What is the point of having a revising Chamber if we do not pay attention to its revisions? This is a matter that was pressed on the Government in Committee and on Report. We resisted it, but we continued to consider the matter. It was then further pressed on us, and my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) referred to what my noble Friend said about it in the House of Lords. We had recommended against it, but, the House of Lords having taken its decision, and as it was a finely balanced issue, the Government decided to respect the view
      342
      of the House of Lords. I make no apologies for doing so.
      I listened very carefully to what was said about the operation of the scheme. We shall be watching the implementation of it very carefully.
      The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) asked for a blanket undertaking about the future of Manchester airport, which I am not in a position to give him tonight. Let me simply say that, in terms of the Bill, the capital controls and the use of profits, as provided for under the amendment the airport will not be caught by the capital controls. It will therefore be within the discretion of the Manchester authorities to use those profits. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that that is as far as I can go, because the matter is relevant to the amendment that we are discussing. I say that because, from the way in which he put the first question to me, I thought that I was being asked to give a blanket guarantee about the everlasting existence of Manchester airport, about which I am not able to speak tonight. But in so far as the Bill affects the capital controls, that is the assurance that I can give.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: Perhaps I may remind the Minister of what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade said about Manchester international airport. He was extremely anxious that nothing should hinder the development of the airport. What I wanted was an assurance that nothing in the Bill would contradict what the Secretary of State for Trade said he wanted when he discussed the future of the airport.
      Mr. King: I have tried to give my assurance on the matter that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, and I hope that that covers it.
      I listened with interest also to what my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey said about the oil terminal. I know the close interest that he has taken in this matter. Obviously, I appreciate the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Bright) in this matter as well.
      Perhaps I might express my gratitude to the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). He thinks that the Government are in a hole—I do not feel particularly

      343
      in a hole at present—and he has been doing his best to help us out. I very much appreciate his offer, but we do not need it, because we do not happen to be in the sort of hole that he seems to think we are in. Various discussions on this matter are going on, and there have been some ingenious attempts to identify a technical loophole.
      This is not a problem in the drafting of the Bill. One important distinction about the profits from trading undertakings is that they are normally not available until after the year in which they are produced. We have decided, therefore, that the best way to deal with this is to make an allocation to cover expenditure, financed from trading profits when they are known. Clause 63(3)(c) enables such allocations to be made. That means, therefore, that if that administrative arrangement is dealt with in that way, that meets the situation. I can give an assurance that that is the way in which we intended to do it and that we shall cover trading profits, and that the spirit of the amendment will be fully honoured in the administration of the Bill when, as we hope, it becomes an Act.
      Mr. Oakes: I cannot accept that. First, I thought that at least the Minister of State would have made it clear to local authority associations and local authorities that the spirit of what the noble Lords decided would be carried out. I am not happy that the Minister has even done that, bearing in mind the written reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the reply that the Minister gave him in the House today, that he cannot give any undertaking to Manchester airport that would be in accordance with the spirit of the amendment in another place, which is defective and which we have tried to put right.
      I should like to give a little anecdote to the House. The predecessor of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best), my noble Friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and I worked on the Bill of
      which the hon. Member spoke. It was a very happy Bill in many respects for me, because I was the Whip on that Bill. We came up regularly at two o'clock or three o'clock in the morning and twice we failed to get the Bill through. That was a great advantage to me because it ensured that my hon. Friends would never make me a Whip again. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right that the Amlwch terminal is of considerable benefit to the island of Anglesey, an island which I love very dearly.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Bright) will support not just the amendment made in another place, but the manuscript amendment that I have tabled, because, I repeat, what we are doing as a House is trying to put this matter right—it is our last chance to put it right—and to put into legislative effect what their Lordships intended, but which would not be in effect because of the defects that I outlined, defects that apparently the Government, or officials of the Government admitted to the AMA and then tried to put right in some roundabout way. We are talking about different years. The Government are saying that they will try to put right the defect in a subsequent year on their undertaking. This is the House of Commons; this is one of the Houses of Parliament. We are legislating. Let us legislate correctly. If this issue should go back to the other place for further consideration, let us have the courage and the guts to send it there and not be dependent on the timetable that the Government are so desperately worried about.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 agreed to.
      Consequential amendment proposed, in page 56, line 8, leave out "and (d)"and insert "(d) and (e)"—[Mr. Oakes.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 106. Noes 149.

      Division No. 496]

      AYES

      [10.31 pm

      Allaun, Frank

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Alton, David

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Beith, A. J.

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Cant, R. B.

      Cook, Robin F.

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Crowther, J. S.

      Home Robertson, John

      Park, George

      Cryer, Bob

      Homewood, William

      Parry, Robert

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hooley, Frank

      Penhaligon, David

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Howells, Geraint

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

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

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Richardson, Jo

      Dempsey, James

      John, Brynmor

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Dixon, Donald

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Robertson, George

      Dobson, Frank

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Dormand, Jack

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Roper, John

      Dubs, Alfred

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lamborn, Harry

      Silverman, Julius

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Leighton, Ronald

      Soley, Clive

      Eastham, Ken

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Litherland, Robert

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Ewing, Harry

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Field, Frank

      McElhone, Frank

      Stott, Roger

      Flannery, Martin

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Straw, Jack

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McKelvey, William

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Tilley, John

      Forrester, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Foster, Derek

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Watkins, David

      Foulkes, George

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Welsh, Michael

      Graham, Ted

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Molyneaux, James

      Winnick, David

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (wythenshaw)

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Hardy, Peter

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Mr. George Morton and

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      O'Neill, Martin

      Mr. James Tinn.

      Haynes, Frank

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      NOES

      Ancram, Michael

      Fox, Marcus

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Stn)

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Murphy, Christopher

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Gray, Hamish

      Myles, David

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Grist, Ian

      Needham, Richard

      Best, Keith

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

      Nelson, Anthony

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Michael

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hawkins, Paul

      Newton, Tony

      Blackburn, John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Onslow, Cranley

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Heddle, John

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Bright, Graham

      Hicks, Robert

      Parris, Matthew

      Brinton, Tim

      Hill, James

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Pawsey, James

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Hooson, Tom

      Porter, Barry

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Raison, Timothy

      Butcher, John

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Rathbone, Tim

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Jessel, Toby

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Lamont, Norman

      Rost, Peter

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Lang, Ian

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Latham, Michael

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Colvin, Michael

      Lawson, Nigel

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Cope, John

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Shersby, Michael

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Sims, Roger

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Critchley, Julian

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Speed, Keith

      Crouch, David

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Squire, Robin

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Stainton, Keith

      Dorrell, Stephen

      MacGregor, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Dover, Denshore

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Egger, Tim

      Major, John

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Emery, Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Mather, Carol

      Thompson, Donald

      Faith, Mrs Shella

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Mellor, David

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Trippler, David

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Waller, Gary

      Forman, Nigel

      Moate, Roger

      Ward, John

      346

      347

      Warren, Kenneth

      Whitney, Raymond

      Young, Sit George (Acton)

      Watson, John

      Wickendon, Keith

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      Mr. David Waddington and

      Wheeler, John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mr. John Wakeham.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendments Nos. 68 and 69 agreed to.

    Clause 66
      PART VIII

        CAPITAL RECEIPTS
        Lords amendment: No. 70, in page 57, line 16, at end insert "or Passenger Transport Executives"
        Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 73 and 74.
        Mr. Fox: This amendment is a necessary consequence of the inclusion within part VIII of the Bill of capital expenditure by passenger transport executives. Because the capital expenditure of the PTE will itself be prescribed expenditure, it is necessary to ensure that any capital grants repaid by a PTE to a local authority do not score as capital receipts. This amendment brings about that objective.
        On amendment No. 73, the Government made clear in the original consultation document on capital controls, issued last autumn, that they proposed to include within the scope of the new system capital expenditure by PTEs. The PTE can undertake virtually any type of public transport capital expenditure within its area. In circumstances where the capital expenditure of metropolitan counties is to be controlled under part VIII of the Bill, it would obviously have been undesirable for PTE expenditure to remain outside the new system.
        The clause will mean that all PTE capital expenditure, irrespective of the method of financing, will count against the capital allocation of the appropriate county council. All the definitions, including that of prescribed expenditure, which apply to local authorities for part VIII will also apply to PTEs.
        348
        Amendment No. 74—new clause K—ensures that any proposal by a passenger transport executive to acquire a leasehold interest in land or property will be a proposal requiring the approval of that executive's passenger transport authority.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Lords amendment: No. 71, in page 57, line 42, leave out from "treated" to "as" on line 2 of page 58, and insert—
        ", or shall be treated to an extent specified in the regulations, as if they were mentioned in subsection (2) above in addition to or in substitution for those so mentioned;
        (dd) that classes of assets shall be treated, or shall be treated to an extent specified in the regulations,".
        10.45 pm
        Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Lords amendment No. 72.
        Mr. Fox: As hon. Members are aware, regulations will be made under paragraph 4 of schedule 9 to provide that certain expenditure, for example, on law and order services and on some types of leasing, will not be subject to control under part VIII of the Bill. The amendment is necessary to make certain that parallel regulations can be made under clause 66(5)(d) to provide that assets acquired by means of any decontrolled expenditure shall not be treated as generating capital receipts on disposal. This is logical and does not represent any change in Government policy.
        The Government tabled amendment No. 72 to ensure that all payments that constitute prescribed expenditure under part VIII of the Bill will be subject to the existing statutory procedures for the audit of local authority accounts.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Lords amendments Nos. 72 and 74 agreed to.

    Clause 74

      PART VIII—SUPPLEMENTARY
      Lords amendment: No. 75, in page 62, line 6, at end insert
      "and different days may be so appointed for different provisions and for different purposes; and any reference in any provision of this Part of this Act to the commencement date is a reference to the day appointed under this section for the coming into operation of that provision or, if different days are so appointed for different purposes of that provision, the day appointed for the purpose in question."
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 76.
      Mr. Fox: Under clause 74 the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport have power to make regulations appointing the day on which part VIII of the Bill shall come into force. That power is not wide enough at present to allow the Minister to bring different provisions of part VIII into operation on different days, or to bring the same provision into effect on different days for different purposes.
      If the new capital controls are to take effect from the financial year 1981–2, and if the Minister is to fulfil the duty laid on him by clause 67(1), under which he must notify authorities of their expenditure allocations before the beginning of the financial year to which they relate, clause 63 must be brought into effect before I April 1981.
      On the other hand, clause 66(1) draws a distinction between capital receipts which arise "before the commencement date "and those which arise:
      "on or after the commencement date".
      In this case—again assuming that the control system is to operate from 1981–2 the commencement date will be 1 April 1981. Thus the Minister needs a more flexible power to appoint the days on which different provisions of part VIII of the Bill shall come into effect. The amendments will give that extra flexibility.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 76 agreed to.

    Clause 75

      DISTRIBUTION OF PLANNING AUTHORITIES
      Lords amendment: No. 77, in page 62,
      "and in any case not later than seven days"
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 78 to 84.
      Mr. Fox: There was an extensive debate in Committee on the question of the precise meaning of
      "as soon as may be".
      Our intention in using the phrase was to indicate that it should be done as soon as possible—which would normally be a lot sooner than seven days. Nevertheless, during the consideration of the Bill in another place we accepted the argument that some people reading the Bill drafted in that way might be left with a lingering doubt that the man with the responsibility for doing the job in a district council might not have the same interpretation of:
      "as soon as may be"
      as the parliamentary draftsman.
      I would emphasise that copying the applications to county councils should be done as promptly as possible to avoid delays in deciding planning applications, and to make that point clear I hope that hon. Members will agree that the amendment should be agreed to.
      I turn to amendment No. 78. The new paragraph 19 of Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972, as set out in section 75(2), provides a machinery for consultation between a district planning authority and the county planning authority on certain types of planning application. The paragraph provides that the classes of applications where consultation is required should be set out in a development order. The amendment brings the specification of these classes into the Bill itself.
      The reason districts are to be required to consult counties on development proposals that are of significance to the structure plan is to ensure that counties have an adequate opportunity to make

      351
      representations on how the applications should be decided. The new paragraph 19(5) places a duty on districts to take into account any representations made by the county within the period of time which is to be prescribed later in an amendment of the general development order.
      A working party of officials of the Department and representatives of the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of District Councils considered a code of practice for these consultations. The working party included in its consideration the classes of development which should be the subject of consultation and the time limit for the receipt of county representations. The classes set out in the amendment are in essence those agreed by the working party. At the Committee and Report stages in this House hon. Members were anxious to know what the code of practice would contain. They will, I hope, be reassured to see the substance of that code of practice now incorporated in the Bill by this amendment.
      I turn to amendment No. 79. Concern was expressed, in this House and elsewhere, that there did not appear in the Bill a specific requirement that district councils in exercising the wider development control powers given to them by the Bill should have proper regard to the structure plan. The reason for the Government's not including such provision in the Bill was that district and county planning authorities already have such a duty, as part of the general duty laid on them in section 29(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to
      "have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application".
      We resisted proposals for any additional duty to be laid on districts which would prevent them from departing from structure plans in appropriates cases where they had followed the procedures. Nevertheless, we recognised the concerns that lay behind the requests for an additional duty. To meet these concerns we were able to accept this wording which spells out local planning authorities' duties in this respect without preventing districts from exercising legitimately and reasonably the powers that are conferred on
      352
      them. I ask the House to agree to this amendment.
      Amendment No. 80 is a pure technicality, which is necessary as a result of amendment 79 which inserts an additional subsection into clause 75. This amendment ensures that it is clear to what enactment the following subsection relates.
      Amendments 82 to 84 extend the scope of "county matters" in respect of applications relating in one way or another to mineral developments. We accepted these amendments after discussions with the CBI—representing the mineral operators—and consultations with the local authority associations. The effect of the amendment is to achieve a greater consistency of treatment of these cases and to concentrate in the hands of the county planning authority responsibility for developments closely related to mineral extraction.
      Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: It is well known that I am not a great enthusiast for this Bill, but I join in paying tribute to what the other place has done to improve it. It has demonstrated once again how important the other place is in our constitution. As a result of the House of Lords' efforts, we have 98 pages of amendments at the no doubt competitive price of £4.40. We shall dispose of them all this evening. It is, therefore, not possible to make comments on all the matters to which I would have referred in other circumstances in a number of speeches.
      Amendment No. 77 is a sensible alteration of a time limit. I am not so happy about amendments Nos. 78 and 79. Amendment No. 78 relates to the division of planning functions between counties and districts. When we discussed that matter previously, I suggested that there was a considerable blurring of functions. As a result of the arrangements and discussions in another place, we have an amendment that does nothing to rectify the basic faults of the new system. It serves only to highlight them. The amendment still maintains the two levels of planning authority, but with more rather than less overlapping, and with a greater degree of complexity than existed previously.
      The system is not uniform because there is no amendment corresponding to

      353
      amendment No. 78 to alter the new system in Greater London. That remains in its original state. The Minister, who puts these matters forward in such a reasonable manner, said that we now have a clear code of practice, which we all want. I suggest that that optimism may not prove to be well placed. The definitions are not well drafted and—I wax more enthusiastic on this point—there is likely to be an increase in litigation.
      Amendment No. 79 is an example of the sort of thing in the Bill that caused me to describe it as a monstrous legislative morass. What does the amendment mean? What are "the general objectives" of the structure plan? Under clause 6(3) a structure plan is now, and acording to amendment No. 184 will have to be, a written statement containing the authority's
      "policy and general proposals in respect of the development and other use of land".
      Will the Minister say which of those "policies and general proposals" are" general objectives" of the plan? Are they some of the policies and the general proposals, are they all of them, or are they none of them? How are those general objectives to be identified? Will the Minister say what a duty to seek the achievement of those general objectives involves? The Minister in another place said that the effect
      "would not be to prevent a district council granting permission for a development which departed from the structure plan."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 October 1980; Vol. 413, c. 896.]
      If so what does that duty require a local planning authority to do? For example, is it required to refuse permission for a development that complies with the provision of a structure and local plan because it believes that, notwithstanding that it complies, the general objectives of the structure plan may be better achieved by a refusal? Is it required to grant permission for a development that conflicts with a structure plan simply because it is of the opinion that the general objectives of the plan will be better achieved by granting permission? Those are the sort of doubts that will arise. A developer will ask what reliance can be placed on the provisions of the plan
      354
      itself when, on the one hand, it talks of the provisions of the plan that must be complied with, and, on the other, of the general objectives that must be complied with.
      11 pm
      There is another difficulty. When he calls in an application, the Secretary of State will be in a somewhat different position. On a call-in he is normally in the same position as the local planning authority; he must normally have regard to the same considerations. That is the position that arises under section 35(4) of the 1975 Act, but because that section is not, it appears, to be consequentially amended as a result of the Lords amendments, the Secretary of State will not be under a duty to seek the achievement of the general objectives of the structure plan.
      Therefore, one may ask why the considerations and objectives to be considered in determining a planning application should vary according to whether it is the local planning authority or the Secretary of State that gives the decision in the first instance. It is different on an appeal, because then the Secretary of State may deal with the application as if it had been made to him in the first instance. Does that mean in these circumstances that he is subject to the same duty or not?
      The question also arises how the new duty is to be reconciled with the new section 14(8) of the 1971 Act, which is inserted by schedule 11, paragraph 5(c). That provides:
      "Where there is a conflict between any of the provisions of a local plan which has been adopted or approved under this section and the provisions of a structure plan which has been approved under section 9 of this Act, the provisions of the local plan shall be taken to prevail for all purposes."
      It might be agreed in any event that that is a rather mischievous provision, but now what has arisen is an absurd conflict of statutory requirements.
      How does my hon. Friend think we can reconcile these differences where there is a conflict between the provisions of a local plan and a structure plan in a district council that has now at one and the same time to do three things? First, it must have regard to both plans, as it is required to do under section 29(1) of the 1971 Act. That is not affected.

      355
      Secondly, it must treat the provisions of the local plan as prevailing, by virtue of section 14(8) of the 1971 Act, as it is now to be inserted in the Bill. Thirdly, it must seek to achieve the general objectives of the structure plan, if the amendment is adopted.
      I have taken only one example out of the Bill of that sort of problem which reflects the difficulties and dangers inherent in pushing through this vast agglomeration of legislation in one evening.
      Mr. Fox: Without meaning to be discourteous to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), may I say that his antagonism towards the Bill and our proposals has been consistent? I would not seek to debate with him the merits of certain planning Acts or our attitude towards structure plans compared with his attitude when he occupied a position of some authority at the Department of the Environment.
      In our proposals we do not see structure plans as continuing to play the same part as they have played in the past. In our proposals to give district councils more say in such matters it follows that the local plans, when they are prepared, will have considerable power. But we do not expect that 1,600 local plans will be brought forward.
      I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's misgivings. He seems to make less of an assumption that we shall achieve what we want by agreement than we do. After all, we brought all the local authority associations together to establish a code of practice. We believe that it will work, with good will.
      Once we have got the Bill through tonight, or tomorrow morning, we shall have seen enough of legislation for a long time. We must tell all those involved "Let us apply common sense and make the system far more positive that it has been in the past."
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 78 to 84 agreed to.

    Clause 76

      FEES FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS ETC.
      Lords amendment: No. 85, in page 66, line 42, at end insert—
      "(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as he thinks fit for the payment to him of a fee of the prescribed amount in respect of an application for planning permission which is deemed to be made to him under the planning enactments."
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 86 to 89.
      Mr. Fox: When the House considered clause 76, hon. Members on both sides expressed unease at the proposal to take powers to charge for planning appeals. We made it clear then that we had taken no final decision on whether to impose charges for appeals. We were well aware that there were issues involved in charging for appeals wider than those raised by charges for planning applications. We were anxious that these issues be discussed fully before we took the final decision. The decision that we took was that the balance of argument weighed against charging for appeals, and in another place the Government accepted amendment No. 86.
      However, amendment No. 86 taken alone has the further effect that a person who proceeds with development without planning permission, but subsequently obtains from the Secretary of State the permission that he needs on an enforcement or established use certificate appeal, can successfully avoid payment of the planning application fee which he should have paid at the outset to the local planning authority. Amendment No. 85 remedies this defect by enabling the Secretary of State to charge the appropriate fee in such cases.
      The remaining amendments are technical drafting amendments consequential on the first two.
      Mr. Graham: I should like to press the Minister a little further on the precise moment at which the Government decided not to proceed with the legislative proposals to make a charge for planning appeals.

      357
      When we discussed these matters in Committee and in the House—I have read the proceedings very carefully—the hon. Gentleman always distinguished between the intention and the manner in which the House would need to approve the charges for planning applications and appeals.
      This is yet another illustration of the extent to which parliamentary time and money has been expended, not least the considerable agitation that has been caused throughout the country, because the Government, in their haste to pack as much as they could into the Bill, have now decided that there may come a time when they will want to make a charge for planning appeals. The Government, in pursuit of their all-embracing agglomerate, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said, have incurred a great deal of wrath throughout the country.
      I speak for my own locality, ratepayers' associations and many other local organisations. The Government should be ashamed of the slipshod manner in which they have sought to ensure that all eventualities are taken into account. They have set in train agitation and concern for many people.
      The Greater London Council, when it looked at this matter, fully subscribed to the broad intention of the Government of raising money. The GLC, at the appropriate time, said that it certainly supported the concept of encouraging the development of alternative sources of income in a period of financial restraint. That was the peg upon which the Government hung this matter, and they said that they looked forward to a recoupment, or non-payment in the rate support grant, of about £ 30 million. That sum was based on an assessment of what they thought they would raise from charging for planning applications and of what they might be able to recoup from appeals. To be fair, when the matter was discussed, we were given the precise amounts that the Government thought they would charge for applications and, again to be fair, they were broadly in line with the figures given by the Minister in Committee.
      I should like the Minister not merely to say that the Government have dropped
      358
      the proposal but to give the House what it has not been given at any stage, which is the case for charging for planning appeals.
      The Minister said that he had listened carefully to all the representations on the matter, especially those in another place. I believe that the change of mind has come about following pure, mature reflection on the enormous damage which charging for planning appeals would do to the very concept of equity and fair play in our planning legislation.
      Before the Minister is allowed to get away with yet another modest Government U-turn, I hope that we shall be told the Government's thinking on the matter. We have already seen their change of mind about the ability of local authorities and municipal undertakings to spend the profits made from their own undertakings for their own good. The Government are extremely adept at deciding when to listen to the other place and when not to. Later, when we come to the provisions dealing with new towns, we shall have yet another illustration of the way that the Government decide selectively to listen to the will of the other place. On that occasion, they were beaten twice. They decided to have another bite at the cherry upstairs but to let one of the new town amendments come down here.
      The Minister has a duty to tell the House what motivated him and the Government in the first place in deciding that it was proper to swell the Exchequer or to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement by £10 million or £15 million rather than telling us that he had been persuaded by the arguments in the other place. What was the case, if there every was a case, for charging for planning appeals?
      Mr. Sydney Chapman: The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) has been a little unfair towards my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I welcome Lords amendments Nos. 85 and 86.
      I say only that I have been critical for some months about certain aspects of the proposal to charge for the submission of planning applications. My view has always been that the charge should be only on the planning permission, because in certain cases local

      359
      planning authorities might reject planning applications with which they agreed in order to encourage revised applications.
      My arguments have not persuaded my hon. Friend, of course, but he has come part of the way by not going ahead with the proposal to charge for planning appeals.
      Mr. Graham: Inadvertently, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) illustrated the nub of the Opposition's resistance to charging for planning applications. The hon. Member referred to planning permissions. The charges are not for planning permissions. Any such proposal would be heinous. But, inadvertently, the hon. Member said that, and, in the minds of many people, they will be paying for planning permissions.
      Mr. Chapman: I did not say it inadvertently. I said it deliberately. My point was that I believed that the charge should be on the planning permission, and not at the time of the submission of the planning application.
      My hon. Friend turned down that request because he felt that some people might think they were buying planning permissions. Given that, my hon. Friend has listened to powerful arguments and rejected the original intention in the Bill to charge for planning appeals.
      If a local planning authority turns down a planning application to encourage a revised one and get more revenue—and I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the Exchequer dealing with that aspect—and if the applicant feels aggrieved, he can go to a planning appeal without having to pay a fee. I see this as part of a more comprehensive approach by the Government, and, in reply to a written question answered today, the Secretary of State announced that he intended to put forward a general development (amendment) order, the purpose of which would be to remove more minor applications from the need for planning permission. I hope that that will help speed up the dealing, not only with planning applications, but with planning appeals. I see this as part of the jigsaw. I welcome amendments Nos. 85 and 86, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. They have been put
      360
      down not as a result of pressure from the other place but because my hon. Friend has listened to the arguments which may have been made in Committee by the Opposition but which have certainly been made, to my knowledge, by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), and other Conservative Members. I welcome the fact that the Government have seen fit to agree to these amendments.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Hattersley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he said a moment ago? Is he really saying that during the day on which we have been debating the charges and changes of procedure for planning applications he received a written answer from the Minister setting out new procedures?
      Mr. Chapman: I have long been pressing for an amendment to the general development order. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that his right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), put forward a general development (amendment) order when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, which he withdrew. I have been pressing for an amendment to that order, and I put down a question yesterday to which I received an answer today. It will doubtless appear in the Official Report tomorrow.
      Mr. Hattersley: People who respect this House will discover in astonishment that written questions put down yesterday are now answered today. Not all hon. Members are able to enjoy that remarkable privilege. It must be enormously embarrassing for the Under Secretary of State to take part in a debate on behalf of the Government and find that information on the same subject is being passed to the House in a different direction. That simply reinforces what my hon. Friends and I have been saying throughout the proceedings on this Bill. The Government treat the House with scant courtesy in these matters. If they had treated the House with anything approaching respect, instead of an answer being communicated in that way we would have been given it properly. I am happy to sit down so that the Minister can apologise for the conduct of his colleagues.
      Mr. Chapman: I must correct one point. In the reply to my written question, the Secretary of State said that he intends to put forward a general development (amendment) order. In his reply to my question he gave more detail about the amendment. That has been a subject of discussion over the weeks and months. I see nothing improper in that, and I take exception to the suggestion that I have been part of a conspiracy to cover up something. If that had been the case, I would hardly have mentioned it.
      Mr. Rippon: I congratulate the Government on having changed their mind with regard to their original intention to charge for planning appeals. That is wise and we should express appreciation that the point has been taken.
      I still regret the determination to maintain charges for planning applications. Although these amendments appear to go some way towards remedying some of the anomalies which we considered in earlier proceedings, there might in certain circumstances—apart from the danger of appearing to buy planning permission—be more logic in charging for the planning permission, in the sense of charging for the development that will take place. Some people are afraid that they may have to pay over and over again as they put forward various amended applications to try to meet the local authority's wishes.
      I welcome amendment No. 85 inasmuch as it enables the Secretary of State to make provisions for payment to him of a fee in respect of an application for planning permission which is deemed to have been made to him. I appreciate that it is designed to catch some of those who might find an alternative way of establishing planning permission without making the appropriate planning application and attracting the fee. But this applies only to two rather special cases—where there is an enforcement appeal or an established use certificate appeal.
      I suggest that the amendment still does nothing to reduce the incentive which will exist concerning smaller developments, in that they are not covered by the somewhat unexpectedly controversial suggestion that there may be an amendment to the general development order. There will still be some incentive not to apply
      362
      for planning permission, in the hope that action will not be taken.
      It may also work unduly harshly, for if the appeal which amendment No. 85 covers is based on other grounds apart from the ground that planning permission ought to be granted, and then succeeds, the Government may still be committed to charging a fee. If an appeal succeeds on the ground that no planning permission at all is required, the fee will still be charged. That seems to be a little harsh.
      I still feel some anxieties about giving to any Secretary of State such a wide power to vary and make charges at his discretion, subject only to the affirmative resolutions, which we know do not always give rise to full opportunities to debate the merits of proposals.
      Looking at the provisions as they stand, I would continue to take the view—it was expressed by others in the other place, including Lord Boyd-Carpenter—that it is wrong in principle to make these charges.
      I can find only two justifications for them. One was in a speech that the Secretary of State made on 13 September 1979 to the Royal Town Planning Institute summer school, when he said:
      "I see no reason why prospective developers should not pay for the service which their demands create."
      I am not so sure that it is right to describe planning as a service to the developer. It is a constraint upon the developer and, perhaps too infrequently, a service to the Community.
      As the Under-Secretary of State said,
      "I find it difficult to accept the argument that somehow the general taxpayer should pay for the improvement to someone else's property or whatever. The person who gains is the person who puts in the application."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 17 April 1980; c. 2198.]
      But no one, as I see it, is suggesting that the general taxpayer should pay for the improvement to anyone's property. The persons who are supposed to gain by the improvement to the general amenities which the developer brings about—otherwise he would not get the planning permission—are the public.
      It would perhaps be more honest if we acknowledged that the real purpose of the provision is to raise money. The Minister in another place was quite frank when he talked of the need to get £30

      363
      million revenue as "the basic fundamental point". It might have been better to say that "There is not much principle on which we can stand but we shall raise a considerable amount of money."
      Will the Minister reveal just how much he thinks that collecting the fees will cost? I recall that when the Department of the Environment was considering charging fees for building regulations control it said that it would increase local authority expenditure by £2¼ million, even—a quite important proviso—if there were no new staff required.
      I understand that there was a reference in the other place to the Birmingham city council having estimated that at least 25 per cent. of the new fees that will be collected under the new Bill will go into the employment of extra staff. If that were true, it would appear to make a great deal of sense at the present time, but perhaps the Minister can give us an assurance that those estimates of the costs of collecting these fees are rather inflated, and he may be able to give better and lower ones.
      Mr. Graham: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman comment on this situation? Not only will the increased charges have to be found for the additional staff, but also, at the same time, developers and individuals are having to pay for building regulation costs as well. By the time that those two are added, will not this be part of a twist to the inflationary spiral?
      Mr. Rippon: I think that there is controversy over the new building regulations. Added to the cost of development, this is something that we ought to consider very seriously. It is really a way of raising taxation from people who are very often bearing a heavy burden.
      Mr. Fox: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to one or two of the points raised.
      The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) asked at what point the decision was taken not to charge for appeals. Originally, we started out on the basis that, having accepted that the exercise was to offset public expenditure—let us be truthful; every Government Department has been involved in this exercise—it seemed that within our responsibility
      364
      was a legitimate area in which to recoup some of the cost of the development control system. Various pressures were put upon us, and we realised that only some £ 4 million or £ 5 million of the £ 30 million came from appeals. That also has a bearing on it.
      Many people had a part to play in influencing us in this decision. In Committee and on Report it became obvious that, although there was no charging for planning applications, there was no certainty that the House would accept carrying that further into appeals. Indeed, the Council on Tribunals also expressed some anxiety about the principle.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said, having charged once for a planning application it would be adding insult to injury for someone to have to get justice by going to appeal and having to pay again.
      It was a combination of factors that drove us to this conclusion. It would be fair to say that our minds were made up and it was obvious that in the other place there was the opportunity to make it quite clear that we were not going to take that decision. As the hon. Member for Edmonton said, even in Committee we made it quite clear that we were open to discuss this matter and that nothing had been finalised.
      The feigned anger of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) at what he had heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet regarding the general development order is surprising. In Committee we made it clear that this was a move to come at another time. Obviously it had nothing to do with this Bill, other than to remove a certain number of planning applications from the system. The right hon. Gentleman must know that a consultation paper has been published on this amendment. The hon. Member for Edmonton will wait with bated breath, because I can tell him now that we have made certain concessions which will please him enormously. Along with, I think. 99 colleagues to whom I have written in the normal course of my work, he will be getting a letter to let him know at the first opportunity what we have done. I do not see anything underhand in this. I should have thought that hon. Members would be delighted that we are acting with such speed.

      365
      I am grateful for the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all, in terms of the cost of collection. I wonder why it is that, whenever local government is put in a position of collecting fees or doing some such thing, automatically people talk about increased manpower. We said in Committee and we have constantly repeated that if we keep this as a simple procedure, under which everyone knows exactly what the fee will be for a planning application, it should be a very simple matter to open an envelope in the planning department of the town hall and extract a cheque which ought to match up with the fee. In no circumstances do we see the growth of bureaucracy that certain people are casting around as being the consequence of our actions.
      To deal with the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham about charging for an enforcement appeal which succeeds, I can tell him that there is every intention to refund the charge in those circumstances.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments 86 to 89 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 77

      LOCAL PLANS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE
      Lords amendment: No. 90, in page 67, leave out from beginning of line 22 to end of line 1 on page 68 and insert—
      "15A.—(1) Where—

      (a) a local planning authority have prepared a local plan; and

      (b) the Secretary of State gives them a direction authorising them to take such steps preliminary to its adoption as are mentioned in section 12 (2) of this Act; and

      (c) at the time when he gives them that direction he has not approved the structure plan so far as it relates to the area of the local plan,

      they may take those steps and adopt the local plan, whether or not the Secretary of State approves the structure plan first.
      (2) Where—

      (a) a local planning authority have prepared proposals for the repeal of a local plan and its replacement with a new local plan; and

      366

      (b) the Secretary of State gives them a direction authorising them to take such steps preliminary to its repeal and replacement as are mentioned in section 12 (2) of this Act; and

      (c) at the time when he gives them that direction he has not approved the structure plan so far as it relates to the area of the new local plan,

      they may take those steps and repeal the existing plan and adopt the new one, whether or not the Secretary of State approves the structure plan first.
      (3) Where—

      (a) a local planning authority have prepared proposals—

      (i) for the alteration of a local plan; or

      (ii) for the repeal of a local plan without its replacement with a new plan; and

      (b) the Secretary of State gives them a direction authorising them to take such steps preliminary to the alteration or, as the case may be, the repeal of the local plan as are mentioned in section 12 (2) of this Act; and

      (c) at the time when he gives them that direction he has not approved the structure plan so far as it relates to the area of the local plan,

      they may take those steps and adopt the proposals, whether or not the Secretary of State approves the structure plan first.
      (4) The powers conferred by subsections (1) to (3) of this section may be exercised by a district planning authority notwithstanding that they have not obtained a certificate under section 14 (5) or (7) of this Act, but subject to the other provisions of that section and to the provisions of sections 12 and 13 of this Act.
      (5) Before adopting—

      (a) a local plan; or

      (b) proposals for the repeal or alteration of a local plan,

      in exercise of the powers conferred on them by this section, a local planning".
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also discuss Lords amendments Nos. 91, 94, 184 to 199, 241B, 241C, and 242 to 245.
      Mr. Fox: The sole purpose of amendment No. 90 is to correct defects in the drafting of new section 15A. Amendment No. 90 makes it clear that, once a direction has been issued by the Secretary of State under that section, the local

      367
      planning authority should be able to proceed with the steps leading to the adoption of the local plan, or with the adoption of proposals for an alteration of the plan, in circumstances where the structure plan, unapproved at the time of direction, has been approved before the local plan or proposals can be adopted. The amendment also makes it clear that the authority's discretion to decide whether the plan should be adopted is unaffected by the Secretary of State's direction.
      Amendments Nos. 91 to 94 make a number of minor, drafting corrections.
      Amendments Nos. 184 and 185 brought three new proposals to the structure plan provisions of the Bill and in so doing amended another provision already in the Bill when it left this House. One of the matters with which the amendments are concerned is the form and content of structure plans and proposals for the alteration or repeal and replacement of approved structure plans. They follow upon and reinforce the effect of a change made at the end of last year to the regulations which govern the approval of structure plans. That, in turn, originated from a proposal in our White Paper dealing with central Government controls over local authorities.
      Amendment No. 186 makes a useful alteration to the provisions of section 10(c) of the 1971 Act. It removes a provision giving the Secretary of State power to make development plan schemes. These are no longer needed because schemes are now in force throughout England and Wales. It gives the Secretary of State direct powers to amend development plan schemes in response to representations by the district council. This power will replace his existing powers of direction to the county planning authority.
      Amendments Nos. 187 and 189 remove the requirement to prepare and publicise reports of surveys under sections 6 and 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 when local plans are prepared. They bring the local plans procedure into line with the changed procedure for structure plans which will result from amendment No. 184.
      Amendment No. 188 completes the change in the responsibility for selecting action areas which is begun in amendment No. 184 by the repeal of section
      368
      75 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. By virtue of these two provisions, action areas will not in future be indicated in the structure plan and the question whether there should be an action area or local plan will be decided entirely in the context of local plan making.
      I come to amendments Nos. 189 and 192. The Government recognise that there will be occasions when a deposited local plan will be uncontroversial. It is even more likely that this could be the case in respect of proposals to alter, repeal or replace a local plan already adopted by the local planning authority or approved by the Secretary of State. It could well be a waste of public money to hold an inquiry in such cases.
      I also recognise that there are a number of objectors to local plans who are quite prepared to rely on their written objections and do not want to take part in an inquiry. When everyone is content to rely on their written objections, useful savings of time and money can be made and at no cost to the rights of the individual. After considering the objections, the local planning authority must advertise any modifications that it proposes to make to its plan and there will be a further opportunity to make objections. The Council on Tribunals has been consulted and has said that it has no objections to the discretion being given to local authorities.
      I turn now to Lords amendment No. 190. At Report stage in another place an amendment relating to the same matters as this amendment was moved by my noble Friend Lord Stanley of Alderley and was agreed. As my noble Friend Lord Bellwin pointed out then, and as Lord Stanley recognised, there were flaws in the drafting which called for correction. This amendment, which seeks to make a more general revision of section 14 of the 1971 Act, was agreed on Third Reading in another place.
      Lords amendment No. 191 reflects the concern of the county planning authorities that section 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 as amended by paragraph 5(c) of schedule 11 to the Bill, would make the provisions of local plans override the provisions of the structure plan in all circumstances, even where the structure plan had been altered and the local plan was no longer in conformity

      369
      with it. We acknowledge that it would be wrong for the local plan to prevail in these circumstances.
      Lords amendment No. 193 is a drafting amendment which became necessary because of amendments made to paragraph 6 of schedule 11 in Committee in this House.
      Lords amendments Nos. 194 and 197 extend to Greater London two procedures relating to local plans. The first would require the GLC to certify local plans prepared by the London borough councils as being in general conformity with the structure plan, a measure which already applies outside London. The second amendment would extend to Greater London the measure in this Bill requiring the so-called "recertification" of operative local plans if the structure plan is subsequently approved or altered.
      Lords amendment No. 198 makes alteration to the wording of paragraph 19 to schedule 16 of the Local Government Act 1972, which is consequential on the provisions of paragraph 3 of schedule 11 to this Bill.
      Lords amendments Nos. 241B, 241C, 242, 243, 244 and 245 are all consequential.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 91 to 96 agreed to.

