Sitting of 12 November 1980

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Mr. Speaker: Once again I remind the House that hon. Members called to ask a supplementary question should ask only one supplementary question.
  ENVIRONMENT

    Double Glazing
    Mr. McQuarrieasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to require the compulsory double glazing of all glass used externally on future building projects; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): No, Sir. Designers and builders are free to use double glazing where they consider it appropriate. We have no reason to restrict their freedom in this matter.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that there is an urgent need to conserve energy and that legislation that made compulsory the use of double glazing would assist public energy conservation and the glass and glazing industry, which is seriously affected by the present economic situation?
    Mr. Finsberg: Possibly, Sir. However, we believe that the building regulations are too blunt an instrument for such fine tuning.
    Mr. Sever: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he will receive much support for extending the use of double glazing from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy? As the hon. Member
    450
    for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) has indicated, there is considerable feeling that if such measures and similar ones were taken, energy conservation would be considerable. Will the hon. Gentleman consider calling for a report on the validity of the argument contained in the question?
    Mr. Finsberg: I think that what I have said covers the point. If people think that double glazing will benefit them, there is no reason why they should not double glaze and make fuel savings.

    Housing Completions
    Mr. John Evansasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses, in both the private and public sectors, he now expects to be completed in the current financial year.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimate of housing starts for 1980 in the public and private sector, respectively.
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many public sector housing starts there have been since April 1980, compared with the equivalent period last year.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The latest figures for England are as follows. Between April and September there were 25,500 starts and 48,000 completions in the public sector and 47,400 starts and 57,000 completions in the private sector. Between April and September 1979, there were 39,300 starts in the public sector. Completions in the rest of 1980–81 in both the public and private sectors will depend on the rate of progress on dwellings already under construction.
    Mr. Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that those figures mean that this year there will be the lowest number of houses built in Britain for 30 years in both the private and the public sectors, and that there is a great danger that existing houses will become slums faster than they can be replaced or modernised under his regime?
    Mr. Heseltine: This will be a year of low figures for housing in both the public and the private sectors. In many ways I

    451
    find that as disturbing as the hon. Gentleman does. However, the reduction in public sector housing has been going on for some years.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when translated into human terms, these figures will mean acute hardship and misery for thousands and thousands who will not be able to be rehoused? Bearing in mind how much the right hon. Gentleman has undermined and sabotaged housing, is he not ashamed to hold his present position?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am that the reduction in public sector housing is continuing along much the same lines as under the previous Government.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dismay and bitterness that is felt by housing associations that are facing a reduction of about 60 per cent. in loan approvals? Is he able to say something to encourage the good work of the housing associations that are faced with such a catastrophic decline in their finances?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are expecting to see an expenditure of £420 million through the Housing Corporation and housing associations this year. By no means can that be described in the sensational language that the hon. Gentleman chooses to use.
    Mr. Steen: Are the Government financing the printing and circulation of the cards that have been produced by the Liverpool housing associations and supported by the Housing Corporation? Will he say something about the use of public expenditure for this purpose?
    Mr. Heseltine: Although I do my best to keep abreast of what is going on in my Department I should require notice of that specific question. If my hon. Friend lets me have a look at the cards in his hand, I shall examine them carefully later.
    Mr. Alton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I know of the concern of many housing association tenants in Liver-pool, and I know that many people live in houses that have no inside sanitation? Will the Secretary of State tell us what hope there is for Merseyside housing associations?
    452
    Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that what used to be regarded as the third arm of housing is becoming the dead arm of housing as a result of his policies?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must know that the only hope of improving housing is to get real growth in the national economy. That is the objective of the Government's policy.
    Mr. Major: When my right hon. Friend listens to strictures from the Opposition about the housing programme, will he bear in mind that far more dwellings would be available for occupation if the Opposition removed their dogmatic objections to shorthold leases?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. The House might like to know that, according to the latest figures, there are about 100,000 empty local authority accommodation units, which could be used for those who are looking for houses.
    Mr. Kaufman: Why does the Secretary of State constantly fiddle the figures that he presents to the House? Is it not a fact that local authority starts in England for the first six months of this financial year equal 15,070, and that the total is falling all the time? Does he not accept that in September, the latest month for which figures are available, there were 1,900 starts, which represent an annual rate of 22,800? That is by far the worst total for generations. Will the total reach 30,000—which would be appalling enough—or will it fall to 22,000 as a result of his disgraceful policies?
    Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman has accused me of fiddling the figures. In 1974–75 the figure for housing capital expenditure was £4·2 billion. In 1978–79 expenditure was down to £2·154 billion. If that is not a reduction, I do not know what is. If the right hon. Gentleman were to apply himself to the figures as opposed to rhetoric, he would find that the reduction in my programmes for capital account on housing is proceeding at a slower rate than the average for the last four years of the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if local authorities went back to the worst figure under the

    453
    last Labour Government they would offer thanks when they compared them with what the right hon. Gentleman is asking them to do? Will the right hon. Gentleman for once give a straight answer in this House? Will the starts reach 30,000, or will they continue at the present annual rate of 22,800?
    Mr. Heseltine: I shall certainly give the right hon. Gentleman a straight answer. During the two years for which I have been responsible for housing capital expenditure, it has been reduced by 14 per cent. per annum. During each of the last four years of the Labour Government it went down, on average, by 15 per cent.

    National Parks
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the operation of the system of national parks and their supervising boards.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): In the main, yes. For that reason I have decided not to proceed with a review of national parks administration in 1981, nor with a wider review of the designation system as suggested by the Countryside Review Committee. But I propose to consult on the proposition that district councils should have a statutory right of representation on national park boards and committees.
    Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Peak District national park board, which has no directly elected representatives on it, is insensitive to the needs and wishes of my constituents, and arrogant in its dealings? Is he further aware that my constituents will examine this proposal with great interest?
    Mr. Monro: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I am sorry that he offers such strictures about his national park administration. My original reply sought to make the point that local people living in the national parks should be given more say in national parks deliberations. At the end of the day, that will lead to better administration of those parks.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister realise that his announcement will be
    454
    applauded by many of those in the amenity world, who felt that the proposals put forward would have led to the desecration of many of the most attractive parts of the countryside? Is he aware that we support him when he says that he is generally satisfied with the work of national parks?
    Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I know that they will be widely noted in the world of conservation.
    Mr. Parris: Is my hon. Friend aware that any change involving district council representation on the park planning boards would be greatly welcomed by my constituents, who feel the need for such local representation?
    Mr. Monro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Changes will occur in the two board areas of the Peak District and the Lake District. There may be an additional member for the Peak District, and two additional members for the Lake District. If consultations go ahead as I anticipate, district councils will have statutory representation.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire. West (Mr. Parris) refers to the fact that access has been gained—as a result of initiative and expenditure from the funds of the Peak District national park and that that access has been applauded by the Central Council for Physical Recreation, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Countryside Commission and the ramblers and mountaineering associations? Does the Minister recognise that much-needed access has been guaranteed for climbers, recreationists and campers? The Minister's original answer needs to be discussed. He has put aside not only the Sandford report but the response to it. Is he aware that it is important that the national interest should predominate where national parks are concerned?
    Mr. Monro: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. We considered the Sandford committee report very carefully, since it is valuable. However, we have made our decision and we shall not proceed with that review.

    Elderly and Disabled Persons (Housing)
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps is he taking to protect housing for the elderly and disabled, in the light of the recent moratorium on all further local authority capital expenditure on housing.
    Mr. Heseltine: I am considering the future operation of the moratorium in the light of figures provided by local authorities and will make an announcement in due course. I have already clarified the position on adaptations for the benefit of the disabled.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the survey that was carried out by Age Concern, which showed that 28 per cent. of those aged over 75 would like sheltered housing? Does he accept that the present amount of sheltered housing is completely inadequate? Does he further accept that the number of old people is rising rapidly? Given the cuts that he has imposed on the Housing Corporation and the fact that local authorities have slashed their programmes, does he accept that his moratorium will make the position even worse?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the moratorium is not designed to secure cuts in the existing budgets, but to ensure that we do not exceed the cash limits for housing. I sympathise with the view—that has been very much part of our approach—that there is a need to concentrate more of our available resources on such groups.
    Mr. Marlow: Does the moratorium on capital expenditure in public housing extend to capital expenditure on other public buildings, such as leisure centres and civic centres, which local authorities may wish to put up? If not, does the Secretary of State have any plans in that direction?
    Mr. Heseltine: The moratorium does not extend to other capital programmes, because they are under a different heading, and do not come within the controls of the HIP allocation system. Next year there will be a different capital controls discipline, as provided in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. That means that there will be an overall one-block approach to capital expenditure,
    456
    which will have the effect suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Does the Secretary of State remember the promise that he gave to the House on 6 August, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland, about the protection of old people's accommodation? Given that not a single old person's house in Glasgow, Edinburgh or the Borders region has been protected, does he consider that that promise has been fulfilled?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have every faith in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland fulfilling any promises that I make on his behalf.
    Mr. Best: Although I bitterly regret the moratorium, may I ask my right hon. Friend to remind the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) that in 1976 the previous Labour Government imposed a moratorium for precisely the same reasons and that they imposed cuts of £140 million in the same year on future years' housing allocations?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will remember how unfair it is to try to remind the Labour Party of any of the things that it did when it was in government.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Does not the Secretary of State see something cruel in having more than 1 million families on the waiting list at a time when unemployment in building and related trades has risen to 300,000, with worse to come?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one third of the people on waiting lists are already housed in local authority houses.

    Housing Act 1980
    Mr. Bestasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken by local authorities following the right to buy given to council tenants by the Housing Act.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): Since 3 October 1980, virtually every local authority in England and Wales has been implementing the right to buy.
    Mr. Best: What advice can my hon. Friend give to the tenants of Greenwich council, whose Labour councillors have

    457
    indicated that they seek to frustrate the law by not processing the forms for the right to buy?
    Mr. Stanley: I assure my hon. Friend that I deplore the action of any council that seeks to deny the rights of tenants given to them by this House. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said during the proceedings on the Housing Bill that he would deplore defiance of the law I look forward to his joining in the condemnation of any such action by Greenwich.
    Mr. Heffer: Will not the Government's moratorum on building, combined with the sale of council houses, lead to longer lists of those waiting to rent council houses, more overcrowding and greater problems? Is the Minister aware that in Liverpool the situation is even worse, because the local authority, Liberal and Tory combined, is not building council houses for rent? Is it not clear that the Government's policy must change so that those on waiting lists will have an opportunity in the future to have a home to live in?
    Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, the House, by a substantial majority, decided to give 6 million tenants the right to buy. The Government do not propose to change that policy.
    Mr. Heffer: The Tories do not care about people without houses.
    Mr. Lyell: Is my hon. Friend aware of the difficulties for my constituents that arise as they seek to buy their council houses from the fact that stamp duty on those purchases is being charged on the pre-discount value rather than the post-discount price? What steps is he taking to discuss the matter with his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury?
    Mr. Stanley: Following a number of representations on the matter, we are having discussions with our right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury.

    Homeless Households
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the increase in the numbers of homeless households as
    458
    a result of his moratorium on building new council houses.
    Mr. Stanley: I do not consider that any such estimate could reliably be made.
    Mrs. Short: I suppose that the Minister feels that it would be too damning for the Government's policy to make an estimate. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) referred to the increase in the number of families waiting for local authority housing. It is almost 1¼ million. About 8,000 of those are in Wolverhampton, which represents an increase of 1,500—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Lady ask a question, then we shall all feel happier?
    Mrs. Short: What response is the Minister making to the AMA's estimate of the shortage of houses in the next five years? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not reading. Is the Minister aware that the estimate of expenditure by local authorities for housing homeless families in bed and breakfast and similar accommodation is over £15 million a year? Is it not crazy to spend that money in that way?
    Mr. Stanley: One of the most constructive responses that can be made is for local authorities to address themselves to the problem of vacant dwellings. On the latest figures that we have from local authorities, 23,000 local authority dwellings have been vacant for more than one year. Of that number, one third—some 8,000—are dwellings in six Labour authorities—Manchester, Islington, Hackney, Southwark, Lambeth and Camden.
    Mr. John Wells: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that those authorities that have curbed their expenditure and are currently engaged on a programme of new building of housing for the elderly only and have contracts in hand will not be affected by the moratorium?
    Mr. Stanley: I understand the concern of authorities which, on their estimates, are underspending their allocation, but I am afraid that this afternoon I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend has said to the effect that he will wish to make a statement in due course.
    Mr. Dobson: If the Minister cannot make an estimate, does he accept the

    459
    estimate of the Tory-controlled London Boroughs Association that, if his policies continue for a further five years, they will lead to an increase of almost ½ million in the shortfall of houses in this country?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman represents a London constituency. I am sure that he is as concerned as I am about the number of empty local authority dwellings in London.
    Mr. Durant: Will my hon. Friend clarify the position concerning the housing association movement? Will he confirm that there is no cut in the total budget this year but only a control of the overspending that was forecast?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The allocation made by my right hon. Friend in February of £420 million is entirely unchanged. There is £420 million to spend. Contrary to certain reports, the level of housing association improvements approved in the 12 months to September is the second highest on record.
    Mr. Hattersley: May I return to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson), which the Minister did not even attempt to answer? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a variety of estimates have been made by various local authority bodies about the net shortfall of houses in 1984 and the shortfall between houses available and families needing houses, in part the result of an increase in family formation? Do the Government have a figure about how many houses will be needed by the time this Parliament comes to an end?
    Mr. Stanley: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, when the previous Government made such calculations they described them as being highly speculative. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the range of policies that we have put forward both to increase utilisation of existing stock and to bring forward new accommodation, such as shorthold. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is not helping by his commitment to repeal the shorthold legislation.
    Mr. Hattersley: Do the Government have a figure on what the net shortage will be when this Parliament comes to an end?
    Mr. Stanley: As my right hon. Friend has said on many occasions, we regard such an exercise as fairly speculative.