    Clause 92

      THE AUTHORITY'S FUNCTIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 97, in page 79, line 21, after "drains" insert "sewers"
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 98 and 206.
      Mr. Fox: These amendments will together provide the Land Authority for Wales with the power to requisition sewers from the water authority. These would be sewers for the domestic drainage of buildings to be erected on development sites by subsequent owners or developers.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 98 agreed to.

    Clause 105

      EXTENSION OF POWERS TO MAKE GRANTS FOR RECLAMATION OF LAND
      Lords amendment: No. 99, in page 91, line 3, after "section" insert
      ""county" includes Greater London and "district" includes a London borough, and accordingly—

      (a) any reference to the council of a county includes a reference to the Greater London council; and

      (b) any reference to the council of a district includes a reference to the Council of a London borough;"

      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      One effect of clause 105(2) as drafted would be to deprive the London authorities of a grant under section 8 of the Local Employment Act 1972 to which they might otherwise have been entitled. That was certainly not our intention, and we welcome the amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 114

      SUMS TO BE PAID TO SECRETARY OF STATE
      Lords amendment: No. 100, in page 97, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Clause 114 enables the Secretary of State to direct a development corporation or the Commission for the New Towns to pay him a specified sum on a certain date. We expect the new towns to raise this money from the sale of industrial and commercial assets using the powers of disposal in clause 115.
      Subsection (3) merely provided the simplest and most appropriate procedure for enforcing a direction in the unlikely event of a new town failing to comply. But another place, with its unerring eye for detail, took exception to the subsection. Some noble Lords denounced it as wicked and detrimental. I can assure the House that it had no such sinister intentions. But since it raised sufficient worries in another place to cause a majority to want to delete it, we are prepared to leave it out as we are satisfied that the Bill is workable without it.
      Mr. Hattersley: Oh.
      Mr. Fox: The right hon. Gentleman should not be surprised that we occasionally bow to votes, whether they be in the other place or here.
      As I was saying, we are satisfied that the Bill is workable without subsection (3). The amendment does not, therefore, affect the basic policy of this part of the Bill, and I ask the House to agree to it.
      Mr. John Evans: Contrary to what the Minister said, this was a substantial defeat for the Government in the other place. This was a classic example of the other place performing a noble service in the cause of good local government and democracy. The Government are accepting the defeat because they have to. They have no alternative.
      I wonder whether my right hon. and hon. Friends have adopted the right strategy. My view—and I accept that I have not given it all that much thought—is that we should oppose the Lords amendment and encourage the Government to vote against us so that this could go back to the Lords, because in the limited time that is available the chances are that not only the clause—which is iniquitous and disgraceful—would disappear but the whole damned Bill too. Some important points were made in the other place, and I shall refer to them in a moment.
      What affect will the amendment have on the clause? Under subsection (1) the Secretary of State is taking powers to direct a development corporation or the Commission for the New Towns to pay to him
      "on the date specified in the direction, such sum as is so specified."
      Already in this financial year the Secretary of State has specified that the new towns shall pay to him a sum of £100 million. To this day the right hon. Gentleman has no authority to demand that sum from them. Indeed, the chances are that in some areas the right hon. Gentleman has acted illegally. I challenge him to deny that he acted illegally in his direction to the new towns over the payment of £100 million, and we know that he has directed them that in the next financial year they must pay to him £200 million.
      372
      The right hon. Gentleman does not have the authority to do that. I submit to the House that once the measure is on the statute books he will not have the power to force the commission or the corporations to pay to him anything like £200 million. We know that under subsection (1) he will have the power to direct a development corporation or the commission to pay to him certain sums of money, but with the deletion of subsection (3) he has no power to do so. In that respect, there are certain elements in the clause that should be considered carefully.
      In the interesting debate in the other place my noble Friend Baroness Denington put her finger on the issues facing democratic government in this country. We know that the record of the Secretary of State on the question of democracy is appalling, but even he has succeeded in over-reaching himself on this occasion. It is worth repeating to the House what my noble Friend said when referring to what the right hon. Gentleman has said to the meeting of the chairmen of new towns, which he convened:
      "But I have been through this story, and to me it is a very distressing story"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 1980, Vol. 413, c. 1140.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless the hon. Member is quoting from the speech of a Minister in the other place, he must paraphrase and not read the extract.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for correcting me. My noble Friend referred to the diktat of the Secretary of State at the meeting that he convened of the chairmen of the new towns, when he ordered them to hand over £100 million of their assets to him. It was said that he had merely ordered them to hand over the assets. My noble Friend said that when the development corporation of which she was chairman had attempted to carry out the diktat of the Secretary of State and discussions took place with those responsible for the GLC pension fund about taking over certain of its town centre assets, it was told by the solicitor acting for the GLC that it was not possible to proceed with the agreement between the GLC pension fund and the development corporation

      373
      because it was illegal. That brought the proceedings to a stop.
      11.45 pm
      The Secretary of State, arrogantly as usual, has assumed powers that he does not possess. He has overridden the democratic process with the arrogance that is typical of him. He was not prepared to wait until the democratic processes had taken their course.
      The Minister says that the deletion of subsection (3) does not mean a great deal. I submit that it will mean a very great deal. My advice to the development corporations, especially the Warrington new town development corporation—a great deal of its area is in my constituency—is completely to ignore the Secretary of State's direction because he does not have the power to enforce it.
      I know that subsection (4) states that the debts shall carry interest. Theoretically the interest could mount up if there is a refusal to obey the right hon. Gentleman's diktat to hand over the assets to him or to sell valuable assets that the Warrington new town development corporation and other corporations possess to meet his demands. I advise the corporations that the next Labour Government, which cannot be too long delayed, will totally ignore the iniquitous debts that the right hon. Gentleman will cause to accumulate.
      The right hon. Gentleman is contemplating creating the Tory rip-off of the century by causing the new towns to hand over their assets to him. He is sacking the majority of Socialist nominees on new town boards and putting in Tory hacks to do his dirty work. We shall examine the new appointments that are shortly to be made. The policy of successive Governments has been to maintain a political balance on the new town boards. If that balance is maintained as in the past, the Socialist nominees, bearing in mind that subsection (3) has been deleted by Parliament, will ignore the right hon. Gentleman's diktat issued in the course of attempting to hive off their assets. His demands are not based on good business practice or common sense, nor are they in the interests of the corporations, which through successive Governments have done a magnificent job in managing their assets on behalf of ratepayers and taxpayers.
      374
      No one but a lunatic—there appear to be lunatics on the Government Front Bench at present—would be prepared in the present climate to instruct new town corporations to put on the market many millions of pounds worth of valuable assets—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going wide of the terms of the debate. The House is discussing whether it should leave out subsection (3). That is all that we are concerned about in the amendment.
      Mr. Evans: I am saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the deletion of subsection (3) changes fundamentally the nature of clause 114. The Minister, in his brief and cursory introduction of the amendment, did not face the implications of the Government's defeat in another place. Clause 114 has been fundamentally changed. The Secretary of State is taking powers to direct the development corporations and the commission to pay assets to him. He does not have to stipulate how he has arrived at his decision. He merely makes demands. If subsection (3) is deleted, he will not be able to enforce his decision. That completely changes clause 114.
      The Labour Party recognises that the Government have been defeated. How do the Government propose to enforce the Secretary of State's diktats. The Secretary of State may try to instruct the new town development corporations or the commission to hand over assets despite the fact that he has no power to do so. How will he enforce those demands? That is an extremely important point. It is nice to see that the democratic process can work.
      It was interesting to be told that this amendment was not fundamental. I have shown that it is fundamental. I do not wish to go wider than that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you might rule me out of order. On report, we pointed out that many new towns in which there was a mixture of new town capital and private capital would experience difficulties. The Minister will recall that in Warrington—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a debate on whether subsection (3) should be deleted. The amendment would remove the Minister's power to claim the money.

      375
      The hon. Gentleman should direct his mind to that.
      Mr. Evans: I accept that. May I again point out that as a result of the deletion [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] I shall gladly accept whatever directions you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may give me. If any Conservative Member thinks that I shall accept directions that a Tory tries to give me, he will find he has a difficult fight on his hands. Under no circumstances will I accept any direction from a Conservative Member. Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall accept your direction.
      This provision is of fundamental importance to thousands of my constituents. They will see the Government rip off something that they have built up over the years. Far from being an abuse of the House, it would be a negation of my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament if I did not raise this basic issue. Clause 114 is a rip-off.
      Mr. Ronald W. Brown: My hon. Friend is on the right road and he should continue the argument. Once subsection (3) has been deleted, there will be no definition of "the debt" in subsection (4). Subsection (3) determines the "simple contract debt". Once that is removed, the word "debt" has no meaning. Therefore, my hon. Friend is making a good point and should continue.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. With his usual perspicacity he has put his finger on the important point. My hon. Friend has made a better point in a few brief words than I could have made in more words. I hone that the Minister will not try to cover up the Government's defeat, or the humiliation that the Secretary of State has had to suffer once again as a result of his arrogant arrogation of powers that he does not possess. [hon. Members: "Rubbish".] "Arrogant" is the correct word to use when describing the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Graham: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans). He speaks from experience of new towns and knows the effect that the measure will have on his constituents. Conservative Members are entitled to disagree with his views. However, the Government constantly seek to have it both ways. At all stages of the
      376
      Bill the Government said that subsection (3) was vital. Attempts to remove it were resisted time after time. In the other place that subsection was rejected and the Government recognised that they had a fight on their hands. They also at that time lost another amendment concerning new towns. The Government had to make a political decision. It was not a democratic decision. They had to calculate finely their chances of getting away with as much as they could.
      The Minister now says that the Bill can work without subsection (3). Why, then, was it put in the Bill in the first place? Is anything that is defeated in the other place ipso facto seen by the Government as superfluous to their requirements? They should have the grace to acknowledge, as has been the case more than once today, that they have been beaten by argument. On political reflection they have decided that discretion is the better part of valour. The Government have been wise to acknowledge their defeat in another place.
      My hon. Friend is right. Before we approve an amendment from another place, we are entitled to view the disembowelled clause. It is proper to reflect on the Bill and clause, as amended.
      We shall continue to maintain, whatever arithmetic or argument may be put forward by the Government, that such measures are part of a fundamental attack by the Government on the concept of the future funding of capital and development of the new towns. The noble Lords share that view. The Government received the greatest mauling over this part of the Bill in another place. What has been the Government's change in attitude in their concept of towns? Merely a willingness to consult a little more with some of those affected.
      In another place it is possible even on Third Reading to move amendments. Lord Mishcon, as late as last week, attempted to introduce an amendment to the clause that would have given a veneer of rationality to the Governments protestations that they have the best interests of new towns at heart. He merely tried to ensure that whenever the Government activate clause 114 and demand £ 100 million or £200 million, before the Secretary of State asks for

      377
      that money he should have due regard to the planned programme of development of the new towns. Even that persuasive advocate was unable to convince Lord Bellwin. The amendment would have given a veneer of respectability to the charade that the Government are advancing as a justification for denuding new towns of future capital.
      We have not argued that it is wrong to sell assets in new towns and to use the money for other new town purposes. The Government maintained in Committee that there were better uses of public money, on occasions, than spending it in new towns. I remember the Minister saving that there would be nothing wrong in the money raised from the sale of new town assets coming into the public exchequer and being recycled into, for example, the purchase of kidney machines. We certainly see a need for increasing public expenditure on the provision of kidney machines, but we fail to see the argument for placing the future of new towns in jeopardy.
      12 midnight.
      I want the Under-Secretary, in his reply, to pay special attention to the growing concern and anxiety in the new towns. He and the Government have failed miserably to have accepted by the new town corporations and the commision the basis on which the Secretary of State has decided to milk new towns of their money. I want the Under-Secretary to refer particularly to the future. We know that what the Government want to do in 1980 and 1981 could be widened in future.
      I want the hon. Gentleman to look at the future of, for instance, the third-generation new towns. There is great concern about when the Secretary of State is likely to turn his avaricious eyes to the third-generation towns. The Government must understand that the maturity aspect in the development of assets is important. It is criminal folly to sell an asset before the full realisation of the value and benefit of that asset has been enjoyed by the new town.
      Let me give examples from a third-generation new town to illustrate the need to allow assets to mature for a number of years before the Secretary of State should even consider ordering that they should be sold. In the new town that I have in
      378
      mind, a 10,000 sq ft advance factory site was let in 1971 at 50p per sq ft per year. By 1976, the rent had increased to £1 and in 1980 it was £1·80. The yearly rental for a one-acre industrial site was £1,000 in 1971. By 1976 it was £2,000 and this year it is £4,000. In the same new town, city centre offices were let in 1971 at a square foot yearly rental of £1·25. In 1976, the rent was £2·75 and in 1980 it is £4·50.
      Those examples illustrate that it is important that the Minister takes this last opportunity to reassure those who have an interest in new towns—professional or otherwise—that it is not his intention progressively to turn on the third-generation new towns and make them pay up as the others will have to. The cases that I have outlined illustrate the wisdom of allowing the benefits of public investment to mature and that, as Labour Members have said time and again, it is folly needlessly to denude the new towns of the assets that they have built up.
      Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I represent a third-generation new town. I have listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. Members for Newton (Mr. Evans) and for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). My constituents would have great difficulty in recognising themselves in those speeches. They do not share the anxiety expressed by those hon. Members. The claims about the lurid effects of the amendment are hard to understand. The effect on my constituents must be the same, but they do not have the same anxiety. My local development corporation would not dream of refusing to comply with a direction from the Secretary of State to save money. The Opposition's arguments are specious.
      Mr. Fox: With the permission of the House, I shall reply.
      The House will not expect me to make a speech similar to that which I made on report when I defended our new towns policy. I did it so effectively that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley), who accused the Secretary of State of behaving irresponsibly and illegally, disappeared without trace. On that occasion I showed that all that we have done is within the law. In our determination to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement the Secretary of State asked the new towns to

      379
      reduce their net call on the Exchequer by about £100 million. They adhered to that request.
      The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) should examine his new town carefully. Warrington has agreed to the request to realise some assets and is doing well in selling them. In case he thinks that we have taken over the development corporation, I remind him that since we came to power we have not had the opportunity to appoint many new people. I know of no Conservative additions to that corporation. His own friends are accepting our sensible policy.
      The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) suggested that we had suffered a massive defeat in the House of Lords. I must disillusion him—and that is a pity because he is such a nice chap. I should like him to leave with some satisfaction. The amendment makes it that much harder for us to enforce repayments. It is a legal matter, and we can recover, as we can from anyone else. The amendment does not defeat our intention. It shows how sensible we can be. When we know that we can achieve our aim we are always happy to accept alternative methods.
      Mr. John Evans: How will the Secretary of State recover an ordered sum from a new town corporation if it refuses to pay it?
      Mr. Fox: That is a hypothetical question. No new town corporation would get in such a situation. Such bodies have legal obligations, and it would be possible for my Department to recover whatever money necessary under the law. It would be a simple matter of enforcement.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 117

      EFFECT OF ORDER: GENERAL
      Lords amendment: No. 101, in page 99, line 34, leave out "transitionals" and insert "transitional provisions"
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 102.
      Mr. Fox: These are drafting amendments. They improve the language of the Bill and do not seriously alter the meaning.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 102 agreed to.

    Clause 120

      POWER TO END SPECIAL LICENSING PROVISIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 103, in page 101, line 39, leave out subsection (7).
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a technical amendment that removes a definition that is already provided in clause 121.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 121

      INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT
      Lords amendment: No. 104, in page 102, line 15, leave out "118" and insert "120".
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is another technical amendment to clause 121, which relates to the extent of the application of Part XV to Scotland. It is needed as a consequence of the addition to Part XV on Report of two clauses applying to England and Wales only.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 122

      URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREAS
      Lords amendment: No. 105, in page 102, line 20, at beginning insert
      "Subject to subsection (1A) below,"
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 106.
      Mr. King: There was criticism in the House and in another place about the great width of, or the lack of any control

      381
      over, the scope of areas where urban development corporations might be established. Because of their very nature as urban development corporations, we are anxious to introduce an amendment to limit that. Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 make clear the classes of authority within which it would be possible to have an urban development corporation. At the same time, I must make it clear to the House, as I have done before, that we intend to have only two, and they are in Docklands, in London and the South docks, on Merseyside.
      Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks about the Government's recognition that when it left the House the clause was framed in far too wide a manner. When the Bill was last before us the Secretary of State could designate if he
      "is of opinion that it is expedient in the national interest to do so … any area of land as an urban development area."
      As I and a number of other Members pointed out, that was wide enough to cover a rural village or the City of London.
      If the amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State may designate only an area that is either a metropolitan district, or an inner London borough, or partly an inner London borough and partly an outer London borough that has a boundary common with the other London borough, and subject to another amendment that enables separate parcels of land to be designated as one urban development area.
      Any restriction on the powers of the Secretary of State in the clause as originally drafted is to be welcomed. Whatever the Government's intentions, the clause is widely drawn. It still applies in any of the areas to which we now refer if the Secretary of State
      "is of opinion that it is expedient in the national interest to do so."
      He can designate an urban development area in the limited number of local authorities now referred to in the amendment.
      That restriction is on an arbitrary base. A legislative assembly should know what powers it is giving to a Secretary of State as well as what he intends to do with them because Secretaries of State and Governments change from time to time.
      382
      The Secretary of State can now designate an urban development area in Wigan, Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Salford, Manchester, Oldham, Trafford, Stockport, Tameside, Sefton, Liverpool, St. Helens, Moseley, The Wirral, Barnsley, Doncaster Sheffield, Rotherham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North Tyneside, Gateshead, South Tyneside, Sunderland, Wolverhampton, Walsall, Dudley, Sandwell, Birmingham, Solihull, Coventry, Bradford, Leeds, Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield. I am sure that many people do not know that this power still extends in metropolitan districts outside the areas about which we have talked.
      12.15 am
      There are now excluded by the amendment, for example, Bristol, Cardiff, Nottingham, Leicester, Derby, Stoke and Southampton. So what we are solemnly doing tonight by approving the amendment is to say that while there may be an urban development corporation in Calderdale there may not be one in Cardiff; in Dudley, but not in Leicester; in Barnsley, but not in Bristol; in North Tyneside, but not in Nottingham; in Kirklees, but not in Stoke: and in Sandwell, but not in Southampton; although we know that it can come in the inner London boroughs. There may be an urban development corporation in the City of Westminster, but not exclusively in Newham. There may be one in the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, but not exclusively in Haringey; and there may be one in Greenwich, but not exclusively in Brent or Waltham Forest.
      We are well aware that the fact that this arbitrary list exists has nothing to do with the regeneration of the areas concerned. As the Minister told the Committee considering the Bill in the House of Lords,
      "Basically the intention here … is to avoid the hybridity point while at the same time trying to give more details."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 1980; Vol. 413, c. 1192.]
      We know what the hybridity point is, and I think that we must accept that technically the Government have succeeded in dealing with it. We may congratulate them upon that. But we are still very close to the definition of a Hybrid Bill, given by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster as
      "a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the

      383
      private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class."—[Official Report, 10 December 1962; Vol. 669, c. 45.]
      Accepting that the Government have achieved the objective of escaping hybridity, technically, I must say that the Bill nevertheless, on the face of it, clearly affects the private interests of certain local authorities and certain local authority electors in a manner different from other local authorities and other local authority electors.
      Whether or not the amendment escapes the hybridity point, I believe that it is not a sound principle that the scope of any enactment should depend on the need to manipulate the peculiarities of parliamentary procedure rather than upon the circumstances of what is called for in the legislation. I am still of the opinion that in principle the restrictions on the power are not severe enough.
      When the Bill was last before the House, I could say that it would be possible for a Labour Government to designate the City of London as an urban development corporation area—quite clearly, on the principle and criteria laid down in the Bill—and that they could do it after a one-and-a-half-hour debate in this House. There would be the special procedure in the House of Lords, but if that House were abolished that would not apply.
      The City of London is saved, and I am grateful for that, but we must face that fact that under the Bill as it now stands the City of Westminster and the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea will still be—though I know that this is not the Government's intention—in a position in which they should not have found themselves.
      Mr. Spearing: It is typical of the proceedings on the Bill that it was the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) who, in the early part of his speach, spelt out the intention of the amendment. I know that in the Official Report the amendment is printed at the top of the report of the debate on it, but simply from hearing or reading the Minister's words one would not know what the amendment did. That has to some extent illustrated the Government's attitude to the House—and previously to the Committee—on this matter.
      Since the last stage of the Bill there has been a further memorandum from
      384
      the Government indicating their expectations in terms of a designation order. They have not extended it to the City of London, but the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham might like to know that the Government have indicated their intention of including land on the opposite side of the river, known as Hay's Wharf, leading towards London Bridge and a little beyond. Therefore, although it does not reach the City of London, it is getting near to it.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the vexed question of hybridity. I think that he is probably right that the change in the Bill, which designates only certain parts of the country, does not make it hybrid. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to refer to the procedure in the House of Lords, and it is to that that I wish to draw the attention of the House, and in particular the Minister.
      In Committee, when dealing with the protection of councils and electors, the Minister made it clear that protection from abuse in this matter would come
      "from the procedure which has to be followed. As the hon. Member rightly said, the Bill is of general application. Part XVI is not in any sense hybrid, but a designation order clearly would be. That being the case, quite different matters then apply."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 May 1980; c. 741].
      The Minister made the point that when a designation, establishment or vesting order is made in another place, under its procedure, but not under ours, it will be possible, given certain circumstances certified by the Chairman of the committee on hybrid instruments, for the order arising from the Bill to be taken as a Private Bill would be taken in another place and the petitioners' rights would therefore be ensured. The House passed that part of the Bill on that understanding.
      Will the Minister assure the House that if the amendment, which more closely defines the area to which an order may relate, is passed, the Government will not in any future proceedings instruct anybody who may appear for them to resist any petition on the ground that the House has decided that if the Secretary of States decides that it is in the national interest, inner London or anywhere in the inner London area can be designated as an urban development area? If the Minister has no intention

      385
      of using this power, I am sure that he will say so. If he does not understand the point that I am making, perhaps he will also say so.
      I am sure that the Minister, recalling what he said in Committee, will agree that it is important that the amendment, which I am not necessarily opposing, should have no deleterious effects on the rights of those who may wish to petition in another place and reduce what would otherwise be their opportunities in the Bill as it stands.
      I hope that the Minister has grasped and will reply to this point, because he has already made known to local authorities and to Members such as myself that it is his intention to lay in both Houses of Parliament, not one order, but three orders: a designation order outlining the area to which an urban development designation will apply; the establishment of an urban development corporation; and an order vesting, I take it by compulsory purchase, the first areas to be given into the ownership of the urban development corporation.
      I hope that in reply to the general debate the Minister will given the assurance for which I have asked.
      Mr. King: I listened with interest to the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). I noted his caveats. Nevertheless, I assume that he welcomes this amendment and wishes to see these areas restricted, even if the amendment does not go as far as he wants. I was interested particularly in his comments on the hybridity point. He is correct, of course.
      I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that my comments in Committee could not in any case anticipate the judgment of their Lordships' House, because it is not the function of Ministers to determine these matters. I do not want that to sound as though I am seeking to qualify what I said, but that is the protocol in such matters.
      I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. My understanding is that this amendment, which is not hybrid, merely defines classes of authority that will be affected. When it
      386
      comes to the laying of individual orders, it will select from those classes individual authorities or areas to be affected. Without seeking to anticipate the judgment of their Lordships on this matter, my understanding is that it in no way prejudices the position of petitioners.
      Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Subsection (1A)(b) refers to an area in an inner London borough or partly in an inner London borough. Is the Minister aware that, under the London Government Act 1963, the City of London is deemed to be a London borough, and I cannot understand how it has escaped. It is and has remained, in subsequent legislation, described as a London borough. Why is it now asserted that it has escaped? I do not see how it can escape.
      Mr. King: Under the relevant piece of legislation, the City of London is not an inner London borough. It is a technical point, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it, but that is my understanding, and that is why the amendment excludes the City of London.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 106 agreed to.

    Clause 125

      EXCLUSION OF FUNCTIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 107, in page 104, line 12, leave out
      "are exercisable by urban development corporations"
      and insert—
      "may be exercisable by an urban development corporation"
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it is convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 108.
      Mr. King: These are two technical amendments about the laying of orders if it is necessary to modify the functions of a UDC. Without the amendments, it would be necessary to make a fresh constitution order under clause 123 and provide a completely new set of functions. This enables a mere amendment to be made. It does not cut out the normal

      387
      procedures. The order would still have to be laid, and it would still have to go through the usual procedures in this House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 108 agreed to.

    New Clause M

      CONSULTATION WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES
      Lords amendment: No. 109, after clause 127, in page 105, line 32, at end insert—
      "M.—(1) An urban development corporation shall prepare a code of practice as to consultation with the relevant local authorities about the exercise of its powers.
      (2) In this section "the relevant local authorities" means local authorities the whole or any part of whose area is included in the urban development area.
      (3) Preparation of the code shall be completed not later than the expiration of the period of 12 months from the date of the establishment of the corporation.
      (4) A corporation may from time to time revise the whole or any part of its code.
      (5) A corporation shall prepare and revise its code in consultation with the relevant local authorities.".
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Spearing: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, at end add—
      (6) Any such code of practice shall make specific provision for consultation relating to Orders vesting in an Urban Development Corporation land vested in a local authority.'.
      The Lords amendment is a new clause which purports to provide a statutory requirement for consultation by the urban development corporation with the local authorities in whose area it is placed.
      My criticism of almost every subsection of the new clause is that there are virtually no teeth. Subsection (1) says merely that a UDC shall prepare a code of practice relating to consultation. There is no two-way conversation. It is entirely within the orbit and hands of the urban development corporation. Subsection (2) gives the definition of the local authorities, and subsection (3) gives a 12-month time limit in order to prepare the code of practice.
      I find that surprising because one of the Government's justifications for setting up urban development corporations is that
      388
      they will speed up the process. If it takes 12 months to complete a code of practice and consultation, there will be a slowdown in procedure. But I take it that this is a long-stop provision, and that it may not take that long. Under subsection (4) the corporation may unilaterally
      "revise the whole or any part of its code."
      One assumes that if any part of it was not to its liking it could suddenly change it. That again is a one-sided provision.
      Paragraph (5) provides that the local authorities must be consulted if a change is made. But the local authorities do not have to consent. Labour Members believe that this is a weak provision. It does not give any real power to the local authorities other than statutory consultation. The rules are made entirely by one side. It is like one side going in to bat in cricket and changing the rules as the game progresses if they so wish. It is as strong or as weak as that.
      12.30 am
      However, if the Government are to have some sort of code of consultation, it is advisable for the House to ensure that there will be a provision in the code on at least one issue. This amendment seeks to ensure that where an order is placed before the House for a compulsory purchase vesting the code of practice will take account of it. We believe that there should be specific provision for that. The amendment states:
      "Any such code of practice shall make specific provision for consultation relating to Orders vesting in an Urban Development Corporation land vested in a local authority."
      In other words, there should be specific provision in the code of practice for proper consultation when the urban development corporation wishes to take over land by compulsory purchase, in this case through the action of the Secretary of State. It is a modest amendment to a very weak provision, but we feel that it would justify a place in the code.
      On the general question of consultation, I should like to put a point to the Minister that has arisen in the consultations relating to the Bill, and it is relevant to the code of practice that may arise as a result of this Lords amendment. It concerns an important matter relating to planning. When the Minister sent out his

      389
      original consultation document, he stated that planning powers
      "would be a reserve power to be activated as necessary under which the urban development corporation would have planning powers in respect of all the proposals in its area."
      But in the other place, on 14 October, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, in resisting an amendment moved by Lord Evans of Claughton, said that these were
      "powers which we consider to be essential for a UDC to have, bearing in mind the nature of the buildings and the land in the dockland areas. If a UDC is to be an effective agency it will need all the powers in the present Bill, and I therefore have to resist these amendments."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 1980; Vol. 413, c. 1255]
      In other words, even in the consultation processes in relation to the Bill there seems to be some change of mind on the part of the Government on the important matter of planning.
      If the Government can make a change of such a nature in the consultative processes prior to legislation, I shudder to think what may happen in consultation, even with this rather weak code. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some guidance on the matter, of which I have given him some prior notice, because it is relevant to consultation.
      Lord Bellwin, throughout the proceedings in Committee in another place, constantly said that the success of the operation would depend on the co-operation of local authorities. There can, of course, be no co-operation if there is not proper and genuine consultation.
      Here we have a position in which the Secretary of State—I am glad that he is in the Chamber for this part of the proceedings—is to take away from local authorities the proper powers that they have exercised in this area for over a century. They are unwilling to have the powers taken from them. They may even petition another place in order to stop him doing it. He is taking away very considerable powers, including those of planning, and then he says "We are going to ask you to do certain things and to co-operate with the urban development corporation, and we shall consult with you just before you do it."
      I do not believe that that will result in the sort of accelerated pace of development
      390
      that the Minister says he wants to see and by which he is justifying the urban development corporation. I therefore feel that the code will be only a bit of a figleaf. Let us put another little bit on it in regard to compulsory purchase if the Minister has it in mind to accept the amendment.
      Mr. King: Amendment No. 109 was tabled by the Government in response to representations from the Opposition about the need for proper consultation. I hope that if it is not entirely what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) wanted he will be pleased that we have fulfilled an undertaking that we gave when we suggested originally that perhaps it was not necessary because we were insistent that there would be consultation. But the hon. Gentleman was anxious that it should be written into the Bill, and the Government have honoured the undertaking that they gave to the Committee at that time. So the new clause M should be seen in that light, as a response to representations from each side of the House.
      We do not think that the hon. Gentleman's proposal to add a further specific provision about consultations is a wise one. We have made it clear that the vesting order will have to go through the same procedures in any case. There will have to be, quite clearly, the opportunity for discussions on it. But because of the need for the time scale in the Lords amendment that I recommend the House to accept, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's amendment would be helpful.
      I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Member, but I sense that he is still battling away in some old campaign. I am not sure that he is quite clear about what is happening in reality. He gives the impression that everybody is at loggerheads and that nobody can talk to anybody about this matter. I am pleased to say that, while we have in the legislation included the 12-months provision for the discussion on the code of practice for consultation, I understand that the Merseyside UDC has almost completed the draft in its discussions with the local authorities, and that the London Docklands UDC is also well advanced in its discussions. I think that people recognise as I made clear to the Committee, that

      391
      the UDC will not work if it is immediately to be at loggerheads with all the local authorities in its area. It has to co-operate. That is obviously and clearly understood by the chairmen and the deputy chairmen of the respective shadow organisations, who recognise the importance of working closely with the local authorities.
      The hon. Member raised what he thought was an inconsistency in the Government's position from the original consultation paper in which we talked about reserve planning powers, and the statement by my noble Friend Lord Strathcona, who answered the debate, in which he made it clear that we now intended to activate these planning powers. It is true. It is not inconsistent. It is the point of consultation. We went out to consultation on the basis that we envisaged that these would be reserve powers. As a result of the consultation, discussions and consideration of the representations made, we took the view that it was right that these powers should be activated.
      Therefore, this is not inconsistent. There are many occasions on which, after consultation, the Government take a specific view. We have not introduced a power that we did not mention. We thought that it would be a reserve power; we now propose to activate it.
      Mr. Spearing: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say that the procedure caught me on the hop, because I thought that the Lords amendment was to be moved first and then I would move the amendment to it. The Minister and I have both spoken to the Lords amendment and the amendment that I have moved.
      I take the Minister's point about working together. I am sorry that that was not thought about when the borough council leaders first met the Secretary of State, when he told them what would happen.
      On consultation, the Minister has just said that the Government originally, in their consultation paper, saw planning powers for the UDC as a reserve power, and that as a result of consultations the Government had had a change of mind, as they are entitled to do, subsequent to consultation, and Lord Strathcona made it clear in another place that that was so.
      392
      It may be that the Minister also made that clear in Committee or on Report. If he did, I confess that I have forgotten it. Perhaps he will let me know in correspondence or in another way whether it was intimated to the House. As he rightly said, throughout the Committee stage consultation was requested, and that it should be a statutory obligation was requested. But the Minister now says that the Government are firmly on the course of making it a parallel power. I think that that makes my amendment even more relevant, because not only will the UDC have the power of compulsory purchase, but apparently it will be able to give itself planning permission as well. That is doing exactly what we said in Committee the UDC has been set up to do. It is there to increase the value of the land subsequent to purchase. It will be a statutory machine set up for that very objective.
      In those circumstances, I am surprised that the Minister has not been more sympathetic to my amendment. It is one thing for the UDC to acquire land compulsorily from a private person or a private body. There are, or there might be, protections against that, in the normal course of events, where a local authority purchases land compulsorily. But in an urban development corporation we have a centrally located, centrally established Whitehall body, accountable only to the Secretary of State, which is compulsorily to purchase land from the local authorities in my constituency, in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) and, conceivably, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish).
      12.45 am
      The local authority will not be able to do anything about such action. Subsequently, that land having been purchased, the urban development corporation can give itself planning permission to do what it likes. The combination of those powers gives it a considerable weapon. The Minister has said that there will be a code of conduct for consultation. I say "Right, include in that code consultation concerning compulsory purchase." If the Minister really wants to see things moving in dockland, would it not be much better for the local authority

      393
      to go ahead with some agreed development rather than for the urban development corporation to have to do it?
      There are large areas of land in my constituency owned by the London borough of Newham. We have the Beck-ton district plan, which has not yet been changed, and I hope that it will not be changed. This Bill and this provision will enable the urban development corporation compulsorily to purchase any land it likes, particularly land which we have assigned to open spaces, now being set out for playing fields and public open space in a good, landscaped manner.
      What the Minister is saying is "I will not make it statutorily necessary for the urban development corporation even to
      Question accordingly negatived.
      consult the local authority before it slaps a CPO on the land." That is what the Minister is saying to me tonight, to the ratepayers in my constituency and in the other boroughs. The Minister shakes his head. I should be glad to give way and allow him to intervene. He does not do so. Therefore, I take it that he accepts what I say. That is why I am asking my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber, or perhaps elsewhere, to join me in pressing my amendment on consultation concerning land which is to be purchased compulsorily from a local authority.
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes 123.

      Division No. 497]

      AYES

      [12.50 am

      Beith, A. J.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Penhaligon, David

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Spearing, Nigel

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

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Graham, Ted

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Mr. Bob Cryer and

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Parry, Robert

      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

      NOES

      Ancram, Michael

      Grist, Ian

      Neubert, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

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

      Newton, Tony

      Bendall, Vivian

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Onslow, Cranley

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hawksley, Warren

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Best, Keith

      Heddle, John

      Parris, Matthew

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Blackburn, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Pawsey, James

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hooson, Tom

      Raison, Timothy

      Bright, Graham

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Brinton, Tim

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Renton, Tim

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Butcher, John

      Lamont, Norman

      Rost, Peter

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Lang, Ian

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Latham, Michael

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Shersby, Michael

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Sims, Roger

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Squire, Robin

      Colvin, Michael

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Cope, John

      MacGregor, John

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Cranborne, Viscount

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Thompson, Donald

      Crouch, David

      Major, John

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Darrell, Stephen

      Marlow, Tony

      Wakeham, John

      Dover, Denshore

      Mather, Carol

      Waller, Gary

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Ward, John

      Egger, Tim

      Mellor, David

      Warren, Kenneth

      Emery, Peter

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Watson, John

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

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

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Wheeler, John

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Moate, Roger

      Whitney, Raymond

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Wickendon, Keith

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      Forman, Nigel

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Fox, Marcus

      Murphy, Christopher

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Myles, David

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Neale, Gerrard

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Needham, Richard

      Mr. Peter Brooke and

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Nelson, Anthony

      Mr. David Waddington.

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 128

      VESTING BY ORDER IN CORPORATION
      Lords amendment: No. 110, in page 105, line 37, at end insert ", statutory undertakers".
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 111, 216, 225 and 227.
      Mr. King: The purpose of these amendments is to clarify the arrangements regarding the vesting of land and to make sure that they comply with the correct arrangements under the Town and Country Planning Acts and the Land Compensation Acts in Scotland. They are technical amendments and do not involve great issues of policy. Unless the House would like further clarification, I ask that the amendments be accepted.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 111 agreed to.

    New Clause N

      LAND COMPENSATION
      Lords amendment: No. 112, after clause 131, in page 108, line 36, at the end insert—

      "N.—(1) The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation Act 1961 (descriptions of actual or prospective development of which account is not to be taken in assessing compensation or the effect of which is to reduce compensation payable in respect of adjacent land in the same ownership which has benefited by the development) and after paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 (which makes similar provision for Scotland):—

      "4A. Where any of the relevant land forms part of an area designated as an urban development area by an order under section 114 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

      Development of any land other than the relevant land, in the course of the development or redevelopment of that

      396

      area or as an urban development area."

      (2) At the end of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation Act 1961 there shall be added:—

      "PART III
      SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREAS
      10. For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared—

      (a) that, in assessing in the circumstances described in paragraph 4A in the first column of Part I of this Schedule the increase or diminution in value to be left out of account by virtue of section 6 of this Act, no increase or diminution in value is to be excluded from being left out of account; and

      (b) that, in assessing in those circumstances the increase in value to be taken into account by virtue of section 7 of this Act, no increase in value is to be excluded from being taken into account merely because it is attributable—

      (i) to any development of land which was carried out before the area was designated as an urban development area;

      (ii) to any development or prospect of development of land outside the urban development area;

      (iii) to any development or prospect of development of land by an authority other than the acquiring authority, possessing compulsory purchase powers.

      11. Paragraph 10 of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to any increase or diminution in value to be left out of account by virtue of any rule of law relating to the assessment of compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition as it has effect in relation to any increase or diminution in value to be left out of account by virtue of section 6 of this Act.".
      (3) In section 6 of the Land Compensation Act 1961—

      (a) in subsection (1)(b), for "4" substitute "4A"; and

      (b) add at the end of subsection (2) the words "and the provisions of Part III of that Schedule shall have effect with regard to paragraph 4A".

      (4) At the end of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 there shall be added:—
      "PART III
      SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREAS
      6. For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared—

      (a) that, in assessing in the circumstances described in paragraph 4A in the first column of Part I of this Schedule the increase or diminution in value to be left out of account by virtue of section 13 of this Act no increase or diminution of value is to be excluded from being left out of account; and

      397

      (b) that, in assessing in those circumstances the increase in value to be taken into account by virtue of section 14 of this Act, no increase in value is to be excluded from being taken into account,

      merely because it is attributable—

      (i) to any development of land which was carried out before the area was designated as an urban development area;

      (ii) to any development or prospect of development of land outside the urban development area;

      (iii) to any development or prospect of development of land by an authority, other than the acquiring authority, possessing compulsory purchase powers.

      7. Paragraph 6 of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to any increase or diminution in value to be left out of account by virtue of any rule relating to the assessment of compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition as it has effect in relation to any increase or diminution in value to be left out of account by virtue of section 13 of this Act.".
      (5) In section 13 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963—

      (a) in subsection (1)(b), for "4", where it first occurs, substitute "4A"; and

      (b) add at the end of subsection (2A) the words "and the provisions of Part III of that Schedule shall have effect with regard to paragraph 4A".".

      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment deals with the compensation arrangements and adds a new case to schedule 1 to the Land Compensation Act 1961 along the lines of that land down for the new towns. It brings the matter into line with existing legislation.
      1 am
      Mr. Spearing: The Government are shovelling upon the House vast quantities of legislation. The amendment is only two and a half pages worth. I can understand the Minister when he says that it is necessary to fulfil some of the Bill's objectives. I understand that some parts of the amendment follow consultation with the local authorities. However, the amendment does not fulfil all that some authorities would require.
      As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is to deal with the compensation payable to persons on compulsory acquition of land by an urban development corporation. The present basis of compensation is that when land is purchased by a public body the purchase price does not include betterment that
      398
      has been achieved by some form of investment by the authority. The land is acquired at a value that assumes that betterment has not occurred. That is what I understand to be the purport of the amendment. It brings into line in a complex way an urban development corporation with an existing local authority.
      As we have learnt from the previous debate, in some circumstances one public authority so-called—the urban development corporation—will be compulsorily purchasing from another public authority, usually a borough council. I suggest to the Minister that in some circumstances the borough council will have invested money and will have contributed to the betterment of the land. In those circumstances, I am not certain whether the general rules apply. I understand that the amendment does not cover fully that set of circumstances.
      An amendment was tabled that provided that the new clause would not apply to land that is compulsorily purchased by an urban development corporation from a borough council where the council has been responsible through investment for betterment in that land. That amendment has not been selected, and I understand why. It is extremely difficult in a precise and short form to devise an amendment that offers a satisfactory and equitable solution. It is always difficult to know how much investment has caused how much betterment. Usually, if there is a dispute, the Lands Tribunal considers these matters.
      I suggest that the Lords amendment as it stands may not cover the point that I have raised. Local authorities could feel aggrieved, and aggrieved local authorities are the last things that the Minister says that he wants, although the Bill will not help them to feel contented in any respect.
      Mr. King: I think that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will accept the general purpose of the amendment. It is generally accepted that, where public money has been spent, any compensation excludes the value effect of development from that public money.
      Although the amendment to the amendment was not selected, I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance which I think he will find helpful. Where the UDCs acquire land from other public

      399
      authorities that have incurred higher expenditure than would be reflected in the compensation payable, there are established procedures for applying administrative discretion to achieve a balance of equity. If necessary, the Secretary of State could use his powers of direction to achieve that. I hope that that assurance will be helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
      Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause

      PLANNING BLIGHT
      Lords amendment: No. 113, after clause 132, in page 109, line 29, at end insert—
      "O.—(1) Section 192(1) of the 1971 Act ("scope of provisions about blight) and section 181(1) of the 1972 Act (which makes similar provisions for Scotland) shall have effect as if the land specified in them included land which—

      (a) is land within an area intended to be designated as an urban development area by an order which has been made under section 122 above but which has not come into effect; or

      (b) is land within an area which has been so designated by an order under that section which has come into effect.

      (2) No blight notice shall be served by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above at any time after the order has come into effect.
      (3) Until such time as an urban development corporation is established for the urban development area, sections 192 to 207 of the 1971 Act and sections 181 to 196 of the 1972 Act shall have effect in relation to land within subsection (1) above as if "the appropriate authority" and "the appropriate enactment" were the Secretary of State and subsection (4) below respectively.
      (4) Until such time as aforesaid the Secretary of State shall have power to acquire compulsorily any interest in land in pursuance of a blight notice served by virtue of subsection (1) above; and where he acquires an interest as aforesaid, then—

      (a) if the land is or becomes land within subsection (1)(b) above, the interest shall be transferred by him to the urban development corporation established for the urban development area; and

      (b) in any other case, the interest may be disposed of by him in such manner as he thinks fit.

      (5) The Land Compensation Act 1961 and, in relation to Scotland, the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 shall have effect in relation to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of an interest by the Secretary of State under subsection (4) above as if the acquisition were by an urban development corporation under this Part of this Act and as if, in the case of land within subsection (1)(a) above, the land formed part of the area designated
      400
      as an urban development area by an order under section 122 above which has come into effect."
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The purpose of this new clause is to protect land and building owners who are affected by blight as a result of the prospect of the designation of an urban development area, or the proposals made by an urban development corporation once the urban development area has been designated. I ask the House to accept the amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 134

      CORPORATION AS PLANNING AUTHORITY
      Lords amendment: No. 114, in page 111, line 24, at end insert—
      "(4A) In relation to an urban development corporation which is the local planning authority by virtue of an order under subsection (1) above, section 270 of the 1971 Act (application to local planning authorities of provisions as to planning control and enforcement) shall have effect for the purposes of Part III of the 1971 Act prescribed by that order, and in relation to the kinds of development so prescribed, as if—

      (a) in subsection (1), the reference to the development by local authorities of land in respect of which they are the local planning authorities included a reference to the development by the corporation of land in respect of which it is the local planning authority;

      (b) in subsection (2)—

      (i) in paragraph (a) the words "the corporation" were substituted for the words "such an authority" and the word "corporation" were substituted for the words "local planning authority"; and

      (ii) in paragraph (b) the word "corporation" were substituted for the words "local planning authority"."

      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 115.
      Mr. Fox: Amendment No. 114 clears up an anomaly in the Bill, whereby an urban development corporation cannot, under the present provisions, have recourse to the power under section 270 of the Town and Country Planning Act

      401
      1971 available to a local authority acting as a local planning authority. The amendment will enable an urban development corporation similarly to obtain deemed planning permission for the development of land in respect of which it is made a local planning authority by order under clause 134(1).
      Amendment No. 115 will enable an urban development corporation in Scotland to obtain deemed planning permission for the development of land for which it is made the planning authority under clause 143(5).
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 115 agreed to.

    New Clause P

      PLANNING: CORPORATION AND LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY
      Lords amendment: No. 116, after clause 134, in page 112, line 26, at end insert—
      "P.—(1) The reference to the local planning authority in paragraph 17 of Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972 (duty to include in a development order under section 24 of the 1971 Act provision enabling a local highway authority to impose restrictions on the grant by the local planning authority of planning permission for certain descriptions of development) shall not be construed as including a reference to an urban development corporation who are the local planning authority by virtue of an order under section 134 above, and no provision of a development order which is included in it by virtue of that paragraph is to be construed as applying to such a corporation.
      (2) The Secretary of State may include in a development order under section 24 of the 1971 Act provision enabling a local highway authority to impose restrictions on the grant by an urban development corporation who are the local planning authority of planning permission under the 1971 Act for such descriptions of development as may be specified in the order."
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment introduces a new clause which would enable the Secretary of State to limit the powers of restriction by the local highway authority over an urban development corporation acting as a local planning authority to those kinds of development that are specified in a development order.
      Mr. Spearing: During the consultative process, I understood that there was to be no exemption for the urban development corporation. If that is so, will the Minister tell us why the Government have changed their mind? They have every right to change their mind, but we should like to know why.
      Mr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman is right. I should make plain that the Government accept that highway safeguards are important in urban development areas. However, the central position of the urban development corporation, and the process of renewal that it will carry forward, means that the local highway authority's power should be tailored more precisely to the circumstances of an urban development authority. We have thought about the matter carefully, and believe that this is the only way forward.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 135

      BUILDING CONTROL
      Lords amendment: No. 117, in page 112, line 36, leave out
      "functions exercisable in a case where subsection (4) below applies,"
      and insert
      "other than inner London boroughs, functions"
      Page 112, line 40, at end insert—
      "( ) as regards inner London boroughs, functions exercisable under the London building legislation or, as the case may be, under or in connection with building regulations and any enactment relating to such regulations;"
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it is convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 118 to 121.
      Mr. Fox: These amendments introduce additional flexibility in the event of an order being made transferring building control functions to an urban development corporation by enabling the London urban development corporation to exercise either the London or the national system, as appropriate.
      Mr. Spearing: Again, perhaps the Minister will be more explicit. I am sure

      403
      that the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I recall that in Committee an amendment was proposed making the London building regulations applicable inside the urban development corporation area. That may still be the case. However, the urban development corporation would be responsible for administration, and not the Greater London Council. When this amendment was moved in the other place on 14 October, there was no explanation or debate. Hon. Members may refer to col. 1259 of the Official Report of the House of Lords to verify that fact.
      This is, therefore, the first time that such a point has been raised. Will the Minister give an assurance that his flexibility applies not to the regulations, but only to the authority which is operation?
      Mr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman has a long recollection and is right. We were simply leaving our options open. It may be that the London system is the best. I again give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 118 to 121 agreed to.

    New Clause Q

      FIRE PRECAUTIONS AND HOMES INSULATION
      Lords amendment: No. 122, after clause 135, in page 114, line 11, insert—
      " Q.—(1) The Secretary of State may make an order under this section directing that, subject to the provisions of the order, an urban development corporation shall have in its area (or in such part of its area as may be specified in the order)—

      (a) the functions of a fire authority under the Fire Precautions Act 1971;

      (b) the power of a local authority under section 36 of that Act (power to make loans to meet expenditure on certain alterations to buildings occasioned by the Act); and

      (c) the functions of a local authority under any scheme made by virtue of section 1 of the Homes Insulation Act 1978 (schemes for the making of grants towards the cost of works undertaken to improve the thermal insulation of dwellings).

      (2) On the order coming into force, the corporation shall have the functions conferred in relation to the area (or part) instead of or concurrently with any such authority, depending on the terms of the order.
      (3) The order may provide that any enactment under which the corporation is to exercise
      404
      functions by virtue of the order shall have effect in relation to the corporation and, where the corporation is to have any function concurrently with another authority, in relation to that authority, as modified by the order.
      (4) The order shall have effect subject to such savings and transitional and supplementary provisions as may be specified in the order.
      (5) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
      (6) No order under this section shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 123, 124 and 129.
      Mr. King: Clause 136 gives power for the UDC to be a housing authority. The amendments are technical. They bring the UDC's powers, if it were to be a housing authority, into line with the full powers that it would need over such matters as issuing fire certificates. I hasten to add that we are not concerned with giving powers to run a fire fighting service. This misapprehension caused excitement in another place. The clause has nothing to do with that. It concerns the UDC's powers as a housing authority.
      I should like to make clear that we have no present intention of transferring housing powers to the UDC. If it is at a later date felt desirable that such powers should be transferred, it is clearly essential that they should be up to date.
      Mr. Spearing: The Minister owes the House a fuller explanation. I am not yet convinced that the amendment is purely technical. He says that there is the possibility of the UDC being a housing authority. We have discussed that issue. Improvements and other such matters would be involved. In subsection (a) the amendment includes:
      "the functions of a fire authority under the Fire Precautions Act 1971".
      That opens up enormous potential. The functions of a fire authority under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 concern mainly the issue of fire certificates relating to the standards of buildings and of escape. Section 6 (2) states:
      "A fire certificate issued with respect to any premises may impose such requirements as the fire authority consider appropriate in the circumstances".

      405
      We all know that for the fire authority fire certificates can be expensive.
      I cannot see any reason from the debate in another place why it is necessary for the UDC, even as a housing authority, to be given all the functions of a fire authority under that Act. Fire authorities under the post-war Acts are local authorities that run the fire brigades. I concede that the idea in another place that the UDC will have its own firemen and fire service was misplaced. However, if the amendment is passed, issuing fire certificates for the entire area for which the UDC is responsible, and particularly that part of it that may or may not become under its aegis an enterprise zone, will be within its discretion and not that of the existing fire authority—the GLC. If I am wrong, the Minister will no doubt correct me, but if I am right he must tell us why he is giving UDCs what appears to be extraordinary powers. They could be significant in permitting different types of processes. The 1971 Act states:
      "In so far as a requirement imposed by a fire certificate issued with respect to any premises requires anything to be done or not to be done to or in relation to any part of the relevant building"
      and so on. That has considerable impact on matters such as rents and capital expenditure on buildings.
      1.15 am
      If there is to be any effect on the standards of fire safety requirements in any part of the proposed UDC's area, which includes half of my constituency, the House ought to know about it.
      The Minister should think carefully before asking us to pass the amendment. My logic may be at fault, but if I am right the Minister should think again, because he is asking the House to pass an amendment which would give lower fire protection for my constituents, for which there is no justification. In that case, it is not a technical amendment.
      Mr. King: I think that I can clarify the point for the hon. Member. The amendment would give UDCs access to certain powers and functions under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and the Homes Insulation Act 1978. Briefly these functions are related to issuing fire certificates and—if and when such functions are commenced—powers to make loans to meet
      406
      expenditure on alterations to buildings required under the 1971 Act and powers to make grants towards the cost of thermal insulation of dwellings.
      A UDC might need the powers if it were to take on a housing improvement role within the urban development areas and it had been decided to commence certification under the Fire Precautions Act. As with an order made under clause 136, the order transferring any powers under this clause would be subject to affirmative resolution and the powers would be exercised by the UDC instead of the local authority or concurrently with the local authority, depending on the terms of the order.
      The powers would of course not be needed unless it were decided that an order giving local housing authority functions to a UDC were necessary. They do not, as might have been assumed, give UDCs any roles in relation to fire fighting or allied services provided by fire authorities.
      Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister now clarify the points that I put to him? The home thermal insulation orders are different from fire certificates. The Minister has confirmed my view that UDCs would be able to give fire certificates. He has given no reason for granting them that power. Existing boroughs do not have the power. Can he justify its inclusion in the Bill?
      Mr. King: It is included in anticipation of a decision to commence certication under the 1971 Act. It may be necessary to introduce other legislation to cover other authorities. This is the provision for UDCs. But we are not imparting the power now. That will be covered by an order.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 123 and 124 agreed to.
      Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House; I was concentrating on the fire regulations. Is it possible for the Minister to explain amendment No. 129, or is it too late?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister has already spoken to the group of amendments. It is too late.

    Clause 137

      RENT REBATES
      Lords amendment: No. 125, in page 114, line 34, leave out from beginning to "dwellings" in line 36 and insert
      "It shall be the duty of every urban development corporation to bring into operation and to maintain scheme for granting, to persons who occupy as their homes"
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 126 to 128.
      Mr. King: The amendments are needed to bring the clause into line with the amendments made to the Housing Finance Act 1972 by the Housing Act 1980. They remove the old restriction on the UDC's duty to provide rent rebates only to persons who occupy housing revenue account dwellings. They bring the terms of the UDC within the scope of the Housing Aot 1980 in relation to the right to buy in particular.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 126 to 129 agreed to.

    New Clause T

      SUPPLY OF GOODS ETC. BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
      Lords amendment: No. 130, after clause 143, in page 120, line 8, at the end insert—
      "T.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, in the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (supply of goods and services by local authorities to public bodies) "public body" shall include any urban development corporation.
      (2) The provisions of subsection (1) above shall have effect as if made by an order under section 1(5) of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (power to provide that a person or description of persons shall be a public body for the purposes of that Act).
      (3) An order under the said subsection 1(5) may accordingly vary or revoke the provisions of subsection (1) above as they apply to an urban development corporation specified in the order."
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      408
      The purpose of the new clause is to include urban development corporations in the meaning of "public body" for the purposes of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. It honours an assurance given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne).
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 147

      POWER TO SURVEY LAND ETC.
      Lords amendment: No. 131, in page 122, line 41, leave out "14" and insert "28".
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 132 to 142.
      Mr. Fox: With the exception of amendment No. 139 which was introduced by the Government in the Lords on Third Reading, the amendments were tabled by the Opposition. Their effect is to afford the same degree of protection to local authorities as to statutory undertakers in respect of persons authorised to enter upon land for the purpose of surveying.
      Amendment No. 142 provides that reference to section 28 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 in this clause shall be construed as reference to section 32 of the Magistrate's Courts Act 1980 on the commencement of that Act. This necessary amendment has the effect of bringing the provisions on penalties in this clause up to date.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments No. 132 to 142 agreed to.

    Clause 149

      ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY
      Lords amendment: No. 143, in page 126, line 15, at end insert—
      "(3) This section does not extend to Scotland."
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

      409
      This amendment disapplies clause 149 to Scotland. The Church Commissions have no locus in Scotland but "ecclesiastical property" as defined in clause 150 might comprehend some church property in Scotland. We need to make it clear that this clause is concerned with ecclesiastical property in England and Wales only.
      Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause U

      DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE CARAVAN SITES FOR GIPSIES
      Lords amendment: No. 144, after clause 152, in page 127, line 39, insert—
      "PART XVIA
      CARAVAN SITES
      There are hereby repealed—

      (a) in subsection (2) of section 6 of the Act of 1968 (limitation of duty to provide adequate accommodation for gipsies and provision for exemption), the words from "and the Minister" to the end"; and

      (b) section 190(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 (certain exemptions from the duty mentioned in paragraph (a) above to be continued in force)."

      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 145, 146 and amendments thereto, Nos. 147 to 149 and Nos. 156, 253, 254 and 265.
      Mr. Fox: The seven proposed new clauses and additions to schedule 34 and to the long title seek to restore proposals on gipsy sites contained in the original Bill, together with one additional proposal. In the case of four clauses and an addition to the schedules of repeals there are minor drafting changes. Amendments Nos. 145 and 147 contain changes of substance that are acceptable to the Government. The additional proposal in amendments Nos. 156 and 253 is to delete the specific reference to gipsies from section 127(c) of the Highways Act 1959. That has already been accepted in principle by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I shall be happy to enlarge if the House wishes me to do so.
      Mr. Graham: I congratulate and commend the Government on their intention,
      410
      which has been persistent throughout. I acknowledge that in attempting to streamline the original Bill the clauses were dropped. The Minister may recall that in Committee I sought to reintroduce them, but understood that under our procedures it was not possible to do so. I know that on both sides of the House and in another place there has been a general desire for these modest improvements to aid and support local authorities in certain parts of the country to deal with problems caused by the lack of sites and the lack of powers.
      In my part of North London, and in outer London generally, a great deal of frustration has been felt by local councils and local residents when the problems have come to the fore. The Cripps report of 1968 has taken a long time to implement, but a little flesh has been put upon the bones over the years. I know that my authority in Enfield—I am delighted to see in his place the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) who will wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—has asked local Members of Parliament, including the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), to do what they can. The additional powers to tow away caravans parked in any other than a designated site, increased fines for persons who intentionally obstruct anyone acting in the exercise of powers conferred, and the increase in the range of weapons open to a local authority will be warmly welcomed.
      On behalf of the Opposition, I wish to say that I am grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for finding the opportunity to implement what I know was always their original intention.
      Dr. Mawhinney: I also welcome the amendments. I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) that the amendments are in no sense partisan. They have the support of another place and of Members on both sides of this House. The hon. Memfor Edmonton referred to problems in his area. It is not without significance that three of the four noble Lords in another place who moved the new clauses had connections with the county of Cambridgeshire, and two of the three with my constituency—Baroness Stedman, representing the Opposition, and my predecessor in Peterborough, Lord Harman-Nicholls, representing the Government.

      411
      The amendments must be taken in conjunction with clause 61, which provides finance for the provision of gipsy sites. I welcome the Minister's statement in the other place that the moratorium on the provision of finance for the sites has been lifted and that some money is now available for them.
      1.30 am
      While clause 61 is important, because it seeks to protect the rights of gypsies—they have rights, despite what the majority of the people may think—the amendments are also important, because they seek to protect the rights of local authorities and local residents. Subsection (3) of new clause W makes clear that designation depends on adequate provision already having been made. That is the crux of the amendments.
      In my constituency we already have a proper site, with 22 places. A second site for another 50 places is being sought. My district council agreed on a bipartisan basis that money should be sought to provide that second site, and that at the same time designation should be sought to give the powers conferred by the amendments on the district council.
      Designation was not available when the decision was made, and in the intervening period there have been strains. Some of the more Left-wing members of my Labour-controlled district council want to press ahead and obtain the money anyway, irrespective of the designation powers. I pay tribute to the leader of the council, who understands the importance of linking provision with designation.
      The provision of sites will undoubtedly attract more gipsies. The local authority must have the powers to deal with that. No doubt other district councils will want to apply for grants to provides sites, and to apply for designation. I support the view of my district council, provided the provision and the designation are linked. If it seeks the one without the other, particularly the provision of money without the designation, I shall not support it, and I trust that it will not be made available, because the two must be seen together.
      That leads me to the amendment in my name to Lords amendment No. 146, which makes clear that if a district council
      412
      wishes to have designation it must make a joint application with the county council for designation to be conferred on it. My district council does not have a problem. The Cambridgeshire county council has generously agreed that if adequate provision is made it will support Peterborough district council's application for designation.
      I am not casting aspersions on the county council. However, there is the general point that if one district in a county makes provision, and incurs a certain amount of political opprobrium in the process, it should have the right to be designated. However, if surrounding districts in the same county council area have not made provision, they may see themselves as being at a disadvantage. The excess gipsies who come to the district that has made provision will be moved on, because that district will then have designation powers, and they will be moved into adjoining districts that do not have designation powers.
      Those districts will then tell the county council "There are more of us than there are of those that have made provision, and we want you to protect the rights of the majority—the majority of districts that have not made provision." The county council will be under pressure not to agree to a joint application, for the sake of the majority of districts in its area. If that happens, the district that has made provision and incurred the political opprobrium will be robbed of designation, and its final state will be worse than the first. It was for that reason that I tabled the amendment. I shall not speak to it at greater length because it is late. However, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment standing in my name.
      Mr. Tim Eggar: I wish briefly to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). I know that the inclusion of the clauses will be welcomed by my local authority, by my constituents and by the constituents of the hon. Member for Edmonton and of my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry). The London borough of Enfield has been concerned during the past two or three years about the considerable difficulties that the inadequate powers have created, but this is a large step in the right direction.
      Mr. Squire: I, too, would like to make a brief contribution at this late hour as someone who served on the Standing Committee and, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) will remember, endeavoured to get through amendments similar to those now before the House. It is tremendous news for many boroughs, particularly Havering. I believe that the House of Lords has performed a stirling duty. Should anyone suggest that it does not have a place in future, I know that a number of my constituents would rush to its defence in the light of these amendments.
      Mr. Christopher Murphy: Having campaigned to redress the balance of rights and privileges in favour of the law-abiding citizen, I welcome these additional provisions relating to gipsies and caravan sites which the Government originally wished to see included if Parliamentary time permitted. It is essential that the nomalies created by existing legislation should be corrected, and these proposals go a long way in that direction.
      For far too long it would appear that the itinerant traveller has been able to wend his unattractive way, almost without impunity, leaving a trail of damage and disturbance in his wake.
      In Hertfordshire, particularly in Welwyn and Hatfield, local residents have had to suffer the increasing scandal of gipsies invading the roadsides, fields and green spaces. They will be particularly grateful if the Bill, when enacted, can bring about the alleviation of the problem that such an inflow of illegal camping can create for a community.
      It is wholly appropriate that this Government, being committed to the principles of law and order and the protection of the environment, should ensure that this corrective action is taken.
      Mr. Fox: I am grateful to the House for the welcome that it has given to these new clauses. Of all the parts of the Bill that were dropped between its first presentation in the other place and when we faced it here, this is the one part about which most representations have been made. I am certain that what is proposed will go a long way to mitigate this problem.
      I cannot advocate acceptance of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend
      414
      the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). The Government welcome the concept of district designation, but any such application must be considered in the light of the county council's duty to provide an adequate network of sites throughout the county. Therefore, the county council must always be involved in applications for designation. Although I cannot accept my hon. Friend's amendment—indeed, I do not believe that what he described will come about—I shall certainly watch carefully how matters develop.
      Quesion put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 145 to 149 agreed to.

    New Clause AA

      PRECEPTS ON LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR LAND DRAINAGE
      Lords amendment: No. 150, after clause 154, in page 128, line 15, at the end insert—
      "AA.—(1) In subsection (5) of section 46 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 (by virtue of which the aggregate amount for which precepts in respect of the expenses of a local land drainage district may be issued for any one financial year to a local authority may not, unless special consent has been obtained, exceed 1·7 times the estimated penny rate product for the relevant area of the authority for that year) for the words from "1·7" to the end there shall be substituted the words "the amount calculated by multiplying the estimated penny rate product for the relevant area of the authority for that year by such number as the Ministers may specify by order made for the purposes of this subsection".
      (2) In subsection (6) of that section (effect of special resolution) for the words from 1·7" to "area" there shall be substituted the words "the amount calculated by multiplying the estimated penny rate product for the relevant area of that authority for that year by such number as the Ministers may specify by order made for the purposes of this subsection".
      (3) Accordingly, in section 109 of that Act (regulations and orders)—

      (a) in subsection (2), after the words "under section" there shall be inserted the words "46 or"; and

      (b) in subsection (3), after the word "27" there shall be inserted the word "46".

      (4) The amendments made by this section shall have effect in relation to every rate period, within the meaning of the General Rate Act 1967, beginning with such rate period as the Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument specify.
      (5) An order under subsection (4) above shall not specify a rate period beginning before 1st April 1981."
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 151 and the amendment thereto and Lords amendment No. 260.
      Mr. Fox: The limit of 1·7p contained in section 46(5) of the Land Drainage Act 1976 was fixed originally in the River Boards Act 1948 at 4d and decimalised to 1·7p in the Water Act 1973.
      I do not have to refer hon. Members to the costs of maintaining and improving our rivers to suggest that this needs rectification. I can assure the House that, before making an order under these new powers, the Minister will have close regard to the need to restrain public expenditure. The local authority associations are represented on these boards and will be very careful in approving any increase.
      Lords amendment No. 151 is concerned also with drainage. The intention is to remove the distinction which at present exists between certain hereditaments, mainly mineral workings, and general hereditaments for the assessment of drainate rates by internal drainage boards. I hope that hon. Members will accept that very brief explanation.
      Lords amendment No. 260 is consequential upon Lords amendment No. 151.
      Dr. Edmund Marshall: Lords amendment No. 151 repeals section 65(8) of the Land Drainage Act 1976, and my amendment seeks to ensure that that does not take effect until 1 April 1981.
      However, before explaining my proposal, I wish to express my gratitude to the Minister for agreeing with Lords amendment No. 150. The purpose of it is exactly the same as that of my Ten-Minute Bill, the Land Drainage (Amendment) Bill, which the Government resisted earlier in the year. I am delighted that they have had second thoughts and come round to the view that this provision is necessary.
      Turning to Lords amendment No. 151, while I do not challenge the principle in itself, I understand that difficulties might occur if the Lords amendment came into force immediately the Bill was enacted. That would be in the middle of a rating year, and it could result in some rateable values of hereditaments such as gravel
      416
      pits and other mineral workings being changed in the middle of a rating year. Internal drainage boards might then have the prospect of having to pay back to the owners and occupiers of such hereditaments drainage rates which they had already collected during the year.
      I am sure that if my amendment were accepted it would reduce a lot of the confusion that could arise if the Lords amendment came into force in the middle of a rating year.
      Mr. Fox: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome of the Government's acceptance of Lords amendment No. 150. I pay credit to him for his foresight in introducing his Ten-Minute Bill.
      The hon. Gentleman is right about the problems which would be created should repayments be demanded, and I undertake to do whatever I can to impress upon ratepayers that this benefit needs to be looked at very carefully. If immediate repayment would cause hardship, we would have to do what we could to help some of these small authorities which obviously would be in financial difficulty.
      Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was interested to hear the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend's amendment. Cannot we hear whether it is accepted?
      Mr. Fox: I did not mean to give the impression that the Government accepted the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I said that we were aware of the problem and that, if rebates were forced upon some of these smaller authorities, we would do what we could to mitigate the hardship. Where one helps people, it is not unreasonable to make certain that they understand any immediate problems that may be created.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 151 agreed to.

    Clause 155

      RELAXATION OF MINISTERIAL CONTROLS OVER SOCIAL SERVICES
      Lords amendment: No. 152, in page 128, line 17, leave out "Subsection (1) of" and insert
      "The following section shall be substituted for"
      1.45 am
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 153 and 255.
      Mr. Fox: These are purely drafting amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 153 agreed to.

    New Clause CC

      DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
      Lords amendment: No. 154, after clause 155 in page 129, line 14, at the end insert—
      "CC.—(1) In subsection (3) of section 32 of the Local Government Act 1974 (which empowers a Minister of the Crown or an authority subject to investigation to give notice to a Local Commissioner that in the opinion of the Minister or authority disclosure of certain documents or information would be contrary to the public interest and which prevents any person from communicating any such document or information to any other person, or for any purpose) for the words "any person" there shall be substituted the words "the Local Commissioner or any member of the staff of a Commission who is allocated to assist him".
      (2) In subsection (3) of section 30 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (which makes similar provision for Scotland) for the words "any person" there shall be substituted the words "the Commissioner or any member of his staff"."
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The Government recognise the need for a change in the legislation affecting the local commissioners' access to information, and we support this amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause DD

      AMENDMENT OF S. 94 OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (AMENDMENT) ACT 1907
      Lords amendment: No. 155, after clause 156 in page 130, line 8, at the end insert—
      "DD. The following subsections shall be added at the end of section 94 of the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act 1907—
      "(8) No licence under this section shall be required in respect of pleasure boats and
      418
      pleasure vessels on any canal owned or managed by the British Waterways Board.
      (9) In subsections (1) and (3) of this section "let for hire" means "let for hire to the public."
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This new clause has two functions, both of which seek to clear up some of the difficulties created by the present system for the licensing of pleasure craft under section 94 of the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act 1907.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 156 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 157 agreed to.

    Clause 160

      AMENDMENTS OF INNER URBAN AREAS ACT 1978
      Lords amendment: No. 157A, in page 131, line 21, leave out "Parts V, IX," and insert "Parts IV, V, IX, XII,"
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Lords amendments Nos. 157B to 157G.
      Mr. Fox: These amendments are technical and necessary to ensure that this clause correctly explains the application of the Bill to Scotland.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 157B to 1571 agreed to.
      Lords amendment Nos. 158 to 168 agreed to.

    Schedule 7

      ENACTMENTS MENTIONED IN SECTION 46(11)(c)
      Lords amendment: No. 169, in page 146, line 5, column 3, leave out from beginning to "to" in line 12 and insert—
      "Sections 2."
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 170 and 171.
      Mr. King: These are technical amendments to add the parts of schedule 2 to the Local Government Act which are not already included in the list of enactments which the Secretary of State may repeal.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendments Nos. 170 and 171 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Schedule 8

      DOMESTIC RATE RELIEF GRANT
      Lords amendment: No. 172, in page 146, line 29, leave out "each" and insert "the".
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this is will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 173 to 175.
      Mr. King: These are technical amendments which deal with certain aspects of the wording in relation to England and Wales under the rate support grant arrangements. They are effectively drafting amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 173 to 177 agreed to.

    Schedule 9
      PRESCRIBED EXPENDITURE UNDER

        PART VIII
        Lords amendment: No. 178, in page 147, line 41, at end insert—
        "(bb) the reclamation, improvement or laying out of land;".
        Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 179 to 181.
        Mr. King: These amendments clarify the definitions in the schedule of prescribed expenditure. The amendments
        420
        are self-explanatory in regard to the reclamation, improvement or laying out of land and the other items that are covered in this respect.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Lords amendments Nos. 179 to 181 agreed to.

    New Schedule D
      EXPENDITURE OF GREATER LONDON COUNCIL AND LONDON TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE
      Lords amendment: No. 182, in page 148, line 21, after Schedule 9 at the end insert—
      EXPENDITURE OF GREATER LONDON COUNCIL AND LONDON TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE
        PART I

          AMENDMENTS OF SCHEDULE 2 TO LONDON GOVERNMENT ACT 1963
          1. The provisions of Schedule 2 to the London Government Act 1963 (constitution and general functions of Greater London Council) relating to the capital expenditure of and loans made by that Council and to borrowing by that Council shall be amended as follows.
          2. In paragraph 25, for the words "The expenditure by the Council on capital account or" there shall be substituted the words "Prescribed expenditure by the Council and expenditure by the Council".
          3. The following paragraphs shall be inserted after that paragraph:
          "25A. Subject to paragraph 25B below, in paragraph 25 above and paragraphs 26 to 29 below "prescribed expenditure" has the meaning assigned to it for the purposes of Part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 by section 62(2) of that Act (by virtue of which any reference to prescribed expenditure in the said Part VIII is to be construed in accordance with Schedule 9 to the Act).
          25B. In the application of the said Schedule 9 by virtue of paragraph 25A above—
          (a) the following sub-paragraph shall be substituted for sub-paragraph (f):
          "(f) the making of grants of a capital nature other than grants to local authorities or the London Transport Executive;" and
          (b) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 3:
          "3. The investment of a superannuation fund is not prescribed expenditure for the purposes of this Part of this Act.".
          25C. For the purposes of paragraph 25 above and of paragraphs 26 and 28 below section 71 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 shall apply to an acquisition of an interest in or right over property by the Council as it applies to such

          421
          an acquisition by an authority to whom Part VIII of that Act applies.".
          4. In paragraph 26(1) of that Schedule, for the words "on capital account" there shall be substituted the words "by way of prescribed expenditure".
          5. The following sub-paragraphs shall be substituted for sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 28 of that Schedule:
          "(1) If the whole of the amount authorised by an annual money Act to be expended for any authorised purpose in the first twelve or last six months or the relevant financial period aforesaid is not required to be so expended, the Council may expend for any other authorised purpose in those twelve, or, as the case may be, six months (in addition to the amount authorised in relation to that other purpose) an amount not exceeding the unexpended portion of the first-mentioned amount.
          (1A) subject to sub-paragraphs (1B) and (1C) below, if—

          (a) the annual money Act specifies for the first twelve months of a financial period (the relevant twelve months) an amount (the additional amount) which is stated by the Act to be a proportion of the amount authorised for the relevant twelve months to be expended by the Council in respect of prescribed expenditure and lending to other persons (the basic amount) and to be additional to that amount; and

          (b) the Council expended for the relevant twelve months, in respect of prescribed expenditure and on lending to other persons, an amount exceeding the basic amount but not exceeding the agree-gate of the basic amount and the additional amount.

          the amount by which their expenditure exceeds the basic amount shall be treated as having been spent during the first twelve months of the financial period following the relevant twelve months.
          (1B) Where, in the twelve months preceding the relevant twelve months (the previous twelve months) the Council have spent by way of prescribed expenditure or on lending to other persons an amount less than the aggregate of the basic amount for the previous twelve months and any amount authorised for those twelve months under subparagraph (2) below (the previously authorised aggregate), there shall be treated as having been spent during the first twelve months of the financial period following the relevant twelve months the amount which would have been so treated by virtue of sub-paragraph (IA) above subject to the appropriate deduction.
          (1C) The appropriate deduction is a deduction of the lesser of the following amounts namely—

          (a) the amount by which the Council's expenditure for the previous twelve months fell short of the previously authorised aggregate; and

          422

          (b) the amount (if any) which was specified as the additional amount for the relevant twelve months.

          (2) If the amount authorised by an annual money Act to be expended in the first twelve or last six months of any financial period, other than any such additional amount as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1A)(a) above, is found to be insufficient, the Treasury may on the application of the Council authorise the Council to expend such further sums as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Treasury to be necessary or desirable for the Council to expend, not exceeding in the aggregate such amount as may be specified by that Act for the purposes of this subparagraph in relation to those twelve or, as the case may be, six months.".
          6. The following sub-paragraph shall be substituted for sub-paragraph (5)(a) of that paragraph:
          "(a) by way of prescribed expenditure for a purpose mentioned in that Act; or".
          7. The following paragraph shall be inserted after that paragraph:
          "28A.—(1) The appropriate Minister may direct that—

          (a) a specified part of the amount of expenditure authorised by an annual money Act may be spent only on a specified project;

          (b) no part of that amount may be spent on specified project.

          (2) A project may only be specified under sub-paragraph (1) above if the appropriate Minister—

          (a) is of opinion that the project is of national or regional importance, or

          (b) is of opinion that the project, though not itself of national or regional importance is, part of a project which is of such importance.

          (3) In this paragraph "the appropriate minister" means the Secretary of State except in relation to expenditure for the purpose of functions the responsibility for which is vested in the Minister of Transport, and in respect of such expenditure, means that Minister.".
          8. The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 29 of that Schedule:
          "29. The Council may borrow money for the purpose of prescribed expenditure or for the purpose of lending it to other persons if, but only if, the expenditure or lending is authorised by an annual money Act.".
          9. The following shall be added after that paragraph:—
          "The London Transport Executive
          29A.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, for the purposes of paragraphs 25 to 29 above prescribed expenditure of the London Transport Executive or of a wholly-owned subsidiary of that Executive shall be treated as if it were prescribed expenditure of the Council; and accordingly—

          423

          (a) any payment in respect of such expenditure by the Executive or by one of their wholly-owned subsidiaries shall be treated for the purposes of those paragraphs as a payment by the Council; and

          (b) any acquisition by the Executive or by such a subsidiary shall be treated for those purposes as an acquisition by the Council.

          (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, in sub-paragraph (1) above "prescribed expenditure" has the meaning assigned to it for the purposes of Part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 by section 62(2) of that Act.
          (3) In the application of Schedule 9 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above—
          (a) the words "or Passenger Transport Executives" shall be omitted from paragraph 1(f); and
          (b) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 3:—
          "3. The investment of a superannuation fund is not prescribed expenditure for the purposes of this Part of this Act.".
          (4) In this paragraph "wholly-owned subsidiary" has the meaning assigned to it by section 45(1) of the Transport (London) Act 1969.".