    Listed Buildings
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to bring forward any proposals to change the procedures for listing buildings of architectural or historic interest, or to discourage further the demolition of buildings of interest not on the statutory list.
    Mr. Heseltine: My Department's listing procedures are currently under the comprehensive review which I set in hand following the demolition of the Firestone factory.
    I have already introduced certain changes to provide wider protection for buildings of the 1914 to 1939 period. At my request, the Historic Buildings Council recently recommended criteria for the selection of inter-war buildings and identified some 50 buildings for immediate addition to the statutory list. I have accepted the HBC's recommended criteria and have already listed 12 of the 50 buildings. Others will follow shortly.
    Only a small number of inter-war buildings have been listed in recent years. The criteria that I have now adopted will make it possible to preserve a far wider range of buildings from this very varied period.
    Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that I am deeply grateful to him for that statement and for his recent actions to save our architectural heritage? Does he agree that, no matter how subjective the judgment, we should decide as a nation which buildings should be listed and then concentrate our limited resources on conserving excellence rather than make a blanket attempt to promote mediocrity?
    Mr. Heseltine: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's views. I am grateful to him for his kind words about the initiative that I have taken.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Secretary of State familiar with the recent literature documenting the losses to our fine heritage of Nonconformist chapels? Is he satisfied that his Department has enough of the best examples of such buildings listed at

    461
    sufficiently high levels? Is energetic action being taken to see that the best examples remain with us?
    Mr. Heseltine: For the inter-war period churches are a specific category to be considered, but many Nonconformist chapels belong to an earlier era. If the hon. Gentleman is aware of any examples of conspicuous architecture that are under threat, I should like to know about them.
    Mr. John Page: May the voice of a Philistine be heard? My right hon. Friend says that he has had recommended 50 further factories built between 1914 and 1939 for addition to the statutory list. What, then, is the total?
    Mr. Heseltine: If I were looking for the voice of a Philistine I would never look to my hon. Friend. I hear a great many Philistine voices from the Labour Benches. Let me clarify what I said. The HBC provided me with a list of 50 buildings, not 50 factories—though factories could be included in the listing. It is the first list of its sort applying to the inter-war period. Other buildings will be added subsequently.

    Ordnance Survey
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for giving the Ordnance Survey a more enterprising and independent status.
    Mr. Heseltine: I am studying various possibilities but have no firm proposals at this stage.
    Mr. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Ordnance Survey has an historic and successful record, is a great British institution and that, like the Government Front Bench, it may from time to time need enlightenment and reform, but basically it needs conserving?
    Mr. Heseltine: There can be no question but that I should agree with my hon. Friend that the Ordnance Survey has fulfilled a valuable role in our history and has a crucial role in future.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the talk in some quarters of giving the Ordnance Survey a more enterprising and independent status is simply a euphemism for allowing looters to take the more profitable
    462
    parts of the organisation? Is he aware that the whole of the Ordnance Survey is necessary for the public interest and will he refute any suggestion that it might be carved up?
    Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman would expect me to look at all the options before rejecting them. That is what I am doing. I am having wide consultations on the various alternatives that might be before me. I am particularly looking at the Serpell report on this matter which was commissioned by the previous Government.
    Mr. Forman: As a keen walker, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give the maximum assurance to the House that nothing will be done to the excellent Ordnance Survey which would detract from the high quality of its work which is unparalleled throughout the world?
    Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend has my absolute assurance that I recognise the standard and quality that has been associated with the Ordnance Survey and I shall do nothing to undermine that.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have had dozens of letters from Ordnance Survey employees who live in my constituency expressing their desire to remain within the public service and their grave concern at the possible threat to the service that they give to the public if alternative arrangements are made? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that before he makes any decision he will have full consultation with the trade unions and staff associations involved?
    Mr. Heseltine: Yes.
    Mr. Adley: May I also declare an interest as a customer of the Ordnance Survey and say that I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell)? I too have many constituents who work for the Ordnance Survey. The word "unique" is one of the most overworked words in the English language, but the Ordnance Survey is a unique organisation. Will my right lion. Friend bear that in mind in any proposal that he makes for its future?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will have heard me refer to the high quality

    463
    of work with which the Ordnance Survey has been associated.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition believe that the standards of excellence of the Ordnance Survey must be maintained at all costs but cannot be maintained if the surveying side is to be divorced from the profitable publications? Is he aware that we need to maintain the service for the Royal Navy's hydrographic survey and maintain the principle of universal coverage which the Ordnance Survey continues? Is he further aware that we shall resist any attempts to divide the organisation between the non-profitable surveying sector and the profitable publishing sector?
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can have looked carefully at the underlying figures of the Ordnance Survey. If he had, he would not find it so easy to talk about significant areas of profit. I can assure him that they are not to be found. Let me make clear that I will do nothing that is not preceded by full consultation. I will certainly continue to hold discussions. I have reached no conclusions, but I believe it is right that all such organisations should be subjected to political scrutiny and that a wide-ranging debate about their activities should continue.

    Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has now completed his review of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.
    Mr. Stanley: The review of the Act and the associated code of guidance is still in progress. We hope to announce our conclusions fairly soon.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the review has been going on for 20 months? Will he assure the House that he will bring forward amendments to the Act to ensure that those without a local connection will no longer be allowed to overtake those who have had their names on local housing waiting lists, often for many years?
    Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend is aware, the homeless persons legislation is a difficult and sensitive area. At least one local authority association wished to
    464
    revise its views after its original submission and I think that it was right that we took into consideration the latest views from the local authority associations. I assure my hon. Friend that the aspect that he raised is within the compass of the review.
    Mr. Hattersley: Is the Minister aware that some of us believe that if any changes are needed in this necessary and compassionate Act they should be to strengthen its provisions and not to weaken them? Will he help our future discussions by telling us now, or publishing subsequently, the net effect of the Act on authorities such as, say, Bournemouth and how many houses they have been required to provide that they would not have been required to provide had the Act not existed?
    Mr. Stanley: There is fairly extensive publication of statistics about the operation of the homeless persons legislation and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that most of the statistics that he wants are available there. If I can give him any further assistance, I shall gladly try to do so.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Act's obligations on a local authority such as Hillingdon, which has Heathrow airport in its boundaries, result in local people believing that foreigners are jumping the housing waiting list—whatever my hon. Friend or Labour Members may say? Will he take into account that that is bad for community relations and that the only way that the problem can be avoided is if the Act is amended to confine the obligation on local authorities to rehouse those with a local connection in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Stanley: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), the question of the local connection is one that we have in mind in considering the review.

    Housing (Starts and Expenditure)
    Mr. Strawasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is (a) the estimated number of housing starts in the public sector for 1980–81 and (b) housing capital expenditure for 1980–81; and what were the corresponding figures for starts and expenditure, at constant prices, for 1976–77.
    Mr. Heseltine: Provision for gross capital expenditure on housing in the public sector in 1980–81 is £2,040 million at 1979 survey prices. The corresponding figure for 1976–77 was £3,517 million. In April to September 1980 there were 25,500 public sector starts in England, compared with 84,700 in the same period in 1976. Public sector starts in 1980–81 will depend largely on the proportion of their allocations which local authorities have decided to devote to new building and on how far we are able to allow them to make any further commitments this year.
    Mr. Straw: In the light of those figures, which show that in 1976—the year of the Labour Government's moratorium—there was the second highest number of starts in any year during the 1970s and the fact that those starts were four times the number likely to be achieved by the present Government, may we have an end to the wilful and palpable falsehoods from the Government suggesting that their housing policy bears any relationship to the Labour Government's policy? Will the Secretary of State for once have the honesty to admit that his housing policy is to abandon local authority housing as we have known it in the past 25 years?
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not want to embarrass the hon. Member, but he is right to take the public sector housing starts in Britain in 1976, when they totalled 170,000. The next year the Labour Government reduced them to 130,000, the year after they were reduced to 107,000 and the year after that they were reduced to 80,000.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Will my right hon. Friend also remind the House that not once in the five years of the Labour Government did the performance reach the objectives laid down in public expenditure White Papers? Would it not be helpful if my right hon. Friend reminded us that district authorities that sell assets can bolster their HIP allocation?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that the Labour Party's performance never met—or did not usually do so—the figures that it put forward. I have never expected the Labour Party's performance to live up to its promises.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that, in addition to the national picture, which is tragedy enough, in my constituency we have five starts this year, with over 2,000 people on the housing list, and that in the critical year 1981–82 there is the possibility of only 25 completions? The local authority has asked the right hon. Gentleman more than once if he will discuss with it the nature of its problem. Why does he persist in refusing?
    Mr. Heseltine: If the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given are a true reflection of what is happening in his constituency—and I am not suggesting otherwise—they mean only that the local authority concerned has decided to spend its substantial HIP allocation somewhere else.

    Council Housing (Moratorium)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will arrange to meet representatives of the construction industry to discuss the effects of his moratorium on the building of council houses.
    Mr. Heseltine: I met the Group of Eight last week.
    Mr. Canavan: At the next meeting will the Secretary of State explain why he is crippling the construction industry when there are thousands of families on the waiting lists for a home and 300,000 construction workers on the dole? In view of the strong possibility, especially after yesterday's CBI conference, that such a meeting might end up in a bare-knuckle fist fight with the captains of British industry, will Tarzan be taking along the Mace to defend himself?
    Mr. Heseltine: It is apparent that the CBI is trying to take lessons from the Labour Party conferences. I do not need to wait until the next time, because I explained to the Group of Eight exactly what were the difficulties for the Government in trying to find the cash to fund the level of pay increases for which the last Government were responsible as a result of the Clegg commission. As long as we have to meet bills of that sort, capital programmes are likely to come under pressure.
    Mr. Squire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, as the question referred to the

    467
    moratorium, that it is of no long-term advantage to the construction industry, or to the homeless or the less fortunate, for Governments, national or local, to live beyond their budgets?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will remember that the Labour Party when in power was continually forced to come back to a realisation of that, usually at the behest of an outside organisation that forced reality on it. The truth is that its attempts to increase public expenditure by going in for extra borrowing, which is what it is now suggesting I should advise my colleagues to do, led to declining levels of public expenditure in real terms whilst it was in office.
    Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what the Group of Eight, including the trade unions, said to him? Did its members say, as some of them have been saying in the press, that the Government's policy in relation to construction was lunacy? Is it not time the Government recognised that if they go on as they are the construction industry will come to a total halt?
    Mr. Heseltine: What the Group of Eight said to me, with which I have great sympathy, was that broadly speaking the country was increasing its consumption faster than its wealth, and that as a consequence it was squeezing its capital programmes. If the House has not realised that, it has not studied what happened in the last few years under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Dover: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many building companies do not mind the moratorium on council house building? Does he realise that they would prefer to be building housing for sale, as well as factories and investments that pay for themselves, instead of uneconomic housing?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that there is much in what my hon. Friend says, but the one thing that the Group of Eight impressed upon me above all else was that it wanted to see the levels of interest rates brought down. That cannot be done unless we control public expenditure.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Ron King, president
    468
    of the House-Builders Federation, has said that the private sector as a whole—whether manufacturing industry, the construction industry at large, or the house building industry—has been slimmed down to danger point? Is he further aware that that same gentleman said that the present Government had brought private industry almost to its knees? Can the Secretary of State say whether that has come about deliberately or by mistake?
    Mr. Heseltine: It has come about entirely as a consequence of the economic inheritance for which the present Government assumed responsibility, including the fact that the Clegg award cost the country £1·6 billion in extra wages, which has to be funded in the public sector without any increase in wealth to achieve it.
    Mrs. Renée Short: There is no wealth now.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate has been made by his Department of the loss of business to private contractors arising from the moratorium imposed by him on local authority housing.
    Mr. Stanley: My right hon. Friend's action is designed to hold local authority housing investment to its originally planned level for the year, not to cut it. He is now considering the latest figures, and the effects on the construction industry will depend on the nature and timing of those decisions.
    Mr. Hooley: When will it penetrate the collective mind of the Cabinet that public authorities and public corporations are the major customers of private industry, and that to decimate public expenditure, so far from being any help to the private sector, is undermining its very existence?
    Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will see that a great deal of the work of the construction industry is generated by the private sector. I am interested to note his concern for the future of private contractors in Sheffield. In view of the great deal of new house building work that in the past has been carried out by the direct labour organisation of Sheffield council, I look forward to his enthusiastic support for

    469
    the direct labour provisions of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill when they come into effect next year.
    Mr. Best: Whilst I accept that the moratorium applies only to public sector building and not to other capital expenditure, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that many local authorities are now not giving improvement grants other than statutory grants, as a result of the reduction in HIP allocations? Does he not think that that is regrettable? I appreciate that improvement grants now come within the single block allocation, but will my hon Friend do everything in his power to encourage local authorities to give improvement grants as one of the most beneficial ways in which money can be spent?
    Mr. Stanley: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to know the figures. Private sector improvement grants paid in the year to September 1980, were higher than in any year since 1975.
    Mr. Hardy: As the Minister has told the House during Question Time of the amount of money that he will be saving by his cuts in housing expenditure, will he tell the House how much money he has caused to be spent through higher unemployment? Does he not think it ridiculous that in regions such as Yorkshire and Humberside, if things go on as they are, 1981 will not be far advanced before more building workers are on the dole than in employment?
    Mr. Stanley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take comfort from the fact that our overall capital expenditure on housing in the course of his financial year is about £2¾ billion.

    Urban Simulation Games
    Mr. Bevanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment for what purpose the urban simulation games financed by his Department have been used; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Anthony Grantasked the Secretary of State for the Environment for what purpose the urban simulation games operated by his Department have been used; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): I am informed that an urban simulation game was commissioned by my Department during the last Administration. I understand that it was used at that time by officials as an aid in formulating policy for establishing inner city partnerships.
    Mr. Bevan: While I appreciate the Government's non-responsibility for spending the £9,000 for the games, I should be obliged if I could have details of what kind of games they were. We have had difficulty enough over the past year. I should also like to know whether the games are still being played, and if so, where? Are they being played only by the civil servants.
    Mr. King: I understand that the whistle was blown some time before the present Government came into office. Although they may seem the subject of some hilarity, such games are not an unknown management tool when trying to simulate circumstances in which to identify the best policies for inner city partnerships. That is why the previous Government set them up. We have no proposals to introduce any further such games.
    Mr. Grant: Precisely who is responsible for all this tomfoolery? What has been learnt from these expensive games? Would it not be much more appropriate to send Monopoly sets to Socialist councils.
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend's choice of words at the beginning of his supplementary question was somewhat unfortunate, because the matter has nothing to do with me. My hon. Friend will have to direct the question to any Labour right hon. or hon. Member who can tell us how the games influenced changes of policy. That is now a closely guarded secret of the previous Government, details of which I imagine will appear in about 30 years, or perhaps in a diary published earlier.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will not the Minister agree that it was hypocritical of him to launch publicly the Council of Europe urban renaissance programme in this country when all his policies are designed

    471
    for urban decline rather than urban renaissance?
    Mr. King: That is the most misleading and damaging statement that could possibly be made. The hon. Gentleman came to the colloquy representatives of the Council of Europe. Every single Minister from the countries represented recognised the tremendous contribution that could be made by community involvement. The issue of the capital funding, while significant, is far from being the only issue. To say to people, at a time of economic restraint, that there is no hope for them in community action and interest in improving their areas is a disgraceful comment.
    Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend confirm to the House that there is no need to simulate rural games to know that the most grave damage has been done to housing in rural areas by the refusal of the Labour Party to support the proposals for shorthold that would do more to alleviate homelessness in my constituency than anything else that has been proposed?
    Mr. King: At the risk of trespassing on my right hon. Friend's territory, I would confirm, from my own observations, that what my hon. Friend says is true. The failure of the Opposition to support this measure will contribute—this is confirmed by observations in my own constituency—to an increase in homelessness.

    Water Charges
    Mr. Parrisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his policy towards the National Water Council's consultation document, "Charging Households for Water."
    Mr. King: After I have received notice from the council, following its consultation with consumers and other interested bodies on the provisional conclusions set out in its document.
    Mr. Parris: Is my hon. Friend aware that if metering is to be voluntary, it is likely that only those people who will gain from it will want it, and the water authorities will suffer a loss of income?
    Mr. King: This is one of the considerations discussed in the document. I await with great interest the responses to the consultation document. There is great public concern about present methods of charging for water. That is why I asked the National Water Council to publish the consultation document. It has done so. I hope that all hon. Members will take an interest in this issue.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that the campaign for metering following this report is now shown to be a dubious economic exercise and a piece of ideological nonsense? The annual cost of installing, reading and renting a meter is likely to be about £15 a year against an average bill of £52. In addition, it will add 8 per cent. to the 20 to 30 per cent. increase on all other households that do not go in for it. Is it any wonder that the National Water Council concluded by saying that savings, even in the long term, would be insufficient to offset the cost of the metering? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that conclusion and chop this ridiculous campaign?
    Mr. King: The House will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I hope that hon. Members will prefer to make up their own minds rather than adopt the closed view of the right hon. Gentleman. It is for hon. Members to study the options available and not to be preached to by the right hon. Gentleman.

    Development Corporations (Property Transfers)
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reach a decision on the terms of transfer of development corporation properties to local authorities in the case of second generation new towns.
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State hopes to discuss transfer terms with the Association of District Councils before Christmas.
    Mr. Miller: Does the Minister understand that the local authorities—both district and county councils—cannot agree to accept the transfer of these properties until the terms are known? Is he aware that there is an increasing need

    473
    for transfers in areas such as Redditch where a terminal date is already set for the winding-up of the development corporation?
    Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend may know, I am planning to visit Redditch early next month. I can assure him that it is the Government's firm intention to produce a fair basis of transfer both to taxpayers and to ratepayers. I hope that we shall be able to reach an agreed basis to enable transfers to take place on the due date, 1 April 1982.
    Mr. Graham: Bearing in mind that the burden of maintaining these properties is only one of the many problems that face the councils of new towns, when will the Minister be prepared to publish the comprehensive Government policy for the future of new towns that he has promised the House more than once?
    Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have already announced our conclusions on the target population sizes and proposed dissolution dates for the first and second generation new towns. We are left with the remaining third generation towns. My right hon. Friend will wish to make a statement as soon as he can.

    Local Authority Expenditure
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if local authorities are keeping within their estimates of expenditure for the current year; or, if not, by what percentage these are likely to be exceeded.
    Mr. Wheelerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with local authorities' forecasts of their likely expenditure in 1980–81.
    Mr. Heseltine: The revised budgets submitted by local authorities in August showed that for current expenditure they were still planning to spend in aggregate some £350 million at 1979 prices above the level envisaged in the 1980–81 rate support grant settlement. I took the view that there is a risk at outturn that they might be overspent by about £200 million. I therefore announced on 18 September the measures which I believe are necessary to bring expenditure back on course.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Secretary of State accept that the level of overspending by local authorities is far less than overspending by central Government and that the level of competence in the management of their affairs by most local authorities is far higher than that displayed by the present Administration? How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to reply to the leader of Rotherham borough council who has written to him suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman would be elated if he could keep his expenditure within 1 per cent. of estimates, something which the Rotherham authority has managed to achieve without inflicting extra redundancy or unnecessary cuts?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sympathetic to the claims of local government that it has managed its affairs a great deal better over the years than central Government. Undoubtedly the figures show that this is the case. It is true of the last five years—
    Mr. William Hamilton: This year.
    Mr. Heseltine: This year the situation broadly indicates that there is more likelihood of an overspend than in previous years. It still remains the fact that local government has a record of keeping to its capital and revenue budgets which is better than that of central Government. That is no argument for saying that, now that there is a risk that they will overspend this year, I should ignore the risk.
    Mr. Wheeler: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the overspenders are to be made to pay the cost of the extravagance?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that, when we have the new system of distributing taxpayers' money through block grant, there will be much more of a relationship between the measured need of an authority and the amount of central Government support. It will be possible for central Government to ensure that, if there are levels of overspend in certain authorities, those authorities are likely to suffer most, as opposed to the present system where it is largely those which have kept within the Government's guidelines which suffer.
    Mr. Snape: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the borough of Sandwell is

    475
    exactly on target in its housing expenditure and is not an overspending council? Is he aware that two weeks before his moratorium regional officials of his Department met officers of the borough to discuss the borough taking up allocations not taken up by other authorities? Does his Department know what is going on in the right hon. Gentleman's mind? Is he aware that many people in local government—officers and elected members—feel that the best service he could provide to local government would be to tender his resignation?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman might take into account that someone else in my place might demand even greater sacrifices.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that housing expenditure by local authorities is a balance of income and outgoings? Will he repeat the invitation to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to give his view on the decision by Greenwich borough council not to abide by the law and sell homes to those tenants who want to buy?
    Mr. Heseltine: The whole House would appreciate it if the right hon. Gentleman made clear that he thinks that all local authorities should keep within the law.

    Rate Support Grant
    Mr. Majorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the rate support grant settlement for 1981–82.
    Mr. Heseltine: I shall announce the 1981–82 rate support grant settlement early in December.
    Mr. Major: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this year's settlement will not discriminate unfairly against efficient county councils such as Cambridgeshire which in recent years has accepted a vast population overspill from cities without any corresponding increases in its proportionate share of the grant?
    Mr. Heseltine: I think that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not anticipate the basis of the RSG settlement, which I shall announce early in December. It is the intention that the RSG system we are now introducing should
    476
    have a greater relationship with measured need as opposed to past expenditure.
    Mr. Hattersley: Will the Secretary of State give the House of Commons the information about next year's rate support grant settlement that he gave to Lord Ridley shortly before the House of Lords debated the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have had no conversations with Lord Ridley.

    Council House Building
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to lift the moratorium on council house building.
    Mr. Heseltine: I am studying the estimates of committed housing investment expenditure for 1980–81 which local authorities have submitted. I shall announce my decision as soon as possible.
    Mr. Alton: Is the Secretary of State unaware that, as a result of the imposition of his moratorium, not only will many more people be stuck on waiting lists for years but a million people will still be living in houses requiring sanitation and over 200,000 construction workers will be in the dole queue? What economic or social sense does that make?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is confusing my determination to keep within the cash limits with an assumption that I have cut the programme. I am trying to ensure that the Government do not overspend on programmes announced some months ago.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (AGRICULTURE MINISTERS' MEETING)
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, I shall report to the House on the outcome of the Agriculture Council on 10 and 11 November at which my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I represented the United Kingdom.
On New Zealand butter, I emphasised the Communitiy's obligation to remove the uncertainties and settle this matter urgently on the basis of the Commission's proposals. The Council accepted the political

477
and economic importance to the Community and New Zealand of reaching agreement. The main point of discussion was over the duration of a new agreement. With one exception, all other member States expressed a preference for an arrangement covering three to four years. France said that it could accept only a short extension. I expect this matter to be discussed further during the Foreign Ministers' Council later this month.
The Council discussed the Commission's proposals for a revised sugar regime. The Government support the need for action to limit excess production in the Community to keep down the cost of surplus disposal and as a necessary step towards membership of the international sugar agreement. I told the Council, however, that the Government could not accept in their present form the Commission's proposals on quotas and on levies for the financing of the surplus disposal because they discriminate against beet producers in the United Kingdom. This subject will be on the agenda for December.
The Council also had before it a package of animal health measures. After considerable discussions yesterday, I am glad to be able to tell the House that an agreement was reached which fully protects the high health standards in our pig herd
We drew attention to the serious problems over the implementation of the Council directive on poultrymeat hygiene. The Commission's report has confirmed that there is distortion of competition because of differences between member States in the way that the provisions of the directive are being applied. The Commissioner agreed that there is a need for detailed rules to achieve uniformity and to harmonise the arrangements for meeting the costs involved. He confirmed that he would wish to move quickly to deal with these problems, and I hope that proposals will be made at the December meeting of the Council.
Mr. Mason: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his report. Is he aware that the last Council meeting caused us anxiety? Is he aware that Parliament would not have agreed to enter the Common Market if we did not have proper safeguards for New Zealand lamb and for the 1·3 million tonnes of cane sugar from
478
the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries? As a result of the discussions at the last Council meeting, it appears that much of that is under threat. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that New Zealand is not happy with the sheepmeat deal, that the French are vetoing agreement on New Zealand butter imports, and that, if national sugar quotas are not reduced this time, the ACP countries' sugar imports will be threatened?
Everyone recognises that the French are involved in blackmail in an attempt to undermine the budget deal and to squeeze concessions from the Minister on a future fisheries policy. Will the right hon. Gentleman stand firm? He creates the impression that he is not standing up firmly enough for Britain. Is he aware that our major concern is his personal refusel to revalue the green pound? Although the right hon. Gentleman is known to criticise the Government's strict monetarist policy, he is the cruellist monetarist of them all. Does he accept that he is personally responsible for a growing tax on our food imports and an increased budgetary contribution to the Common Market?
Is not it a fact that if the right hon. Gentleman revalued the green pound in full food prices in Britain would fall by an average of 2¼ per cent. and that our financial contribution by way of food taxes would fall drastically? Why, therefore, because of the right hon. Gentleman's policy, should British taxpayers foot the increased Common Market poultrymeat bill so that housewives and consumers continue to suffer? Will he explain why he does not revalue the green pound?
Mr. Walker: The Lome amounts for cane sugar are agreed. By saying that the agreement is in danger the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing a totally unfounded scare campaign. He says that the New Zealanders are dissatisfied with the lamb deal. He will be pleased to know that the New Zealand Prime Minister, deputy Prime Minister and Government have expressed their personal gratitude for the excellence of the deal that we have obtained on their behalf.
I turn to the question of New Zealand butter. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman feels appropriately ashamed that, as a result of his Government's renegotiation of the Common Market, after 1