        PART II

          AMENDMENT OF TRANSPORT (LONDON) ACT 1969
          10. The following subsections shall be inserted after section 11(2) of the Transport (London) Act 1969 (which among other things requires the London Transport Executive to submit to the Greater London Council and obtain the Council's approval of any proposal for expenditure by the Executive or any subsidiary of theirs which involves a substantial outlay on capital account):—
          "(2A) Any proposal by the Executive or any subsidiary of theirs to acquire—

          (a) an interest in or right over land, other than a freehold interest, where the interest or right confers a right to occupy the land; or

          (b) an interest in or right over goods other than the property in them,

          shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) above as being a proposal involving an outlay on capital account.
          (2B) In subsection (2A) above "freehold interest" means the fee simple absolute in possession (subject to any existing rights other than rights under a mortgage or charge to secure the payment of money) and the "property" (in relation to goods) means the general property in them and not merely a special property."."
          Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 183.
          Mr. King: These amendments were introduced by the Government on Report in the House of Lords. Their effect is to delete schedule 10 and replace it with a new schedule which is designed to alter and supplement the provisions of the London Government Act 1963 so as to put the Greater London Council substantially in the same position as if it were subject to part VIII of the Bill, and to bring it within the scope of part VIII capital expenditure by the London Transport Executive. The further effect is to amend the Transport (London) Act 1969 to ensure that any proposal by the London Transport Executive to acquire a leasehold interest in land or property will be a proposal requiring the approval of the Greater London Council.
          Mr. Spearing: In another place the Under-Secretary, Lord Bellwin, said that
          "the new schedule makes provision for capital expenditure by the London Transport Executive to be controlled in much the same way as expenditure by any of the other passenger transport executives will be controlled in future."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 October 1980; Vol. 414, c. 216.]
          He then went on to talk about comparable authorities outside London.
          I suggest to the Minister that probably there are not comparable bodies outside London to the London Transport Executive because it is responsible to the Greater London Council. It may be controlled in the same way as passenger transport executives but I do not think that the transport organisation in the Metropolis can be written off in quite that way.
          The point arises in that this provision makes it quite clear that the capital expenditure by London Transport will be prescribed, as I understand it, under part VIII of the Bill. At the moment, authority for raising money of this sort comes within the Greater London Council (Money) Bill and that will also, I believe, be prescribed. However, the point of my rising on this matter is to make inquiry about a subject which is causing some concern in London relating to capital sales by London Transport of its land.
          In many ways the Government appear to wish to encourage the release of land held by statutory undertakers of this sort, and seem to want the capital obtained

          425
          to be used as part of the capital requirements of the undertaking. But if the sales of that sort by London Transport will come clearly within the ambit of Part VIII, the matter comes under the terms of clause 63, which is part of part VIII, and in particular under subsection (3)(d) and subsections (5) and (6).
          Without spending much time on this matter, as the hour is late, I just put this point to the Minister. It is possible that capital sales by London Transport falling foul of that clause may complicate the running of that organisation, in that it is controlled in such a way that capital sales, if not spent within a year, have a trip-over effect for the subsequent year, and it may be that the expenditure is thereby constrained in a way in which the Minister does not wish.
          It may be, as Lord Gainford said in the other place, that there was not sufficient consultation with London Transport on this issue. I rather fancy that that was so, because I understand, having initiated inquiries, that there is some concern. Even if the Minister cannot entirely allay the fears of the House at this late hour, I hope that at a later stage in legislation the point will be looked at. I do not think that the Minister wants to put London Transport under any greater disadvantage than it has already, coming within part VIII and, therefore, being very heavily constrained in capital expenditure, which is the Government's present policy.
          Mr. King: Capital expenditure of the London Transport Executive will be a part of the GLC's capital expenditure, which will have to be set out, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, in the annual Greater London Council (Money) Bill. The provision for the use of capital receipts by the GLC will be made in the contingency provisions attached to the money Bill, and account will be taken of the LTE's capital receipts in the money Bill contingency provisions for the GLC as a whole.
          We have not sought to disadvantage the GLC or the LTE as against other authorities. They wished to stick to their traditional money Bill procedure, to which the Government were happy to accede. Obviously, it is necessary that the general principles apply under the capital expenditure provisions in the Bill, and the GLC
          426
          and the LTE are expected to conform with those same general principles—not to their disadvantage but not to their advantage either. We want them to be on a fair basis.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Lords amendments Nos. 183 to 199 agreed to.

    Schedule 12

      FURTHER PLANNING AMENDMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 199A, in page 156, line 45, at end insert—
      "(3) Notice of an application made under subsection (1) above shall be given to the local planning authority within whose area the building is situated at the same time that the application is submitted to the Secretary of State.
      (4) In subsection (3) of this section "local planning authority" shall, in relation to a building in Greater London, include the Greater London Council."
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 200, 201, 203 and 204.
      Mr. Fox: We accept that local planning authorities should be notified of applications under the new section 54(a). Indeed, we shall need to approach them to make sure that planning permission exists or is being sought for the alteration of the building in question or for the redevelopment of the site. I ask the House to agree to the amendment.
      Lords amendment No. 200 is designed to make it clear that the contract referred to is the last contract that is made before building work starts and not, for example, a contract to prepare a scheme. As the intention of the new condition is to prevent premature demolition, there is no objection to the additional words. I ask the House to agree to the amendment.
      Amendment No. 201 is required to correct a technical error in clause 56A(5). Amendment No. 203 is necessary to ensure that when a listed building enforcement notice has been served and listed building consent is subsequently granted under paragraph (6), the enforcement notice shall cease to have effect in relation to the works for which consent has been granted.

      427
      2 am
      Amendment No. 204 is a small but important amendment with which I ask the House to agree. While the advice of the appropriate council will be sought in the appropriate cases, it would defeat the object of speeding up consideration of applications for grants by delegating the administration of town schemes to selected participating authorities if the advice of the council had to be sought about every small grant because of the word "shall" which was in the earlier prints of the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 200 and 201 agreed to.

    Schedule 11

      AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SURVEYS AND PLANS
      Lords amendment: No. 202, in page 159, line 27, at end insert—
      "(2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) above shall affect any order submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation before the passing of this Act."
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      It is expected that 200 tree preservation orders will be before the Secretary of State when this measure is passed. Given that these orders will be at various stages of the determination procedure it is clearly desirable, both on the grounds of consistency and efficiency, that the decisions on the orders should remain with the Secretary of State. This amendment does not raise any new questions of principle. It is simply a practical measure which will effectively safeguard the position of those orders made before the passing of the Act.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 203 and 204 agreed to.

    Schedule 13

      BODIES TO WHOM PART X APPLIES
      Lords amendment: No. 205, in page 164, line 28, at end insert—
      "Provided that where any persons carry on a business to the main purpose of which any such undertaking is merely ancillary those persons
      428
      shall not be treated as statutory undertakers for the purposes of paragraph 18 above"
      Read a second time.
      Mr. Keith Wickenden: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in line 1, leave out from 'business' to 'shall' in line 3 and insert—
      "as a body corporate having capital (other than loan capital) which is divided into shares or stock owned, or capable of being owned, by members of the public, those persons and that body corporate".
      I shall try to be brief. I have an interest to declare in the subject matter. Lords amendment No. 205 seeks to amend part X of the Bill so as to limit the powers of the Secretary of State to compile the register of land in which public bodies have a freehold or leasehold interest and also to limit the powers of the Secretary of State to enforce the sale of such land by those bodies. In other words, the amendment would define rather more closely the bodies to which this part may apply.
      It is clear that it was never the Government's intention to apply part X of the Bill to privately owned bodies, which by accident, or, more likely, because their assets happened to be connected with water and the sea shore, were set up by Act of Parliament. Lords amendment No. 205 was proposed by Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and was accepted by the Government. It goes only so far as to exclude private enterprise operators who operate some form of facility such as a jetty or railway pursuant to statutory powers, where that facility is ancillary to their main business. It does not exclude from part X such privately owned undertakings set up by statute which have as their main business such activities. Here I declare my interest. The undertaking which comes immediately to my mind is the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company but it equally applies to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, to Milford Haven and a long list of such undertakings.
      It is clear that it is not the Government's intention to apply part X of the Bill to privately owned bodies. I cite as authority for that the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, who said in Committee:

      429
      "The hon. Gentleman knows that this part of the Bill applies to publicly owned bodies I have made that clear. I have also made clear that we do not think that it is sensible, for the reasons that I have given about the disciplines that apply over privately owned land, for it to apply there.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 22 April 1980; c. 340.]
      Similarly, in the other place Lord Avebury specifically asked whether what is now amendment No. 205 covered the case of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company. In replying, my noble Friend the Earl of Avon said:
      "Speaking off the cuff, which I do not like doing, we think not."—[Official Report, Home of Lords, 13 October 1980; Vol. 413, c. 1075.]
      He was wise indeed to say that, because he was in fact wrong.
      The public bodies affected by part X of the Bill are set out in schedule 13 to the Bill. The first 17 are not contentious, but No. 18 is the phrase "statutory undertakers". That is an unfortunate phrase, first used, I understand, in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which in itself should be enough to cause misgivings, on the Government side of the House at least.
      The meaning of the phrase is defined in the unnumbered paragraph at the end of schedule 13. It says:
      In paragraph 18 above "statutory undertakers" means persons authorised by any enactment to carry on any railway, light railway, road transport, water transport, canal, inland navigation, dock or harbour undertaking"
      and so on.
      It clearly applies to every dock undertaking which is set up by Act of Parliament, which, in fact, is every dock undertaking in private ownership.
      Clearly, I would not wish at this late hour to press this matter to a Division if it can be avoided, and if the Minister can give me some assurance that, in order to correct this anomaly, in due course a statutory instrument will be laid before the House under clause 82(2), which provides that
      "The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend Schedule 13 to this Act … by amending or deleting any entry for the time being contained in the Schedule".
      That would satisfy the point and correct that issue which the Government did not wish to raise in the first place.
      Mr. King: As my hon. Friend rightly said, the Lords amendment was to qualify the definition of the statutory undertaker but does not go as far as he would wish. I well understand the point that he is raising. He fairly quoted what I said in Standing Committee about it, that it was intended to apply to land held by public bodies. That, indeed, is the title of part X of the Bill.
      I give him the assurance that we believe that this matter may be met, but of course it cannot be met now without further amendment. We believe that under the powers of the Secretary of State by order it will be possible to tackle it. I would rather not give my hon. Friend an answer off the cuff tonight but I give him the assurance that we shall now look at the matter urgently in relation to the power under clause 82(2) and see whether it can be satisfactorily resolved
      Mr. Wickenden: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 206 agreed to.

    Schedule 14

      COMMUNITY LAND ACT
      Lords amendment: No. 207, in page 168, line 27, at end insert—
      "( ) Any notice served under paragraph 4 or 5 of Schedule 7 before the passing of this Act shall cease to be a local land charge on the passing of this Act; and where any such notice has been registered as a local land charge the registration shall, without prejudice to any rules made under the Local Land Charges Act 1975, be cancelled accordingly."
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment is a tidying-up provision. It ensures that notices that have been served by local authorities under the Community Land Act saying whether they intend, or do not intend, to acquire land shall no longer be a local land charge and that all references to them shall be deleted from the local land charge register.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 17

      LAND AUTHORITY FOR WALES: ACQUISITION OF LAND
      Lords amendment: No. 208, in page 181, line 34, at end insert
      "or, after the commencement of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, within the meaning of section 32 of that Act".
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a technical amendment which has become necessary owing to the recent passing of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and the penalties involved thereto.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 20

      LAND: MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 209, in page 191, line 40, leave out from "3(1)(b)" to end of line 2 on page 192 and insert
      "omit the words from "except" to "case";
      (b) in paragraph 3(1) omit head (c) and the proviso;
      (c) in paragraph 7A omit "the confirming authority an to" and "or affixing of notices"; and
      (d) in paragraph 19(4)—
      (i) for "having jurisdiction to confirm or" substitute "or authority having jurisdiction to"; and
      (ii) add the following proviso at the end:—
      "Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not have effect in relation to an owner, lessee or occupier being a local authority or statutory undertakers or the National Trust.""
      Mr. Fox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 210 to 214 and Nos. 246 to 251.
      Mr. Fox: Amendment No. 209 is a purely technical alteration to give proper effect to the intention behind the changes set out in paragraph 1.
      I deal next with amendments Nos. 210, and 211. When the schedule was considered in Committee upstairs the Government
      432
      agreed to retain the need for ministerial consent where local authorities wish to appropriate or dispose of land held for use as allotments. This and the following amendment provide the necessary drafting changes to give effect to that undertaking.
      Although amendment No. 213 looks formidable, it introduces a simple but important safeguard. It provides that where a local authority proposes to appropriate or dispose of open space land under the powers of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the proposal must first be advertised for two consecutive weeks in its local newspaper and any objections considered. The schedule already makes similar provisions in respect of appropriations and disposals under the Town and Country Planning Act 1959 and the Local Government Act 1972.
      Amendments Nos. 212 and 214 are to do with parish councils.
      Amendment No. 246 is consequential to amendment No. 209.
      Amendment No. 247 is consequential to amendment No. 210, which restores the procedure under which ministerial consent is required for the appropriation of allotment land by a local authority.
      Amendment No. 248 is consequential on amendment No. 211.
      Amendment No. 249 make a change which is consequential upon paragraph 11 of schedule 20, which requires local authorities to advertise proposals to dispose of land.
      Amendment No. 250 is consequential upon the amendment to paragraph 12 of schedule 20.
      Amendment No. 251 is consequential on the amendment to paragraph 17 of schedule 20 in respect of the appropriation of open space land by parish councils.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 210 to 214 agreed to.

    Schedule 23

      URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 215, page 202, line 24, leave out "made by statutory instrument" and insert "under section 123 above".
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a technical point, to make it clear that the Secretary of State may prescribe the number of members of a UDC by the main constitution order made under the schedule. This was deficient in the previous draft.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 216 agreed to.

    Schedule 26

      PLANNING FUNCTIONS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS—SCOTLAND
      Lords amendment: No. 216A, in page 229, line 4, at end insert—
      "Section 104 (compulsory acquisition of listed buildings in need of repair).
      Section 105 (repairs notice as preliminary to compulsory acquisition under s. 104).
      Section 107 (minimum compensation in case of listed building deliberately left derelict).
      Section 116 (management etc. of listed buildings acquired by local authority or Secretary of State).
      Section 257 (application to local planning authorities of provisions as to listed buildings).
      Section 262 (designation of conservation area).
      Section 262A (control of demolition in conservation area).
      Section 262B (formulation and publication of proposals for preservation and enhancement of conservation area).
      Schedule 10 (control of works for demolition, alteration or extension of listed buildings)."
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment brings the planning functions of a UDC in Scotland into line with those for a UDC in England and Wales.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 27

      URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS: FINANCE ETC.
      Lords amendment: No. 217, in page 236, line 31, at end insert—
      "( ) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1) above, a report under this paragraph shall deal with operation during
      434
      the year of the corporation's arrangements for consultation about the exercise of its powers with local authorities the whole or any part of whose area is included in the urban development area."
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment requires the report by a UDC to deal also with the operation of the corporation's arrangement for consultation. I imagine that this has wide support in the House.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 28

      ENTERPRISE ZONES
      Lords amendment: No. 218, in page 244, line 30, at end insert—
      "(3A) Subject to sub-paragraph (3B) below, where planning permission is so granted for any development or class of development, the enterprise zone authority may direct that the permission shall not apply in relation

      (a) to a specified development; or

      (b) to a specified class of development; or

      (c) to a specified class of development in a specified area within the enterprise zone.

      (3B) An enterprise zone authority shall not give a direction under sub-paragraph (3A) above unless they have submitted it to the Secretary of State and he has notified them that he approves of their giving it."
      Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords amendments Nos. 219 and 220.
      2.15 am
      Mr. Alfred Morris: The Under-Secretary of State is aware of the deep concern that there has been in the Greater Manchester area about the proposal to build a hypermarket of about 175,000 sq ft in the Salford-Trafford enterprise zone.
      Yesterday I took a deputation to see the Minister at the Department of the Environment. The deputation included distinguished representatives of the Norwest Co-operative Society and all the chambers of trade in Greater Manchester. Mr. Walter Frost, the president, Mr. Rodney Aspray, the chief executive officer, Mr. K. J. Tottle, a director and Mr. E. C. F. Rogers, the estates and

      435
      property controller, spoke for the Norwest Co-operative Society. Mr. Colin Gregory spoke for the 19 chambers of trade. At the same time I made it clear to the Minister on the basis of a statement from the Greater Manchester Association of Metropolitan Authorities that the local authorities in the conurbation are overwhelmingly against the proposed hypermarket. Indeed, Mr. James Hetherington, the secretary of the association, stated:
      "The establishment of a major retail outlet in an enterprise zone in Greater Manchester free of effective planning control will, in the view of the Association, do considerable harm to the infrastructure of the conurbation."
      For the Norwest Co-operative Society it was argued that the proposed hypermarket would not, overall, create any extra jobs as the damage caused to existing shops, including closures and cutbacks in staffing, would more than cancel out any new jobs that might be created. A powerful example was given in that 100 jobs would be lost immediately in the Irlam-O'-th'-Heights area where the society has a detailed planning consent for a new store.
      Mr. Aspray said that the society would almost certainly not develop the new outlet as planned if the hypermarket is built, as the viability studies suggested that the store would just not hold up against such a huge competitor enjoying all the special advantages that attach to enterprise zones.
      The society's representatives also emphasised that to allow retail developments in the enterprise zone of the size proposed would conflict sharply with the Secretary of State's proposed amendments to the Greater Manchester structure plan.
      For the chambers of trade Mr. Gregory said that what was proposed
      "could seriously damage existing major investment in town centres with corresponding losses of employment."
      He pointed out that within a mile of the Salford-Trafford enterprise zone there is the now almost completed Arndale centre, which has entailed massive investment. Nearby in Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale, Bury, Leigh, Wigan and Stretford there are other equally prestigious town centre developments that now contribute much by way of return on other major investments.
      Mr. Gregoryasked the Minister to accept that there would be dangers inherent in the granting of complete freedom from planning control within the enterprise zone. The outcome of the meeting yesterday was a statement from the Minister in the following terms:
      "The deputation has made its case very clearly. We are considering including a requirement in the Salford/Trafford Enterprise Zone scheme which would make larger-scale retail developments subject to individual planning applications."
      This is a very important matter for retailers throughout the Manchester conurbation.
      I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in seeing the deputation and his clear concern to make a constructive response to the strong—indeed, unanswerable—case that was argued by the deputation. What I should like to hear now in the House is a more detailed statement from the Minister. As he heard yesterday, the issue is very important for Greater Manchester, and I feel sure that he will want to do everything in his power further to allay the anxieties that the deputation expressed to him yesterday.
      Mr. Graham: This is not an issue on which we want to divide the House. However, these matters are crucial to many retailers and it is a pity that we are debating them at this late hour. I am grateful for the detail given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). We both represent co-operative interests. Some Conservative Members also have retailing background and experience.
      The Minister should deal with the unease that is felt. He has displayed in Committee and informally his recognition that there are questions that need answers. We recognise that it is not possible to lay down a blueprint that will be applied rigidly to every enterprise zone. They are all different and there will be different solutions.
      The Association of Municipal Authorities last week called a conference of representatives of authorities with enterprise zones in their area. Various concerns were voiced. A local authority, if not sovereign, has a major say in whether it wishes to include retailing. However, the local authority in Swansea

      437
      wished to exclude retailing. It was told by the Welsh Office that major retail units had to be included and that it must entertain developments of up to 65,000 sq ft. Swansea protested, but has not been able to resist the determination of the Welsh Office. We need to know more about that. Merseyside has said that it will not entertain shopping users of over 10,000 sq ft. It has been able to get that accepted. The Minister should make it clear whether he and his officials intend to be the arbiters of what they consider are the best interests of the people in an area.
      At the meeting Newcastle also emphasised its fear of the retail implications. Land near the city centre had been taken out of the proposed area. It was concerned about facing existing developers with what could be seen to be unfair competition—and I am not now arguing about the philosophy behind enterprise zones. However, it is one thing to encourage an authority with an appropriate piece of land to invite new users. It is another to force competition on developers and entrepreneurs who have spent millions of pounds building up nearby city centres where they have to pay rates, and go through the gamut of planning.
      I could give several other examples, but I shall not because of the lateness of the hour. The Minister should say a brief word to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe who has presented a powerful case. He did so most cogently. I was pleased to hear him say that the Minister was sympathetic. Nothing specific can be said about Manchester, but I hope that the Minister will reassure many authorities that the Government will not insist—over the heads of the people—on the Ministry's view of the type of mix that should be found in an enterprise zone.
      Mr. Spearing: We know the background to this provision. I reinforce the view expressed by my colleagues, particularly in relation to sub-paragraph (3B). It is clear that if a local authority with an enterprise zone in its area wishes to make one of those directions, the Secretary of State will notify it of his approval. If the Secretary of State does not approve, the local authority will not
      438
      benefit and the exclusion does not occur.
      For example, large-scale retail activity could go ahead. The matter lies in the hands of the Secretary of State, and therefore the amendment is not as good as it looks at first glance. Will the Minister confirm that if an urban development corporation is the enterprise zone authority the local authority will have no locus? If, for example, an enterprise zone in the Isle of Dogs is sponsored not by the local authority but by an urban development corporation, the local authority will not be able to apply to the Minister. The matter will fall within the province of the urban development corporation. In that case, the amendment is a non-starter. It has no effect.
      Mr. King: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is still trying to stir up hostility, although it may not exist to the same extent as earlier. The idea that an enterprise zone is being imposed on the Isle of Dogs, under the aegis of the urban development corporation, and against a hostile local authority, is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman knows that Tower Hamlets applied to have an enterprise zone on the Isle of Dogs. The GLC, Tower Hamlets and the urban development corporation agree about the desirability of having an enterprise zone.
      The safeguard of the Secretary of State's approval has been provided because this provision involves voluntary co-operation. We have a proposal for a new and relaxed form of planning regime. We want to experiment in certain areas to see if it provides an incentive to enterprise. With it, go certain attractive inducements such as the exemption from industrial and commercial rates. An authority could agree to a relaxed and simplified planning regime. Having achieved its objectives, and in the absence of sub-paragraph (3B), it could easily tighten up the planning regime in every particular. That would negate the purpose of the exercise. The Secretary of State's confirmation is needed to ensure that the integrity of the original scheme is upheld.
      The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) raised the question of our approach to retailing issues. As I have made clear before, there are difficulties involved and it is not possible to lay

      439
      down a limitation applicable to every enterprise zone. That would be unwise. I cannot comment on the situation in Swansea, because that is being dealt with by the Welsh Office. However, we have made clear our views.
      The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) felt the need to put the matter on the record again. I do not know why he felt that to be necessary. He saw my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary with a deputation yesterday. We are well aware of the concern. Two weeks ago I visited Manchester and inspected some of the area. I discussed with a number of those in the area their concern about the implications that they saw for retailing development. I made clear that we understand the concerns. We are looking at the problems and it is clear that in certain areas some limitation on retailing may be sensible.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: I make it clear again that the issue is one of considerable importance in Manchester. I have been asked by constituents to express their anxiety and I shall go on doing that in the House unless we have the firmest possible assurances.
      Mr. King: I do not know why the right hon. Member has to keep on repeating himself. Perhaps reselection really does bite. We know his concerns. He does not have to keep repeating them. My hon. Friend was willing to receive a deputation and we are well aware of the right hon. Gentleman's concern.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 219 to 257 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]
      Lords amendments Nos. 258 to 262 agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 264 and 265 agreed to.

  VAGRANCY ACT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wakeham.]
  2.35 am
  Mr. Thomas Cox: I wish to discuss the need for a review of the Vagrancy Act, particularly as it relates to prostitution and the changes in the law
  440
  which I believe are needed. When the subject appeared on the Order Paper several hon. Members asked what the issue was to be. When I told them they said "Thank goodness that that issue is being discussed". I am talking of such people as my hon. Friends the Members for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) and Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). That indicates that prostitution is a problem in other parts of the country.
  Prostitution is an age-old problem. I doubt whether it can be stopped. Some people argue that it has a role in society. There are many types of prostitute. The discreet call girl or the nightclub hostess possibly offend no one. However, when prostitution takes place as it does in my constituency, that is another story.
  Prostitution in the Bedford Hill area of Balham has existed for many years. I have often brought the problem to the attention of Ministers. Sometimes there is little activity by prostitutes but at other times there is a great deal of activity. That is certainly the position at present. I say to the Minister and to the police with whom I have discussed the problem, that my constituents have had enough—and I mean enough. They demand action to stop the harassment, the abuse, the threats and the violence which prostitutes inflict upon them.
  From early afternoon until the early hours of the morning prostitutes operate in the area. I am told that they arrive in vans. Some of them are organised. Their minders can sometimes be seen—and so the day's prostitution begins. They parade the streets, sit on front walls and become an utter nuisance. As they arrive, so do their customers—the motorists and kerb crawlers.
  Can the Minister understand what happens? Does he understand the accosting and harassment of decent, respectable women of all ages, including schoolgirls? To the kerb crawlers, any woman is a possible pick-up and they refuse to take "No" for an answer. One woman on her way home was repeatedly accosted by a motorist. He was told "Go away." He did not. The lady took his car number. She came to see me at my advice service and asked me to obtain his name and address. I took up the matter with the licensing centre at Swansea, but it refused to give me the details. Recently, a lady

  441
  was outside her home cleaning the windows. A motorist stopped and called out "Are you out for business?" I could cite many similar examples. The Minister must understand the disgust felt by women when that happens to them.
  Some may say that we should tell the prostitutes to go away so that the motorists would not hang around. I say to anyone who suggests that that he should try to do it. He would then hear the abuse and the threats. That is why Government action is needed and why a review of the Act is urgently required.
  The Brennan report, published in 1976, considered the Act. It considered numerous issues such as indecent displays and suspected persons. It dealt with prostitution and kerb-crawling. The suggestion about a change in the law is contained in paragraph 97, which states:
  "Our Working Paper suggests a new provision on the lines of it being an offence for a man persistently to accost a woman or women for sexual purposes in a street or pub-lice place in such circumstances as are likely to cause annoyance to the public, such as residents and users of the street. The maximum penalty would be a fine of £100 and/or three months imprisonment. There would be a power of arrest similar to that in the Street Offences Act."
  The only way to stop that sort of prostitution both in my area and in other areas would be for that suggestion to be made law.
  If a police officer sees a motorist alone in a car driving round and round an area, stopping to talk to women or trying to accost them, can there really be any doubt about what he is seeking? The police with whom I have discussed the problem on many occasions speak to me of their problems—the shortage of manpower, the ability of women to change their appearance and the fact that they operate in an area for a few weeks and move on, when another group takes their place.
  I have visited the Bedford Hill area at night. I have seen all that takes place there. I must say again to the Minister that we have had enough. Four years have passed since the Brennan report. What has happened to it? Is the Home Office still considering its proposals and, if so, for how long? Why cannot the Home Affairs Select Committee be asked to study its proposals if there is any
  442
  doubt as to the possibility of turning its suggestions into a working law?
  I have outlined the problem and tried to explain the deep disgust felt by local people, especially the women who are accosted. It will happen today and it will happen every day until something is done about changing the existing law. The report covers several issues calling out for review and change. An important piece of legislation could be introduced to cover all those issues. It would not call for any vast expense but it would lead to a sensible change in the law. I suggest that the time for that is now.
  I beg the Minister seriously to consider what I have said. I ask him not to tell me that he is sorry about the problems faced by my constituents day after day, but that he can do nothing about them. It is he and his Department who have the power to change the existing law. I cannot believe that the House would oppose such change.
  My constituents and I intend to do all we can to see that the present law is changed, because that is the only way in which this problem can be solved. It most certainly will not go away. Action must be taken to stop it.
  2.45 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for giving the House this opportunity to discuss a difficult and sensitive issue in the criminal law. He has described vividly for us the problems of prostitution and also the problems created by men soliciting for the services of a prostitute, especially by kerb-crawling.
  I particularly appreciate the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman has referred tonight, difficulties that are faced by innocent women and children who happen to live in areas where prostitutes are known to be active on the streets. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have listened with careful attention to his account of the embarrassment and even humiliation to which they may be exposed.
  The growth of this particular form of soliciting was noted as long ago as 1957 by the Wolfenden committee in its report on homosexual offences and prostitution. That committee felt unable to make any recommendations about it, but it has been

  443
  the subject of considerable thought since then.
  It may be of assistance if I try to place this form of activity in its context. It is in a sense related to prostitution, because the men involved usually claim to be looking for prostitutes, and that claim receives support from the presence of prostitutes on the streets in the area concerned.
  The recommendations of the Wolfenden committee led to the Sexual Offences Act 1959. Section 1 of that Act is the main provision for the control of the nuisance caused by prostitutes plying their trade in the streets. The section makes it an offence for a prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution. It is also an offence under the Vagrancy Act 1824 for a prostitute in a street or any place of public resort to behave in a riotous or indecent manner, but that offence is obsolete.
  The existence of the 1959 Act and the offence provided by section 1 shows that the type of activity described by the hon. Gentleman, in so far as it is carried out by the prostitute, is something that the law is not powerless to deal with, and that the problem is one of law enforcement.
  The Street Offences Act has had considerable success in reducing the visible nuisance of prostitutes soliciting in the streets. Some idea of its immediate effect may be gained by comparing the figure of 19,663 prosecutions for soliciting in 1958 with the 1960 figure of 2,828. The number of women proceeded against for loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution has tended to rise slightly since then—there were 3,911 prosecutions in 1978, which led to 3,774 convictions—but on the whole the Act has been successful in substantially reducing the presence of prostitutes on the streets.
  Nevertheless, even with the population of prostitutes on the streets considerably diminished, soliciting by men, including kerb-crawling, continues. The hon. Gentleman is right to ask what is being done about it. First, the question of police action arises. Then one must consider the nature of the law as it stands.
  I should first explain that police action in relation to soliciting and kerb-crawling is a matter within the operational responsibility of the chief officer of police for
  444
  the area concerned—in the case of the hon. Member's constituency the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. It is not, therefore, something in which the Home Secretary has authority to intervene. While there will always be room for discussion about the deployment of police resources and about what should be the priorities in policing, in the end this is, and must remain, a matter for each chief officer to decide in the light of the needs and problems of his area.
  It is fair to point out with regard to kerb-crawling that because of the legal considerations, which I shall come to, the scope for action is sometimes limited. Motorists driving slowly at night in streets where traffic is light do not necessarily create an obstruction, nor is it easy to secure evidence that would justify a charge under section 5 of the Public Order Act for the use of insulting words or behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Where a prostitute is approached she would hardly take offence at that or be concerned about any ensuing verbal wrangle. And where a respectable resident is mistakenly approached it may be difficult to obtain proof of any offence, especially where she, as the only witness, may be reluctant, for entirely understandable reasons, to become involved in any proceedings.
  I understand from the Commissioner, however, that the local police are very much aware of the extent of public concern about the problems to which the hon. Member has drawn attention. The local chief superintendent has, I believe, shared a platform with the hon. Member to discuss the matter at a local residents' meeting. This sort of participation does much to foster better understanding and good relations between the police and the public.
  In terms of police operations on the ground, I am told that regular patrols are deployed in the area concerned and action is taken where possible to deal with conduct that offends against the law. Generally, this has to be directed against soliciting by prostitutes which in time can reduce the nuisance of kerb-crawling. But the problem then tends to move to another area and police action there can have the effect that the prostitutes return to their former haunts. The Commissioner tells me that a close watch will continue to be kept on the situation

  445
  in the Bedford Hill area and that the local police will take such action as they can. I know, too, that careful note will be taken of what has been said tonight about the extent of the nuisance caused and the very real and understandable worries of those affected by it.
  I turn now to the law which the hon. Gentleman suggested is in need of reform. Until 1966 it was generally considered that kerb-crawling could be dealt with under section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, which makes it an offence for a man persistently to solicit or importune in a public place for immoral purposes. In 1966, however, the Divisional Court, in the case of Crook v. Edmondson—reported in 1966 2 Queen's Bench Reports, page 81—ruled that "immoral purposes" under this section did not include sexual intercourse between the accused man and the woman that he approached. It then became difficult for the police to deal with men soliciting women.
  The situation was recognised to be generally unsatisfactory and the specific problem of kerb-crawling was looked at by the working party on vagrancy and street offences in the context of a general review of this area of the law. In the course of the review it was suggested to the working party that what was required was a statutory reversal of Crook v. Edmonson so that section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act could once more apply to men who persistently solicited or importuned women in public places. But the views of the working party and of the Brennan report to which the hon. Gentleman referred were that this apparently simple solution was not the best and that a new offence should be created to deal with the situation. The details of that offence have been given to the House by the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Gentlemen rightly pointed out that it is four years since the working party reported and asked what action the Government now propose to take about kerb-crawling.
  As to the future, as I pointed out, kerb-crawling and, indeed, soliciting by men in any other way, are, to some extent at least, a concomitant to prostitutes carrying out their business in the streets. In our view, the whole question is merely
  446
  one aspect of the wider area of sexual offences. Even if we confine ourselves to the simple question of kerb-crawling, the paragraphs in the working party's report following the one quoted by the hon. Gentleman—that is, paragraphs 98 and 99—illustrate that there are issues at stake in this matter which make it less straightforward than the simple introduction of the enactment referred by by the hon. Gentleman would seem to suggest.
  In view of the time limit on this debate, I shall not read the list of problems and controversies referred to in the report, but they are substantial, and they show that it would be unwise simply to legislate on this matter without looking at sexual offences generally.
  Before the working party reported, the then Home Secretary had decided to refer the whole law on sexual offences to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which is being assisted by the Policy Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences. That was what was done. The previous Government and this Government thought it right not to deal with the problem in isolation. This is a very complex area of the law in which it would be wrong, in our view, to take action in advance of the committee's considered recommendations. When it has completed its review, it will be appropriate, in our view, for any legislation arising out of its recommendations to deal with kerb-crawling and at the same time to implement any other changes that are recommended and thought appropriate in this area of the law as a whole.
  I appreciate that it is disappointing for the hon. Gentleman, who has made a very sound case for the need for a change in the law which I have no difficulty in accepting, to be told that that must wait for a wider consideration of a group of offences. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if I believed that this was an offence which was quite unrelated to other matters, I would not seek to use the existence of the Criminal Law Revision Committee and the Policy Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences as a shield to protect myself or the Government against an accusation of inaction. But the problem of kerb-crawling is, and can readily be seen to be, related closely to prostitution more generally and the offences associated with that, as well as sexual offences as a whole.

  447
  Therefore I must say regretfully to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have taken the view that we must wait for the Criminal Law Revision Committee on Sexual Offences to report on these matters before legislating. But I am happy to take this opportunity to register my
  448
  shared concern with the hon. Gentleman about a mischief which he is right to underline.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o'clock am.

  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  Estuarine Areas (Toxic Pollutants)
  Estuarine Areas (Toxic Pollutants)
  Housing Provision (Co-ordination)
  Housing Provision (Co-ordination)
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Local Authority Manpower
  Local Authority Manpower
  Inner Urban Areas Programme (Wolverhampton)
  Inner Urban Areas Programme (Wolverhampton)
  Black Ground Allowance
  Black Ground Allowance
  Local Authority Expenditure (Boothferry)
  Local Authority Expenditure (Boothferry)
  Landscape Maintenance
  Landscape Maintenance
  Government Offices (Newcastle)
  Government Offices (Newcastle)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Public Inquiry (Eastbourne)
  Public Inquiry (Eastbourne)
AGRICULTURE. FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Beef
  Beef
  European Community (Surplus Foodstuffs)
  European Community (Surplus Foodstuffs)
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Green Pound
  Green Pound
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Children and Young Persons Act 1969
  Children and Young Persons Act 1969
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  National Health Service (Charges)
  National Health Service (Charges)
  Opticians Act 1958
  Opticians Act 1958
  Unemployment Benefit (Payment by Post)
  Unemployment Benefit (Payment by Post)
  Sickness Benefit
  Sickness Benefit
  Hospital Radio Services
  Hospital Radio Services
  Staffordshire (Operations and Consultations)
  Staffordshire (Operations and Consultations)
  Year of the Disabled
  Year of the Disabled
  Widows (Pensions)
  Widows (Pensions)
  Warnock Report
  Warnock Report
  Welfare Benefits
  Welfare Benefits
  "Income During Sickness: A New Strategy"
  "Income During Sickness: A New Strategy"
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Low Energy District Hospitals
  Low Energy District Hospitals
  Health Hazards (Micro-wave Appliances)
  Health Hazards (Micro-wave Appliances)
  Internal Sanitary Protection Tampons
  Internal Sanitary Protection Tampons
  Drugs (Cost)
  Drugs (Cost)
  "Communication Outlook"
  "Communication Outlook"
  Microwriter Device
  Microwriter Device
  Disabled Persons (Electronic Aids)
  Disabled Persons (Electronic Aids)
  Ophthalmic Operations (Waiting Time)
  Ophthalmic Operations (Waiting Time)
  Essential Services (Private Contractors)
  Essential Services (Private Contractors)
  Employers' Statutory Sick Pay Scheme
  Employers' Statutory Sick Pay Scheme
  Cervical Smear Tests
  Cervical Smear Tests
  Maternity Grants and Allowances
  Maternity Grants and Allowances
  Mr. Graham Turner (Pension)
  Mr. Graham Turner (Pension)
  Surgical Costs (Transfer Payments)
  Surgical Costs (Transfer Payments)
EMPLOYMENT
  Cattle Grids
  Cattle Grids
  Health and Safety Executive (Guidance Notes)
  Health and Safety Executive (Guidance Notes)
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Microwave Ovens
  Microwave Ovens
  Training Opportunities Schemes
  Training Opportunities Schemes
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Occupational Cancer
  Occupational Cancer
  Public and Press Relations
  Public and Press Relations
  Computer Programmers
  Computer Programmers
  Licensed Non-residential Trade Wages Council
  Licensed Non-residential Trade Wages Council
  Deaths at Work (Statistics)
  Deaths at Work (Statistics)
  Wolverhampton and the West Midlands
  Wolverhampton and the West Midlands
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Polytechnics (Financial Assistance)
  Polytechnics (Financial Assistance)
  Grants
  Grants
  Independent Further Education Establishments
  Independent Further Education Establishments
  Universities and Research Councils
  Universities and Research Councils
TRADE
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Duty-free Shops
  Duty-free Shops
  Solar Heating Systems (Trade Practices)
  Solar Heating Systems (Trade Practices)
  Motor Cars (International Price Comparisons)
  Motor Cars (International Price Comparisons)
  Liverpool Airport
  Liverpool Airport
  Cars (Imports and Exports)
  Cars (Imports and Exports)
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  Zimbabwe (Credit Facilities)
  Zimbabwe (Credit Facilities)
  Japanese Motor Vehicles
  Japanese Motor Vehicles
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Political Activities)
  Civil Servants (Political Activities)
WALES
  Public Services (Expenditure cuts)
  Public Services (Expenditure cuts)
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  NORTHAMPTON
  NORTHAMPTON
  TURRIFF
  TURRIFF
  SLOUGH
  SLOUGH
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
  INCOMES POLICY
  INCOMES POLICY
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
  DEPARTMENTAL SECURITY
  DEPARTMENTAL SECURITY
  PRESIDENT-ELECT REAGAN
  PRESIDENT-ELECT REAGAN
  GOVERNMENT POLICY
  GOVERNMENT POLICY
  LAW ENFORCEMENT (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  LAW ENFORCEMENT (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
SCOTLAND
  Residential Homes (Dundee)
  Residential Homes (Dundee)
  Social Work (Expenditure)
  Social Work (Expenditure)
  Welfare Rights Officers
  Welfare Rights Officers
ENERGY
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
INDUSTRY
  Hunterston Steel Plant
  Hunterston Steel Plant
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Manufacturing Output
  Manufacturing Output
  Welsh Development Agency (Pilot Loan Scheme)
  Welsh Development Agency (Pilot Loan Scheme)
  Calderdale
  Calderdale
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Soliciting (Statistics)
  Soliciting (Statistics)
  Drug Offenders (Kent)
  Drug Offenders (Kent)
  Assaults (London)
  Assaults (London)
  Migrant Workers
  Migrant Workers
  Prisoners (Civilian Clothing)
  Prisoners (Civilian Clothing)
  Open Channel Radio
  Open Channel Radio
  Replica Guns
  Replica Guns
  Public and Press Relations
  Public and Press Relations
  Performing Rights
  Performing Rights
  Deaths in Police Custody
  Deaths in Police Custody
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  United States Forces
  United States Forces
  Defence Expenditure (Moratorium)
  Defence Expenditure (Moratorium)
  OPPOSITION PARTIES (FINANCIAL AID)
  OPPOSITION PARTIES (FINANCIAL AID)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Poultrymeat Imports
  Poultrymeat Imports
  South-Western Mackerel Fishery
  South-Western Mackerel Fishery
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Miss Helen Smith (Death)
  Miss Helen Smith (Death)
  Cam Ranh Bay
  Cam Ranh Bay
  Public and Press Relations
  Public and Press Relations
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Farmers and Farm Workers (Income Tax)
  Farmers and Farm Workers (Income Tax)
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Building Societies (Income Tax)
  Building Societies (Income Tax)
  Revenue Forgone
  Revenue Forgone
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Domestic Rates
  Domestic Rates
  Imports (Manufactures)
  Imports (Manufactures)
  Public Sector Borrowing
  Public Sector Borrowing
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Income Tax Relief
  Income Tax Relief
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
TRANSPORT
  A614, Doncaster (Accidents)
  A614, Doncaster (Accidents)
  Overseas Driving Licences
  Overseas Driving Licences
  Okehampton Bypass
  Okehampton Bypass
  Goods and Passenger Vehicles (Inspection)
  Goods and Passenger Vehicles (Inspection)
ENVIRONMENT
  "A Nature Conservation Review"
  "A Nature Conservation Review"
  Mersey Estuary (Birds)
  Mersey Estuary (Birds)
  Wildlife and Countryside Bill
  Wildlife and Countryside Bill
  Public Rights of Way
  Public Rights of Way
  Regional Water Authorities
  Regional Water Authorities
  Poisons
  Poisons
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Members' Tea Room, House of Commons (Microwave Oven)
  Members' Tea Room, House of Commons (Microwave Oven)
  West Midlands (Economic Initiatives)
  West Midlands (Economic Initiatives)
  Former RAF Houses (Middleton St. George)
  Former RAF Houses (Middleton St. George)
  General Development Order
  General Development Order

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.
The Viscount Mersey—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

SOUTH AFRICA: MINIMUM WAGES
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to make sure that British firms in the Republic of South Africa conform to the British and EEC codes of conduct regarding minimum wages.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Government encourage British companies with interests in South Africa to report under the voluntary European code of conduct and to demonstrate that they are paying their black African employees not less than, at the very least, the minimum wages determined by the expert bodies producing subsistence data.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, the noble Lord said the Government "encourage" British companies. Would not the Government agree that the failure largely to apply these codes has been due to the fact that Governments have taken no action to implement them? Is it not the case that West Germany alone has even monitored the effectiveness of this code? Why do not the Government publish a list of the companies which are defaulting? I have a list of 10 prominent companies. Is it not unfair to those who do carry out the code that they should not be mentioned?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the reason why we do not publish the list is because, as my right honourable friend
1252
the Secretary of State for Trade said in another place on 27th June, to produce any list of companies which are paying employees below the lower datum level is impossible without introducing subjective judgments or uncertainties in interpretation.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the very comprehensive work carried out by the Confederation of British Industries with regard to all its member firms which have subsidiaries in the republic merits a high tribute? Is it not a fact that British firms, of all alien firms which have subsidiaries in the republic, have done more about raising wages than have firms in any other country? Furthermore, is the Minister aware that the business notes of Barclays Bank, which must be authoritative, show that over the past 10 years the advance in wages for blacks has been continuous on the basis of nearly 16 per cent. per annum, whereas that for whites has been only 10 per cent. per annum?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, it is perhaps worth saying that British companies operating in South Africa have a not unsatisfactory record. The Department of Trade's summary of reports made under the codes by companies for the 12 months ended 30th June 1979 showed that only 2 per cent. of the black African workforce in British companies had been paid wages below the lower level of the subsistence data used. We very much hope that the next summary, which will be available before long, will reveal that the percentage is even smaller, or perhaps has even been eliminated.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we give great credit to those companies which have done well in this respect? Is he further aware that it was the Labour Government who took the initiative over this and over bringing the EEC into it? Furthermore, is he aware that we should like the noble Lord to lend more strength to his elbow in obtaining perhaps more factual accounts—as, indeed, the German Government do?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the next report will relate to the l2 months ended 30th June, 1980. I cannot say

1253
when that will be available, but I hope it will be before too long. However, I could perhaps help the noble Baroness by saying that up to the end of last month the Department of Trade had received 107 reports from category "A" companies—that is from British companies having 50 per cent. or more of the equity in a South African company employing 20 or more black workers—and 29 reports from companies having a less detailed responsibility.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to consider two practical proposals to bring pressure upon companies which are continuing to pay wages under a living standard. First, could there not be a public inquiry, to which companies should be summoned, asking them to justify their conduct? Secondly, would it not be possible to stop investment in these companies, as proposed by the British Council of Churches?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am afraid that what the noble Lord proposes would produce a number of serious difficulties, but on the general point of taking power to enforce the code it is worth saying that delicate socio-economic matters of this kind do not readily lend themselves to legal regulation. There are serious difficulties about definitions—for example, of what is a subsistence wage in a particular place. Indeed, to import into the code sanctions for non-compliance would, apart from any other consideration, require the consent of all our partners in the Community.

THE HOUSING ACT 1980: SHORTHOLD PROVISIONS
2.43 p.m.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to announce the "shorthold" provisions of the Housing Act 1980.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, a commencement order was made on 7th November which will bring shorthold and the other main private rented sector provisions of the Housing Act 1980 into operation on 28th November.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that most helpful and informative reply.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister three brief questions. As he has told us, the orders are coming into effect shortly and, bearing in mind the advertising campaign mounted by the Government to promote the now even more untimely right to buy for council tenants, will the Government undertake to reassure tenants who may be confused by the introduction of short-hold that security of tenure for existing protected tenants is not being removed? Secondly, are the Government going to consult organisations which are expert in advising tenants on housing issues on the wording of the prescribed notice, since these organisations have great expertise and experience in making themselves understood by people who are not familiar with officialese? I understand that they have offered their help. Thirdly, what plans have the Government to monitor the use of shorthold tenancies and, in particular, any abuses which may occur?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I confirm that security is not removed, but the noble Baroness must not confuse the right to buy which she mentioned, and which, as she knows, has nothing to do with the private sector, with the shorthold provisions. These are entirely concerned with the private sector. I confirm, if anyone should still be in doubt, that those who have security will not in any way lose it, although, in the case of shorthold, it comes within the term of the agreed new lease.
As to the plans that we have for monitoring the success or otherwise of shorthold, of course we shall be watching it closely, as I am sure will everyone who is interested in this matter. I think the other question which the noble Baroness asked was whether the Government would look at

1255
the letters which go out, but I am afraid I did not quite get the point as I was busy writing.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, what I was concerned with was the publicity put out by the Government to explain to people in simple language and whether the Government would be seeking the help of the voluntary housing organisations, which have experience and expertise in dealing simply with these matters. That is very important.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, there will in fact be publicity, as was foreshadowed in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum to the Housing Bill. It will take the form of press advertisements and in addition an explanatory booklet, Shorthold Tenancies, is being produced and will be available, free, from rent offices, council offices and housing aid centres from 28th November.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does the Minister's reference to the shorthold provisions being available not require further clarification? Is he aware that vast numbers of tenants in the United Kingdom have just been subjected to a new registration which covers not two years, as provided for in the 1980 Act, but three years, as provided for in the 1977 Act, and, moreover, that, according to statements sent out by rent officers, there can be no further application for registration unless circumstances undergo a change? Therefore, how does the shorthold provision come in at all?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, the short-hold provision, as we went into it at great length when we were passing the Housing Bill here, is a new attempt to try to encourage landlords who have hitherto not brought forward their accommodation to do so, because they will know that they will get it back after the fixed term, within five years. We believe that it will bring that accommodation on to the market. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, the two things are not quite the same. Certainly his other concern about what the rent officers are doing as regards fixing rents within the Rent Acts themselves has nothing to do with shorthold, which is a totally new concept starting for the first time.
Lord SHINWELL: Then, my Lords, will the Minister answer this question: what redress is available to that vast number of tenants, probably running into hundreds of thousands, who have been subjected to the new registration and called upon to pay very high increases in rates according to the decision of the rent officer? What redress is available to them? How do they come into the 1980 Act, or is it not true—and is it not about time that the truth was told—that they cannot apply for a new registration for another three years?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, the 1980 Act in no way affects the rights of tenants under the previous legislation. It does not diminish them one iota and the redress—if that is the word—for those tenants who are unhappy about the new rents which are now fixed is to go to the rent assessment committees.

JUNIOR MINISTERS' REMUNERATION
2.49 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to announce the improvements to be made in the remuneration of junior Ministers in this House.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames): My Lords, as the Prime Minister recognised in her Statement to another place on 7th July, which I repeated in your Lordships' House later on the same day, the fact that junior Ministers in the House of Lords receive no salary in respect of their parliamentary duties is a very real problem. The Government are still considering what steps might be taken to resolve this.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he can give any indication as to the likely timing of a possible future Statement and whether

1257
he accepts that the position of certain junior Ministers in the House—perhaps particularly the Lords in Waiting—is, in both relative and absolute terms, most unfortunate?
Lord SOAMES: Yes, my Lords, there is no doubt about that, and indeed it was that fact which prompted the Prime Minister to make the Statement to which I have just referred. As to the timing, it is a complicated and somewhat detailed matter, more complicated than it looks on the surface, as we have found when we came to look into it—and no doubt others have found the same thing before. All I can assure my noble friend is that there will be another announcement as soon as possible, as soon as we have reached a conclusion.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: My Lords, may we take it that the Government's general policy of not more than 6 per cent. in the public sector will apply in this case?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, one of the problems, quite evidently, in a matter of this kind is the general economic position of the country. Inevitably, this has to be taken into account by Her Majesty's Government, but I would not like to go further than that in answering the noble Lord's question.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, while recognising that this is a slightly broader question, may I ask whether the position of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition will be considered when the Government are considering this particular question?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I do not quite know to which particular people on the Opposition Front Bench my noble friend is referring.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I rather think that the noble Lord has shot my fox. I was going to ask the noble Lord this: While acknowledging that it is never the right time to raise the salaries of anybody in the public service, especially in this House, may I ask whether he would remember the church mice, the unpaid Whips on the Opposition side? With
1258
my thanks to the noble Lord, may I just put that in his mind?
Lord SOAMES: Yes, my Lords, the noble Baroness has certainly put it in my mind. In order not to raise any false hopes, I think I should say to the noble Baroness that the people who are being considered are the equivalent in this House of those who get paid other than parliamentary salaries in another place.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, while not overlooking the feelings and claims of Opposition Whips, may I ask whether my noble friend would bear in mind the great distinction between them and Lords in Waiting and other junior Ministers, in as much as the latter category are debarred under the rules from earning a living in any other way?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, this is absolutely true. One category is prohibited from earning a living outside; others, we might say, are inhibited from earning a living outside. As my noble friend rightly says, there is a difference between the two, and, as I said, those whose pay is under some scrutiny at the moment are those in this House who have their equivalents in another place who are being paid beyond the parliamentary salary.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, does not this evident justice highlight the need for some kind of incomes policy which has been thought out?
Lord SOAMES: No, my Lords.

AIR FARES: UNAPPROVED RATES
2.54 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the sale of reduced air tickets by thousands of travel agents, besides being in breach of IATA regulations, is an infringement of any other regulation, or of the law.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the law is complex, but in general either an airline or agents selling tickets at an unapproved rate would be committing an offence. The detail is set out in paragraphs 15 to 21 of the report of the Working Party on Discounted Air Fares published in 1978. The working party also rightly noted that the best interests of all will be served by encouraging in every way the expansion of legitimate low fares, and we are seeking to persuade our European partners, for example, to allow lower fares to meet the needs of all classes of travellers.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him what the Government intend to do, or what they can do? What is happening at the moment is that the legitimate travel agents who obey the law, or the rules laid down by IATA, are rapidly losing their clients because what they call the bucket shops are getting tickets from the very airlines who are, under IATA, suggesting that this should not be done. In fact, they are being undermined by the very people who they want to protect their own rules.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the fundamental way in which we seek to correct this difficulty is, as I said in the main Answer, by encouraging and promoting a reduction in real terms of air fares right across the board. It has in the past proved very difficult to obtain sufficient evidence to secure a conviction in a matter such as this, but I cannot say that that will not happen in the future.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, in order to clear up the complexity of this matter, is it not correct that the airlines employ two different types of retailer, one, the legitimate agents who have to sell tickets at published fares, and, secondly, the bucket shops, who receive tickets from these same airlines which they then sell under the counter? Secondly, if there is the surplus capacity available that we hear so much about today, and discounted tickets have to be sold by the airlines to fill that capacity, could these not be sold over the counter by the legitimate agents?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, there has been a steady decline, in real terms if not in cash terms, of fare levels recently, particularly, for example, on the North Atlantic routes, and I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the heyday of the bucket shops, as they are called, is over. How the bucket shops come by their supply of tickets is not always clear, but the airlines for the most part deny that they are responsible.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that there are many people who think that IATA is not a panacea of good for all travellers, and perhaps it might be better if it were totally abolished?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, with respect, I think that is another question.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, in view of the over-employment of both the courts and the prisons, could they not be let off dealing with people who merely try and get us things cheaper?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, that is an interesting thought, but the fact remains that it is the duty of the courts to try offenders who are properly prosecuted.
Earl AMHERST: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us if the selling of these tickets in any way impinges on the Government's approval of the international fares structures agreed between the designated operators under the Bermuda formula?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, international air fares are agreed between the two Governments involved. In the case of traffic between the United Kingdom and the United States, which is governed by the Bermuda 2 Agreement, as it is called, a fare provision is included in that agreement.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, is it not correct that the air tickets must come from somewhere, and would it not be a good idea to set up a Select Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to get this matter sorted out and dealt with?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the tickets do indeed come from somewhere, but I am sorry to say that a good many of them are stolen.

RAMPTON HOSPITAL: BOYNTON REPORT
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lady Young will repeat a Statement being made in another place on Rampton Hospital.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT (AGGREGATION, REQUIREMENTS AND RESOURCES) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 1980
2.59 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that the Supplementary Benefit (Aggregation, Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations be approved. The subject matter of these regulations is complex. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who, I assume, will be speaking from the Liberal Benches, received the information about this: both copies of the regulations that this House has already approved and these amending regulations of those regulations, because I think it is for the convenience of those noble Lords who wish to follow this discussion to have all these matters to hand.
These regulations amend the separate instruments which together form the basis of the calculation of a claimant's weekly entitlement: the aggregation regulations, which are concerned with questions of who is to be treated as responsible for another person, and whether one person is to be treated as a dependant of another so that the two of them form a single unit for benefit purposes: the requirement regulations, which set out how the three types of requirement—normal, additional, and housing—are to be calculated; and the resources regulations, which provide for the calculation of capital and income, whether it is to be taken into account in full or in part or disregarded altogether.
1262
I do not intend to go through the amendments one by one to explain their precise effect—and nor, indeed, do I think that the House would wish me to do so—though I shall refer to a number of them in the course of my remarks. I shall try to answer any particular queries. What I shall do is to explain to your Lordships why these regulations are before you about four months after the making of the regulations which they amend, and before those regulations have come into effect.
The Government's decision, following the review of the supplementary benefits scheme and the publication of the report Social Assistance for public discussion, that the rules of the scheme should be set out in regulations, was a decision of considerable significance. It was a decision to strengthen the concept of entitlement of benefit as a right. As annual reports by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, Social Assistance, and comment and criticism from claimants, their representatives, and academics have all agreed, the growth of discretion in the supplementary benefits scheme means that entitlement has become a somewhat blurred matter. We concluded that only by putting the rules into law could we hope to give more permanent substance to "entitlement".
Even so, we recognise that in the regulations there are still areas at which judgment and discretion will have to be exercised. That is inevitable in a scheme which must try to take account of the enormous variety of individuals' circumstances. But here again we have made a significant change by providing for a right of appeal on a point of law to the Social Security Commissioners. Decisions on such appeals will form a body of case-law governing later decisions by benefit officers and appeal tribunals, and will be particularly valuable in providing guidance on the interpretation and application of provisions which refer to, say, what is "reasonable" or "appropriate".
With these regulations, and another eight instruments also laid recently, and the six instruments laid in July, the process of setting out the rules in law is completed—or perhaps I should say, completed for the time being, since we shall be monitoring the effect of the regulations very carefully. As part of this, we shall

1263
look at how the new arrangements work in practice, and continue to look for further ways of simplifying the scheme. Fifteen instruments in all, or 13 if one excludes those two of them which amend others, make up a very substantial body of law—at a rough count, somewhere in the region of 200 pages. The first six sets come to over 90 pages, and, within that, the three sets amended by the instrument we are considering today come to over 50. In an exercise of that size it is inevitable, if much to be regretted, that there should have been errors—wrong references, for instance, and minor lapses of drafting which could none the less have significant effects. That is one of the reasons why we have these amendment regulations before us today.
The second reason concerns the sheer size of the task. Your Lordships will know that the annual job of putting into effect the uprating of the supplementary benefit of over three million claimants each November has to start in the summer. In order that that work could proceed we planned the work of preparing regulations so as to bring forward first those provisions which affected the rights of the great majority of claimants. To have considered at the same time the rules for small, exceptional groups—and such rules are, almost by definition, complicated—would have held up the publication of the main rules. That is why the provisions affecting polygamous relationships appear in these amending regulations. That is why the provisions for calculating the benefit which can be paid during a limited period after an unmarried couple have been determined to be living together as husband and wife are included in these regulations.
The third reason has to do with timing. While the first six sets of regulations were being prepared, the Housing Act 1980 was still going through Parliament. The provisions of the Act relating to the registration of rents and purchase by sitting tenants have consequences for supplementary benefit provision. But it was only after that Act had received the Royal Assent that we could fully consider those implications and make appropriate amendments to regulations in Part IV of the requirements regulations dealing with housing requirements.
1264
The fourth reason is as follows. Since the regulations were published in the summer they have been studied by many people with an interest in them. Pressure groups, members of the tribunals who will be hearing appeals against decisions given under the regulations and the officials who will be working from the regulations. From all those sources comments and queries have come in, on points where the meaning has been less clear than we thought, or where the effect has been thought to be unduly harsh—or even unduly lax. We have looked at all these points carefully, and some of the amendments now proposed are our response to them—for instance, in the resources regulations, the definition of "liable relative" and the treatment of sums paid by liable relatives.
There is one further point that I should like to mention. When we debated the requirements and resources regulations earlier this year, considerable anxiety was expressed about the complexity of the regulations. I do not pretend that they are easy to understand—the law seldom is, and rules which are themselves complex cannot always be simply expressed without imprecision and ambiguity. But I said on that earlier occasion that a new edition of the Supplementary Benefits Handbook, explaining the scheme in simple terms for claimants and their advisers, would be published before the regulations came into force. I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that that handbook will be published on 13th November. I am sure that this will be a great help to expert and non-expert alike in understanding the regulations.
My Lords, as I have said, we will do our best to explain any particular points of difficulty which may be raised today, either during the course of the debate or in correspondence. I commend these amendment regulations to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Aggregation, Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1980, laid before the House on 27th October, be approved.—(Baroness Young.)
3.8 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think we are grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for endeavouring

1265
to clarify the statutory instrument now before us. I would point out to your Lordships that on two or three occasions the noble Baroness drew attention to the fact that this is a highly complex instrument. I venture to suggest that there is probably no one in your Lordships' House, with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who even begins to understand what this instrument is about.
It is quite disgraceful that a Government should come to this House and produce a statutory instrument which has to be introduced by drawing attention to its complexity and then saying that it is difficult to understand. What right have a Government to introduce an instrument of this kind and to ask your Lordships to accept it when I venture to suggest, as I have already done, that, with certain notable exceptions, not one of us really begins to understand what it is about? The Government should withdraw it and take another opportunity of putting before your Lordships an instrument that they can explain in terms that we in your Lordships' House can understand and follow.
The noble Baroness has quite rightly said that separate regulations were issued in July and August. That is true. There was a statutory instrument, No. 982, which was made on 14th July last and laid before Parliament on 17th July, which dealt with the Supplementary Benefit (Aggregation) Regulations 1980. It was followed on 15th August by the Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Regulations 1980, No. 1300. And that was followed on 29th August by the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Regulations 1980, No. 1299. Less than three months later we are faced with the present draft instrument, which is now before your Lordships, which incorporates all three—the Supplementary Benefit (Aggregation, Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1980. So within a period of less than three months amendments have had to be made to each of those instruments.
It is perfectly true that they stem from the long and detailed discussion of the Social Security Act 1980. The fact that the Government now find it necessary to amend the regulations after a period of
1266
about three months and, I would remind your Lordships, before the Act comes into operation, supports the view that we took at the time when we discussed the Social Security Act 1980, that the Government were not giving enough thought, time and consideration to the effects that the 1980 Act would have.
We had the farce of dealing with the Social Security (No. 2) Bill while we were still discussing the Social Security (No. 1) Bill. This House and another place were put to the inconvenience of discussing a No. 1 Bill when the Government had to introduce a No. 2 Bill to put right a number of matters in the Social Security (No. 1) Bill. At the time we made it clear that there needed to be consultation on the detailed contents of the regulations before they were put before Parliament. But we were told, together with the organisations that have a contribution to make in this field, that it was not possible for those consultations to take place because of the tight timetable. When will the Government learn that there is a great deal of competence and knowledge in this field outside Parliament, and that they do not possess a monopoly of brain and ability in this particular field?
We should not be presented with an instrument of this kind affecting (shall I say?) the lives of millions of people unless and until those organisations which act on their behalf, advise, guide and befriend them have had an opportunity to express their points of view. I am sorry to say this, but it must be said; I get the impression that health and social security do not figure high on the Government's list of priorities.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Oh, no, my Lords.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Oh, yes, my Lords. If they figured high, the Government would not have undertaken some of the most appalling cuts that they have made and are making in the field of social security. If the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, does not agree with me on that, I think that he will agree with me on my next point. The Government think that it is certainly not important enough for this House to have a full-time Minister at the Department of Health and Social

1267
Security, a department which I believe spends more money in the course of the year than any other department. We should have in this House, whatever his or her status may be, a full-time Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security on the Government Front Bench. We had one in the last Government, albeit the lowest form of animal life for something like four and three-quarter years, but at least it was put right for the last three or four months, and we did have an Under-Secretary. It is not just a question of money. It is a question not only of principle but of dealing properly with this House.
I should like to ask why there was not more consultation with outside organisations before the original regulations were made, and how many of the present amendments are the result of queries raised and suggestions made to the department by non-governmental organisations. It really is futile to go through this particular instrument. Wherever you read, you are referred either to one Act or another Act, or to previous instruments. The noble Baroness said that it must be considered along with two others. It may be necessary to consider it along with four others. This is supposed to be an exercise in simplification. I do not suppose that many of your Lordships have bothered to read the draft instrument. I do not blame you. It is an appalling document. In the explanatory notes on the last two pages you get paragraphs of between 20 and 25 lines. So you go on and on, and you get one-third of the way through and you have forgotten what the previous five or six lines say.
In all the years that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have never ever seen what I call such an appalling document. It should be simple; it should be straight-forward; it should say what it intends to do without having to refer the reader to one other, two other, or three other documents. If this is an exercise in simplification, I sincerely hope that the Government will think twice before introducing any other draft instrument. But, as I understand it, it means that the amendment regulations make it necessary for those wanting to understand the requirements and the resources regulations to read, as the
1268
noble Baroness herself has said, at least two other sets of regulations.
I find it extremely difficult to understand Regulation 9 on page 4, which amends Regulation 11 of the resources regulations—presumably that is the one that was made on 15th August. When can we hope to have these regulations consolidated? Paragraph 13 of the schedule on pages 8 and 9 deals with security of tenure for council tenants who increased their housing costs by buying their homes, and they will not have mortgage interest payments met in full. I wonder what that means. It certainly is not clear to me. I do not expect the noble Baroness to be able to deal fully with all these matters today, and I do not ask her to do so. But does this not mean that the Department of the Environment will be giving tenants the right to buy, while the Department of Health and Social Security will be penalising those who do? That is my interpretation. If so, it is a very curious regulation.
One could go on for a long time, but I do not think that either myself or the noble Baroness will be able to help your Lordships understand reasonably well this draft instrument because it is so complex. These regulations are very unsatisfactory and very involved, and those who have to advise claimants will have a daunting and difficult task. These regulations ought not to have been presented to your Lordships in this form. Draft statutory instruments are supposed to be able to give people a clear and precise indication of what they set out to do. You could not say this of this present one.
I suggest to the Government that they take it back. We shall be told that all these come into force on 24th November, a matter of something like 13 days, and I am sure that we shall be told there is not time to do it. But this has been rushed through in a most disgraceful fashion. When the previous regulations were being considered in another place—and I do not think that anybody will deny that these regulations are of supreme importance in the administration of new schemes that the Government envisage for supplementary benefit in the future—half a day was allowed for these regulations, to which I have been referring, to be considered. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that it cannot be left like this.

1269
Our suggestion on this side is that they should be taken back, otherwise we certainly could not approve them in their present form.
3.22 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Baroness for her explanation of the purpose of these amendment regulations. I am grateful to her for providing the background papers for the debate to which she referred. We are discussing the commencement of this new supplementary benefit system later this month, and it is disturbing that as we do so we should hear rumours of a cut in the real value of supplementary benefits. I hope that those rumours will prove to be false.
We have already had 56 pages of regulations under these three headings, "Aggregation, Requirements and Resources", and now, before the scheme is implemented, we have a further 12 pages of amendments to the original 56 pages. I wonder what we can expect when the regulations have actually been in operation and no doubt further errors and omissions are discovered. I hope that the amended regulations will be published shortly so that it will not be necessary for people who want to understand what they are about to read two complicated sets of regulations.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether the handbook to which she referred, and which is to be available on 13th of this month, and the leaflets which I understand are also to be available will take these amendments into account. One is bound to ask with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, whether there was adequate consultation with organisations with an interest in this field before the regulations were drafted. I would repeat the question which the noble Lord put: How many of the amendments which we now have before us arose out of queries raised with the Department of Health and Social Security by nongovernmental organisations?
Like the noble Baroness, I am struck by the appalling complexity of the regulations, although she did not use the word "appalling", but she admitted the complexity. The treatment of maintenance under Regulation 11 of the resources regulations as amended by Regulation 9
1270
of the amendment regulation is a case in point, and has already been drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell.
As I understand it, Regulation 11 of the resources regulations provides—and the noble Baroness will no doubt correct me when she replies if I am wrong—that where a lump sum payment is made by a liable relative for the benefit of a claimant or a claimant and any dependant, this is attributed as income to be spread over a number of weeks. The number of weeks is determined by taking the amount of supplementary pension, or supplementary allowance, which would have been paid but for this lump sum, adding £2 to it, and dividing that total into the lump sum. The resulting figure to the nearest whole number is the number of weeks. But where periodical payments are being made at the same time as a lump sum by the liable relative, the lump sum will only be taken into account as income where the benefit officer thinks it reasonable to do so. That, as I understand it, is what is in Regulation 11.
The amendment to this regulation, Regulation 9 of the amendment regulations, takes out this final proviso with regard to simultaneous payment of a lump sum and a periodical payment. It substitutes a new provision removing the benefit officer's discretion. Perhaps I could be permitted to read the new provision, and possibly noble Lords will try to put themselves in the position of a claimant wondering what his situation is.
"Paragraph (3) shall not apply to a lump sum in any case in which the liable relative is making to or in respect of the member of the assessment unit to or in respect of whom it is paid periodical payments at a rate of an amount equal to or exceeding that specified in paragraph (3)(a), but excluding for this purpose the sum of £2.00 there mentioned, or paragraph (3)(b) as appropriate ('the specified rate'); and in any case where he ceases to make such payments or is making them only at a lower rate (whether initially, or because the specified rate has increased and the periodical payments have not correspondingly increased, or because the periodical payments have been reduced), paragraph (3) shall apply with the modification, in any case except one in which the periodical payments have ceased, that the lump sum is attributable at a rate equal to the difference between the rate specified in paragraph (3)(a) or (b) as appropriate and the periodical payment."
That is one sentence.
What that appears to mean is—and again the noble Baroness will correct

1271
me if I am wrong—that the procedure for arriving at the number of weeks which I described earlier will not apply to a lump sum where the periodical payment is equal to, or exceeds, the supplementary pension or allowance being paid. Where the periodical payment is being paid at a lower rate, the procedure will apply but subject to the modification that the lump sum is attributable at a rate equal to the difference between the supplementary pension or allowance plus £2 and the rate of the periodical payment. Where the periodical payment ceases, the original procedure will apply.
Arising out of that, I have one question which I should like to put to the noble Baroness. Does this mean that the difference is divided into the lump sum to discover the number of weeks in which this difference will be attributed as income, or does it mean that the lump sum is assumed, so long as it is not spent, to be producing an income equal to the difference? I should have thought that the former was in fact the correct interpretation, but the background brief says this:
"But if the periodical payments fall below the level of supplementary benefit, then the lump sum will be treated as producing an income which, when added to the periodical payments, equals that level".
That seems to suggest that perhaps the second interpretation is the right one.
Whatever the right answer to that question, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that these are indeed complex regulations. The Government say, and the noble Baroness has said it this afternoon, that with so many on supplementary benefit as there now are we must have everything set out in detail with a considerable curtailment of discretion. We on these Benches have been saying that it is much better to take large numbers off supplementary benefit and retain the discretion for a very much smaller number of supplementary benefit claimants. We have seen the tax credit system as being the means of doing this, because it takes large numbers off supplementary benefit. We shall not get away from the kind of complication which I have described unless we have a thorough overhaul of the whole of our tax and social security system such as a tax credit
1272
scheme would provide. I am convinced that the Government will have to come to that solution in the long run.
3.30 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will achieve any measure of the simplicity which we all desire if he succeeds in changing our social security system into a tax credit one. If the noble Lord had seen, as I have, drafts of what something like that looks like, it may have many merits but simplicity is not among its more conspicuous ones. Indeed, if one takes the two most complex aspects of Government—social security, on the one hand, and taxation, on the other—and mixes them up together, I can assure the noble Lord that though the result may be palatable it is not very easily comprehensible, save by people who have devoted a number of years of study to it. I know that the noble Lord and his noble friends are great fans of the tax credit system, but I hope he will not mislead himself into the belief that this is a simple solution. It may be a solution but simplicity, I beg him to believe, he will not find.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has the enviable quality, among many other enviable qualities, of being able to work himself up into a lather of indignation about almost any subject. I am bound to say that I thought he had excelled himself this afternoon when he stood at that Box demanding that these regulations be withdrawn, with a tone of passion and sincerity which is all his own. Of course, regulations of this sort are not easy to comprehend on direct reading. Indeed, I agree very much with his general view that social security regulations and, indeed, legislation have grown appallingly complex with the years, generally as the result of well-meaning attempts by Governments of all sorts to bring greater justice and equity into the system. The more justice and equity one brings into the system, the more complexity comes with it, and on the whole we are the victims of the good intentions of our predecessors.
When the noble Lord gets indignant about the complexity of these regulations I think he really is ignoring what they are. As the first paragraph of the explanatory note makes clear, they are simply a series of amendments to the

1273
main basic regulations. No power on earth can draft a sheet of amendments so that it makes easy, straightforward reading. If the noble Lord doubts that I beg him to look at an old copy of the Marshalled List of amendments on the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, which I think he would have found just as difficult if he had started to read through it. I beg him not to put too much weight or too much emphasis on the idea that these regulations should be rejected because they are complex. No one can draft a whole series of amendments without their being complex.
I should have thought the noble Lord would welcome the efforts of the Government, having published the earlier regulations, to make sure that they were right. No doubt the noble Baroness will answer his question as to the extent to which these amendments derive from representations made to the department, but in the normal way I should have expected them to embody many of the views that have been expressed, as he suggested they should be, to the department. As the noble Baroness told us, others rectify plain errors in the original, rather lengthy documents. Surely that is a matter which the noble Lord should welcome. He noticed that I demurred when he made a general observation to the effect that this Government did not attach much importance to social security. He sought to reinforce that by the curious argument, coming from that Bench, that there was not in this House a Minister who had a seat in that department.
I always welcome speeches, particularly from that Bench, which suggest that the Government should be even more fully represented in this House. I think that shows a proper respect for the continuing importance of this House in our constitution. But it comes rather oddly from the noble Lord. It is true that he himself most gallantly represented that department, as he himself said, in this House for a number of years, but at the same time the Government of which he was an ornament had in this House no representative whatever of the Treasury; and perhaps, if I may adopt the noble Lord's argument, he is thereby suggesting that the Government did not really attach much importance to the financial and
1274
economic affairs of the nation, the consequences of which we may well have seen. So that is not a very substantial argument.
I really rise, having said that, to ask my noble friend one question about Regulatioh 2; it appears in paragraph 3, dealing with polygamous relationship. I understand this is a new provision and is not in substance an amendment of the existing regulations. I hope your Lordships will not misunderstand me when I say that I have a long-standing interest in this subject. If I may explain: when I was Minister of Pensions and National Insurance I had to decide the interesting question, as classification questions are for the Minister, as to the position when a gentleman of the Moslem faith died in Cardiff, leaving behind him four widows and 17 children. I had to take the decision as to the national insurance treatment in that case, and for better or worse I ruled that the senior widow, that is, as it were, the senior one in terms of appointment, drew the widow's pension and allowance was made in respect of all the children. No doubt further thought has been given to this over the years.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness a little bit more about this provision in respect of polygamous relationships. In view of the fact that bigamy is still a criminal offence in this country, I take it that the polygamous relationships covered by this regulation are confined to those people who contracted polygamous marriages in countries where polygamy was lawful. I should assume that a polygamous marriage made in this country, which I should have thought, prima facie, would be not only illegal but criminal, ought not to attract the social security benefits given by these regulations. Perhaps the noble Baroness would spell out that it is only, if I may so put it, lawful polygamy which draws the benefit from this.
3.38 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we have had a short and, I think, useful debate on these regulations. I should like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his intervention and for explaining very fully to the House why all regulations of this sort need to be as complicated as they are. That is not to say that one should not attempt to

1275
understand them or to give a relatively simple explanation for those who are to work with them; but it is inevitable and, as I said in my opening remarks, these particular regulations, which are amending others produced relatively recently, do appear to be more complicated but are very necessary indeed.
First, I should like to turn to and try to answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I am very glad indeed to see the noble Lord in his place today. I understand that he had an accident yesterday and I am glad that he is fit enough to come here.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness YOUNG: At the end of his remarks the noble Lord argued very strongly, and quite seriously, that we should not accept these regulations today. I would urge him to consider just where we would be if I agreed to withdraw the regulations, as he recognised that there would not be time to rewrite them and therefore their effects would not come into force on 24th November. After all, many of the regulations are those that he and his colleagues would wish to see put into practice. I really do not think it would be in the best interests of the beneficiaries to withdraw them.
The noble Lord asked whether enough consideration had been given to the supplementary benefit changes. I assure him that there was extensive discussion of the original Social Security (No. 1) Bill and that the Supplementary Benefit Review involved an exercise in open government, probably the most extensive exercise of this nature undertaken, and that it included discussion with pressure groups. I hope the noble Lord will recognise that the changes that will come about in November confer considerable advantages on some claimants and undoubtedly make a better and clearer scheme.
I realise—the noble Lord, Lord Banks, made this clear—that these regulations are complicated. That is why we have paid a great deal of attention to the leaflets and Supplementary Benefits Handbook, which will be published on 13th November, a copy of which will be available in the Library. This will be of advantage to all noble Lords who follow
1276
these matters, who may be approached by pressure groups and interested parties, who may have individual cases brought to their notice and who may wish to make some comment on future regulations. The Supplementary Benefits Handbook will be there of course for supplementary benefit officers to use because, as noble Lords recognise, the new system will mean that there will be as little as possible discretion for supplementary benefit officers and that the rules will be laid down. They will be in the handbook in this form so as to be readily intelligible.
I hope that answers the criticism that we are dealing with a number of very complicated regulations which, from the point of view of the beneficiaries and those who are administering them, are too complicated to understand and are too complicated for those who wish, if there are difficulties, to try to amend them. This will be a way for those who are interested and who may have worries about the matter of getting the information so they may put matters right. We have also paid a lot of attention to giving claimants written notice of their assessments so at least they will know what is being done. On the question of consolidation of these regulations and the Acts, that is done in what has come to be called the Yellow Book. That is revised every six months and a copy of it is available in the Library. For those who wish to look at the law as it stands, a copy is available, updated, so it is possible to see where we have reached on all these regulations and how they should be read.
I come to a detailed question which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, raised; namely, the question of the inconsistency between the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of the Environment on the purchase of houses by sitting tenants. Perhaps I should make clear that there is no inconsistency between the regulation in paragraph 13 of the schedule, which is in addition to Regulation 20, and the regulations made under the Housing Act 1980 governing the conditions of entitlement to local authority mortgages. The latter make it clear that supplementary benefit will not be included as an eligible source of income where a local authority assess a prospective purchaser's level of eligibility for a mortgage. It is clear therefore that most supplementary

1277
benefit claimants living alone will not be able to buy their council house, simply because they cannot afford to do so. However, where there are other people in the house, such as working sons or daughters, and the sale is to be made jointly, but the income for the mortgage eligibility purposed is that of the working son or daughter, the regulation before the House simply ensures that supplementary benefit is not increased.
This is a situation which the Supplementary Benefits Commission have encountered on a number of occasions and details of it are set out in the Supplementary Benefits Handbook. For the benefit of anyone who wishes to study this point, in the 1980 edition it is in paragraph 6(19). This amendment carries forward the policy which they have been following, and I am sure the House will agree that it would be quite wrong for supplementary benefit to be increased where there is no good reason to do so, and if the tenancy is secure there can be no good reason for supplementary benefit to help fund the purchase of a capital acquisition in this way.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked a number of questions, including whether there was to be a cut in the real value of supplementary benefit. I do not think he would expect me to comment on that, as clearly no announcement on the matter has been made and therefore it is speculation at this point. I assure him that the handbook to which I have referred takes the amendments which we are discussing today into account. He asked whether pressure group suggestions had been taken into account. There is no doubt that some of the amendments come from pressure groups; some of course have come from officials of the supplementary benefit scheme and some have come from both pressure groups and officials. I do do not have the figures available of how many amendments are the result of the concern expressed by pressure groups, but I assure him that their views have been taken into account.
The noble Lord then asked a somewhat complicated question about lump sum payments, and I will attempt to explain the position to him. However, if at the end he is not satisfied, perhaps it would be better to pursue the matter by correspondence; but I hope I can give him the answer. He asked about the treatment
1278
of maintenance payments under the resources regulation No. 11(3). That deals with two types of maintenance payments: periodical payments, which are by far the most common, and lump sum payments; and this reflects the view that it is the liable person and not the state who should maintain dependants.
The amendments to the regulations reproduce existing policy in practice; we are not introducing anything new. Periodical payments are to be taken into account without disregard. If an individual is paying adequate periodical payments and in addition pays a lump sum, then the lump sum is to be treated as a capital receipt. If adequate periodical payments are not being made and a lump sum is paid, it will be treated as a source of weekly income, and the regulation indicates how much and for how long in different combinations of circumstances. The general effect is that the lump sum will be used to top up an inadequate periodical payment or replace it, if none is being made. There is nothing more than that to the regulation, as I have set it out, and it is lengthy not because the principle is complicated but because it is necessary to explain what will happen in many different situations.
The noble Lord then asked a question about the interpretation of the regulation and I would confirm that his first interpretation of the treatment of lump sums was correct; in other words, the difference between the full level of liability and the actual level of periodical payments is the divisor of the lump sum. The result of the division is the number of weeks it is taken into account. The divisor is the rate at which it is taken into account. I hope that explanation is satisfactory but, as I say, if it is not then perhaps we might continue it by way of correspondence.
Turning finally to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter about polygamous marriages, and I am sure we accept his interpretation of his interest in this matter, where there is an unlawful polygamous marriage it would be a matter for the normal criminal law. The second and third marriages would be unlawful. But if the man and his wife or wives and the husbands were all living together, they would be treated as unmarried couples, for the simple reason that the scheme treats men and

1279
women living together as husband and wife in the same way whether they are married or not. To explain the particular regulation, where a man is living with two or more wives or a woman with two or more husbands in polygamous marriages which are legal under the law of certain countries—the point with which my noble friend was concerned—they are entitled to supplementary benefit and the benefit would be worked out in a particular way.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to say whether there is any limit to the size of a harem for which a person can claim supplementary benefit?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am sure that that is just the kind of point that will have to be answered in future regulations.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I say that she mentioned a handbook that she said would be placed in the Library? I wonder whether copies of it could also be placed in the Printed Paper Office so as to be available to any noble Lords who wish to study the matter more closely. I also wonder whether a simple pamphlet could be issued before 24th November, so that ordinary members of the public can apprise themselves of the new regulations.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, may I make it quite clear that what we are attempting to do is to bring all the regulations together so that there will be the minimum of discretion for supplementary benefit officers? It has not been the practice to place such information in the Printed Paper Office. These types of book are often quite expensive, but a copy of the handbook will be available in the Library for any noble Lord who wants to find out about the particular regulations. There will also be available leaflets giving explanations of particular parts of the regulations, because, after all, most claimants will not want to look at all the regulations. We are to state in writing to claimants what their assessment will be, so that they can see it, which I think will be an advantage to them.
No one is wishing to prevent anyone from finding out about the regulations,
1280
since this involves a very important matter. I hope that, if matters are brought to the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, and he feels concern about them and would like to know the position, he will take the opportunities that are open to him. He can raise the matter either with myself or with my colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Security, by letter, or he can do so by any of the other means open to noble Lords.
Everyone has an interest in getting the regulations right, and clearly if we have not got the matter right, there must be a way of altering the regulations. I hope that placing the handbook in the Library will enable noble Lords to take an opportunity to look at these matters, if they wish to do so.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask whether she would not agree that the regulations are appallingly complex? Would she give an undertaking on the part of the Government that the complexity will be looked at before looking into the provisions in the individual regulations?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, heard the remarks of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter on this aspect. The regulations are to a certain extent historical, and they have been evolved over a long period of time. As the noble Lord said quite rightly, the more we try to find regulations to meet various different aspects the more complicated the regulations become. One of the difficulties has arisen because considerable discretion has been given to supplementary benefit officers in their interpretation of the regulations, with the result that, so far as the beneficiary was concerned, the amounts of money and so on—the rules—have varied from place to place. It is in an attempt to get rid of this inequity and differing treatment in one part of the country as compared with another that we have brought the supplementary benefit regulations together and tried to eliminate virtually all the discriminatory possibilities on the part of supplementary benefit officers.
Clearly we want to make the regulations intelligible, but the situation is very

1281
difficult and it would be quite wrong to give an undertaking that this could easily be done. It might be helpful if I were to add that the handbook will, we hope, be available in supplementary benefit offices up and down the country for the benefit of officers, and that the pamphlet on the new scheme, as well as circulars, will be distributed to all local authorities. Of
course we wish to have the information as widely available as possible.
3.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 125; Not-Contents, 82.