479
January this year New Zealand would have had no butter quota of any description. It is total humbug for the Opposition to express disappointment in this way.
I await with interest the Opposition's explanation of the reason why, in a period when negative MCAs were going up to 45 per cent., food prices, instead of going down, went up much faster than under this Government.
Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman owes the House an explanation on MCAs. If he cares and is not as cruel a monetarist as I suggested, he will have studied the figures which affect the families of Great Britain. Will he tell us what the food levy is costing the average family in its weekly food bill? Is it 50p or 75p a week? How much have food taxes cost us since positive MCAs began operating?
Mr. Walker: As a result of what has happened to the £ sterling in the last few days, I understand that in the next week or two there will be a reduction in MCAs. I shall be interested to see what effect that has on food prices. We know that under the last Government, when we had negative MCAs, food prices rose much faster. The right hon. Gentleman forgets that the Labour Party argues that a monetarist policy results in the pound sterling going up to the detriment of British exports and to the advantage of foreign imports. In agriculture we have a mechanism which stops that, and I should have thought that the Opposition would be celebrating rather than complaining.
Mr. Peter Mills: Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the other Ministers the problem of surpluses in the Community? It would be most helpful if we knew the exact position. It would be of interest to the producer, who wants to plan forward and to the consumer, who pays for the surpluses.
Mr. Walker: Considerable changes in surpluses have taken place in the past year. Sugar was one of the main surpluses. Since the European sugar price is way below the world price, Europe is making a profit of about £6 million a week on sugar stocks. I am glad to say that the surplus of milk powder has come
480
down from the peak of 1½ million tonnes to 230,000 tonnes. Butter surpluses have come down from 390,000 tonnes to 170,000 tonnes.
Mr. Geraint Howells: In view of the exchanges between the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and the Minister, can the Minister say whether production costs have risen in the last 12 months and by what percentage? What percentage of butter consumed in Britain is produced in New Zealand? May we have an assurance for British meat producers that he will not accept a quota system?
Mr. Walker: The rise in oil prices has had a dramatic effect on the cost of fertilisers. Last year agricultural workers received a wage increase of about 20 per cent., which caused a further substantial increase in input costs. The final figure is not known, but there has been a massive increase in input costs. In the battle against inflation no sector of the economy has played a bigger role in the last 18 months in keeping prices down than the food sector.
I do not know the exact figures for New Zealand butter. The figures proposed by the Commission have been negotiated with the New Zealand Government, with whom we are in close contact. They are acceptable to them. I am glad to say that there has been a substantial increase in sales of English butter and we are now selling a larger proportion of English butter in British shops than for many years. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall stick to sugar quotas that make sense for British agriculture.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Has any progress been made in reshaping the processing and marketing scheme into a form in which it could be of some use to Britain, especially to Northern Ireland?
Mr. Walker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the proposals on Northern Ireland are part of the structures package. There was a three-hour or four-hour discussion on the package, during which some progress was made. We made the point that the Northern Ireland matter was urgent because of the current problems in Irish agriculture. I pressed the Commission and the Council of Ministers to ensure that conclusions are reached at the next meeting.
Mr. John MacKay: Did my right hon. Friend discuss some of the problems that have arisen in the implementation of the sheepmeat agreement, especially how the clawback is affecting wholesalers exporting both to Third world countries and to other EEC countries? That is causing considerable difficulty.
Mr. Walker: We did not discuss that matter at the Council of Ministers' meeting. We have held discussions with various members of the Commission because, as my hon. Friend knows, the Commission stated that when the pattern of trade created by the clawback provisions could be identified it would ensure that measures were taken to ensure that it did not interfere with British trade prospects. We have given the Commission the updated information and suggested a number of technical changes, which it has undertaken to study quickly.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Was fisheries policy discussed at the Council of Ministers' meeting? Will the Minister reaffirm his previous assurances that fisheries policy will still be regarded as a unilateral issue?
Mr. Walker: I give the assurance that fisheries policy has always been discussed on its merits. The Agriculture Council meeting was held this week, and the Fisheries Council meeting will be held next week.
Mr. Jay: Does the Minister recall that the Conservative Party approved the renegotiation terms for New Zealand in 1975? As it now appears that only the French are still trying to block our butter supplies from New Zealand, will he assure us that under no circumstances will the Government give way to the French obstruction?
Mr. Walker: In fairness, the French are not trying to block the butter supplies from New Zealand. In the interests of the New Zealand agriculture plan, we are seeking at least a three-or four-year agreement period. The French are happy to agree butter supplies for next year. We are negotiating for a longer period. Eight member countries and the Commission are in agreement. If it has foreign policy implications, it is important that Foreign Ministers discuss it.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great feeling of outrage throughout Britain because the Russians buy surplus foods, sell them at high profits and use the money to buy arms for use in Afghanistan? Is he aware also of the strong feelings about the economics of Bedlam whereby vessels catch fish by the ton but if it does not reach a certain price it is then dumped? Are we to continue with a system in which food is said to be too cheap when every housewife knows that it is too dear?
Mr. Walker: The Government have always been opposed to any sales of butter to the Soviet Union. I was glad that the Commission yesterday announced that it was abandoning the pre-fixing procedures that could have enabled further butter contracts with the Soviet Union to take effect in January. I am glad that we have the support of Western Germany on that matter.
Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that the present levels of MCAs cost the family 50p per week and would cost the British taxpayer £200 million a year?
Mr. Walker: Of course I cannot confirm that. The hon. Gentleman quotes his figure of 50p on the remarkable conclusion that any changes in the MCA would be passed on by the foreign exporter to the British housewife as opposed to the foreign exporter taking a larger profit margin. That is a dubious assumption.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: If the Government's main battle is to fight inflation and reduce spending, will my right hon. Friend explain why he agreed, however temporarily, to the additional 11·8 per cent. tax on food that will result in Britain having to pay more across the exchanges?
Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend's question shows a remarkable ignorance of the mechanisms involved. He uses a good headline-catching phrase. When the previous Labour Government were in power, I am sure that my hon. Friend joined his Shadow Cabinet colleagues in condemning a system whereby British agriculture was suffering a positive disadvantage compared with foreign agriculture. I am glad to say that for the first time since we joined the Common Market we have an advantage. That

483
is why our exports are increasing and our imports decreasing. The Government also have a considerable interest in full employment.
Mr. Dalyell: Is there likely to be an ethyl alcohol regime that will damage investment in such places as Grange mouth?
Mr. Walker: No, Sir. Although the alcohol regime was discussed at the meeting. I do not believe that in the foreseeable future there will be any regime that could be damaging to the investment to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Gummer: Will my right hon. Friend expand a little on his remarks about the poultry industry? Is he aware that most of those who produce chickens and eggs in my constituency want to see the EEC work? They are concerned because it appears that they pay the cost of poultry inspection—of which they are in favour—but that in other countries the cost is paid by the State.
Mr. Walker: It was at the behest of the British Government that the Commission carried out an inquiry into the practices of all member States. It has published a report which shows that our complaint was fully justified. The Commissioner has promised to take measures to bring about harmonisation both in the method and in the cost of application.
Mr. Maclennan: Has the Minister had the opportunity to put before the Council of Ministers the proposals of the Scottish National Farmers Union for an integrated agricultural programme for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland? If not, in view of the time that the proposals have been before his Department, why not?
Mr. Walker: The proposals for the Western Isles come under the structures package. Discussion will continue to take place when the package is brought up at the December meeting.
Mr. Peter Fraser: I welcome my right hon Friend's initiatives on the discrepancy in the poultrymeat hygiene regulations. Will he make it clear before the December meeting that we cannot afford any delay on that issue? Will he confirm that the cost of inspection being borne
484
by the EEC is one of the mattters which the Commission will consider?
Mr. Walker: Yes. Sir. On the question of the method of payment, as a matter of principle it is not thought necessary for either the Commission or national Governments to pay. It may be that industry should pay, and I should not object to that providing that industry in all member countries pay. It is important to achieve equality rather than differences in the method of payment.
Mr. English: Does the Minister agree that per thousand pounds of turnover or per employee the subsidies to British manufacturing industry should be raised to the same level as those to the British agriculture industry?
Mr. Walker: I should welcome that if the productivity of British manufacturing industry and investment in the manufacturing industry were as good as that in the agriculture industry.
Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a serious position faces the beef producers in Staffordshire and elsewhere in Britain? Is he further aware that the intervention system does not appear to give a fair return to the producer? Was that subject discussed at the meeting, and, if not, why not? Will he take steps to ensure that the variable premium is more flexible, as is happening in Ireland?
Mr. Walker: Recent changes in the beef intervention system were discussed at the meeting. As a result, the Commission promised to lay before the Council an analysis of the present intervention system for beef, its operation, and ways in which its efficiency could be improved to have a better effect on the beef industry.
Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that a recent common Community levy on common wheat into the EEC was £42 a tonne, but that on wheat imported into the United Kingdom it was £47 a tonne? Does he agree that the basic difference is due to the high value of the £ sterling? Will he also confirm that he could reduce that difference by devaluing the green pound? If he could, why does he not do so?
Mr. Walker: There is a great deal of talk about revaluing the green pound. If

485
the pound sterling continues to go down at the rate of the last two days, in a fortnight we shall be in negative MCAs again. It shows how quickly the position can change. Any analysis will show that the prolonged period when we had negative MCAs was not good for food prices and was appallingly bad for British agriculture.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising to speak before I call the Front Bench.
Mr. Marlow: Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to discuss with the Council of Ministers the substance of an answer that he gave to me earlier in the year, namely that the British housewife is faced with a massive bill, over and above our net budget contribution, in excess of £600 million a year, by being forced to buy expensive European foodstuffs rather than being able to buy cheap foodstuffs available on the world market? Does he agree with me that he would enjoy the confidence of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), myself and the rest of the House rather more if he could get some compensation on this issue?
Mr. Walker: While I am desperate to obtain the confidence of my two hon. Friends, I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that, as he well knows, I would not be willing to see British agriculture subjected to the adverse effects, at any one moment, of taking the lowest world price and perhaps destroying whole sections of British agriculture. No Government of any complexion in the post-war period has been willing to pursue that policy. It is that type of policy on which the sorts of figures that are bandied about are based.
Mr. Christopher Price: Did the right hon. Gentleman discuss at the meeting the possibility—which is prevented at the moment by what seems to be a French veto—of moving to a full customs union with the Republic of Cyprus? Does he realise that, although he has had quite a lot of questions about the price of fish, the problem about Cyprus agriculture determines to a considerable extent the price of chips in this country, quite
486
apart from the other imports of fruit and alcoholic beverages? Is this country standing behind Cyprus in regard to the pledge which was thought to have been given that there was an agreement to move towards a full customs union?
Mr. Walker: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman because this was not in any way a matter connected with the Council meeting; but we are in close contact with the Cypriot Government on a number of matters affecting my own Department and Cyprus.
Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister agree that the hill farmers, particularly in Scotland, are now in real trouble? Is he aware, for example, that I was given a figure of £39,000 as being the average overdraft of hill farmers in Scotland? Is he further aware that they are now having to borrow money in order to pay the interest on the money already borrowed?
In view of the fact that the increase in variable premiums came too late to help the hill farmers, will the Minister now consider some increase in the compensatory allowance, or some other help with feed or fuel cost, to help these people, otherwise the hill farmers will all go bankrupt?
Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have prolonged talks with his Front Bench on these topics and try to dispel the general myth that they are trying to create that British agriculture is having a marvellous time at the expense of everybody else when, as the hon. Gentleman says, farm incomes in real terms have been going down? I am glad, therefore, in view of what the hon. Gentleman says, that last year I gave the biggest ever increase in hill farm subsidies and succeeded in negotiating the sheepmeat regime.
Mr. Parry: The Minster in his statement expressed concern for sugar beet. Will he now express his concern for the workers in the port cane refineries? Will he also give a clear assurance that the present 1·3 million tonnes of ACP sugar will continue to come into the United Kingdom for home consumption? A firm commitment from the Government is essential for the employment prospects of workers in the port refineries, particularly in areas such as Merseyside?
Mr. Walker: Yes. It is because we totally respect the agreements on ACP sugar that we are in agreement to reduce the quotas as far as Europe is concerned. We are not asking for increased quotas for the United Kindom and we want, obviously, to use the ability for our own beet producers to provide that part of the market that is not provided by ACP sugar. But we have totally adhered to the agreement of 1·3 million tonnes of ACP sugar.
Mr. Hardy: The Minister said earlier that the level of our agricultural exports to Europe was increasing, and the House is aware that he has given a very firm commitment to this for quite a time now. Is he not disappointed with the level of those exports? Was he not expecting to achieve more? Does he attribute the disappointment to the abuse and disdain of regulations in some member States, as in the case about which I informed the House the other day? One of my constituents, who is well aware of the French disregard of poultry regulations, witnessed last week's eggs being marked with next week's dates, at a time when the French were supposed to be sensitive to the change about which the Minister informed the House a moment ago.
Mr. Walker: I am glad to say that in recent months there has been a very steep increase in our exports to the Community. Another very important factor is the degree, in a whole range of commodities, to which we are getting a much bigger share of our home market. That, too, is an encouraging trend. There are differences of practice, and when we hear of any case violating these principles we draw it to the attention of the Commission, which then normally prosecutes.
Mr. Strang: Returning to the important issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry). is the Minister aware of the
488
continuing speculation concerning the future of the Liverpool cane refinery, including an item on today's BBC early morning farming programme? In view of the fact that there are 1,200 people directly employed at the refinery, in an area where male unemployment is a staggering 18 per cent., will the Minister tell the House whether he has received any communication from Tate and Lyle about the future of the refinery? Will he give an undertaking that the Government will attach the same priority to protecting this employment on Merseyside as the previous Labour Government did?
Mr. Walker: With regard to the area for which I am responsible, which is securing the access of the 1·3 million tonnes of cane sugar to this country—and keeping the British sugar quotas to levels which the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member considered to be reasonable for the United Kingdom—I point out to the hon. Gentleman that his own Government's White Paper, "Food from Our Own Resources", set targets for British beet quotas, and I have no intention whatever of exceeding those.
Later—
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, I was discussing the cost to British housewives of food bought from Europe. In his answer, my right hon. Friend started confusing that with agricultural support in the United Kingdom, which is a completely different matter. If that goes in the Official Report in the way in which he put his answer, that would be most misleading to the public. I should like my right hon. Friend to have the opportunity of correcting what he said.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Member's right hon. Friend has departed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS (NON-DISCRIMINATION)
3.57 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it unlawful for local government to discriminate on political grounds in making appointments.
The purpose of the Bill that I am drawing to the attention of the House, in the hope that hon. Members will support me, is to make it unlawful for local government authorities to discriminate on the grounds of the political beliefs of applicants in the making of appointments.
The basic criterion that has characterised British local government has been that those who have enjoyed service in it have always respected the positions of those who have enjoyed the confidence of the electorate, and that they have continued to serve the authority, no matter which party controlled it.
In recent years, a number of challenges have arisen to that criterion, and it is a matter of sad regret on my part that I am a Member for a constituency that is part of the metropolitan borough of Walsall, and where a number—only a small number, I believe—of highly motivated individuals wish to challenge a principle that has long been central to the conduct of local government in this country.
I do not intend to deal with the matter in a particularly partisan fashion, but it is important to recognise that in order to bring forward a quality of officer who can best serve the interests of all the community one has to discount the political affiliations or affections of that individual.
Unfortunately, in the small group who control Walsall council it has now become a matter of policy to take into account the political allegiance of individuals. I shall cite approximately some of the policy tenets that this group has set forward. The group has stated as its policy—it did this prior to the local government elections of last year—and has emphasised its determination, by either appointment or influence, to direct the basic philosophy of council staff, acknowledging that this would have a far-reaching effect beyond any single policy matter.
490
The group further observed that that would have effects that, unlike some policies, would transcend elections. This House and our system of government is dedicated to the fact that no one has a monopoly on truth, and that any of our visions or views of the world are subject to the discretion of the electorate. Unfortunately, the tenet that is put forward by those who now control Walsall metropolitan borough is such that it would override or transcend the effect of elections. The history of the twentieth century is marred by those who have thought that the interests of their policies could be served by transcending elections. It is important for this House to respond to challenges and to matters that are important to the central themes of our political life, as it has done on past occasions.
In the past we have deemed discrimination on the basis of race or of sex to be improper. It is both harmful and wasteful of talent. Discrimination on the grounds put forward by my local authority would also be wasteful and harmful. What honourable career officer in local government could hazard his career by putting forward an application for appointment in a borough that is known to prejudice in favour of those who are, for the moment, sympathetic to their own political objectives? My fear is that for those people who live in Aldridge-Brownhills the quality of their services will be affected by reducing the numbers of those available to serve the whole community. For those reasons, I hope that the House will support the introduction of this Bill to prevent discrimination in appointments to local authorities.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has been rising in his place, has given me notice that he wishes to oppose the motion.
Mr. David Winnick: Labour Members do not need lectures from Conservative Members about combating discrimination. For many years Lord Brockway, when he was a Member of this House, tried to introduce Bills to outlaw race discrimination. He received no support from Conservative Members. But he persisted, and it was a Labour Government who made racial