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Energlyn, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Adrian, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Onslow, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Exeter, M.

Orkney, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Faithfull, B.

Pender, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fortescue, E.

Porritt, L.

Allerton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Radnor, E.

Alport, L.

Gage, V.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gainford, L.

Redmayne, L.

Auckland, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Reigate, L.

Avon, E.

Glasgow, E.

Robbins, L.

Baker, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Barnby, L.

Grantchester, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Berkeley, B.

Greenway, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bessborough, E.

Gridley, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Bolton, L.

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

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Boothby, L.

Selkirk, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Bradford, E.

Hawke, L.

Sharples, B.

Brentford, V.

Hayter, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Henley, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Caccia, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Somers, L.

Caithness, E.

Hillingdon, L.

Spens, L.

Camoys, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Stamp, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathcarron, L.

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

Ironside, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kimberley, E.

Strathspey, L.

Chesham, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Swinfen, L.

Clancarty, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Teviot, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Clwyd, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Todd, L.

Cockfield, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tranmire, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Luke, L.

Trefgarne, L. [Teller.]

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Trenchard, V.

Davidson, V.

McFadzean, L.

Trumpington, B.

de Clifford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ullswater, V.

De Freyne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Derwent, L.

Mar, C.

Vickers, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Marley, L.

Vivian, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Mersey, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Eccles, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Effingham, E.

Morris, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Amulree, L.

Brockway, L.

Foot, L.

Ardwick, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Aylestone, L.

Byers, L.

Gardiner, L.

Bacon, B.

Chitnis, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Balogh, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Banks, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Gosford, E.

Beswick, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Birk, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Gregson, L.

Blease, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Grey, E.

Blyton, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Hale, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Hampton, L.

Bowden, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Henderson, L.

Hughes, L.

Milverton, L.

Stone, L.

Janner, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jeger, B.

Pargiter, L.

Strauss, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Peart, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Leatherland, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Underhill, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Plant, L.

Walston, L.

Leonard, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Listowel, E.

Rochester, L.

Whaddon, L.

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

Ross of Marnock, L.

White, B.

Segal, L.

Wigoder, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Shackleton, L.

Willis, L.

Longford, E.

Shinwell, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stedman, B.

Winstanley, L.

McNair, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Milford, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

RAM PTON HOSPITAL: BOYNTON REPORT
4.3 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Statement is as follows:
"Following the showing of a programme on Yorkshire TV on 22nd May 1979, I invited Sir John Boynton to lead a team to review the management of Rampton Special Hospital. I am today publishing the team's very thorough report. Sir John and his fellow members had a most difficult task and I am deeply grateful to them for the work they have done.
"The report praised both the dedication and the hard work of most staff at the hospital, and many of the facilities there. I endorse this praise. But the team was also critical of the way the hospital is managed and called for major improvements in the treatment and care of patients. Altogether there are 205 recommendations and suggestions. Some of the main proposals were discussed by the team with staff at the hospital, and I can tell the House that some changes are already being made by the hospital, including much-needed changes on the male block wards.
"I accept the team's analysis of the hospital's and the department's shortcomings and the main thrust of the reforms they propose. They conclude that Rampton should continue to
1284
operate as a special hospital. I agree. I also accept their proposal that for the next three years Rampton should be supervised by a local board to be called the Rampton Review Board. This board will guide and support local management in securing the implementation of the changes which the team have proposed. The necessary order and regulations to establish the board as a special health authority will be made as soon as possible.
"I expect to announce soon the composition of the board; I hope it will be able to begin its work by the turn of the year.
"In addition, I have accepted the team's proposals for a reform of local management and for the appointment of a Medical Director who would provide the leadership for the hospital which has been lacking. I shall be advertising for the post of Medical Director very shortly.
"Another of the review team's main recommendations to which I attach great importance concerns the transfer of those patients at Rampton who have been waiting, some of them for a very long time, for places in local hospitals. I share the team's concern on this difficult issue and I am writing personally to all regional health authority chairmen about it, urging them to make swifter progress.
"Some of the recommendations by the team extend beyond Rampton and will require wider consideration. In particular, they propose a body to inspect and monitor all institutions where patients are detained under the Mental Health Act. This proposal has already been put to me in relation to legislation to amend the Mental Health Act. Sound and effective monitoring

1285
systems are essential to the proper running of all health services in this country, including those institutions which hold Mental Health Act patients. I am now considering the various ways in which this requirement can be met.
"In the interim, three of the four special hospitals will have schemes to involve in their work people from outside the hospital; Rampton will have its review board; at Moss Side and Park Lane Hospitals the local community health council has, as the House already knows, arranged to make regular visits. I am urgently considering how a similar arrangement could be made at Broadmoor.
"Change cannot be achieved overnight. Implementation of the review team's recommendations requires changes in attitudes as well as staff and financial resources. The team noted that management and staff appear to accept the need to examine traditional attitudes, practices and régimes, and we must seek to ensure that through the Boynton Report a much stronger impetus is given to the improved running of the hospital and higher standards of patient care. To achieve this, the hospital will need the full understanding and support of all of us—the professions, the public and Parliament. The patients for whom we care deserve no less."
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the first thing I should like to do in thanking the noble Baroness the Minister for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend in another place is to associate my colleagues on this side of the House in the congratulations to Sir John Boynton and his team on producing what I think is a very important report. I say "I think", because I have only recently—within the last two hours—received a copy of the report, and, as the noble Baroness has said, there are something like 205 recommendations and suggestions. It is a document about a matter which has been a cause of concern to a number of members of your Lordships' House for some years now, and, because it is a report on Rampton, it is an important one.
We shall want to study the report carefully, particularly that part which argues for the retention of the hospital.
1286
I am sorry that the Secretary of State has already made up his mind that Rampton shall continue to operate as a special hospital, and I hope he will not be opposed to receiving suggestions which may be to the contrary.
What we hope most of all is that the report will provide a solution to the problems known to exist at Rampton at the present moment, and we on this side of the House are mindful, as I am sure is every noble Lord in your Lordships' House, of the fact that there are, and have been for some considerable time, difficulties which have got to be overcome in, I would say, the immediate future.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she can indicate whether the Secretary of State will make available extra finance to implement some of the recommendations and suggestions which appear to be quite urgent. I am glad he has indicated, even if only by implication, that action will be taken quickly in the matter, because the report of the Elliot Committee of 1973, which was set up to deal with industrial relations at Rampton, has in fact not been implemented in any way. I do not attach blame to the present Government for that, but it would be a disaster, if I may say so, if this report were to be treated in much the same way as the Elliot Report.
I would also ask the noble Baroness whether the Secretary of State agrees that it is necessary to strengthen the professional leadership. I notice from the report that there is going to be the appointment of a medical director; but I think it is necessary to look at this matter in detail, because I think it is not only a question of having a medical director but one of seeing that certain other people who are in responsible positions give the kind of leadership that is necessary. I should also like to ask the noble Baroness to suggest to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State that one of the urgent things to be done is the improvement of industrial relations, which, I was going to say, exist, but which, rather, do not exist at Rampton at the present moment. I have in mind the fact—at least, I have been given to understand this—that the Department of Health and Social Services arranged for the visit of a journalist to Rampton as recently as last Friday, and that when the party arrived

1287
they were refused by the staff. To all of us in your Lordships' House, I think, it is most undesirable that this kind of thing should happen, and I hope the Secretary of State will pay particular attention to industrial relations.
Bearing in mind that Rampton Hospital is isolated, I wonder whether the Secretary of State has any views with regard to the geographical situation. I know the Statement of the Secretary of State says that he agrees it should continue to operate as a special hospital, but I hope he will not be inflexible about that. My final comment concerns the next paragraph, which says:
"I also accept their proposal that for the next three years Rampton should be supervised by a local board".
I am wondering what "local" means. I think it is a great pity if the board is going to be made up solely of local people. It is a highly-specialised hospital, presenting difficulties peculiar to that kind of hospital, and I would suggest, with respect, that the board ought to be drawn from a wide field of people who can bring (shall I say?) a good deal of confidence and expertise, and that it should not just be kept as a local board. Perhaps I have put the wrong interpretation on the word "local".
4.14 p.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for repeating this very important Statement made in another place; and we, too, would wish to join with the noble Baroness and with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in paying a tribute to Sir John Boynton and his colleagues for their truly remarkable work. The noble Baroness agreed that this has not been a committee which has sat in a committee room perusing papers: it has been a body which has more or less taken up residence in Rampton, has wandered about at all times of the day and night, often unannounced, and has acquired a very full knowledge and understanding of what goes on at Rampton—and for that, I think, noble Lords in all parts of the House should be very grateful indeed to Sir John Boynton and his colleagues. Perhaps the noble Baroness would agree that we might also
1288
pay a tribute to Yorkshire Television, without whose intervention it might be that this very important review would not have been held at all.
As the noble Baroness has said, there are 205 recommendations. Perhaps I might ask the noble Baroness to note that my noble friends and I would wish to applaud Recommendation 203, which states:
"Less emphasis can and should be placed at Rampton on the provisions of the Official Secrets Act";
and perhaps also the associated sentence in the body of the report, at 5.12:
"We think that Rampton operates too much as a closed and secretive institution".
I would ask the noble Baroness whether she agrees. But if, as a result of this report and the action which the Government are taking—and I welcome that action, which has been taken so rapidly—this leads to institutions like Rampton being opened up to public scrutiny on a continuing basis, I am sure the noble Baroness would agree that this could only be for the benefit of patients, staff and the public as a whole.
There is one final point I should like to raise with the noble Baroness. She will have noted that the report refers to overcrowding, and makes certain recommendations with regard to it. Does the noble Baroness recollect that it is now 6½, years since the Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, made an interim report asking urgently for the setting up of regional, secure units of something like 2,000 beds? If, as I understand is the case, very little progress has been made with regard to that, does the noble Baroness agree that progress on that front would itself do a very great deal to implement the recommendations of this important report?
4.16 p.m.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? I have not had an opportunity to read the report, so I cannot comment on it, but I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she would say one other thing which follows on directly from what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said. As your Lordships know, we have recently been debating the Broadcasting Bill, during which there has

1289
been savage criticism of television for portraying violence and generally lowering the moral tone of the nation. I have a deep family interest in this because I am rather proud of the fact that it was my son who directed and produced the programme which led to this report. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she would concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, and agree that, sometimes, television in this country can do a great deal of good.
4.17 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for welcoming this report, and particularly for their congratulations to Sir John Boynton, in which I think we all share. In answer to the questions, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, asked quite particularly about finance. Perhaps I could say that it is not proposed that there will be any addition to total public expenditure arising from this report, but the Secretary of State will be considering whether he can find savings from elsewhere. I think I should say that the review team pointed out that shortage of funds was not in fact an important factor in this matter.
On the question of the timing of doing something about it, as I have indicated, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has accepted the principal recommendation that there should be a review board. This is to be set up, we hope, by the turn of the year, so we are getting on with this as quickly as possible, as is the case with the appointment of a medical director, which we believe will strengthen the professional leadership in the hospital and thus, again, meet one of the major criticisms of the inquiry team; because the inquiry showed that what we need to get right is the management structure, and that a lead is needed to pull the management structure together and, indeed, to implement the recommendations. I hope that that will meet the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, made about strengthening the professional leadership and, in that connection, of course, improving industrial relations. On his last point about the local board, perhaps I could say that, of course, this is the Rampton Review Board, which we hope will be set up by the turn
1290
of the year, and of course it would include professional people. We need to have people of a wide understanding of these particular matters.
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asked whether or not we recognised that Rampton Hospital had been "closed and secretive"—I think those were the words he used. The acceptance of the principal recommendation of the Boynton Committee—namely, that there should be a review board with responsibility—will, I think, go some way towards meeting this point. He also asked a specific point about overcrowding in the hospital. He might like to know that the hospital has a bed complement of approximately 1,000 beds, and there are currently 816 patients, so I do not think one can say that there is any overcrowding.
On the other point which the noble Lord made and which went rather wider than the report, perhaps I might write him. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, intervened to say what I think the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was also saying regarding our recognition of Yorkshire Television's achievement in bringing this matter to our notice. It would be right to say that we all recognise the important part that the media can play in this connection and we all hope that where we have responsible reporting, whenever it may come about, this is of value to all the services.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, as one who has visited Broadmoor many times over the years may I ask whether the noble Baroness would be able to say anything about the bearing of all this on Broadmoor? Some of us admire enormously what Dr. McGrath, for example, has done at Broadmoor but there have been many criticisms. What is the bearing of this on Broadmoor?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, the Statement is concerned with the Boynton Report on Rampton but, as I said at the end of the Statement, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State hopes that we shall be able to involve people from outside in the work of the four special hospitals of which Broadmoor is one. There will be the review board in the case of Rampton and, in the case of Moss Side and Park Lane, there will

1291
be the local community health council. We are urgently looking at similar arrangements that could be made at Broadmoor.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, anybody who has had experience of mental hospitals—and I recognise that these are special hospitals—will welcome this report even though, like me, many have not yet had a chance of seeing it. Would my noble friend accept that the chief nursing officer at Rampton and the devoted staff behind him have been sniped at in a most irresponsible way on many occasions? In view of the dangerous job that they do, this report will be most welcome. Can my noble friend comment on a report which appeared in the press that the chief nursing officer has been criticised by the Prison Officers' Association on some grounds or another which were not made clear? In view of the very difficult task he has to perform and the generous tribute that he paid to his nursing staff, is this not a very unfortunate state of affairs? Finally, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not desirable that, since the Rampton Hospital is very much the concern of local people, as many local people as possible should be concerned with this inquiry?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Auckland for what he has said about the staffing problem. We all recognise that they have a difficult job to do and I am sure that it would be the wish of the whole House that we should recognise this. None the less, we must recognise the public anxiety caused by the revelations of the television programme. On his last point, I do not wish to comment on what may have appeared in the press.

CHARITIES (LORD HASTINGS HOSPITAL TRUST) ORDER 1980
4.25 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Belstead, I beg to move that the Draft Charities (Lord Hastings Hospital Trust) Order 1980 be approved. This order brings into effect a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the regulation of the charity
1292
known as the Lord Hastings Hospital Trust. The charity was incorporated by Lord Hastings of Loughborough under the authority of an Act of Parliament of 1558. Its purpose was to provide almshouse accommodation for a master and six poor inhabitants in the parish of Stoke Poges in Buckinghamshire. The purpose of the scheme set out in the appendix to the order is to alter the trusts of the charity which were established in their present form in a scheme confirmed by a public general Act of Parliament of 1856. The new scheme does not differ substantially from many others that are made each year by the Charity Commissioners. But since it amends provisions which have effect under a public general Act of Parliament the draft order giving effect to the scheme is required by section 19(3) of the Charities Act 1960 to be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. Such schemes requiring affirmative resolution are not common. I believe that only one similar order has been made under the Act of 1960.
Your Lordships may find it helpful if I briefly explain the purpose of the scheme and the background to it. Under the scheme confirmed by the Act of 1856 the charity trustees were given power to sell the almshouse buildings and apply the proceeds in erecting new buildings in the parish of Stoke Poges or the immediate vicinity. Because their condition and situation were no longer considered satisfactory, the almshouses have been sold. But there is no land in Stoke Poges or the vicinity on which new almshouses could be built by the trustees at a price which they could afford. The trustees are therefore unable to apply the income of the charity in the way required by the present trusts. They have accordingly asked the Charity Commissioners to alter the trusts by making a scheme under which the income may be applied for a different purpose. This step is not unusual and the Commissioners have agreed.
That is the main purpose of the new scheme which we have before us in this draft order. It will alter the existing trusts so as to enable the trustees to apply the charity's income for the relief (otherwise than by the provision of almshouse accommodation) of poor people in Stoke Poges. The power to provide new almshouses, should it become possible

1293
to do so, is retained. The scheme also contains certain other amendments to the scheme confirmed by the Act of 1856, all of which are designed to secure the better administration of the charity. For instance, it establishes a new body of trustees in the place of those appointed under the earlier scheme and contains standard provisions for the regulation of the charity. I hope your Lordships will agree that these arrangements are worthwhile, and I commend the order and scheme to your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd July be approved.—(Lord Sandys.)
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for his explanation of this order and I am sure that all noble Lords will be very grateful to him for that. It is interesting to note that, as the noble Lord has indicated, it is quite an early charity, dating from 1558. It therefore dates from before the great statute of Elizabeth I, the Charitable Uses Act 1601, and it was not affected by that Act. This charity must have been very well drawn originally and its purposes were clearly not among those abuses aimed at by that statute of Elizabeth I; so that one can only congratulate those originally associated with it.
At this slightly late stage, it is perhaps sad that a new scheme has had to be drawn up and that it is no longer possible to pursue the previous purposes of this scheme. Nevertheless, if I may say so, it certainly appears, both from the explanation by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and from the scheme contained in the order itself, that those involved in drawing it up have done a very good job indeed. I think it only remains for me to wish the charity every success in the future and to invite your Lordships to join with the noble Lord in supporting this order.

SCIENCE AND TECH NOLOGY—ELECTRIC VEHICLES
4.30 p.m.
Lord GREGSON Lord GREGSON rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the
1294
Select Committee on Science and Technology on Electric Vehicles (1st Report, H.L. 352).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with a keen sense of honour and considerable humility that I present the first report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology—a report on electric vehicles. Your Select Committee chose this subject because of the evident public interest in the potential of electric vehicles to make an important contribution to the solution of the energy problem. It proved a very involved subject, combining many disciplines of science and technology and compounded with very complex fields of energy and transport. But, because of the broad span of the subject, I think this study—and I hope this report—demonstrates the unique capability of your Lordships' House to provide a very considerable wealth of knowledge and experience in support of such a Select Committee. I should like to pay tribute to the members of the committee for their very valuable contributions. I should also like to record the excellent response that your committee had to its request for evidence, and to say how pleased we were with the very high quality of both written and verbal submissions.
The electric vehicle provides an enigma in that, although it has a considerable history back to before the middle of the 19th century, and although it is evident in every day use, particularly in the milk float and fork lift truck, it is really in advance of its time, both in the state of the art of the technology and in demonstrating a viable economic proposition.
It is the problem of storing electricity—the battery—which lies at the root of the enigma. The battery currently in use for vehicle application is the lead acid battery, a system which has dominated the vehicle field for the best part of this century. Although the lead acid system has been developed over the years to provide a very reliable battery, as is demonstrated by its use as an auxilliary in the modern motor car, the lead acid battery is heavy and has a comparatively low power density. The effect of these limitations on the electric vehicle is to restrict its range and speed, although to a limited extent one can be increased at the expense of the other. There are however advantages of the electric vehicle such as zero

1295
emission, low noise and particularly simplicity of drive systems, which give rise to extremely flexible operation; but they do not compensate for the limitations in the wider application.
In a narrow field, this flexibility of operation, combined with the other advantages, has given rise over the years to the electric vehicles which are familiar to us today: the milk float and the factory vehicle, especially fork lift trucks. It is immediately obvious that in both cases they operate within a small radius of their base and flexibility is the principal criteria, although lack of noise and exhaust fumes is of equal importance for the factory-operated vehicles. There are of course many other possible applications within the concept of short range delivery and service vehicles, especially in the urban scene; but as we are well aware, the speed of the electric milk delivery vehicle is not really compatible with modern traffic requirements.
Recent and projected development of the lead acid system has made possible the development of a traffic-compatible general purpose delivery and service vehicle capable of a useful payload. A number of these vehicles have already been tried out at the prototype stage, and plans have been made for limited production. These vehicles are approaching the limit of economic viability and really need some degree of launch assistance, which we hope the Government will continue to provide; but even this welcome initiative by industry provides for only a tiny part of our total transport, and here I return to the question of the enigma of timing.
There is no doubt that within the two decades that are left in this century, liquid hydrocarbons, from whatever source, that provide the fuel for the great majority of our transport will be less available and a good deal more expensive. The electric vehicle is capable of playing a much greater part in reducing our reliance on these fuels. It gives access quickly to the energy of coal and nuclear power via the existing electric generating system and with night time charging, this can be done without any additional capital expenditure on extra plant. The electric vehicle is also the only possible route for the use in transport of the renewable
1296
energy sources—wind and wave, et cetera. There is undoubtedly a wider future for the electric vehicle, but we have the problem of how to get there from now. Your committee believe that a number of steps should be pursued, which we have listed in detail in the report under some 15 headings; hut, for brevity, I will collate them and speak about them under four headings:
The first one I have already touched on is the continued development and launch of vehicles within the existing technology and the present-day economics. As I have said, we hope the Government will continue their encouragement of all forms in this field; and, furthermore, we hope they will encourage the various Government agencies, including the Post Office and hospital service, to make full use of the potential of the electric vehicle. It is however also important for the future wider use of electric vehicles that the major vehicle manufacturers should take more interest at this stage, and we welcome the evidence submitted by British Leyland Technology, which indicated their awakening interest.
The second area I would mention concerns research activity. One can readily foresee that when the economics of fuel change, there will be considerable demand for all forms of electric vehicle. But there is another route to increase demand—that is, improved performance—and there is no question that improved performance requires the development of new battery systems. Although the United Kingdom has established a world lead in the use of electric vehicles through the peculiarities of our milk delivery system, there is now, as you are aware, my Lords, a very considerable worldwide interest, and in the major western countries, the development of a new battery system is an important feature of national programmes. Many of these countries, including Japan and America, are devoting considerable resources to this field. None the less, we believe that due to the initiative of industry via Chloride and Lucas, supported by the Government, and the Electricity Council, two of the better potential systems are under development in this country, and within the limit of our resources, of scarce technical effort and money, we have probably got it right, whatever claims may be made elsewhere, although we should be prepared to take

1297
advantage of any change of circumstances should the breakthrough come elsewhere in the world. There is no guarantee when a new battery system may become available for traffic use. Your committee consider we are probably some 10 years away from this event, but we sincerely hope that the Government and their agencies will continue their assistance at current levels. In addition to the development of a more effective battery, there is also a need to develop efficient energy conversion systems, particularly electric motors, and we are encouraged by the work that is carried out by the universities in conjunction with industry and assisted by Government. We particularly hope that this activity will continue and increase.
The event of North Sea oil has cushioned the United Kingdom against some of the economic and political problems of the world oil supply; but for those countries in the world who have no indigenous supply, or who face a falling rate of supply, the question of alternative energy source for transport is more urgent, and this is demonstrated by the level of resources which are being applied, particularly to the electric vehicle. At this point in time in the United Kingdom we have a world lead, particularly in the technology of drive systems and components. Your committee believes that this presents an important export opportunity and we would impress upon the Government the need to foster and encourage those involved in this industry wherever the initiative may come from.
May I turn now to the final recommendation regarding hybrid vehicles. The hybrid is a vehicle deriving its energy requirements from two or more sources and there are a number of combinations possible—fly-wheels, external electric source, battery, internal combustion engine et cetera. The hybrid, by combining two energy sources, provides a possible route to overcoming the major limiting factors restricting the development of the electric vehicle: that is, range and speed. On the other side of the account, it does increase the complexity of the vehicle and, therefore, the cost. After taking into account all the factors involved, your committee considered that a combination of battery and internal combustion engine could provide a considerable potential to overcome the time-gap and improve performance.
1298
Your committee further considered that for use on the United Kingdom road network a series type hybrid may be the most useful. This is a vehicle with a battery that is charged overnight and which receives a supplementary charge during the day from a small internal combustion engine running at constant speed and constant load. The vehicle retains the flexibility of electric drive, and the internal combustion engine can be run under the most efficient conditions which produce very remarkable economy of fuel. The engine can be silenced very effectively and run with precise emission control. The vehicle would use the technology of today and is, therefore, very attractive. Whether such a vehicle is more cost-effective today, or in the immediate future, than a battery-only vehicle is something your committee believes should be established as soon as possible and, in this case, we would ask the Government to take the initiative to further develop and establish the potential.
I hope I have said enough to promote a wider reading of your committee's report and I will finish by quoting the final paragraph:
"It is still possible that electric transport will never get over the many technological obstacles in its way. Nevertheless the committee consider, on balance, that the odds are in favour of e.vs. and that soon after the end of the century they will make a valuable contribution to road transport, particularly in urban areas. I.c.e. vehicles, powered by natural or synthetic fuel, will certainly stay as one of the main forms of transport, and probably the most important. Whether the present trend of small-scale manufacture, using urban delivery vehicles to penetrate the market will allow e.vs. to realise their potential, however, is another matter. It will certainly be exceedingly slow. It will come up against the central problem facing e.vs: most of the advantages accrue to society as a whole or to the electricity generating industry; most of the disadvantages fall on the owner. In such circumstances to rely on pure market forces to build up an e.v. industry is not practical. Growth will be stunted. Some help from Government and the public sector, including the Electricity Boards, is called for. The committee recommend that it should be given. Electric transport is a serious long-term option; it will one day have a significant, though probably not dominant, role; and it is in the national interest to have a home-based transport industry capable of meeting market needs in the 21st century."
I look forward to the debate and particularly to hearing the Government's response. I beg to move that the First Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Electric Vehicles be noted.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Electric Vehicles (1st Report, H.L. 352).—(Lord Gregson.)
4.44 p.m.
Lord TODD: My Lords, we would all wish, I am sure, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, for the admirable way he has summarised and presented to us the report on electric vehicles. I would wish particularly to thank hint for the (shall I say?) masterly way in which he conducted the study on which the report is based—a study made by a sub-committee of which he was the chairman. As the noble Lord has said, this is the first report of your Committee on Science and Technology.
That was a committee which was set up about a year ago and of which I have the honour to be chairman. It seems to me, although I do not wish today to enter into detailed discussion of any of the points in the report, that it is perhaps incumbent upon me, as chairman, to give the House some indication of the aims of this Select Committee, as I and my fellow members see them.
We were set up with exceedingly broad terms of reference. We were simply told to consider science and technology. That is quite a large order, and within this very broad field it seemed to us that our function should be in fact to carry out inquiries into the matters with which Parliament at least ought to be concerned and to report back to the House. But even within this limited field we have still had to be selective. There are subjects such as, for example, nuclear energy, which are much too large to be dealt with in the time and with the resources we can command; and in any case such large subjects are usually dealt with by a variety of other competent bodies. This, of course, will not mean that from time to time we may not find certain aspects to which we would like to draw your Lordships' attention, but for the most part we would expect to deal with rather specific subjects with a high technological content: subjects which, for one reason or another, are matters of public concern. We would seek, by studying them, to present your Lordships with an unbiased
1300
assessment which may assist you in making judgments on them.
Bearing in mind these points, we started out by choosing two topics, each of which we reckoned could be studied in some detail by a sub-committee. The subjects we chose were, on the one hand, electric vehicles and, on the other, forestry in the United Kingdom. These may seem rather different, but, each in a different way perhaps, they do form good examples of the kind of thing a select committee like ours should be studying.
The potential of electric vehicles, as the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, has said, is a matter which is frequently discussed in the press and elsewhere, but very little is generally known of the present position regarding their development, and even less is known about the research that is going on in the field. Yet it is by no means impossible that for environmental reasons or a shortage of suitable fuel for internal combustion engines, or perhaps both, electrically propelled vehicles, at least for urban use, could become of very great importance in the not too distant future.
In a somewhat different way, the study of forestry is something which we should be concerned with, or that your Lordships should be concerned with. We are studying not only the scientific aspects of forestry but the scale and nature of the research being done in this field. This is a matter of very considerable importance, not just to agriculture and commerce but also to the whole problem of land usage in the public interest, and all that apart from the purely scientific interest which there is in forestry and which is quite considerable. We hope to report on the subject of forestry in the very near future, when the report on it is presented by our other sub-committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield.
In pursuance of these objects we have now commenced a further study which will come before your Lordships in due course. That is a study of the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste—a matter which I am sure your Lordships would agree is one of very considerable public concern these days. It is not our intention to deal with nuclear waste, the disposal of which is being intensively studied by other bodies elsewhere. But some non-nuclear waste can also be extremely

1301
dangerous and it is important that we should avoid any possibility of disasters, such as have occurred recently at Love Canal in the United States. For this reason, I believe—and my colleagues on committee believe—that a study of present British practice and of research which is going on into methods of waste disposal would appear to be very timely, and I hope your Lordships will agree with us on that.
4.51 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Todd, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, on leading his team, which was selected from the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on Science and Technology, and on producing this report. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, and the noble Lord, Lord Todd, will not mind my mentioning at this early stage what a great help in preparing this report they had from Paul Hayter, the Clerk to that Committee, and his team.
I strongly support the main conclusion of this report, which is based on many grounds which have been amplified in the cogent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gregson. The main conclusion, as it seems to me, is that it is now in the United Kingdom's national interest to increase the production of electric vehicles in the near future. In many places in this report, as Lord Gregson has pointed out, a very interesting fact emerges from the evidence, of which your Lordships may well be proud. It emerges without doubt that the United Kingdom leads the world in the field of electric vehicle design and in the equipment, including batteries, associated with those vehicles. Thus the 1979 population of 45,000 such vehicles in the United Kingdom is greater than that of any other country.
The National Research and Development Corporation, of which the noble Lord, Lord Schon, was such a distinguished chairman for many years, assisted in pioneer research work in relation to fuel cells associated with the production of electric vehicles. Their evidence is that two large American firms took out licences under their patents and that those patents have many years to run and are potentially a useful asset to the United Kingdom.
1302
Again as a result of recent research, the United Kingdom has a world lead in the development of high performance delivery vans and in sodium sulphur batteries. This evidence is to be found, for example, in the report of the Department of Industry on pages 162 and 178 of this report, and in the evidence of the Electric Vehicle Association on page 131.
In the comments on the report that I propose to make to your Lordships this evening, I shall speak in the context that the United Kingdom has such a world lead and that that lead must not be lost. In my submission, that lead should provide the basis for encouraging positive and early action by the United Kingdom industry, in active collaboration with the United Kingdom Government and local government authorities, and perhaps with the EEC authorities, in the further development and production of electric vehicles. I suggest that this could perhaps be achieved more readily in certain limited fields. Such action would be bound to lead to the creation of more jobs, and a substantial increase in revenue from the export of electric vehicles, and associated equipment and know-how, to the benefit of the United Kingdom's economy.
It is, of course, industry that ultimately has to take the risk in assessing the market in the face of many factors, including, for example, the price of electricity and oil and, possibly, social factors affecting the environment. The general field of the development of electric vehicles is, fortunately, evolutionary, rather than a field which can be completely changed by some new development, as often happens in certain technical developments. The objective, as stated at page 166, must be for industry to apply technology and production positively to the demands of the market as these demands manifest themselves, or where they can be created.
The noble Lord, Lord Scholl, who, as I have said—and I am very glad to see him in his place—was for many years chairman of the National Research and Development Corporation, and did so much to encourage invention, stated so aptly during part of the evidence that it is essential for British industry to push as hard as it can, and to give the leadership and pressure required to sell more equipment or to get more people into jobs.