491
discrimination illegal. Legislation to prevent women being penalised was introduced by a Labour Government and likewise, action was taken by a Labour Government to safeguard the position of the disabled. In terms of combating real discrimination—discrimination that penalties and humiliates people—Labour Members have fought strongly for anti-discrimination measures.
I oppose the introduction of the Bill because I believe that the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has given a distorted picture to the House. I read in my local evening newspaper on 19 September about the appointment of a new deputy director of social services—a senior appointment, which was made after all the fuss and controversy relating to appointments in the borough. The new deputy director was quoted in that newspaper as saying:
"During the interview there was no overt or hinted reference to any political colour at all. There was no question of any poitical overtone."
Some hon. Members may wish to reflect on the honour of that gentleman and suggest that he was not telling the truth, since he was appointed by the new Labour-controlled council. It is surprising that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who I assume saw the report, did not wish to bring it to the attention of the House. At present, the Walsall council is advertising for a housing director, and it is interesting to note from an article in the Local Government Chronicle that at its recent conference the Association of District Secretaries was enthusiastic about the council inviting candidates to look at the borough, rather than simply relying on the usual formal interview.
I suggest that the way in which the council is trying to provide proper services and ensure that the right people are appointed should be supported, and not criticised. The majority party on the council—I know that it has been subject to criticism and controversy—believes that those people who are appointed to senior positions and to jobs that are sensitive, in which the people involved will be interviewing members of the general public, should be sympathetic and responsive to the needs of the public in the borough.
492
Hon. Members are aware that constituents come to our surgeries with many problems, and our attitude as Members of Parliament is sympathetic because we understand that the people who come to see us, whether on housing, social security or other problems, come because they believe that their individual problem is important. Therefore, understandably, our attitude is sympathetic and understanding. Despite all the controversy, the council is making the point that the attitude of the officials should be responsible and sympathetic to those people in difficulty.
Recently, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made an accusation against Sandwell council about a closed shop agreement, and I note from yesterday's evening paper that the hon. Gentleman has admitted that he was wrong. He said that the closed shop agreement in Sandwell was illegal, and he now admits that it is nothing of the sort. My advice to the hon. Gentleman is that he should not be so quick to criticise councils. He should think about what they are trying to do.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that he advocates my case more effectively in fighting to do away with discrimination of the nature that I have outlined today?
Mr. Winnick: Just as the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to apologise about his accusation against Sandwell council, I wait for the day when he will apologise for his remarks regarding Walsall council.
The borough undoubtedly faces many housing and environmental problems. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman uses his time in this House to bring in a sham Bill—a Bill without any need or justification. It would have been far better if he had tried to present the problems that we face in the borough. For example—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must merely say why he is opposed to the Bill being introduced.
Mr. Winnick: I oppose the introduction of the Bill because it is unnecessary and because the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has given a misleading and distorted picture to the House. It is important that Walsall borough has

493
claimed designation under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. There is no controversy in the borough on the question that the council should receive such designation because of the problems that it faces, but the hon. Gentleman has seen fit not to give support.
One of the reasons—
Mr. Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of my Bill is to try to outlaw discrimination in appointments to local authorities. I fail to see the relevance of the arguments of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has a valid point. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) must confine himself to answering—[Hon. Members: "He cannot."] Order. In his opposition to the Bill being put forward, the hon. Member must confine himself to answering the arguments that were advanced.
Mr. Winnick: What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, basically, is that there is no such discrimination as argued by the hon. Member, but there is discrimination by the present Government against the borough as a whole. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] It seems to me that the sort of problems that are being faced in the borough—problems over housing, problems involving the environment, and the fact that we have not been designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act—are the sort of problems that we should be debating in this House, and not the sham measure that the hon. Member proposes.
One of the reasons, which is very relevant to the measure being introduced by the hon. Member—
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark rose—
Mr. Winnick: One of the reasons—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to make it clear that it is customary, on a Ten-Minute Bill, for a short statement
494
to be made from either side, normally without interruption, and usually both sides relate their arguments to the issue.
Mr. Winnick: I can well understand the impatience and irritation of the Tories, because they are engaged in a purely propaganda exercise and they do not like the facts being presented to them.
One of the reasons that the hon. Member gave for not supporting the council's application for designation—and this is relevant to what he said—is that he has not been getting a prompt response to letters that he has sent to council departments. This occurred before Labour took over.
If a Member of Parliament has had difficulty in getting replies from council departments—this was before Labour took over—it is understandable that the members of the council who now control the local authority should be concerned about the lack of response to the general public. Hence their wish to appoint people who are sympathetic and who understand the problems of people who come to the civic centre with their issues.
I therefore argue that what has been presented today is not necessary. It is irrelevant to the needs of the borough. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member has seen fit to abuse the House by bringing in this shabby Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mrs. Sheila Faith, Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, Sir Nicholas Bonsor, Mr. John Butcher, and Mr. John Heddle.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS (NON-DISCRIMINATION)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS (NON-DISCRIMINATION)
  Mr. Richard Shepherd accordingly presented a Bill to make it unlawful for local government to discriminate on political grounds in making appointments; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 273.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HIGHWAYS BILL [LORDS]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVING in the Chair].
  Clauses 1 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  HIGHWAYS BILL [LORDS]
    Clause 24

      CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HIGHWAYS AND PROVISION OF ROAD-FERRIES
      4.13 pm
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 25, line 39, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
      '(4) The Minister or a local highway authority may provide and maintain new road-ferries.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 26 to 32, Nos. 34 to 45, Nos. 47 to 52, Nos. 55 to 60, and Nos. 62 to 66.
      The Solicitor-General: Because I know that the House of Commons is anxious to move to the next business, and because I can in this case assure the Committee that the need for all these amendments is clear and simple, I shall be very brief. It would, however, be remiss if I did not pause for a moment to wish the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas), who leads for the Opposition on this Bill, a very happy birthday. I hope not to keep him from the celebrations for very long.
      The amendments in this group all incorporate into the Bill amendments made in another place to the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, which relate to the highways legislation being consolidated into this Bill. It follows from the acceptance of those amendments in the House of Commons yesterday that in order to ensure that this Bill is now right as a consolidation measure and will represent the existing state of the law when it comes into force, these amendments must be made.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 26

      COMPULSORY POWERS FOR CREATION OF FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS
      Amendments made: No. 26, in page 27, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      'Where it appears to the Secretary of State in a particular case that there is need for a footpath or bridleway as mentioned in subsection (1) above, and he is satisfied as mentioned in that subsection, he may, after consultation with each body which is a local authority for the purposes of this section in relation to the land concerned, make a public path creation order creating the footpath or bridleway.'.
      No. 27, in page 27, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'a' in line 11—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 27

      MAKING UP OF NEW FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS
      Amendments made: No. 28, in page 27, line 42, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
      No. 29, in page 28, line 20, leave out from beginning to "specified" in line 21 and insert
      "It shall be the duty of the highway authority to carry out any works".
      No. 30, in page 28, line 38, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
      "(7) Where the Secretary of State makes a public path creation order under section 26(2) above, he may direct that subsection (7A) below shall apply.
      (7A) Where the Secretary of State gives such a direction—

      (a) the local authority who, on the coming into force of the order, became the highway authority for the path or way in question shall survey the path or way and shall certify what work (if any) appears to them to be necessary to bring it into a fit condition for use by the public as a footpath or bridleway, as the case may be, and shall furnish the Secretary of State with a copy of the certificate;

      (b) if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with a certificate made under the foregoing paragraph, he shall either cause a local inquiry to be held or shall give to the local authority an opportunity of being heard

      497
      by a person appointed by him for the purpose and, after considering the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or the person so appointed as aforesaid, shall make such order either confirming or varying the certificate as he may think fit; and

      (c) subject to the provisions of the last foregoing paragraphs, it shall be the duty of the highway authority to carry out the work specified in a certificate made by them under paragraph (a) above".—[The Solicitor-General.]

      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 28 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 37

      PROVISIONS WHEREBY HIGHWAY CREATED BY DEDICATION MAY BECOME MAINTAINABLE AT PUBLIC EXPENSE
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 39, line 12, leave out 'clerk' and insert 'proper officer'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 2 to 4, No. 46, No. 5, No. 7, No. 53, No. 54, No. 8, Nos. 10 to 13 and Nos. 21 to 23.
      The Solicitor-General: These are all minor and technical drafting amendments, which will correct either drafting or typographical errors. Having regard to the size of the Bill, right hon. and hon. Members may feel that it speaks volumes for the skill of the draftsmen that there are so few amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 37, as amended, ordered stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 38 to 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 56

      PROCEEDINGS FOR AN ORDER TO REPAIR HIGHWAY
      Amendment made: No. 31, in page 53, line 34, leave out subsection (6).—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 57 to 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 74

      POWER TO PRESCRIBE A BUILDING LINE
      Amendment made: No. 32, in page 67, line 33, leave out subsection (2).—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 75 to 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 90 and 91 disagreed to.
      Clauses 92 to 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 118

      POWER OF MAGISTRATES' COURT TO AUTHORISE STOPPING UP OR DIVERSION OF HIGHWAY
      Amendments made: No. 34, in page 103, line 9, leave out from 'withheld' to end of line 10.
      No. 2, in page 104, line 22, leave out second 'clerk' and insert 'proper officer'—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 119 to 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 122

      EXERCISE OF POWERS OF MAKING PUBLIC PATH EXTINGUISHMENT AND DIVERSION ORDERS
      Amendments made: No. 3, in page 108, line 25, leave out the 'and insert' 'a'.
      No. 35, in page 108, leave out lines 42 to 46 and insert
      'he may himself make the order after consultation with the appropriate authority'
      No. 36, in page 109, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
      No. 37, in page 109, line 11, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
      . (6) Where under subsection (3) above the Secretary of State decides to make a public path diversion order, he may require the owner, lessee or occupier on whose representations he is acting to enter into an agreement with such council as he may specify for the owner, lessee or occupier to defray, or to make such contribution as may be specied in the

      499
      agreement towards any such compensation or expenses as are specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 121(5) above.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 123 to 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 126

      STOPPING UP PRIVATE ACCESS TO HIGHWAYS
      Amendments made: No. 38, in page 111 line 43, leave out from 'making' to 'received' in line 44 and insert
      'of an order by the Minister'.
      No. 39, in page 112, line 1, leave out 'the Minister; and' and insert'
      'him;
      (ca) for objections to the confirmation of an order made by a local highway authority to be considered by the Minister if any of the objections to the confirmation of the order received within such period as may be so prescribed and not withdrawn was made by an owner, lessee or occupier of any premises with a private means of access which the order would authorise the highway authority to stop up;
      (cb) for objections to the confirmation of an order made by a local highway authority received within such period as may be so prescribed and not withdrawn to be considered by the local highway authority if there is no objection received within that period from an owner, lessee or occupier such as is mentioned in paragraph (ca) above or if all such objections so received are withdrawn before the order is referred to the Minister for confirmation;'.
      No. 40, in page 112, line 6, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
      '(5) In the case of an order made by a local highway authority under this section—

      (a) if no objection to the confirmation of the order is received within the period prescribed by regulations under subsection (4) above; or

      (b) if every such objection so received is withdrawn; or

      (c) if every such objection so received from an owner, lessee or ocupier of any premises with a private means of access which the order would authorise the highway authority to stop up is withdrawn,

      the local highway authority may themelves confirm the order, with or without modifications.
      (5A) Before confirming an order with modifications the local highway authority, if they consider that the proposed modifications will make a substantial change in the order,
      500
      shall inform every such owner, lessee or occupier as is mentioned in subsection (5)(c) above and every other person who appears to them to be likely to be affected by the modifications to the order—

      (a) of their intention to make the order: and

      (b) of the form in which they propose to make it.