1303
I endorse that view for a more militant commercial approach.
The Electricity Council pointed out, as recorded at page 96 of this report, that a major obstacle in electric road vehicle development is to overcome the volume production problem. Major demonstrations should, therefore, be arranged to develop production methods and to obtain the advantages of scale production. I was interested to see only this morning two pamphlets indicating that there is to be a demonstration of these vehicles at County Hall in the near future. I was also informed that the charge for viewing those demonstrations is to be of the order of £74, which will certainly prohibit my attendance and, no doubt, that of several of my business acquaintances.
As was pointed out by the representative of BL Technology Limited at page 61, it is essential now to bridge the gap between speculative research in regard to electric vehicles and commercial reality. That appears to me to be the major challenge to the industry and to the Government at the present time, which must be overcome. My noble friend Lord Tanlaw is recorded in the evidence as saying, something very apt, and I should like to quote his words from page 77. He said that,
"expenditure of funds … allocated to academic research papers, could be more profitably used to develop prototype systems for public evaluation and acceptability [of electric vehicles]. Feedback from this type of operation could be rapid ".
I strongly support that practical view.
Accordingly, I should like to make a few suggestions as to the areas where industry and Government could take the initiative, so as to make more electric vehicles available commercially. The first is that more electric vehicles would be very useful in rural areas which at present lack adequate local transport. This lack of transport in rural areas is an increasing social problem. This problem was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Tanlaw when giving evidence which is recorded at page 81 of the report. He pointed out the interesting fact that in rural areas around small towns with 5,000 to 10,000 inhabitants there are many small villages and hamlets with totally inadequate transport facilities, but the private mileage of those people in travelling to work or for essential shopping averages less than
1304
12 miles per day. That short distance is well within the capabilities of the present day development of electric cars and batteries, and I feel strongly that industry, with positive marketing methods, could produce a vehicle at economical prices for such use. In addition to this obvious use in rural areas, I should welcome more active development of small bus services, such as have been introduced in Bournemouth, and also the project for electric mobile libraries and vans which is under way in Cambridgeshire, as recorded at pages 144 of this report.
I should also like to refer to the evidence of the Electric Vehicle Association, whose able president is my noble friend Lord Ironside who is to follow me in this debate. Lord Ironside mentioned, as recorded at page 131, that the Americans were seeking licences to manufacture from some United Kingdom manufacturers. Surprisingly to me, he added that his association was not aware of any particular links with companies in countries such as the United States of America, Germany and Japan where, as the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, mentioned, very considerable developments are taking place in regard to electric vehicles.
Lord Ironside pointed out that his association was of course not in a position to try to go into the market itself. However, I should like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, that perhaps it would be very helpful in maintaining the lead of the United Kingdom in this field if his association would consider, as many research associations do now, how it can assist its members in relation to licensing and exploiting the inventions, the patents and the know-how so as to increase the wealth of the United Kingdom in the field of electric vehicles.
If I may quote Lord Schon once again, he is recorded at page 137 as saying that one of the biggest problems he always had in encouraging innovation in the United Kingdom was to prevent British firms and technicians giving away their know-how and expertise to foreigners for nothing. That, sadly, has been my experience of many United Kingdom industries and their technical personnel There is an appalling lack of expertise in some industries, and in Government departments, as to how to exploit the results of their research It seems to be a matter

1305
eminently suitable for the Electric Vehicle Association to consider in the context of electric vehicle manufacture and production.
I should have disclosed earlier that I have the honour to be a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology under the chairmanship of the distinguished noble Lord, Lord Todd, President of the Royal Society, but I was not a member of the sub-committee whose chairman was the noble Lord, Lord Gregson.
It may be appropriate if I add a few words to what the noble Lord, Lord Todd, said about the ambit of consideration of the Select Committee, as this is the first report to be presented to this House. This Select Committee does not exist as a general channel for communicating scientific and technological development to the public at large. Its role is to draw attention to the significance of the subject investigated. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will agree with that statement, as I extracted it from one of the earlier reports he made to that Select Committee when it was set up about a year ago. The report of Lord Gregson has certainly accentuated the significance and the importance of electric vehicles. I support its recommendations.
5.4 p.m.
Lord IRONSIDE: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, for introducing this report and, one might say, for making Parliament "go electric". First, having run with the fox, giving evidence, I should also like to thank him for allowing me also to hunt with the hounds and be with the committee. This first quarry of the Select Committee could not have been better chosen. I believe that the noble Lord ran it to earth after a search which went very wide and deep.
The report itself has declared my main interest, but I have others. In addition to being president of the Electric Vehicle Association of Great Britain, I am also president of the European Electric Road Vehicle Association. My company, IRD, has carried out a worldwide survey for the Department of Industry on hybrid vehicles and has identified, among other things, the objectives and technical options of many of the programmes in other countries
1306
and also has laid down guidelines for new projects in the United Kingdom. I was fascinated by the ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for the use of hybrids, particularly in rural areas.
I have been closely involved for several years with electric vehicle developments and I have been connected with many of the actions which have taken place, so I am grateful for the opportunity to speak now. An immense amount of detail is laid out in the Select Committee report, and I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, on the thoroughness with which he has worked.
We do not know with any certainty exactly how our road transport needs are going to be met in 10 or 20 years' time, but what we do know is that unless we prepare some of the ground now for alternative forms, such as electric vehicles, we shall be forced to accept from other parts of the world solutions which do not wholly suit our needs. Energy needs differ widely from country to country and it follows that the resulting solutions to problems in each country will be different. Basically, we want to satisfy our own needs, and a well developed industrial base in electric vehicles will help to do this and to satisfy overseas demand. But it can be seen that there is already a risk that the massive national programmes in America and Japan can pose an import threat to us, as they are both commercialisation programmes backed by Government money and effort.
The sceptics say that electric vehicles are always just round the corner and never here on the spot when they are needed. They refer to the car, I think. The trouble with corners is that they come in two sorts: those you are forced into and those which are difficult to see round. I do not want to see the electric vehicle industry forced into a corner, and my purpose now is to try to take a look at the electric road round the corner.
Electric vehicles are on the road now—as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said, 45,000 of them—but it is a road which is geared to the needs of a transport mode which draws on the finite fuel assets of this world which now have a premium price label upon them. It may be argued that syncrude produced from coal, which is a far less finite resource, will not

1307
suffer such a premium, but syncrude may well turn out to be a feedstock both for the chemical plant and the coal refinery. Because of this, it may end up suffering a double premium tag.
The energy issue in transport is the most compelling. The success of the electric milk float has established a strong design and production base in the United Kingdom over a great many years. As has already been said, this has proved to be a unique and very important asset; but a wider range of much improved products must also be brought to the road and we must ensure that the United Kingdom electric vehicle industry is able to retain its lead in the world so as to serve the overseas markets and the wider home market which we now see lying ahead.
The committee makes the point that the economic case for the electric vehicle is at the moment very weak, except for door-to-door deliveries and service rounds involving town work. In fact, the case for the electric vehicle as an urban work horse is particularly strong. On a one-for-one basis, in the one to two-tonne payload bracket, it competes very well with its internal combustion engined vehicle counterpart. In fact, there would not be 45,000 electric vehicles on our public highways if they did not compete. As the cost advantage of electricity over oil-based fuels grows, the economics of the electric vehicle improve. We can expect this trend to grow in England, with 75 per cent. of the electrical load coming from coal-fired power stations.
I think that the committee brings this out very clearly, but it also brings out the black mark against electric vehicles at the moment. There are three things which they lack: First, range—the vehicle lacks range. It takes a long time to charge the battery and the initial cost of a vehicle is high because it is only made on a batch production basis or to order. If the batteries were not as large as double beds and there were smart chargers—to use an American term—the electric vehicle would be much more popular by now.
I will not bore the House with any details, but the technical barriers will be hard to cross and it will take time. Nevertheless, I am tempted to say something
1308
about batteries as other people have done. The lead acid traction battery has a lot of design stretch in it. Something approaching a two to one improvement is now on the cards, and it will still be a highly favoured option for most of this decade. The life cycles of 1,500 give four years or so of good use and this is an important economic factor to the operator. Real success will depend of course upon the new batteries—the sodium-sulphur couples and the lithium-sulphur couples which have been developed in America, which pack four or five times more power per unit mass. And if they are successful—and there is still an "if" factor in this—then passenger car electrics will certainly take off.
What I am saying is that we are well placed to exploit the goods van market for electrics now because we know that the lead-acid traction batteries are cost-effective and there is a lot more mileage in them yet. Luckily, however, there are other options to consider, such as battery exchange stations to speed up refuelling and the adoption of biberonage or the bottle feeding technique for the battery, with gulps of energy taken at convenient times during the day. Because there are breaks in the motoring day it would be possible to plug in at a charging point at the roadside or on a parking lot or in a garage to get a fill, which would extend range and limit and limit the size of the battery pack. The dual-mode buses which are now on trial in Germany—at München-Gladbach, I believe—can pick up charges through their pantographs at set points along the road. That is proving effective.
A lot is said about electric vehicles but very little is said about the electric road, and if we are going to see more electric vehicles on our roads we shall have to ensure at some point that we can provide for their fuelling and for their servicing. There is nowhere I know of where one can buy these services at the moment. There are some operators with electric vehicle fleets, but they fill up and carry out servicing at their own vehicle depots, which have been specially equipped.
This debate is taking place not quite a month after the first international conference and exhibition on electric vehicles in Europe. It was called Drive Electric 80 and was arranged by the Electric Vehicle Association of Great Britain,

1309
of which I have the privilege to be president. The event, which took place a month after the publication of the Committee's report, highlighted a number of points which came over to me very strongly, but first I should like publicly to acknowledge the great interest that the Government have taken in Drive Electric 80 through Lord Trefgarne's right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Energy and Industry, who, with their personal interest, have given great encouragement to the members of my association and have demonstrated to all the foreign visitors that the Government attach great importance to the development of electric vehicles.
I should also like to thank the Electricity Council for organising Drive Electric 80 and I am assured that they intend to make very much greater use of electric vehicles within the electricity supply industry itself and to promote the use of cost-effective electric vehicles by public authorities and fleet operators. The committee also referred to the massive United States Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research Development and Demonstration 1976 Act, the Japanese programme and some European programmes, particularly that in Germany, coupled with the indirect actions of the Commission in Brussels.
These programmes have teeth which are beginning now to show. The US programme, like the Japanese one, is a commercialisation programme and two small-scale production companies which have had US Government money have now to my knowledge plans to set up manufacturing plants in the United Kingdom. Each of them exhibited last month at Drive Electric 80 at Wembley and were offering comparable products to the existing British electric vehicle builders' range in the commercial van field, but the prices are much lower by comparison with the traditional United Kingdom ones for electric vehicles, by a factor of two. Daihatsu from Japan exhibited a range of four electric vehicles at the 1980 motor show and at Drive Electric 80, all in the £5,000 to £6,000 bracket on a six months delivery basis. Their plan is to penetrate markets in the USA, Australia and here. Their prices are 30 to 40 per cent. lower than the United Kingdom counterparts built to traditional long-life standards. The effect of all this on customers cannot yet be judged, but people that I have talked
1310
to in my own association have a high regard for what the Japanese have done in the battery field and with their control electrics which were displayed at Wembley.
The Japanese prices are sharp. We do not know whether they contain hidden subsidies and we still cannot judge their technology which could eventually prove to be unsound, but Daihatsu have now been on the development trail for 15 years in electric vehicles and they are now demonstrating a solution to the volume production problem which shows signs of hitting British manufacturers. I believe that the Wembley event has shown that there is a good case for sharpening up our efforts here in the national context, and I am happy to see the way in which Chloride has joined with Dodge Trucks in the Talbot group and Lucas with Vauxhall to put development vehicles on to the road.
This is important, as has been shown already in the "London Goes Electric" scheme, where the batteries and drive systems of the new traffic compatible fast electric vehicles are on trial. Comparisons with their internal combustion engined counterparts show that the reliability factor is good and getting better. These trial schemes are vital in the context of launching vehicles incorporating new technologies on to the market and the Commission in Brussels has financed similar projects, in Dublin, with 350,000 European units of account and in Odense in Denmark with 50,000 units of account and in a volume production project with Fiat in Italy with 150,000 European units of account. This particular project with Fiat will not be confined just to the use of in-house batteries and drive-lines. It will look at the volume production problems as a whole. It is the most important problem and we wish to solve this in a way that both the technology and the price must be got right if the electric vehicle is to stand on its own feet and compete with other types of vehicle for similar duties.
In evidence to the committee the Department of Industry said that a proposal is expected from British Leyland involving electric vehicles. I do not yet know whether one has been put up and I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Trefgarne whether any proposal has been put forward. I believe that British

1311
Leyland are well placed to take such a project on board and I hope that the Government will find a way of supporting them, so that they can start research and development work alongside other and new successful engineering ventures which they have just launched. I think there is certainly room enough for both Lucas and Chloride with their own partners as well as British Leyland to have an involvement in the electric vehicle field, because it is important that each should complement the other in their efforts to ensure that there is a range of vehicle options as well as the incentives for component suppliers, which include all electrical ancillaries as well as batteries. Lucas have announced that the Sherpa van has joined their electric test fleet and I hope this will show the way to British Leyland.
Members of my association now believe that the Japanese challenge is real, but that the US challenge, in spite of its large financial backing from the Government, still lacks complete credibility. However, the United States are pushing ahead hard and fast on their own, but there are no signs, I think, even after what Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran has said, that they are really picking up any British technology to help them. I said when I was giving evidence that I thought there was, but evidence which has come into my hands since Drive Electric 80 has shown that this is hardly true.
British innovations are significant, and there is evidence that the Government technological support measures to date are showing results. As Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran said, I think there is a very good case for research associations and research companies to assist with the licensing problem, and I think perhaps we should pay very much more attention to this to ensure that British technology is introduced into these other national programmes, if we can. But all the technology that has recently come to the surface in conference sessions and in the exhibition at Wembley has shown me that the case for continued Government support is now much stronger than ever before if we are to face the challenges from overseas programmes.
The programmes in all other countries are totally directed at commercialisation. The markets are not yet rolling, and the
1312
use of public funds is justified under these circumstances where the industrial risk is high and there is no market to generate investment for research and development. The honours in the market will be won in the technology stakes running up to commercialisation. I should like to see us remain up in front, and Government encouragement and finance is, I believe, needed to help British manufacturers get their advanced technology into the pipeline and down to Japanese and United States price levels.
In the European dimension, the European Electric Road Vehicle Association, under my presidency, is studying, under contract for the Commission in Brussels, the changes required to make the 43 or so transport directives applicable to electric vehicles. They were drafted for internal combustion engined vehicles and they penalised the electric vehicle. For example, the tachograph directive is one case where electric vehicles suffer a penalty, because the threshold for fitting tachographs is geared to gross vehicle weight, which includes batteries, in the electric vehicle case. Thus, a one-tonne payload diesel van with a gross vehicle weight under 3½ tonnes does not require a tachograph, but its electric counterpart may do so because its gross vehicle weight will exceed 3½ tonnes. Yet the driver cannot exceed permitted hours because his vehicle needs charging after 50 miles use.
This madness bears heavily on the electric vehicle operator in having to keep totally unnecessary records, and there are now examples of vehicles in the "London Goes Electric" scheme used by Initial Towel Services in which these tachographs have to be fitted and records kept. It is not only the cost of keeping records, but it is the cost of having the tachograph fitted in the first place which has to be considered by a potential operator and may deter him from going electric. All. I can say is thank goodness the operator does not have to arrange for a man to carry a red flag in front of the vehicle. Noble Lords may well say this directive applies to all countries, but in this country we are unique because we have 45,000 electric vehicles on our highways, and there is no case in any of the other Community states where I know of more than about 200, and these, I believe, escape the regulations because they are there for trial.

1313
Now in Europe developments are taking place in Germany, France and Sweden where hybrid vehicles are being developed, and to my knowledge there is no hybrid public service vehicle project under way in the United Kingdom. The Committee consider that we should pay much more attention to hybrid developments here, and I think they are quite right and that there is a case for building prototypes to test their performance. I can assure noble Lords that I think hybrids have a lot of merit. My father was the user of a hybrid which he owned between 1920 and 1930, and this was a petrol-electric hybrid in which he did 250,000 miles in the United Kingdom and in India.
Public funding to look more carefully at the fuel economy data for various hybrid combinations and applications is, I believe, justified, and there is a case for looking particularly at the public service vehicle field mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, where the efforts in other countries are concentrated. I think that the Lucas development of a series hybrid vehicle will help lead the way into the hybrid and electric markets for passenger vehicles as well as public service vehicles, because part of the technology is already there and range flexibility can be demonstrated and is needed in both the public service vehicle and passenger vehicle. In both cases the driver wishes to be free to use his vehicle for long or short journeys according to his pleasure or his duty. There is a lot of merit in taking hybrids more seriously, and I believe that we have the resources available to do it.
The committee conclude that, on balance, the odds are in favour of electric vehicles, but the time-scale remains still in doubt. The case for help from Government at the present stage is certainly justified until the markets get off the ground. All the people I have talked to have welcomed this report, which allows us to identify priorities upon which the Government can respond in partnership with the manufacturers.
The electric vehicle must compete on level terms with internal combustion engined vehicles if it is to succeed, and getting the vehicles placed in the market for trial with a Government subsidy will be very important in order to put them on the same price footing as diesel engined vehicles to encourage the buyer until a
1314
market is established at competitive levels. I should like to see public purchase programmes in the public sector; as a bulk purchaser and major user the public sector can influence product development with its financial clout. The price of diesel fuel will be a sensitive parameter and on this score a break-even point between fast diesel and electric vehicles may be reached by 1986 or when the diesel fuel price has reached £1.90 as opposed to the £1.30 which is the present level.
In the case of Lucas and Chloride efforts, approximately £2 million per annum should cover the overall needs of both these groups in the production engineering ventures and in placing vehicles on trial in the 3½ and 7½ gross vehicle weight ranges. British Leyland's role must be an additional consideration, taking into account that as the major British volume production manufacturer they are now committed to another new and successful engineering project.
The smaller established manufacturers who have already shown the way serve an annual market of some 1,200 vehicles, and they must not be forgotten. They offer a service in depth to the customer, and they have won their custom in competition with internal combustion engine vehicle suppliers, but in no way can they compete directly with the vehicle manufacturing giants. They have a proper place in the market, and we do not want to see them edged out of any Government support programme purely on the basis of their smallness. I believe that the electric vehicle industry in England is something we can be proud of, and I think this report identified the priorities and the necessary action through which Government can ensure that the country stays ahead.
5.29 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I at the outset declare that I have—contrary perhaps to some thoughts in your Lordships' House and certainly outside—no connection, no involvement whatsoever, with electric vehicle manufacturers or component manufacturers, or, indeed, any company so involved. I was a member of this sub-committee, and may I say what a pleasure it was to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, who displayed a good deal

1315
of personal energy and a great deal of personal charm in ensuring that members of the committee kept firmly to the subject-matter rather than diving off into the realms of energy and other associated problems, which it was so easy for us to do.
I think that at the same time I would like to pay my tribute to the very long list of witnesses who gave evidence both orally and written and with such willingness. I observed very little evidence of commercial confidentiality in what we were told and what we were shown. However, I think that there was perhaps more the suggestion of an element of wishful thinking in some of the things that we were told—wishful thinking which, if my noble friend Lord Ironside will permit me to say so, was very much echoed in his speech this afternoon, but as President of the EERVA that is understandable.
I did not find at the conclusion of our deliberations as much to enthuse about as I had originally hoped for. I think that it is fair to say that, while the oil companies—that is, really the petrol companies—maintain their near monopolistic hold on petrol supplies, coupled with the vested interests of the vehicle manufacturers in IC engines and diesel engines, progress towards an alternative fuel for road transport will inevitably be slow. It might be fair in parenthesis to say that that interest of both the oil companies and vehicle manufacturers is perhaps understandable when one sets against the argument their huge capital investment.
My noble friend Lord Ironside appeared to rest a major part of his argument on the energy case. I do not believe that that is necessarily so. There is no doubt that an alternative supply will come about at some time, but even if we doubled, trebled or quadrupled our usage of electric vehicles in this country from the current 45,000 or so a year, it would make a minimal impact on both primary energy usage and fuel-oil usage. In fact, road transport takes up 23 per cent, of total United Kingdom oil usage and a doubling of electric vehicles would only make less than 1 per cent. difference to that.
The environmental benefits of electric vehicles are set out quite well in paragraphs 19 to 22 of the report. They are undoubtedly true, but I would suggest that they do not appear to outweigh the
1316
costs involved. I think that that is really quite understandable, because when one has to put one's hand in one's own pocket to preserve or maintain some pet theory, sometimes the enthusiasm disappears. I believe that, while the cost of buying and operating electric vehicles remains so totally disproportionate to that of petrol and diesel engines, the environmental demand will be less heard. Even if one accepts the statistic which is widely broadcast that 93 per cent. of the 14 million motor cars on the roads cover something less than 60 miles a day—well within the range of an electric vehicle—I believe that range, performance and price restrictions are paramount in the minds of the private user as well as the commercial user. There is in fact no national attitude towards an alternative fuel-using vehicle or an environmentally pollution-free vehicle.
The Americans, on the other hand, make great play of their new federally mandated regulations that come into force in 1985 requiring the vehicle manufacturers to have an average fuel efficiency rating of 27·5 mpg. That sounds very good, but it has been pointed out that as an electric vehicle uses no fuel it means that if one takes the top end and the bottom end of the scale they could quite easily continue building what are popularly called "gas guzzlers" and still come within the average bracket.
We in this country have adopted a rather different stance in that we have accepted the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders' paper published a couple of years ago—we debated it in fact in one of our energy debates—in which they have promised great fuel economies which can be monitored. They have now hedged their bets somewhat in saying that, of course, the environmental requirements of the motor vehicles offset some of the savings that they then saw. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in his speech to us this afternoon who mentioned this national interest to further electric vehicles. I suggest that one of the areas in which Government can play a leading and not necessarily expensive role is the fostering of the national interest in the whole area—not only energy conservation but pollution-free vehicles and the alternatives.
In paragraphs 36 and 107 of the report we refer to the commercial vehicle usage

1317
and the various advantages which might be allowable which would foster the interests of the commercial user. It is in that area that all speakers identified—and, indeed, the report identifies—the greatest growth. I think that one should not deny the Government's response in the last budget in dispensing with vehicle taxation for electric vehicles. But there are a number of other measures set out in that report, and, indeed, which my noble friend Lord Ironside mentioned, which could be brought into play. On the other hand, there is great ignorance among commercial users and their transport managers of the benefits, advantages and the options open to them as transport operators in the area of electric vehicles. It is disappointing to note that although the Road Transport Industry Training Board and other Boards have provided seminars and other instructional courses, the take-up has been very small. The Electricity Council, one of the great newspapers, the dairy people and, I think, Initial Towel Services were mentioned among many others as users of electric vehicles. The more we get them into use, the greater will be the depth of development and the greater will be the ultimate success.
The noble Lord, Lord Gregson, mentioned the awakening interest of manufacturers. Indeed, I do not think that it is sufficient to commend the manufacturers, either in this country or in other countries, for an awakening interest, but we should criticise them for their general attitude to this problem. The awakening interest would have to be transmitted very sharply into a change of attitude. I do not believe that in this country it is at all possible to foist the responsibility of using an alternative type of vehicle on to such manufacturers of components and battery systems as Lucas and Chloride or, indeed, to expect the smaller specialist production companies to lead the way. It is our great vehicle manufacturers who have to take a more positive role.
However, I wonder—and I say this with some diffidence—whether, in fact, our great motor manufacturing industries are poised to take advantage of those opportunities which present themselves today. Will they ever be able to take advantage of those opportunities which may well present themselves tomorrow?
1318
During the course of the inquiry I think that my greatest impression was in the area of the technological development in motors, controllers, drive systems and charging systems. This is referred to in some detail in Part VII of the report. It seems to me that, while our country is in its present economic position, we should concentrate on the greatest and the most immediate benefits that are available as a result of electrical vehicle technology. It is in that area that I believe we can reap the greatest benefit.
From talking to the people involved I was very disappointed to learn of the great shortage of electrical engineers in that industry. Therefore, it seems to me that some of the engineering institutions, the colleges, the universities and—right at the beginning—some of the careers advisers might very well learn a little more of this industry and promote young men and women to this branch of industry. I believe that success here could bring very rich rewards to the United Kingdom in exporting the technology alongside the components, which I believe we shall be able to manufacture for other people's manufacturing industries where the electric vehicle has a greater acceptance and usage.
On the question of funding, there is only one remark that I should like to make. It is perhaps prompted by the pleas that my noble friend Lord Ironside made. I do not believe that it is any good asking the Government to provide very much more than that which is already being provided. Although the community may very well benefit as the technology advances, it is the makers and the commercial operators who will reap the rewards. They must, as at present, provide most of the money. However, if encouragement can be given through the Government by the wider use of the vehicles, then we may very well advance a little more quickly.
If and when an opportunity presents itself for a greater participation of Government monies to support what I believe are new job opportunities and the furtherance of a new wealth-creating industry, which we shall need tomorrow, that is the time when the Government should provide more funds. But at this moment I think that it is their encouragement and a realisation of the wider fields that are involved that are needed, thereby

1319
introducing something of a national attitude to one sector of the market.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I think that we must all be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, for giving us the chance to have this debate today. I have listened to it carefully and it seems very clear to me from what he said and also from what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said that what would help this project more than anything would be another major commercial outlet. There is a chance of one which I can see most strongly and which I now wish to advocate; it is the commercial use of electric engines for inland waterways craft. I believe in this so strongly that I am sticking my neck out and having my own canal motor cruiser converted to electric drive; that is being done at this moment. I am doing this because it seems to me, not that the electric drive is something for the future, but that it is something for this very day in relation to inland waterways craft.
I should like to quote some figures which have been given to me by the original boat company of Evesham which seem to show that the electric engine is already viable as against the diesel for waterways craft. This is a firm which operates 50-feet long hire canal boats, and which in fact operates both diesel and electric craft—exactly similar craft with the alternative drives.
On the prices of boats, both are much the same. The electric drive boat is a little more, but if the market became large one could expect its price to fall. On propulsion unit life the diesel engine is quoted as having a life of three to five years and some of its components shorter lives; whereas the battery electric boat, with batteries which can now be installed in it, has a battery life of 10 years. I shall not bother your Lordships with all the detail on maintenance, but it works out that much less maintenance is needed on the electric boat. On fuel costs the difference is really significant. On a round 100-mile trip—which is what the company supplies to its hirers—diesel consumption is roughly 15 gallons, which works out at rather more than £15; but electric current for the same job and
1320
charged at standard rates, not cheap night rates, works out at £3·50. That is a colossal difference, and it is one of which we should take a great deal of account.
In addition, the disadvantages of the electric motor are not so serious on canals. As everybody knows, the main disadvantages are the heavy weight of the batteries, the slow speed and the difficulty of getting recharged. The weight of batteries is important on a road vehicle, but it is almost totally unimportant on a canal boat. Many canal boats in fact carry ballast, and there is no difficulty in carrying batteries instead. On distances run before recharging, a canal boat can run on her batteries for about three to four days because she simply is not going so fast.
At the moment there are too few outlets on the canals where canal boats can get fuel, but this should surely be put right. The electricity suppliers should certainly see to it. Also I should have thought that it would be in the interests of the British Waterways Board. Apart from that, there is one glorious fact about the canals; that is, that there is always a wharf beside some convenient pub just about every 10 miles. This is a result of course of the habits of the old horses which used to pull canal boats. He was almost the perfect trade unionist. He would do his 10 miles, you could not make him do overtime, and the result was that you had to have stabling for him every night.
Many of those little pubs have now turned again to the waterways to supply the wandering motor cruiser. It is possible to lie alongside their little wharves for the night and enjoy yourself, and there is no reason why these pubs should not let you put a cable ashore able to recharge on a normal 13 amp charger and suck electricity all night. Some of these may be tied houses, but one thing I am sure of is that they will have no objection to having tied customers, and that is what I am proposing.
There is one other disadvantage of the road vehicle that, as a matter of fact, when it comes to canal boats is an advantage; that is, speed. Too many of our inland waterways people are going too fast. To be kept down to four miles an hour, which is the speed that the Inland

1321
Waterways Association suggests, is a very good thing indeed. What is more, as we have already heard, you can get more speed but at a cost of higher amperage, which means you run your batteries flat much quicker. In other words, there is an incentive to electric boat owners to keep their boats down to a reasonable speed. I am sure that this is the kind of incentive that the Government appreciate.
There are several further points on this. One is that the British Waterways Board finds that the upkeep of the waterways under the wash of heavy, fast-moving boats is becoming enormously difficult and expensive. It would cost them much less if what was operating was fleets of electric boats. I do not want to suggest any particular expenditure from the Government. As everybody knows, my head is positively stuffed with good ideas for benefiting this country, the difficulty being that they all cost money. I am sure the same is true of all the rest of your Lordships. But speaking as an independent I may say for myself that I will not press any expensive ideas on Her Majesty's Government until things have very much altered financially. Therefore, I am a bit diffident.
I should like to suggest that the British Waterways Board might charge less in licences for electrically driven craft on the ground that they did less damage to the waterways. I should like to suggest that where hire cruiser fleets were organised with electric craft that they should be given more of the very limited number of licences to operate craft which are now doled out to the operators of hire cruiser fleets. These are ways of pushing things on.
I know that, unless we go to extensive electrification of inland waterways craft, we are soon going to run into a difficult position on the waterways because the waterways are now fairly crowded. The craft are doing a lot of damage to the waterways, and what is more they are getting to the point where they are annoying the other users of the waterways and their various preservation societies. There is undoubtedly going to be a demand from the preservation societies, as there should be, that we get craft which make less noise, put less oil on the water, make less air pollution, go slower, and do not damage
1322
the banks. All this is certainly going to be pressed on the Government, even more so now that this subject has become more in the public view.
For all these reasons we should look most seriously at the question of developing the electric engine for inland waterways craft drive. It is a different field as a start, and this is one of the things which we need in this matter. Hammering away at the same field means that you do not get some chances of research; where you go into a different field you get a different look at things. You look at things from a different angle. You have to deal with different kinds of equipment. You get different lines of research going, and it may well be that if we can develop the electric drive on the waterways we may find it having a spin-off in the fact that it is running different lines of research on the other uses of electric vehicles. For all these reasons, I would wish the Government to push on with this line which, I believe, is a great opening if we can use it.
5.57 p.m.
Lord STRATHCARRON: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, for initiating this debate on such an important subject. I have always been interested in all forms of transport and have driven various types of electric vehicles over the years, but I have to admit that the only one I have ever owned was an electrically driven golf trolley, driven by a 12 volt car battery. I walked beside it, but the awful groans it made spoilt the tranquility of the golf course, and its reliability left much to be desired. If it broke down on the far side of the course it was far too heavy to pull along unaided. I do not hold this against the modern electrical vehicle.
I have listened with great interest to the previous speeches which held out cautious hope for the future while appreciating the difficulties which still have to be overcome before electric vehicles are a practical means of transport for the average motorist. Many years ago, in 1899 to be precise, at a private park at Acheres near St. Germain, Jenatsy took the world's land speed record at 65.79 miles an hour over a kilometre in his electrically powered torpedo shaped car which was called La Jamais Contente. At the end of his short run the batteries were completely

1323
discharged. He did in actual fact try for the record a few months before, but unfortunately the time keepers forgot to start the watches, and Jenatsy, who had a flaming red beard which bristled with anger, had not enough power to drive back so he had to run back, and he had much to say on the subject.
Although all this happened more than 80 years ago the range of electric vehicles still relates to the speed at which the vehicle is driven, so its comparatively meagre range can be extended if only low and constant speeds are used. In the very early days of motoring the electric town carriage was very popular, but as petrol engined cars became quieter and smoother, and petrol cheaper, the electric car lost out and has never since regained its position.
The next stage in the electric vehicle story was the petrol-electric vehicle whereby a petrol engine supplied the power to a generator which in turn drove the electric motor. This system proved very popular for use in commercial vehicles and buses in the early part of the century, from 1903 to the early 1920s. If the petrol-electric system was revived it would give the vehicle the ability to travel long distances, which deals with one of the major disadvantages of the present battery-driven vehicle. The engine itself could be made very economical, for it need not be large and would run at a constant speed, rather like an emergency generating set one might have in one's house. If a dual system combining an engine and batteries were used, then for short journeys the batteries only would be used, so keeping the advantages of an electric vehicle when used in town conditions.
Although most of the electric vehicles on the road are light commercial ones of the milk-float type, the Japanese Diahatsu company have an electrically propelled version of their Charade small family saloon which runs with only eight 12-volt batteries of the lead acid type and will give a speed of 47 miles an hour and a range of nearly 50 miles. The same company are experimenting with batteries made of nickel iron and these are reputed under test to be giving 70 miles an hour with a range of 95 miles, which of course is very much more acceptable. The price is about 50 per cent. more than the petrol-engined
1324
Charade. Unfortunately, the fact that electric vehicles are so much more expensive will limit their popularity in the same way that diesel-engined cars also suffer from higher first cost, but not to the same extent.
One of the main disadvantages of the EV is the very high cost of replacement batteries, which may be necessary every three years or so. It would be all too easy for a private motorist to disregard this point while enjoying the otherwise cheaper running costs. I believe in the future of electric cars, particularly of the hybrid type, but I realise that there is a long way to go, with only 45,000 registrations out of a total of 17 million in this country. I do not think that in the end the vast sums of money which have been spent all over the world to further the cause of electric vehicles will prove to have been spent in vain.
6.3 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, to me this has been a most fascinating debate. I put my name down rather late in case there were some threads which from my experience I could pick up to contribute to your Lordships' consideration. I must say that the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, is an indication of how we can find something that is not even in the report at all. I have been interested in the subject of electric vehicles for many years and an enthusiast within the limits of the vehicle with equipment as it is available to us today. Accordingly, I welcome the debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, for introducing it. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, for the work of his organisation, with which he has been kind enough to keep me in touch as the years go on. I feel that any step which leads to electric vehicle development is worth while taking.
I have only a few comments to make. They are concerned largely with service vehicles, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, referred, their importance being mainly to urban areas and where their environmental advantages of absence of fumes and silence are exceptionally valuable. Electricity boards' distribution systems are always in difficulty there in terms of the parking of vehicles and the supply of staff for services and

1325
so on. One thing that I feel is worth mentioning in terms of electricity service vehicles is the question of cities and towns with hills. What is being done about regenerative braking in terms of using electricity service vehicles in places where there is this problem of steep grades? Do the electricity boards take part in the deliberations of the Electric Vehicle Development Group which is referred to in page 145? I feel there is a great deal they could do in experimental work.
When one considers the recommendations of the committee, their recommendations (i) and (j) seem to me to be outstanding. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, pointed out that we could hardly expect much more assistance from Government in terms of finance. But I think there are possibilities for enormous amounts of research to be done by electricity boards in their actual work and with using different types of vehicle on the job. This is what really affects the user, the practical man of business. The noble Lord, Lord Ironside, said there is a good case for "sharpening up our efforts" in this country. We could go on from hybrid trolley-buses to electric golf buggies; but I will not turn to them.
I was concerned with the electric supply industry in Western India. Two of our companies involved densely populated urban areas with narrow bazaar streets and a concentration of sub-stations belonging to the supply companies. We bought two service vans from Austins of Longbridge in 1937 and they were still running when I retired from India in 1952. They were built to our design and I cannot resist telling your Lordships the story of how I went down to try out the first one. There was a wooden seat on the bare chassis. The first thing I learnt, to my surprise, was that they go just as fast backwards as they do forwards. I nearly pushed it through the factory wall. Apart from that, the experiment was satisfactory in that I found that the steering lock could be made very much tighter without interfering with the efficiency of the vehicle and yet greatly assisting its use in urban areas for service work.
I do not know how many of your Lordships remember the fleet of electric vehicles that Harrods had on the road for years. I am particularly concerned with that because one of our companies was
1326
diesel powered and we subscribed to a worldwide association of diesel generating stations. The most efficient in the world was Harrods because they had this fleet of electric vehicles. During off-peak periods they were able to keep the machines on load charging up the delivery vans. I wonder whether British Leyland can trace the Austin records of the vehicles of which I spoke earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Ironside, referred to costs. My recollection was that they were very rough and ready. The big item of expenditure was, of course, the battery. The advances since then have been extraordinary and they continue from day to day. But the vehicle itself seemed to me to be very simple. The only complexity, which I have referred to already and which I do not know anything about, is this possibility of regenerative braking. The debate has been extremely interesting. I look forward to hearing further contributions and I feel, as the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, said, that everything should be done to push on within our means with investigation of this form of transportation which in the years to come will become more and more important as fossil fuel disappears from the possibilities of commercial development.
6.10 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, we have had such a thorough debate and such an excellent account from my noble friend Lord Gregson that I propose to delay your Lordships for only a few minutes, having been a member of the committee, and I wish at the outset to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Todd, said about the work of the Select Committee. When I originally proposed the setting up of that committee, it was based largely on the high quality of many of your Lordships and the work already of the committees under the chairmanship of the noble Lords, Lord Todd, Lord Sherfield and Lord Gregson, which shows that in the course of time the Select Committee will be able to make some valuable contributions. We began, as Lord Todd made clear, with a rather discrete area, one we reckoned we could handle and get a report out quickly, and I am told by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, and others that we have produced a very satisfactory report.