      (5B) The local highway authority shall give every such person as is mentioned in subsection (5A) above an opportunity to make representations with regard to the order, and shall consider any representations with regard to it which any such person makes.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 127 to 131 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 132

      PROTECTION OF PUBLIC RIGHTS
      Amendment made: No. 4, in page 115, line 23, leave out first 'highway' and insert 'highways'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 133 to 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 137

      TEMPORARY DIVERSION OF PATH OR WAY PLOUGHED UP UNDER SECTION 136
      Amendment made: No. 41, in page 119, line 28, leave out from 'way' to end of line 30.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 138 to 148 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 149

      POWER TO AUTHORISE ERECTION OF STILES ETC. ON FOOTPATH OR BRIDLEWAY
      Amendments made: No. 42, in page 130, line 35, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
      No. 43, in page 131, line 14, leave out from 'section' to 'the public' in line 15.
      No. 44, in page 131, line 22, leave out from 'section' to 'is' in line 23.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      part of the Bill.
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand

    Clause 150

      PENALTY FOR DEPOSITING THINGS OR PITCHING BOOTHS ETC. ON HIGHWAY
      Amendment made: No. 45, in page 131, line 42, leave out 'or gipsy'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 151 to 173 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 174

      HOARDINGS TO BE SET UP DURING BUILDING ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 46, in page 157, line 29, leave out '(1)' and insert (2) '.——[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 175 to 183 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 184

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO LICENCES UNDER SECTION 183
      Amendment made: No. 5, in page 168, line 36, leave out licence 'and insert licensee'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 185 to 213 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 214

      RECOVERY OF EXPENSES AND CHARGE THEREOF ON PREMISES
      Amendments made: No. 47, in page 191, line 35, after interest ', insert
      ' at such reasonable rates as the authority may determine '.
      No, 48, in page 192, line 14, leave out subsection (5).—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 215 to 220 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 221

      PAYMENTS TO BE MADE BY OWNERS OF NEW BUILDINGS IN RESPECT OF STREET WORKS.
      Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 196, line 15, after Executive ', insert
      ', the National Freight Corporation (as far as included in this paragraph by paragraph 15(a) of Schedule 23 to this Act) '.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take amendment No. 9, in clause 331, page 283, line 1, after Executive ', insert
      , the National Freight Corporation (as far as included in this subsection by paragraph 15(b) of Schedule 23 to this Act) '.
      Mr. Thomas: My right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in Furness (Mr. Booth), in whose name these two amendments stand, has uncovered an anomaly. Before proceeding, may I say how grateful I am to the Solicitor-General for his kind remarks at the beginning of the debate?
      Unless these amendments are accepted the National Freight Corporation, almost alone of statutory undertakings, would be liable to make payments to the street works authority as required by clause 222. Clause 221(4)(i) (i), (ii) and (iii) makes no mention of the National Freight Corporation. I think that I understand why—namely, that the Transport Act 1980 took the NFC out of the Highways Act 1959. The view taken was—in our opinion, mistakenly—that there was nothing to consolidate in this regard. It is also a mistake to anticipate legislation relating to the NFC. Although an appointed day has been foreshadowed in that regard, it is certainly long after 1 January when I understand that it is hoped that the Bill will receive Royal Assent. Therefore, I hope that the amendments will be accepted.
      4.30 pm
      The Solicitor-General: I have great admiration and respect for the mastery of the details of the Bill by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), especially on the point now being taken up by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas).

      503
      There is a difference between us whether the amendment is technically necessary. However, I do not want to pursue that point. I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery for drawing attention to the possible difference and tabling amendments, which, I accept, remove that difference. There cannot be any different interpretation. Accordingly, I content myself by expressing my appreciation for the Opposition's assistance and accepting the amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 221, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 222

      DETERMINATION OF LIABILITY FOR, AND AMOUNT OF, PAYMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 7, in page 199, line 44, after 'amount', insert 'paid'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 223 to 238 odered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 239

      POWER OF STREET WORKS AUTHORITY TO GRANT CHARGING ORDER
      Amendment made: No. 49, in page 213, leave out lines 21 and 22.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 240 to 272 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 273

      PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFER OF TOLL HIGHWAYS TO HIGHWAYS AUTHORITIES
      Amendments made: No. 50, in page 246, line 20, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 23.
      No. 51, in page 246, line 44, leave out
      'subject to the approval of the minister'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 274 to 281 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 282

      APPLICATION OF CERTAIN SUMS PAYABLE TO LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES
      Amendment made: No. 52, in page 251, line 25, leave out subsection (2).—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause 282, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 283 to 293 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 294

      COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE RESULTING FROM, AND OFFENCES CONNECTED WITH, EXERCISE OF POWERS OF ENTRY ETC. UNDER SECTION 291 OR 293
      Amendment made: No. 53, in page 260, line 12, leave out from 'section' to end of line 15 and insert
      '32(9) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (£1, 000 or such other sum as may be fixed by order under section 143(1) of that Act); or'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 295 to 298 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 299

      POWER OF HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OR COUNCIL TO REQUIRE INFORMATION AS TO OWNERSHIP OF LAND
      Amendment made: No. 54, in page 262, line 32, leave out from 'section' to end of line 35 and insert
      '32(9) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (£1, 000 or such other sum as may be fixed by order under section 143(1) of that Act); or'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 300 to 302 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 303

      RESTRICTION ON EXERCISE OF POWERS OF LIGHTING AUTHORITIES
      Amendment made: No. 55 in page 264, line 17, leave out subsection (3).—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 304 to 306 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 307

      RECOVERY OF EXPENSES BY COUNCILS AND HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES
      Amendments made: No. 56 in page 265, line 25, after interest ', insert
      'at such reasonable rate as the council may determine'.
      No. 57, in page 265, line 33, after 'expenses', insert 'and interest'.
      No. 58, in page 265, line 35, after interest ', insert
      'on them at such reasonable rate as the authority may determine '.
      No. 59, in page 266, line 9, leave out subsection (5).—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 308 to 321 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 322

      FORM OF NOTICES ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 60, in page 271, line 9, leave out subsections (2) to (4).—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 323 to 330 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 331

      FURTHER PROVISION AS TO INTERPRETATION
      Amendments made: No. 8 in page 280, line 20, leave out 1952' and insert 1980 '.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      No. 9, in page 283, line 1, after Executive ', insert
      ', the National Freight Corporation (as far as included in this subsection by paragraph 15(b) of Schedule 23 to this Act)'.—[Mr. Booth.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 332 to 342 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 343 disagreed to.
      Clauses 344 to 347 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 348

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 293, line 20, leave out from force 'to the end of line 21 and insert ` on 1st January 1981 '.
      It is desired to have the Bill in force by 1 January 1981, and I beg to move accordingly.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedules 1 to 7 agreed to.

    Schedule 8

      CONSENTS REQUIRED FOR EXECUTION OF CERTAIN WORKS IN STREETS
      Amendment made: No. 62, in page 314, line 46, leave out paragraph 4 and insert
      4. Where the consent of the Minister is required under this Schedule, any dispute between the Minister whose consent is required and the authority as to whether the Minister's consent is unreasonably withheld or is given subject to reasonable conditions, or whether the removal of anything to the provision of which the consent relates in accordance with any condition of the consent is reasonably required shall be referred to and determined by an arbitrator to be appointed in default of agreement by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
      Schedules 9 to 21 agreed to.

    Schedule 22

      PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT TO WHICH SECTIONS 290, 296, 314, 340, 341 and 344 OF THIS ACT APPLY
      Amendments made: No. 10, in page 337, line 29, leave out from '167', to to 'in line 30 and insert sections 173'.
      No. 11, in page 337, line 34, after 188 ', insert to 190, 192 '.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    Schedule 23

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 12, in page 338, line 4, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
      '1. Section 6(1) and section 7(1) of this Act shall have effect in relation to land acquired by a Minister in connection with a trunk road or, as the case may be, acquired by the Greater London Council in connection with a metropolitan road, under subsection (5) or (6) of section 214 of the Highways Act 1959 (or, in the case of a Minister, under so much of section 13 of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act 1935 as is re-enacted in those subsections) as they have in relation to land so acquired under section 248 of this Act (or, by virtue of paragraph 17 below, under section 22 of the Land Compensation Act 1973).'.
      No. 63, in page 341, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
      No. 64, in page 344, line 9, leave out
      'section 41 of the Comunity Land Act 1975'
      and insert
      'section 120 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (which re-enacts with modifications section 41 of the Community Land Act 1975)'.
      No. 13, in page 345, line 43, at end add—
      'References to Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
      Until the day appointed for the coming into force of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980—

      (a) the references in sections 294(4) and 299(3) of this Act to sections 32(9) and 143(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall be construed respectively as references to sections 28(7) and 61(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977;

      (b) the reference in section 331(1) of this Act, in the definition of "petty sessions area", to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall be construed as a reference
      508
      to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

      Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    Schedule 24

      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 21, in page 347, line 13, after "(2)", insert "(4)".
      No. 22, in page 355, line 11, at end add—
      'Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978
      "In section 3(3) of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 for "the Highways Act 1959" substitute "the Highways Act 1980"."—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    Schedule 25

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 65, in page 357, column 3, leave out lines 15 to 17.
      No. 23, in page 357, line 58, at end add—
      "1980 c. 43, Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. In Schedule 7, paragraph 29."
      No. 66, in page 357, line 58, at end add—
      "1980 c. 00, Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. In Schedule 7, paragraphs 1(2), 2(1), (2)(b), (3) and (4), 3(1), (3) and 5.".—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
      Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.
      Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  OPPOSITION PARTIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7 August],
  That the Resolution of the House of 20th March 1975 shall have effect from 1st July 1980 with the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph 2 of that Resolution:
  "That for the purpose of determining the annual maxima of such assistance the following formula shall apply:
  £96250 for each seat won by the party concerned plus £1925 for every 200 votes cast for it at the preceding General Election, provided that the maximum payable to any party shall not exceed £290, 000."—[Mr. St. John-Ste vas.]
  Question again proposed,
  4.41 pm
  Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: As I was saying at 12 minutes past midnight in the morning of Friday 8 August, Labour Members spend most of their time in Opposition opposing not the Government but each other. I am delighted that in the intervening period of three months, brotherly love has broken out on the Opposition Benches and that at least for this week there is some degree of unity. However, it is incumbent upon one not to be too churlish at this time. I shall therefore not pursue those points today as much as I probably would have done had the debate on 8 August continued into the wee small hours of the night.
  I shall try to be brief, but this is an immense subject. I do not think that the House should rush it. Certainly, one of my criticisms of the manner in which the business has so far been considered relates to the attempt to rush it through the House just before the Summer Recess when many hon. Members had disappeared. It is therefore right that the House has a fuller opportunity to debate the matter this afternon.
  Before I resume the gist of my remarks, and given the three months that have elapsed since the subject was last debated, it might be helpful if I briefly outline the intention of the motion that was moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment. No doubt he will be back before long. I note that someone will be taking a note of the pearls of wisdom that fall
  510
  from our lips. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) will get the notes right, even if he did not get his orders right earlier this afternoon.
  The intention of my right hon. Friend's motion is to increase the amount of taxpayers' money devoted to Opposition parties. In his opening remarks on 7 August, my right hon. Friend said:
  "The effect of the motion is to increase the amounts of financial assistance payable to Opposition parties to assist them in carrying out their parliamentary business".
  I should like to explore those remarks further in due course.
  "At present the amounts payable are £550 for each seat won by the party at the last general election, plus £1·10 for every 200 votes that it received".
  There are a number of qualifications which set out whether a party is an Opposition party or not, one of them being that:
  "In order to qualify, a party must have at least two Members elected to the House".—[Official Report, 7 August 1980, Vol. 990, c. 935.]
  Mr. Christopher Murphy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can assist me and other hon. Members with regard to our procedure this evening. I notice that a number of amendments appear on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden). I should like guidance as to whether those amendments will be called during the course of the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that Mr. Speaker has selected none of them.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that there is no hint of challenge to Mr. Speaker's decision, which Conservative Members honour implicitly, in anything that I say. It may assist those of us who may be minded to table amendments to matters such as this in future if some guidance could be given about the circumstances in which we might be able to table amendments to this sort of motion. A large number of hon. Members have appended their names to these amendments. Perhaps you will give some guidance on this point, because it seems

  511
  to be a waste of time if no amendments are to be called.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a matter for Mr. Speaker, and I have no doubt that he will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not entirely sure what is being got at. Can you confirm that at the end of the debate, as things stand at the moment, there will be only one vote? Can you also confirm that there is nothing which the House can do to enable it to take a vote on some of the amendments that appear on the Order Paper? Although many Conservative Members are in favour of the principle, and would be happy to vote for the motion as amended, they may be faced with the decision to vote against the motion if they are not given the opportunity to vote for the amendments.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put the matter absolutely correctly. There will be only one vote and he must make up his mind on that basis.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: On a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) seems to be having a second bite at the cherry, and I am sure that that is within the rules of order. I was fortunate enough to have caught the eye of the Chair during the debate three months ago. Since that time, I have considered the matter and have come up with several fresh arguments on the question why we should not pass the motion. Shall I be deprived of the opportunity of explaining to the House as why we should not approve this motion?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is no second bite of the cherry. It is still the same cherry that is being bitten. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has had his opportunity. Such water as flows under the bridge subsequently is something that we cannot do anything about now.
  Mr. Murphy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Much as I am concerned to know that we shall not have the benefit of listening to my hon.
  512
  Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) once again, I am concerned to know whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be given a second bite of the same cherry. Perhaps you will elucidate on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. I think that there is no doubt about that.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One accepts that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is entitled in this resumed debate to offer some comments. I have great respect for the ability of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) to take correct notes for my right hon. Friend of what is said in the debate. If my right hon. Friend is likely to seek to catch the eye of the Chair at a later stage, I think that it would be proper to adjourn the debate until such time as he is able to be present.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has never been the practice of the House. The Leader of the House will be present in due course. I am confident that the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) will fully apprise him of any developments that he should know about.
  Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House may agree and feel that it is worth while voting for moneys for the Leader of the Opposition and for the Labour Party to have moneys to enable it to carry out its routine work, because it is after all, potentially—although not for a very long time, God willing—the Government of this country. The House may well feel that it is a complete waste of Government money to give any money to the Liberal Party, which is completely irrelevant throughout the country. Is there any way that the House can be enabled to take a vote on the one and then another vote on the other?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not possible in the terms of the Order Paper.
  Mr. Lawrence: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing the important issue of providing taxpayers' money, at a time when that money is in extremely short supply, to Opposition parties. What is the point of debating the issue in the absence of