1327
When one thinks of the vast area the Select Committee can look at, obviously it will be difficult to tackle the whole wide field of science and technology. I have no doubt, however, that the committee will make contributions. Indeed, we shall probably need to make further demands on manpower, when manpower is available, for our work, and I fear we shall probably take up—this is a point committees must always remember, not least in another place—a lot of time of civil servants, and that is bound to add to the cost.
I was interested in the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids. I suppose a canal boat is a vehicle, although we did not think very seriously about it. I am only sorry that the noble Viscount did not give us evidence. We invited evidence widely and I assure him that I am anxious to encourage him. I thought he gave at least an interesting sideline and, since everybody has been anecdotal, those of my generation will remember that, if one went to Skindle's at Maidenhead in the early 'thirties and wanted to take somebody out on the river, one could hire an electric canoe, which was not nearly as stable as a punt for whatever purpose one had in mind.
The report is, I believe, worth while. I was moderately sceptical—I still am a little—in that I am not quite satisfied that the energy equation will in the long run provide the incentive for the development of electric vehicles, but that argument has been used about electricity in other contexts. The advantages socially and environmentally are so great that, as the report makes clear, one of the problems is that the disadvantages fall on the user, proprietor and purchaser while the advantages go to the community at large, and that is where a certain adjustment is necessary. Indeed, the Government have already taken steps by adjusting the balance in regard to cost and tax very much in favour of the electric vehicle. The question is how much more the Government should do. The fact is—this comes out clearly—that in certain respects we lead the world, but we will not lead it for much longer if we are not careful, and I say that as somebody who has been involved in exports recently; so often one sees missed opportunities. The fact that the United States, Japan and
1328
other countries are spending so much more money than we are on these developments suggests that we must think very hard indeed, if we are not prepared at least to sustain the present degree of support and perhaps encourage it further.
The committee did not rely on battery breakthrough. The sodium sulphur battery, which is a hot contender, sounds a nasty and dangerous animal to have in a vehicle—operating at a temperature of 360 degrees centigrade—but I suppose the argument could have been used about the early railway trains that they were nasty and dangerous vehicles. Zinc chlorine—if the refrigerator does not work it in theory emits poisonous clouds of chlorine which could poison the neighbourhood, or the driver—also sounds unattractive, but I do not think these problems cannot be overcome technologically. We deal with so many dangerous substances now that in the long run they may provide some of the breakthrough, although certain of the claims seem to me to be rather unlikely.
I therefore urge the Government, who I am sure will take the report seriously, at least to go as far as we recommend. I would not wish to press them too hard at a time when they are pursuing policies of economy of a kind to which I am not entirely sympathetic. However, I do not regard this as a party political occasion and I understand that the Government must follow the policies to which they are committed.
I believe the case has been well made. Despite its caution and criticism, the report has given great encouragement to people who need encouragement, and I echo the credit that has been given to, for example, Chloride and Lucas for the risks they have taken. It shows that industrialists in this dangerous age are still prepared to spend money on research in their fundamental area of activity which may in the end pay off. I hope it will pay off for them and for all of us, with quieter and more convenient vehicles.
I would mention only one new aspect, one which I came across in the last month. I was recently in Southern Africa where I visited one of my company's mines, an advanced copper mine where they shifted no less than 500,000 tons of rock in one day. They are about to go on to trolley-assisted trucks, huge 250-ton trucks which

1329
will be trolley-assisted; in other words, hybrid vehicles. The trolley and the hybrid are two areas where further support may be necessary.
6.18 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I wish to begin by adding my tribute to the Select Committee oil Science and Technology, whose sub-committee wrote the report we are now considering. Looking at the list of distinguished members of that committee, I am not surprised that the first report from its sub-committee is of such excellence. Indeed, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the sub-committee on their report. It is perhaps the most comprehensive and comprehensible review of electric vehicle development and technology ever to have been published. Had it no other purpose, I am sure it would be of inestimable value as an authoritative source of information and opinion to practitioners and laymen alike. It has other purposes too, and your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, for providing us with the opportunity to discuss them this evening. The Government have been considering their response to the report and reviewing their policy in the light of the recommendations, and today's debate enables us to set out their views.
Before I do that, may I add to the anecdotal flavour of the debate, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred, be recounting an anecdote of my own? I was very anxoius indeed to be the Minister responding to the debate from this Dispatch Box because it happens that I and my brother once built an electric vehicle in our garage at home. Therefore I can speak of the problems of the electric vehicle industry with particular personal knowledge. I recall that we had the greatest difficulty with the brakes. The only way that we could stop it was by putting it into reverse. Then it shot back in the other direction, and at the same time there was considerable heat in some of the wires, which caused all kinds of difficulties.
First, let me say that it is difficult to quarrel with the well-balanced argument of the report, and indeed the Government are in full agreement with the main thrust of the recommendations. However, we are faced, as was the committee,
1330
with the dilemma of trying to decide where and when electric road vehicles will become commercially viable and the whole emphasis which should be placed on the technology, as compared with other work in the fuel and transport fields at a time when money is so short.
Clearly for the longer term it is important for us to maintain, and if possible broaden, our existing options for transport and related fuel supply, and work in the field of electrical vehicles is one of the alternatives open to us. Conventional oil is likely to have an important continuing role for many years, but we are all too well aware that these supplies are finite. In the medium term and beyond we can expect that oil will be increasingly reserved for its premium uses for transport and for petrochemicals, but as supplies become more scarce, less secure, and more expensive, there is likely to be an increasing need for alternatives. Having our own oil will not insulate us from the rest of the world. Our reserves are limited, and we are likely once more to be returning to the world market for imports from the 1990s.
Our main options for longer-term road transport are synthetic fuel from coal and, if progress can be made in developing the technology meanwhile, electric vehicles. It is for that reason that the Government are encouraging research and development of electric vehicles and battery and component technology. As a further measure of encouragement we abolished excise duty on electric vehicles in the March 1980 budget.
The pace at which electric vehicles will become an attractive alternative to the internal combustion engine will depend upon a number of things, including the relative cost of vehicles and the necessary service infrastructure. Above all however it will depend upon the development and availability of advanced batteries. The lead acid battery has served us well and must continue to do so for some time, but it is heavy and places severe limitations on range and performance. This is a matter which many noble Lords have mentioned this evening.
About a third of the weight of the familiar milk float is accounted for by the battery, and even the more modern batteries used in new urban delivery

1331
vehicles take up far too much of the payload. Until advanced batteries are available, the acceptable road use of electric vehicles will be confined to urban transport and probably to urban delivery vans. As the committee points out, research and development is continuing, particularly at Harwell with particular emphasis on sodium sulphur batteries which offer the prospect, but not yet the reality, of an improvement in the power storage capability by a factor of two or even three. Other types of advanced battery are under investigation by both Government and industry. The long-term future of electric traction in road transport will depend upon the outcome of this work perhaps more than on any other factor.
It is against that background that I turn to the recommendations of the committee and note with satisfaction that the committee thought that we and previous Governments had got the level of support about right. We have now reviewed our future policy and have come to the conclusion that the committee is also right to say that we should continue to provide similar support. In practice this means that electric vehicle technology may do rather better than some other areas at a time when the general level of Government expenditure is being held down. Within this expenditure we shall of course have to allocate priorities, and here again we are grateful to the committee for its help. Broadly, we believe, with the committee, that the main emphasis should be on drive train components; by this I mean controllers, motors, transmissions and batteries—or in other words, the works. We have come to this view because we believe that our industry has a lead in this area and that it is here therefore that the best prospects of early commercial exploitation exist.
Manufacturers of drive trains have the chance to supply their products to vehicle manufacturers at home and abroad and by concentrating on this area can establish a base from which to widen the areas of application beyond their current uses in delivery vehicles. This is particularly important at a time when, although the most promising application in this country is the urban delivery van, there seems to be a larger and earlier demand for other vehicles, including the electric car, else-
1332
where in the world. We also agree with the committee that it is important to make sure that electric vehicles are adequately demonstrated through user trials. However, our principal objective in all this is to help this nascent industry find its commercial feet as quickly as possible.
As I said a few moments ago, the wider use of electric vehicles will depend to a very considerable extent upon the development of advanced batteries which overcome the range and performance limitations of lead acid systems. We note the committee's view that work in this field should be continued, and we are currently carrying out the detailed review of options which the committee recommends.
We have also taken note of the committee's view that there may be commercial advantages in working through larger firms, and its reference to applications for support from Lucas and Chloride. We are in discussions with the companies concerned with a view to arriving at arrangements which will ensure the most effective use of both industrial and public funds. We shall not however lose sight of the important contributions that have been made, and will I am sure continue to be made by smaller firms and indeed individuals in this field. My noble friend Lord Ironside asked me about that point. He also asked me in particular—I think that it was my noble friend Lord Ironside—whether British Leyland has made any proposals to the Government. I understand that outline proposals have been received from British Leyland and that the Department of Industry is now in discussions with the company.
The Government are very conscious of the effects that legislation and other direct action can have on the development of the market for electric vehicles, and as I said earlier, the Chancellor recognised this in his last Budget. The Department of Transport is keeping the position under review and would respond sympathetically to any specific information from a manufacturer or user who felt that he was being inhibited by regulations. Indeed I can assure my noble friend Lord Ironside in particular that we are currently considering representations about tachographs in that context. However, in this instance, we have to consider not only our own wishes, but the attitude of the

1333
European Community whose Directive on tachographs the previous Administration were reluctant to implement.
So far as parking is concerned, which was a matter raised by the committee, the local authorities already have the powers to make provisions of the kind suggested by the committee—for example, for disabled badge holders—and it is for them to decide whether to single out electric vehicles for special treatment in this way. No doubt they will have noted the committee's recommendations, as indeed will public purchasers and the Electricity Council. In the context of public purchasing we shall be prepared to consider what part central Government can play at the appropriate time.
Finally, let me turn to one area where we differ slightly from the committee. This concerns the recommendation for additional support for hybrid vehicles. It is by no means clear to us which, if any, of the wide variety of potential hybrids is likely to prove a winner. All add complexity to the construction and use of the vehicles and carry the weight and cost penalty of calling for dual systems. At the extreme the problems and shortcomings of hybrid power systems were only too clear in the early days of the conventional submarine, for example. We accept however that at least so far as the car is concerned, internal combustion and electric configurations help to overcome the range disadvantages currently suffered by the pure electric private vehicle. We are keeping in touch with current work and thinking and we would be prepared to consider requests for help, but I cannot promise that this area of development will command a high priority at this time.
Attention has been given mainly to hybrid vehicles using batteries, but we are aware that there is interest overseas in trolley buses with auxiliary diesel engines, which I think was what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was referring to for the use in his mining interests. Although these may not be economic in this country, there is a possibility that export markets might open up for British manufacturers, and we shall bear this in mind. I cannot pretend that my noble friend Lord Strathcarron will be very pleased with that reply, but I hope that he at least understands our position.
1334
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, in his most interesting and fascinating speech, raised a number of interesting points about the use of electric boats, particularly on inland waterways. I must confess I was very encouraged to hear what he was saying, because, at the risk of boring your Lordships with yet another anecdote, I myself inquired some years ago about the possibility of buying an electric-powered cruiser to operate on the little river near where I live and I found that there was none available on the market at that time. I am encouraged to hear what the noble Viscount said about having his own boat converted in this way. However, I am informed that the Department of Industry has provided some financial support to at least one project in this field, of which I shall be glad to give details at some other time to the noble Viscount.
In conclusion, let me say that the committee's second recommendation summarises the Government's attitude to support for the development of electric vehicles better than I can. It is indeed our objective to allow the electric vehicle to prove whether it can compete with the internal combustion engine vehicle on equal terms before oil supplies run down. We believe, with the committee, that the work which has been supported so far has been of value and we intend to maintain a solid level of support for electric-vehicle work in the future.
Lord GREGSON: My Lords, first, I should like to thank all the noble Lords who took part in this debate. I think it has shown the value of this House in being able to contribute to such a subject in such a masterly manner and showing such a wide range of experience. I should also like to thank the Minister for his response. I now realise of course that we should probably have called him for evidence if I had known about his previous activities in the field. I am sure that the Select Committee will study the Minister's words most carefully. Finally, I think I can fairly say that the Select Committee on Science and Technology is now set on a road to play a significant part in the future proceedings of your Lordships' House.

MR MICHAEL CARVER: ARREST
6.33 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the circumstances in which Mr. Michael Carver came to be arrested in Brighton on 10th October 1980 after having been dragged unconscious from the Conservative Party conference hall; the reasons for his fingerprints being taken and for his being required to appear at the Brighton police station at 6 p.m. on Tuesday 11th November; the steps taken to identify his assailants and apprehend them; and the steps taken to afford him medical assistance both before and after his arrest.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave of the House to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships will be aware that on 30th October last I had a Starred Question in which I referred to the removal, unconscious, of a demonstrator from the Conservative Party Conference hall on 10th October, and I received a reply from the noble Lord opposite in the following terms:
"My Lords, I understand that on two separate occasions on the afternoon of 10th October the proceedings at the Conservative Party Conference in Brighton were interrupted by a protestor. In each case the man concerned was first approached by the conference stewards and was then escorted from the hall by plain clothes police. Both men were released later that day, and no complaint of assault has been made by either of them".[Official Report, 30/10/80; col. 541.]
Then in reply to a further supplementary by me, the noble Lord said:
"I understand that neither of the protestors was unconscious when escorted from the hall and neither has complained of an assault".—[Co1.542.]
Indeed, the noble Lord confirmed in the last answer he made on the exchange of views across the House. He said to your Lordships:
"My Lords, the obvious thing to do on being asked a Question of this kind was to get in touch with the people who had escorted the two young men from the hall. They were the Sussex police, and it is upon that contact that my replies this afternoon have been based".—[Col. 543.]
My Lords, your Lordships will recall that this matter was first referred to in The Times of the next day, under the pen of Mr. Fred Emery, the political editor of The Times, and on the day following the Parliamentary Question
1336
—that is, 31st October—Mr. Emery reiterated what he had said before. The report reads:
"Lord Belstead, Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, was questioned by the Lord Bruce of Donington, a Labour peer, after my report of the violent pounding Mr. Carver received on the floor from stewards and from Conservatives, including women".
He continued:
"The incident occurred in full view of the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and Cabinet, as well as television cameras".
Now, my Lords, quite clearly the two versions of the events which were the subject of my Question are a long way apart, and so indeed it appeared to me at the time. The Times is well-known for its accuracy; it is a paper of record. On the occasions when it does make mistakes it is very careful to publish a correction of what it put in before. On this occasion, not only was there no correction but there was in fact a reiteration by this distinguished journalist of what he had said before.
I thought it wise, however, to seek further evidence in support of the integrity of my original Question. I made some searches, and I find that in the Daily Telegraph for 11th October, the day following, under the pen of Mr. Ian Glover-James, another well-known journalist, the following appeared:
"More demonstrators broke their cover minutes after Mrs. Thatcher started speaking. One pulled off his coat to expose the bright orange safety jacket of the Right to Work marchers and shouted "Fight for the right to work".
Then Mr. Glover-James goes on to say this:
"He was felled by a blow from a security man and carried out face down. His companion was led off in handcuffs by plain clothes police in the audience".
But, my Lords, I decided that it would perhaps be wise to go even further afield, and I had the good fortune to meet the political editor of the Guardian, Mr. Ian Aitken, who was kind enough to write to me on the matter. He said this:
"The heckler gave every impression of being totally unconscious, was certainly quite limp, and was being carried by the arms and legs as if he were a shot deer".
My Lords, I decided to go even further afield than that, and I was informed that the item had been included in the Granada Television programme What the Papers Say, on 16th October, in which Mr. Ian

1337
Waller of the Sunday Telegraph broadcast as follows—and I have for reference, if the need arises, a complete transcript of the whole programme. This is what Mr. Waller said:
"In fact, the only real violence of the day took place in the conference hall itself—and the guilty people either party officials or supporters. It happened to one of the hecklers who had managed to get through the strict security and Mrs. Thatcher managed to turn his brief outburst to good advantage; [she said] 'Never mind. It's wet outside. You can't blame them. It's always better where the Tories are'."
Then Mr. Waller continued:
"The heckler, Mr. Mike Carver, a London printer and SWP supporter, fared less well however … 'I saw him carried out face hanging down and being handled with rather less respect than a side of beef'."
My Lords, I have given those four quotations, for which I have the original documents, to illustrate how wide the difference is between the verdict of four distinguished journalists—two of them very eminent distinguished journalists—as shown by what they said and wrote, and the explanation given by the Minister. The Minister said that they were "escorted out". The words "escorted out" are capable, I suppose, of being stretched a little—I doubt whether you could stretch them to frog-marching, although perhaps it might be permissible—but they are certainly not consistent with the evidence of these four journalists. Both versions cannot be true. My Lords, there are certain grave implications about this difference which I shall deal with a little later on in what I have to say, as I shall submit to your Lordships that the status of Parliament is involved in this.
Since I have now put down this Question relating to Mr. Carver—indeed, my original Question related not to two men but to one—I will perhaps acquaint your Lordships very briefly with Mr. Carver's account of events in so far as he can recall them. I shall not weary your Lordships by reading from his written, signed statement, which I have, but I will endeavour to shorten it as much as I possibly can. Mr. Carver's first recollection following his being carried from the hall was waking up in a very dazed conditon, and with a splitting headache, in the Brighton police station somewhere before 3 o'clock on the afternoon of Friday 10th. He recalls having his particulars taken at a desk, on which he says he rested his hands and head
1338
—because, of course, he had a splitting headache—and he remembers the presence of a plain-clothes officer who he thought (and he cannot put it any higher than that) he recognised as being the same one he saw in the conference hall itself.
He remembers being finger-printed, and says that he may have given permission for this to be done. He was also photographed. He was taken down to the cell area—at least, that is how he described it; I do not know how accurate his description is; it may not have been the cell area, it may have been a hall of some kind—and was questioned by an officer in connection with his possession of a pass to get into the conference hall. He was then put into a cell, but he does not know for how long. He was then brought out for questioning, but he was not cautioned. At the conclusion of that interview he was told that it was about 5.45. He was then put back into the cell, and remained there, he thinks, for something like 2½ to 3 hours. Indeed, since he was released shortly before 9 o'clock at night it must have been somewhere in that area; but since, as your Lordships will appreciate, when a man is arrested his possessions are taken from him, he obviously was not able to look at the watch which at that time he did not have.
He was then handed a form, which he signed before he left. This form is a G20. I shall not refer to it in any great detail, but it says this—and it is signed by himself and the officer in charge of the station:
"I, Michael Kenneth Carver"—
and his address and date of birth are given—
"Occupation, printer, having been arrested in connection with the matter shown below, acknowledge that I am to appear at Brighton Police Station at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, 11th November, 1980".
Then, below, there is some print which says:
"Brief details of principal charge, including Act and section … Details of warrant which was backed for bail …".
Then, underneath that, instead of specifying any particular charge, there are inserted the words "Further inquiries". Indeed, it emerges that he was not charged with any offence, and in those circumstances it is a little difficult to find out why he was issued with that form at all.

1339
Your Lordships will be aware that the law is not my subject. I am not very familiar with these things, but doubtless explanations can be given.
On his release he was taken to the Royal Sussex Hospital and was seen by a casualty officer, who, after examining him, referred him to the house surgeon. After an interview with the house surgeon, he was detained for the night. He was examined at two-hourly intervals (at midnight, 2 a.m., 4 a.m., 6 a.m. and 7.30 a.m.) and after that he was discharged—and he was discharged, I am very happy to say, as being fit. That is a rough outline of his account, and the noble Lord may perhaps be able to supplement it from information at his disposal. Indeed, the noble Lord will readily agree, I think, that I caused a communication to be sent to his office at the end of last week saying that if he wished to have a word with me on this case I would be only too happy to meet him on it.
My Lords, in my view the following questions arise. Why were not Mr. Carver's assailants identified and taken to the station? It is quite clear, I think, and I may have established beyond all reasonable doubt, that he was assaulted. According to the Answer given to my Question on 30th October by the noble Lord, the police escorted Mr. Carver out of the hall, so they must have been there. Therefore, the first question that I must ask—and it may be that the noble Lord can inform me that the police have made endeavours and have since taken action—is why his assailants were not identified and taken to the station.
The second question I have to ask is concerned with his arrest. Why should he be arrested after being taken out of the hall, whether carried out or escorted out? One hears of and appreciates to the full the very considerable difficulties that the police forces have in dealing with political demonstrations and indeed with industrial disputes. These are always very delicate matters with which to deal and the police, by and large, I should have thought, deal with them very patiently and they are bound to make their inquiries. I can understand, therefore, that there may have been some reason which the police apprehended at the time for him to be taken to the station. I accept that.
1340
But I should still like the noble Lord, if he will, to tell the House just what the reason was. Perhaps it was because they wanted to discover from Mr. Carver how he got into the hall, how he obtained the pass in order to get in. This is quite a legitimate inquiry, particularly when the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and other Ministers are inside the hall. Security must always be a very considerable headache and worry to the police.
The next question I have to ask is this. Why was Mr. Carver not given medical attention? Blows to the head are always dangerous. The danger arises not necessarily from the heaviness of the blow. The important thing is the degree to which people expect the blow. If persons expect a blow, as, for example, in boxing, they tend to be able to move the head, to roll with the punch and so on. But when a person is hit unexpectedly—and the word that the Daily Telegraph used, "felled", is very clear—this means that a comparatively small blow can cause brain damage because, as your Lordships' will be aware, the brain to some extent floats in a fluid and a sudden unexpected blow can very often cause the brain to impinge upon the skull itself and can cause considerable damage. In all cases where a person is unconscious for 15 minutes or thereabouts, most medical opinion will agree, some care is necessary. Therefore, I should like to know why medical attention was not available. I should like to know also why finger-printing was necessary; why it was necessary to photograph; why it was necessary to issue the form G.20 to which I referred; and why he was detained for so long. He was there shortly before three and released shortly before nine. It seems rather a long time.
I wonder whether the answer to this can be that there was no assault at all by anybody. To say that is, I am afraid, not only flying in the face of all the evidence which I have read to your Lordships but also flying against the experience of people who watched the conference on television. The other answer that may be given is that there was no complaint. It is perfectly true that Mr. Carver was informed while at the police station that he could complain, that he asked whether he had to complain "now", and that they said, "No"—that

1341
that was not necessary. But still the question, and the noble Lord put it, is: Why did not the victim in this case complain?—not that that in any way diminishes the events that I have recounted to your Lordships.
I invite your Lordships to contemplate a situation where an inquiry by the police into the activities of the police does not always command confidence. The right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary himself published an article in the Police Review for 26th September 1980 in which he referred precisely to this point and in which he said that it was desirable (I have the text here but I shall not weary the House with it) that police inquiries should be seen to be absolutely fair. He also referred to the position in Scotland where he outlined the position of the procurator fiscal which in his view gave some degree of independence.
But, my Lords, Mr. Carver did complain. He complained to me. And a complaint conveyed by me to your Lordships is, I suggest, quite a proper thing to take place. This House is supposed to be, and is getting the reputation for being, the guardian of the people's liberties. I am bound to say that I made an endeavour at one point to have the question raised in the other place but was advised—or, rather, the Member of Parliament who tried was advised—that the question could not be put because of lack of ministerial responsibility. It may be that your Lordships consider it to be an advantage that the question can be put down here and therefore properly ventilated.
Why, in any event, should I be interested in it as a Member of this House? After all, there are attitudes prevalent in the country that might imply that Mr. Carver interrupted and he only got what was coming to him. I would suggest that that is a very dangerous doctrine to adopt. I appreciate that it must be very irritating and angering to members of a party conference to be interrupted. I am well aware of the provocations that are offered. Indeed, we had the same thing, if I may say so, at the Labour Party conference when we were interrupted by demonstrators from the National Front. We, too, were irritated; but we escorted them out. We did not fell them and we did not in any way cause them to become unconscious.
This gentlemen was a member of the Socialist Workers' Party. Why, therefore, should I raise anything on his behalf? My answer is to recall to your Lordships' memory the action of the late Sir Winston Churchill when it was reported to him in another place that somebody had assaulted Mr. Phil Piratin, who was a Communist. Mr. Churchill was the first on his feet to pass the whole thing over to the Committee of Privileges.
The other reason why I decided to pursue this matter with your Lordships was its uniqueness. We cannot involve ourselves in raising in this House every particular offence or crime. Most crimes are committed when the police are not there and when the assailants cannot be identified. There is however a certain uniqueness in this case: the police were there when the offence was committed. The assailants were there and also the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary were there. That is the uniqueness of the event.
It is right that this should be drawn to your Lordships' attention; that the Government should be given an opportunity of replying to it. We cannot afford any suggestion—any remote suggestion or hint—that somewhere, somehow, there is a cover-up by somebody. We all have fairly long memories concerning the Watergate situation, with which of course I do not compare this. One remembers that the offence was a comparatively minor one by United States standards; but the real, ultimate offence was the cover-up itself.
I have endeavoured to raise this matter in no partisan spirit. I have tried to present the facts as honestly as I see them. But I am bound to tell the noble Lord that if the Answer from the Government is that this particular offence did not take place, then I must tell the noble Lord that I will pursue this matter to the bitter end. I am hopeful that the noble Lord, in view of this conflict of evidence, of this conflict of account, will see fit to institute an inquiry into the whole question, unless of course the noble Lord does admit the central truth of the bulk of the story—I do not necessarily mean the detail. It is the offence that matters. If it is not possible to do that, the matter will have to be taken further. What 1 think the country will want, and

1343
what I think we in your Lordships' House will want, is simply the truth.
7.3 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, the truth is not always simple to ascertain in even the least controversial inquiry; but I hope that my noble friend is successful in obtaining it because the more one thinks of this, the more one appreciates that it has gone a few steps further than what can happen at a rowdy meeting or when there are demonstrations.
First, I apologise for the fact that I was two or three seconds late. I was studying the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, with profit. I also apologise for the fact that, with your Lordships' permission, I shall leave the House for not more than two minutes as early as I can because I have a vital telephone call for which someone has been waiting anxiously for some time.
Subject to that, may I say this: these are times of increasing gravity. I do not think that anyone who has watched the rapidly accelerating events of the past few weeks can look with confidence to a peaceful future in this country and to the country maintaining its balance, its endurance and its capacity for suffering. Those are political remarks. I make them quite deliberately, speaking as someone who has been in politics now for 60 or 70 years. I have lived through the miners' troubles and the period of fascism; I saw the use of mounted police more than once against people who were legitimately attempting to voice grievances. I believe someone ought at least to give a serious warning of an atmosphere which is getting more and more polluted by the powers of suffering and sacrifice.
Here we have a young man who is trespassing, who uses an entrance ticket given to him. So far as I know, apart from one of those single interruptions which Lloyd George used to value so much to enable him to make a brilliant speech, he made a single observation which was replied to by the Prime Minister to her advantage. It is after that that we get a scene in which a life might easily have been lost. I can recall a member of the other House taking part in a political demonstration in Chicago where they are apt to use tougher methods than here. I recall what
1344
followed. Whether what followed was post hoc or wholly propter hoc, I am unable to say.
Here is a man who, as my noble friend has said, is knocked unconscious. It seems to me that one of the matters to worry about most and to treat most gravely is this question of whether there were hired persons outside the police force to carry out their duties of maintaining order by force. Indeed, the description that is given of what happened is quite difficult to believe: that delegates to the conference should take part in the violence, that the man should be beaten up until he is unconscious and carried out knowing nothing more until he wakes up an hour or two later in the police station, is a sufficiently serious matter to which we should pay just a little attention. He was then released from the police station. I am bound to say that it seems a rather surprising procedure in the circumstances that there was no charge. I imagine that my noble friend has told us—I did not hear—what happened on the day the man was remanded. Did he receive notice that he need not attend, or did he have to go down to Brighton to reply? I understand that he did not: then the charge was not pursued. That of course would be the right course, if such a course was necessary at all and I fail to see, in the absence of any allegation against the man—because the allegations were all against the conference delegates—that it could be.
I do not very much like this sort of story and I do not very much like pressing it, because one does not wish even to give the appearance of stirring up something to a greater degree: indeed it would be very wrong to do so at this time. People are beginning to use the language of controversy. And I observed on the tape this afternoon that at Brighton—and there is something in the air there which seems to have lasted since George IV—the CBI conference at Brighton has ended with a rousing call from the Director-General. Sir Terence Beckett, to employers or employees—the word has an "e" missing, which leaves it open to be either but it is probably "employers"—to have a "bare-knuckle fight" with the Government. That is what it says and it was thought sufficiently important to report it. This is the language of the Teamsters' Union and we do not particularly want it to come to this country.
7.12 p.m.
Lord GRANVILLE of EYE: My Lords, I agree that there is a certain amount of disquiet about this matter, which I think was first raised last week in your Lordships' House. I am intervening only very briefly because I happened to watch the incident—with millions of others, I suppose—on the box. The Unstarred Question asks Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the circumstances, and also asks: was Mr. Michael Carver dragged from the conference? It further asks whether his fingerprints were taken and why he was asked to report today at six o'clock. It will be very interesting to hear the Minister's answers to these questions, because I hope very much that he will be able to set our minds at rest. Of course, a great number saw this on television: it happened to be a prime viewing time of the day and a superb opportunity for maximum publicity.
This was a ticket session, according to the reports. How did Mr. Carver get in with the delegates? Perhaps the Minister can tell us that. Did he have a ticket? Also, when he was taken to the Brighton police station, why were his fingerprints taken—if they were?
I should like to ask the Minister the following questions in addition: was security genuinely and sincerely involved in this and who were the stewards who in fact did the eviction? Were the police called in and asked to help in removing Mr. Carver from the hall? Above all, was Mr. Carver on his own? Was he a single individual who happened to have penetrated the conference?
When heads of Government, whether a President, a Prime Minister or senior Ministers are involved, security is very much concerned. Of course they can be worried about many things. It could be terrorists, it could be the IRA or all kinds of things. What has happened in the past over the months and years has taught us to be on our guard about these things: I accept that. Were the security people there to guard or protect the Prime Minister and were they concerned that some terrorist had got inside? Perhaps the Minister can give us an answer to these questions.
Heckling has been part of our hustings since Eatanswill, as the noble Lord, Lord Hale, said; but unfortunately today young
1346
people hear and see violence on television. They even hear on the radio the shouting that goes on in another place at Question Time, and they think it is the thing. Then there was Grunwick; picket lines and violence—they think it is all right today. It is all very different from the heckling of the hustings of long ago. I very much hope that when the Minister replies to this short debate he will give us some reassurance on what I consider to be a very disquieting case.
7.16 p.m.
Baroness TRUMPINGTON: My Lords, a person making a protest at a meeting to which he has gained access through false pretences must expect to leave that place in a different way from that in which he got in. I watched, as well as other noble Lords, that gentleman's eviction on television. He struggled and, rather naturally, he was restrained. I have seen the same thing happen on television, or because I was actually there, many times. I deplore violence but I equally deplore the original speech, which I think was made more for political reasons than as a plea for justice. If the gentleman was innocent, why not fingerprint him? How long after the event did he make a complaint?
I believe that the police have to safeguard their own interests very seriously, and therefore they would call in a police surgeon if they were in any doubt at all about the man's physical condition. I really do not see why we should knock the police, who have a very difficult job to do in very difficult circumstances. Those of us who believe all that we read in the press must have taken a good few knocks to the head to be so utterly gullible ourselves.
7.18 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name down to speak in time for it to be on the list of speakers, but I have given notice since and I understand those concerned have been advised. My interest in this Question arises because I think—and I am not alone, I believe—that we ought to be apprehensive in the next 12 months regarding an increase, and perhaps an alarming increase, in public disorder. If so, two things are very important: first

1347
—and I deliberately put it first—the maintenance of law and order; and, secondly, the maintenance of civil liberties.
I recently came across, rather by accident, one of the Melchett Lectures which had been delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, an eminent biologist in which he said something with which no other biologist would have disagreed: namely, that most men reach the height of their mental and physical powers in their late teens and early twenties. After that, biologically speaking, we all go downhill. Of course, we learn considerably from experience. If a recent leading article in the Guardian was right, of all the registered unemployed, one-half would be under 25. Some of them will have more brains than muscle, and more of them I expect will have more muscle than brain. They will be at the height of their powers, full of energy and with absolutely nothing to do. It is in those circumstances that we have to safeguard ourselves from public disorders as far as we can; and I have said that both maintaining law and order and maintaining civil liberties are important.
The first aspect about this matter that I do not understand is this. Mr. Emery is not just anybody. He is, after all, the political editor of The Times. We are familiar with his writing, and this is what he said the following day:
"…one young man near me was being dragged from the hall unconscious after a pounding on the floor of the central aisle by security men in plain clothes and some Conservatives, including women".
If that is right, if he had called out "What about the unemployed?" or whatever it was, nothing can justify that assault. The gravity of this case, as I understand it, is that here an assault takes place before the public in the presence of the police, in the presence of the Prime Minister, in the presence of the Home Secretary and no one has been charged.
The first question that I should like to ask is: Is it the view of the noble Lord the Minister that the political editor of The Times invented this, or is it his view that he was suffering from an hallucination? It was partly corroborated by other journalists in The Guardian, the Telegraph and so on. But if so, this was
1348
an assault which nothing can justify. It was a criminal offence. It reminds one of the Olympia meetings of Sir Oswald Mosley. If so, how does it come about that no inquiry seems to have been made to arrest whoever was responsible for it? The man himself does not pretend to know—not unnaturally. But these other people know.
Ordinarily, of course, so far as the public are concerned, they find difficulty in identifying police in plain clothes, because they do not know their name and they do not know their number. But it seems incredible, if no real inquiry has been made. Have those who saw what happened been visited and asked for statements? Have the television people been asked whether, by chance, they recorded this incident or not? There seem to be some curious factors about this, so far as the police station is concerned.
This form that he was given is, to my mind, very odd, because after giving his name and address, date of birth and occupation, it goes on:
"I"—
so and so; this is for him to acknowledge—
"having been arrested in connection with the matter shown below, acknowledge that I am to appear at Brighton Police Station at 6 p.m. on Tuesday the 11th day of November"—
here we are—
"Security in the form of … N/A … has been taken from me/full name and address of person providing security … N/A. Brief details of principal charge, including Act and Section Details of warrant which was backed for bail—Further inquiries".
So he has been arrested, but what for nobody knows. Apparently, they could not think of anything—or did not.
In answer to what has just been said, I have here a letter from Sussex police, written to him on 5th November:
"Further to the recognizance which you entered into at this office on 10 October 1980 to attend the Police Station on 11 November 1980 unless previously notified to the contrary, in accordance with the provisions of section 38(2) Magistrates Courts Act 1952, I now formally advise you that your attendance is not now required".
If this man—it is possible—committed some summary offence by shouting out "What about unemployment?" he ought to have been charged. Why was he not charged? If we are to maintain law and order, nothing is more important than that

1349
people who commit offences should be charged. But he was not.
Another circumstance which I do not understand—the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, may be able to tell us—is that he says he asked several times to see a solicitor. Am I not right in thinking that the police are now directed, in pursuance of the terms of a recent Act, that if someone in a police station asks to see a solicitor they may agree or they may refuse, but if they refuse they must record the reason why they refuse. What I should like to ask is: What does the police form say about his request to see a solicitor?
But that, of course, is a minor matter. The major matter is that if, in times when there may be an increase in disorder, we are both to maintain law and order and maintain civil liberties, how does it really come about that a man was clearly knocked to the ground by somebody in the presence of policemen, in the presence of the Prime Minister and in the presence of the Home Secretary and nobody at all has been charged?
7.26 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, since I replied to a Starred Question by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, on 30th October, I have had the benefit of a further detailed report from the Chief Constable of Sussex. I have had an opportunity, therefore, to go into the matter in greater detail. It will perhaps help if I begin replying to the noble Lord by describing the events as they have been reported to me by the chief constable.
I understand that a disturbance took place during the Prime Minister's speech at the Conservative Party Conference on the afternoon of 10th October, when the proceedings were interrupted by protesters, one of whom was Mr. Michael Carver. Mr. Carver ran towards the platform, shouting as he went. The noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye, asked whether security was involved in all this. No one knew at that moment what were the intentions of this man. Obviously, it was extremely desirable that he should be stopped and he was intercepted by conference stewards—not, I understand, members of a private security organisation,
1350
as has been suggested—and by conference delegates. It is at this point that an assault upon Mr. Carver is said to have taken place. A police officer who was present went through the crowd to Mr. Carver, who was on the floor. The police officer identified himself and Mr. Carver was taken out of the conference hall. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has asked me why Mr. Carver was arrested. He was arrested for a breach of the peace.
When I answered the Question from the noble Lord on 30th October, I said that the man concerned was escorted from the hall by police. The further inquiries that I have made have revealed that Mr. Carver was carried from the hall by stewards and, possibly, some delegates. They were accompanied by a police officer. I am informed that it is apparent that, certainly from the time he was seen by police officers, Mr. Carver was not unconscious. After his removal from the conference hall, he stood up and walked unaided a distance of about 100 yards to the vehicle in which he was taken to the police station. During the journey, he talked to the police officer who was with him and, in particular, lie was interviewed about a conference pass which was in his possession.
On arrival at the police station—and, incidentally, I should say that he was arrested at 2.28 p.m. and, I believe, arrived at the police station at 2.45 p.m., so that is a very long way from an hour which the noble Lord feared was the length of time it took for this young man to get to the police station—I am informed that Mr. Carver walked up two flights of stairs, along a corridor, down a further flight of stairs and into that part of the building which was being used for the purposes of documentation. I understand that a police doctor was standing by, in case any injuries were sustained during the conference, and had Mr. Carver been unconscious he would have been taken immediately to hospital. Mr. Carver did, however, ask for a glass of water, which he was given. According to the version of Mr. Carver's story that appeared in the New Statesman, after he left the police station he went to the Royal Sussex County Hospital, where he spent the night. However, at no time while he was detained by Sussex police did

1351
Mr. Carver request medical attention. Had he done so, it would have been provided.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked me why Mr. Carver was kept at Brighton police station. Mr. Carver was questioned about the pass with which he gained entry to the conference, since it was thought that it might have been stolen. He was released at approximately half past eight that night.
One of the questions that has been raised concerns the alleged assault upon Mr. Carver. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, spoke of this in his speech at the end of this short debate. As the House will know, the responsibility for the investigation of alleged criminal offences is the responsibility of the chief officer concerned. So, too, in general is the question whether proceedings should be instituted against any person.
The chief constable tells me that Mr. Carver has at no time made an allegation to the police of assault and, indeed, when he was specifically asked whether he was complaining of being assaulted he replied, "No". Had Mr. Carver made such allegation it would, of course, have been thoroughly investigated. Under the circumstances, the police decided that the incident did not call for any further action. That is, and must remain, a matter for the chief constable. If the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, however lengthy the speeches which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, may make on this subject, it is not a matter in which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary can intervene.
In his Question the noble Lord raised two further points. The first is the reason why Mr. Carver's fingerprints were taken; the second is the reason why he was required to appear again at Brighton police station, a matter which other noble Lords have also raised. As to the first point, Mr. Carver's fingerprints and photograph were taken with his consent, in accordance with normal police procedure. Since a decision has been taken that Mr. Carver should not be prosecuted for any offence arising out of this incident, both his fingerprints and his photograph have been destroyed.
As to the form G.20 which appeared to puzzle the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of
1352
Donington, this was to require Mr. Carver to appear again at Brighton police station. He was released under Section 38(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, which permits a police officer, where it appears that an inquiry cannot be completed forthwith, to grant bail, subject to a duty to appear again at a police station. As your Lordships know, Mr. Carver has been informed that he does not need to appear.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, asked me about the situation in which Mr. Carver found himself with regard to seeing a solicitor. I am informed by the police that Michael Carver arrived at the police station, as I have said, at 2.45. He requested that his solicitors should be notified at 2.55. He was able to give the name of the solicitors and the road in London, but I understand that he was not sure of the number. At 3.45 contact was made with the solicitors by telephone, but no one from the firm attended the police station.
It is open to Mr. Carver to make a complaint about his treatment by the police if he wishes to do so. Any such complaint should be addressed to the chief constable of Sussex, who will arrange for it to be investigated. In accordance with the normal procedure, a copy of the report will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, unless it is clear that no criminal offence has been committed, and to the Police Complaints Board for their independent consideration of the possible need for disciplinary proceedings. I understand that, although Mr. Carver asked about making a complaint, and was assured by a senior officer that it remained open to him to do so at a later stage, none has so far been received by the chief constable.
I should like to make it clear once more that where an allegation is made that an offence has been committed, or where a complaint is made against the police, certain procedures should be followed. Where an allegation about an offence is made it is for the police to investigate it, and where a complaint is made against the police again the chief officer has the responsibility for investigating it. If the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, or anybody else has any evidence, he should immediately contact the Sussex police. But the Home Secretary cannot intervene in these procedures and, as I have

1353
explained, in this case no allegation regarding an offence or complaint against the police has been received.

COUNTY OF KENT BILL [H.L.] DERBYSHIRE BILL [H.L.] EAST SUSSEX BILL [H.L.] HUMBERSIDE BILL [H.L.]
Message from the Commons that they concur with the resolution of this House of 4th November.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
Message from the Commons that they have made the following order relating to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills viz:
(f) any order in Council laid or laid in draft before the House where an affirmative resolution is required before it is made, or as a condition of its continuance in operation, and which but for the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 would, in the opinion of the Committee, have been enacted by a Consolidation Bill, whether public or private, or by a Statute Law Revision Bill.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with an amendment; the said amendment to be printed.
BROADCASTING BILL
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
  REMEMBRANCE DAY PARADE: PARTICIPATION
  REMEMBRANCE DAY PARADE: PARTICIPATION
  MEDICAL CARE: RECIPROCAL ARRANGEMENTS IN EUROPE
  MEDICAL CARE: RECIPROCAL ARRANGEMENTS IN EUROPE
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: DECISION TO RELEASE
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: DECISION TO RELEASE
  OFFSHORE EXPLORATION: ROYALTY REPAYMENT APPLICATIONS
  OFFSHORE EXPLORATION: ROYALTY REPAYMENT APPLICATIONS
  CAPITAL TRANSFER TAX: RESIDENTS IN JERSEY
  CAPITAL TRANSFER TAX: RESIDENTS IN JERSEY
  HEATHROW: POLICE COSTS AND AVIATION SECURITY FUND
  HEATHROW: POLICE COSTS AND AVIATION SECURITY FUND
  AIRPORTS: POWERS OF SECURITY STAFF
  AIRPORTS: POWERS OF SECURITY STAFF
  HEATHROW: CENTRALISED SEARCHING
  HEATHROW: CENTRALISED SEARCHING
  AIRPORT SECURITY: APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS
  AIRPORT SECURITY: APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS
  EEC CO-RESPONSIBILITY LEVY
  EEC CO-RESPONSIBILITY LEVY