  513
  any representative of the Welsh nationalists and of the Irish parties? I see that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is in his place as the representative of the Scottish National Party and that representatives of the Liberal Party are on their Bench in width and strength.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. None of those matters would be for the Chair.
  Mr. Proctor: Cherries are not an autumnal fruit. However, I am pleased to return to the cherry or bone that I was gnawing on very nicely until someone came along and took it away. I was genuinely trying to be of assistance to the House. Three months have elapsed since the previous debate took place, on 7 August. I was trying to remind the House of the terms of the Government motion and the nature of the present position. I do that in the knowledge that this is a resumed debate and that presumably my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will speak at the end of the debate and not at its beginning.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for the Arts (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas)indicated dissent—
  Mr. Proctor: My right hon. Friend's reaction from a seated position indicates that he will not speak at the end of the debate. It may be possible for me to speak for a longer time if my right hon. Friend does not intend to go into the details of the Government's recommendation. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in view of my right hon. Friend's indication you will allow me some latitude in reminding the House of what the Government intend.
  At present the amounts payable under the resolution of the House of 20 March 1975 allow payments of £550 for each seat won by a party at the previous general election plus £1·10 for every 200 votes that it received. However, a number of qualifications were set down. These relate to whether a political party is a political party and include the qualification that a party must have at least two Members elected to the House as members of the party at the preceding general election. That is rather important because there is in the House the representative of a political party—the hon. Member
  514
  for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder)—who is its sole representative.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is completely correct. I cannot think of all the minor parties in the House but I am conscious of the fact that the Social and Democratic Labour Party is represented in the House. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) sought the endorsement of the electors prior to the election taking place as the representative of a certain political party. Obviously many of the electors voted for him because of his strong personality, but many voted for him because of the association that he had with a certain party. I understand that he no longer has that association. Will my hon. Friend address himself to the possibility that minority parties may have representatives elected at a general election that they send to this place as Members of Parliament and who subsequently break away from the party that sent them to Westminster? We have to devise some way of overcoming the rather difficult problem that can arise when a minor party has a successful candidate at a general election who is then for some reason—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman desires to catch my eye at some time to make a contribution, that is another matter. At this stage he should be making an intervention in a speech.
  Mr. Proctor: As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) for bringing information to my attention. I was not seeking to question the qualifications that have been set down.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) must be allowed to get on.
  Mr. Proctor: I was seeking to remind the House of the nature of the qualifications. I hope later to turn to some of the issues and difficulties that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe mentioned. I have mentioned two qualifications—namely, that a party must have at least two Members elected to this place as Members of Parliament at the preceding general election or have one such

  515
  Member and have received at least 150, 000 votes at that election.
  I represent a constituency that is quite large. I think that it has the third largest electorate in England, Wales and possibly Scotland. There are larger seats in Northern Ireland. At the last general election there were 107, 000 electors in my constituency. I shall be interested to hear from the Government how they foresee 150, 000 votes being cast in a parliamentary constituency for one Member. No doubt there is a quirk in the rules somewhere and perhaps someone will be able to explain that qualification to me. At present I do not understand it.
  There is a maximum ceiling that applies to any single party. It was set out by the leader of the House on 7 August and it is contained in the resolution of 20 March 1975. The maximum ceiling or entitlement is £165, 000 as of 1978. The Government are proposing increases and I shall remind the House of what those will amount to over a period.
  The resolution of the House on 20 March 1975 was backdated to 1 January 1975.
  At that time the amount per seat that each Opposition party could receive, as result of gaining a seat on the previous general election, was £500. On 1 January 1978, in accordance with the resolution of the House, that sum was increased to £550. That was an increase of 10 per cent. The resolution before us will take effect from 1 July 1980 and it will increase the sum of £550 to £962.50. That is an increase of 75 per cent.
  The amount per 200 votes cast was fixed at £1. With effect from 1 January 1978, that was increased to £1.10. Again, that is an increase of 10 per cent. In accordance with the resolution before us, that figure of £1.10 will be increased to £1.925 with effect from 1 July 1980. That is an increase of 75 per cent. The maximum figure applies only to the main Opposition party, which is now the Labour Party. On 1 January 1975 the maximum figure was £150,000. On 1 January 1978, that figure was increased to £165,000. Again that is an increase of 10 per cent. According to the Government's resolution, the figure will be set arbitrary and without argument at £290,000. That is an increase of 75·8 percent.
  516
  Given our present economic climate, those are sizeable increases.
  Mr. Lawrence: In the debate on 7 August, nobody assessed the overall figure that the taxpayers would have to pay to Opposition parties as a result of the votes cast in the general election of May 1979. The public would like to know how much money we intend to vote overall to the Opposition parties at a time of economic stringency, when there has to be no increase in public expenditure for the needy in our society.
  Mr. Proctor: That is a very important and helpful comment. To the best of my ability, I shall help the House.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Proctor: I should like to answer one question at a time. I shall give way later. I am not noted for not giving way, especially on such occasions.
  I tabled a question to the Leader of the House and his reply was printed in the Official Report for 11 November 1980. I asked for the information that my hon. Friend has inquired about. According to the reply, under present Government proposals the maximum sum payable to the Conservative Party for a full year is nil, because the Conservative Party is in government. The maximum amount for the Labour Party would amount to £290,000. The Liberal Party—which was weightily and heavily represented earlier in the debate, but whose numbers seem to have faded recently—would receive £52,107·83. I am not sure what it will do with the 83p. The maximum available to the Scottish National Party, which is not represented in the debate, would be £6,777·93. Plaid Cymru, which I am sure is eager for its money, would receive £3,199·35. The Ulster Unionist Party would receive £7,261·10 and the Ulster Democratic Unionist Party would receive £3,568·95. Those are not inconsiderable sums. Indeed, given our economic circumstances, those sums are monstrous.
  Mr. Beith rose—
  Mr. Marlow: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been so courteous in giving way with such readiness and alacrity. Some minutes ago it was said that an essential qualification for any

  517
  political party was that that party should have at least two Members of Parliament in this House, elected by the people of this country. This issue worries and exercises me. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could clarify it. In my view, and that of many others, there is no such thing as a Liberal Party. There is, rather, a collection of individuals—
  Mr. Beith: Look who is talking.
  Mr. Marlow: Those individuals come from different parts of the country. All of them, in their own way, are all things to all men. It would be absurd for the House to vote money to such an organisation. My hon. Friend has been courteous, kind and clear and I should be grateful if he would clarify that point in the interests of Opposition Members.
  Mr. Proctor: I am not inserting any qualification. In 1975, the House approved a resolution. The qualification was inserted in 1978 and will be added to again tonight. It is not my qualification and I do not urge it. My hon. Friend asked me whether two Members of Parliament constitute a political party and whether the House was right, in March 1975, to include that qualification rather than a qualification setting a higher number. I tend to err on the side of my hon. Friend and to agree with him. Like him, I am an individualist. I realise that the Liberal Party is a collection of individuals. Its members say different things in different constituencies at different times, depending on their political purpose. That has been true of members of the Liberal Party, at least since I joined the Young Conservatives in the early 1960s. It was doing that then and it will not change now. I do not expect a leopard to change its spots. However, I do not wish to pursue that line.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman refers to the sums of money available to Opposition parties, but he has made no reference to the amount, which must be between £½ million and £¾ million, that the Conservative Party collected when in Opposition between 1975 and 1979. Is he now going to say that he will give that money back?
  Mr. Proctor: There speaks an hon. Gentleman who was not present for the debate on 8 August, when I dealt with that point at some length. The hon.
  518
  Gentleman has not had the courtesy even to read the report of that debate. We have come to expect such behaviour from members of the Liberal Party. A cursory look at the debate would have given him the answer that one Parliament does not bind another. I and 80 of my colleagues on these Benches were not Members of on the Conservative Benches were not Members of the Parliament that took the decision in 1975. Had I been an hon. Member at that time, I should have voted against the proposition in 1975 and again in 1978. I said that in the previous debate. A number of my colleagues voted against those motions at the time.
  Mr. John Townend: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being present when he started his speech. Am I right in assuming that he is opposed not to all financial help to opposition parties but merely to the excessive rate of increase?
  Mr. Proctor: The debate is not on the principle of whether to give aid. As I made clear in the previous debate, I am against giving aid to political parties inside or outside the House. I shall make some suggestions later about how the difficulties of Opposition parties can be alleviated, which may have support from both sides of the House, including the official Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Keith Best: I do not want to break my hon. Friend's continuity of thought. If I may say so, he has done extremely well by giving way on so many occasions. However, I am a little troubled that he is particularly critical of the Liberal Party. I am distressed to see only one member of the Liberal Party seated in a lonely posture. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) appears to be reluctant, no doubt out of courtesy, to defend himself vehemently. I have a suggestion that may assist the hon. Gentleman and those hon. Gentlemen representing the Scottish and Welsh national parties. My hon. Friend has pointed out an anomaly. The main Opposition party would receive £290, 000, but the Welsh nationalist party would receive only a little over £3, 000. That cannot be fair. Members of those parties should be able to deliver as effective an opposition to the Government as the main Opposition party. The main motion by the official Opposition—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already pointed out to another hon. Member that if he wishes to make a speech his time may come. The hon. Gentleman should be making an intervention and not a speech.
  Mr. Proctor: As usual, my hon. Friend's observation is interesting, but I do not wish to get involved in the Welsh question. I merely wished to give the House the figures that perhaps the Government should have given.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I shall not have the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so perhaps I may be allowed to intervene. With regard to alternative sources of revenue, might it not be possible for Sir Terence Beckett and the CBI to come to the assistance of the official Opposition?
  Mr. Proctor: That is an interesting and sensible point. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), the treasurer of the Labour Party, is in his place and not at Centre Point, outside the reception desk of the CBI, with a begging bowl.
  Let me draw together the strands of my resumed speech. The money that was taken from 1 January 1978 amounted to £165,000 for the Conservative Party, which was an increase of 10 per cent. What happened to the retail price index between 1975 and 1978? It increased by 58 per cent. In their resolution of 1978, the then Government granted only a 10 per cent. increase. The roles are now reversed. The Government are now setting the maximum at £290,000, which is an increase of 75·8 per cent. The increase in the retail price index over 1978, 1979 and the first part of this year is 41·4 per cent. Those who want an increase in the figures say that there should be an increase because of inflation, but the increase they are asking for is much greater than the increase in the RPI.
  Mr. Beith: It is a Government motion.
  Mr. Proctor: It is, and I oppose it. I hope that Opposition Members will, too, just as some of my colleagues in the previous Parliament opposed the motions then.
  Mr. Michael Brown: When an individual hon. Member votes in the House, he does so according to his conscience. It
  520
  may be an indication to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) of the weakness of the Government's case that they have not sought to impose an official Whip.
  Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
  Mr. Alan Clark: We must dispel this rumour immediately. The Whips do not instruct Conservative Members.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Of course not. Not at all.
  Mr. Clark: Whips merely request the presence of hon. Members.
  Mr. Proctor: I am grateful for that intervention by an experienced hon. Member and his correction of two new youngsters. I hope that the two Whips on the Government Front Bench will take note of my hon. Friend's comments.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I do not want to interrupt the hilarity of the occasion, but the hon. Gentleman referred to the debates that took place in 1975 and 1978 when there were differences of view. There is a marked difference between those debates and this debate. The earlier debates were conducted seriously, with hon. Members making substantive and important points, instead of engaging in a blatant filibuster.
  Mr. Proctor: I have not been cautioned by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about filibustering and I take no lessons from the Opposition in that matter. We know the eagerness with which Opposition parties wish to pass the motion. They have a vested interest in it.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Mr. Proctor: No. I must get on.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I give the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) a little advice? If he wishes to catch the eye of the Chair he is not going the right way about it.
  Mr. Proctor: Thank you for your protection. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I shall not need it for the rest of the evening.

  521
  Let me take up the intervention of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). He said in our previous debate that he considered the Government's proposal to be modest. In support of that contention, he quoted two of my right hon. Friends, the Members for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) who said that it was a "modest little proposal", and for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), who said that it was a "very modest increase".
  The word "modest" seems to roll off the tongue easily when talking about other people's money. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said:
  "It is time to make this modest increase".—[Official Report, 7 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 939.]
  I looked up the 1975 debate to see what the hon. Gentleman said at that time. He said:
  "It has been suggested that the cut-off figure of £150, 000 for any one party is a modest figure, given costs these days. That figure would provide for a staff of 50 receiving salaries between £2, 500 and £8, 000 a year, with ratios as between the higher and lower levels which I believe would exist in a well-furnished party office. A staff of 50 for an Opposition party office is grotesquely large and does not merit the word 'modest'."—[Official Report, 20 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 1910.]
  There has been a sea change in the hon. Gentleman's attitude, but of course he is now sitting on the Opposition side and he is on the Front Bench rather than the Back Benches.
  Mr. George Cunningham: The difference is that in 1975 the House took a decision and when the same matter came up in 1978 I supported the decision taken at that time. That backs up what I said earlier. Differences of view were expressed in 1975 on both sides of the argument, but the House took a decision. It is that decision which we are forwarding a little tonight.
  Mr. Proctor: Tonight's debate and that of 7 August are the first opportunities that the House has had to discuss the matter and to touch upon the question of principle and the amounts that are proposed.
  In present economic circumstances, the proposed amounts are too much. That is why some of my right hon. and hon. Friends tabled a series of amendments. That was the only way of taking a course that might appeal to a larger number of hon. Members, including, for example, my
  522
  hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) who agrees in principle to the giving of public funds to Opposition parties but believes that 75 per cent. increases are excessive.
  Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour Party is financially subservient to the trade union movement to far too great an extent? Does he agree that, if the Government's proposals were accepted, that subservience would be reduced, to the benefit of not only the Labour Party, but the country?
  Mr. Proctor: No, because I believe that the funds would be directed to other political purposes. I do not accept my hon. Friend's conclusion, though I accept the point about the dangers that arise from the close link between the Labour Party and the trade union movement.
  Mr. Best: Does not the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) exemplify the point that I made earlier about the inherent unfairness of the motion to minor Opposition parties? There is a large amount given to the Labour Party from external sources. That facility is not available to the minor Opposition parties. Does that not reinforce the point that I made earlier?
  Mr. Proctor: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for underlining that point.
  Mr. Norman Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Conservative Members need some advice. There are now sufficient hon. Members in the House to succeed with a closure motion should you be asked to accept one. I am sure that you would be sympathetic to such a call if it were made at a reasonable hour. In those circumstances, the longer the filibuster continues on the Conservative Benches, the greater will be the denial to the House of a decent debate on an important matter.
  Perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will advise the newcomers to this sort of thing that there are better techniques available, if they wish to avoid the consequences of a closure, than filibustering and debasing the argument on a serious matter.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the advice given by a senior

  523
  Member of the House will not be overlooked.
  Mr. Proctor: I always take due note of what the treasurer of the Labour Party says. I scour the pages of the media, watch my television screen and listen to the radio with great interest to learn what he has said about the momentous issues facing the country. The official Opposition might not argue so vehemently or protest so strongly if the Labour Party's finances were in rather better order.
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: Do I understand my hon. Friend correctly? Is he arguing that there is no case on the ground of an increase in the cost of living for an increase of the size suggested, or on the basis of an improvment in productivity, for example? When honest working people are being asked to settle for 6 per cent., why should we give ineffective people 75 per cent?
  Mr. Proctor: That is indeed my point. I did not want to put it so brutally.
  I was coming to our three or four amendments, which have not been selected by Mr. Speaker. They would limit the 75·8 per cent. increase in the amount of money going from public funds to the major Opposition party to compensate it for increases in its costs, including pay, increases which amount to 41·4 per cent. over the period in question. I and a number of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden), last night tabled the amendments to limit the increase to the 6 per cent. cash limit that applies elsewhere. That limitation seemed to us to be eminently sensible. Some have argued that it is not, because we are comparing apples and pears; they say that the cash limits apply to pay, and that financial assistance to Opposition parties is rather different.
  However, I then call in aid Front Bench speakers on both sides of the House, who have gone out of their way in previous debates to make out that this financial assistance goes largely to pay salaries. It is definitely the paying of salaries in the public sector. It seems nonsensical that we can have a limit of 6 per cent. for civil servants, local government officials and workers in the
  524
  nationalised industries, but we cannot so limit the public funding of Opposition parties, most of which funding will go on pay in the public sector.
  Mr. Beith: This is a serious and important point. Can the hon. Gentleman name one Government Department that is calculating its salaries for 1981 on the basis of a cash limit that was set for 1978? Will he bear in mind that we are talking about amounts that have not been increased since 1978?
  Mr. Proctor: There has been a considerable change in the intervening period. That largely answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
  I have a loathing for the motion, a loathing that I hope the House has grasped. It is unfortunate that we cannot vote on the amendment. I shall certainly vote against the motion.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Having read the Official Report of the debate on 7 August, I have been tempted into taking part in the debate. I thought that the opposition to the motion was pretty pathetic, and that has been confirmed by the first speech this afternoon. I think that the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) said that he was the second graduate to come here from the University of York. I hope we shall not have many more like him.
  Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that I am the other hon. Member to represent the University of York, if universities are represented in this House.
  Mr. Brown: That is hardly an advertisement for the University of York.
  I wish that the hon. Member for Basildon had been less arrogant when he talked about the Labour Party's affairs. He made one or two sneering comments about brotherly love. He might consider the brotherly love that was shown this afternoon between his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). Perhaps because he sits where he does he does not see the loving glances that pass between his right hon. Friends the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the Prime Minister.

  525
  The hon. Gentleman made cheap debating points and that does nothing to enhance the prestige of the House when we are considering a serious subject.
  I do not accuse anyone of filibustering, of using the techniques that are employed here to achieve certain objectives, but Conservative Members are not very clever politically if they have to spend hours discussing a relatively unimportant matter. We are debating not the principle, but merely the topping up of the amounts involved. They should do more justice to the House and to the real problems that face the country. The best that they can produce are schoolboyish pranks. Perhaps they do not like their right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is not for me to become involved in the machinations.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a principle settled by one Parliament may not be contradicted by another?
  Mr. Brown: Of course it can, but that is not the issue before us. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to use his influence within his party, where presumably brotherly love is to be found everywhere, to have the principle debated again. If he wants that to be done, he should not waste the time of the House by making points about a matter that is not before us.
  We are not discussing the principle. There were divisions in the Labour Party about giving money to political parties. I have always been a believer in that. I would go even further, and say that if we want a healthy democracy more money should come into political parties, provided that there is public accountability, which there is not to the same extent over the Tory Party's finances.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), who happens to be treasurer of the Labour Party, can make his own comments, but it is a well-known secret that being dependent for so much of our money on trade union sources creates problems for the Labour Party. That is not an anti-trade unionist remark. It is an understanding of the history of this movement. Nevertheless any backers can extract the price for
  526
  their backing. That goes for the Conservative—
  Mr. John Townend: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain why the Labour Party, over the last two decades, has seemed to be incapable of persuading the ordinary Labour voter to subscribe sufficient money to finance the Labour Party? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Brown: I do not like to apply to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for protection. I do not normally need it, but there is a bit of a rabble present this afternoon. I believe that the community, taxpayers or individuals, should finance political parties through public money, provided that there is accountability and it is in the open.
  During the debate on 7 August the hon. Member for Basildon asked why public money should be given to unpopular institutions. I am amazed that hon. Members who desperately wanted to come to this place should denigrate those who have been in political life or think it clever to make snide remarks about politicians in general. We do not rate highly in the popularity stakes with the public. It is the schoolboyish attitude of people like the hon. Member for Basildon, in their approach to politics, that downgrades the status of politicians and those who become involved in politics.
  There are no doubts in my mind. The principal is right of using public money, through Parliament, to enhance the democratic practices and traditions of this country. I want an improvement in the amounts. New hon. Members have a lot to learn in this place. If some of them are ever in Government they will find that the odds are stacked against Opposition parties unless they have adequate resources. It is part of the health of the democratic structures of this country that money should be made available adequately for the parliamentary purposes of the political parties.
  Mr. Keith Wickenden: Following to its logical conclusion the hon. Gentleman's argument that for there to be effective opposition there needs to be funding from State sources, is he saying that since 1975, when funding started, the calibre of opposition has been higher than it was before then?
  Mr. Brown: That is a silly question. No one is capable of giving an objective answer. The Conservative Party, when in Opposition, took this money. I have read the proceedings of 7 August. I cannot find any statement by the hon. Member for Basildon that he was speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party and that he was conducting a whip-round to pay the money that was taken under false pretences when the Conservative Party was in Opposition. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did say that he would like the money to be paid back, but I can find no such reference in his speech. He should perhaps clarify the point. Does he wish to intervene? I thought not.
  I do not intend to embark on the narrow detailed points about the rate of inflation and who was responsible for it. I am arguing a general principle. Having recognised the need to give financial aid to political parties, we are under some obligation, in fairness, to ensure that adequate funds are made available. I hope that the House will support the motion.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before calling anyone else, I should like to inform the House that the motion before us is fairly narrow. It deals with the amount that should be paid. I was not present for the 79 minutes that the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) took over his speech, counting the 25 minutes that he spoke in the previous debate. I must say to the House that this is a fairly narrow issue.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct to interpret your advice to the House as meaning that we are not discussing the principle? If that is the position, do I understand, that you are suggesting to the House that we merely address ourselves to the narrow part of the debate dealing with the amount?
  Mr. Speaker: There are bound to be references to the principle. That is different from detailed discussion. The House has decided the principle. What we are deciding tonight is the amount.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Keith Wickenden: I shall not detain the House for 79 minutes.
  528
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has fairly pointed out that this should have been a serious debate on a serious matter. It is right to remind the House of that. I sat through the whole debate in August and I have listened throughout this afternoon. I sense, apart from the wish of the Government to get their business through the House efficiently, very different reactions on the Opposition Benches from what happened in August and what is happening today. I hope that Opposition Members will not consider my views too critical. I sense, however, a patronising criticism of Conservative Members, who are in some doubt whether these funds should be paid. That is not an entirely fair reaction.
  We are entitled—indeed, we are under an obligation—to consider carefully all measures that involve public spending, no matter what the amount. A much more serious and fair reservation has been expressed on behalf of the Liberal Party. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who is not present today but who attended the debate in August, said to me after that debate that he thought Conservative Members had been very unfair because when we were in Opposition we had taken this money. I think that those remarks have also been expressed by the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). I accept that point. It is fair and valid. I would not wish to rely on extenuating circumstances.
  I would only say that hon. Members who support my amendment, which you, Mr. Speaker, have not called, were almost exclusively not present when these matters were previously debated. We are debating them, so far as we are concerned, for the first time. I hope that we are entitled to question the principle even though we must meet the criticism of Liberal Members that we took the money. I make no bones about it. If we were to succeed in the aim that I would like to see of cutting off support for all political parties, the only honourable course for the Conservative Party would be to repay the sums of money that it had previously drawn. There can be no argument. It would be proper for us to do so.

  529
  On the general principle, I accept the difficulties that Opposition parties—
  Mr. Ioan Evans: As well as repaying the money that the Conservative Party received in Opposition, is there not an obligation on the present Prime Minister, who received the money when the Leader of the Opposition, to inform Parliament why it is in order for the Conservative Party in Opposition to find no principle against it and to receive financial help to be an effective Opposition whereas, in this Parliament, when in office, it seeks to deny it to Opposition parties?
  Mr. Wickenden: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is not being fair. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, took the funds which were freely given as a result of a resolution of the House. It was proper that she should do that. Now we have a different House. We are entitled to examine all resolutions and to decide whether we agree with them.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: We are discussing a Government motion which was moved by a Minister. Accusations of inconsistency cannot be made against the Government. A distinction must be drawn between Front Bench speeches and Back Bench speeches. Even the length of them is a guide.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We can have only one interruption at a time.
  Mr. Wickenden: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Speaker. I shall concentrate on numeracy.
  Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend agree, in view of the intervention by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), that we would feel that there was a great deal less hypocrisy in the strong desire of the Labour Party for public money if many Tory trade unionists were not forced to pay Labour Party dues through their union levies? If the Labour Party suggested that that should be reversed we should be more sympathetic and regard the remarks by the hon. Member for Aberdare as less hypocritical.
  Mr. Wickenden: I do not wish to be embroiled in a party political slanging
  530
  match. I have a serious point to make. I do not wish to make party political points at anybody's expense.
  I confess to being fairly simplistic in these matters, but I was not aware before I came to the House that Opposition parties were supported by the State. I am certain that my constituents did not know. I am certain that they would not have approved if they had known. Perhaps we have been at fault. Perhaps we should have told them.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious contribution to the debate. He should realise that even before these funds were granted Opposition parties were aided. The Leader of the Oppisition was paid a salary and provided with a car. Two Opposition Whips were paid salaries and two staff members in the Opposition Whips office were paid out of public funds.
  Mr. Wickenden: I have sympathy with the Liberal Party view. The case is valid. If I had my way all the perks would be cut out, but I take a simplistic view.
  I do not believe that my constituents are aware that these considerable sums are being expended for the benefit of political parties. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir. W. Clark) said on 7 August that these were not really subsidies to political parties but funds made available to enable parties to conduct research. He said that the funds did not benefit political parties. I cannot accept that view. Until 1975 Opposition parties had to find funds for their research from their own resources. That is the proper way for a party to behave.
  The political parties are now relieved of that obligation, whether £150, 000 or £290, 000 is involved. Opposition parties are relieved of drains on their funds. No doubt it will be our turn in due course. If somebody offers to pay my mortgage direct to my building society that is no less a benefit to me because it has not gone into my bank account. That is an exact analogy.
  At a time when hospitals are closing, when employees are losing jobs—or accepting low salary increases or none at all—when help for handicapped children, the sick and the aged is being

  531
  restricted, it is difficult to justify a 75 per cent. increase in funds for any political party. I have no taste for it. I wish that we could vote out the resolution, but I suspect that that will not happen. I shall vote against the motion knowing that I am saying something on behalf of my constituents who regard this as a dishonourable way of spending public money
  5.55 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) brought a refreshing seriousness to the debate. I welcome his contribution, although I disagree profoundly with it. He made the honour of his stand by saying that if the Conservative Party were to take the view that all such support for Opposition parties should be ended it had an obligation to repay the State the moneys that it had taken. I am not sure that that view would be welcomed by Lord Thorneycroft and others.
  The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should recognise that the principle of supporting the party activities of Opposition parties goes back much further than 1975. It goes back to the recognition that the post of Leader of the Opposition was a salaried one, to the payment of Opposition Whips and staff in their offices. Many such facilities, none of which are for the benefit of the Liberal Party, existed before the funds under discussion were granted.
  We are talking about the salaries of people who are paid a great deal less than hon. Members. They have no less a right to fair consideration than those amongst whom the ywork, such as Members' secretaries and staff employed in the House. We are discussing people who work in the Whips' offices and other offices in the House. They work long hours and work hard. They are as entitled to fair consideration as others who work in the building. They have worked under the same cash limits since 1978. The 1978 increase did not compensate for the rate of inflation between 1975 and 1978. To the credit of the Government their motion, which I trust they will support, seeks to remedy that deficiency by ensuring that the assistance available will be similar to that
  532
  which was available when it was introduced.
  It is not reasonable for hon. Members to seek to prevent reasonable salary increases for such workers. The opposition to the motion can be compared with the attacks that are made periodically on the Civil List. Some hon. Members fail to recognise that some of the people involved earn ordinary domestic wages in the Royal Household, for example. They are just as entitled to fair consideration as anybody else. Government Back Benchers should not be so cavalier in their attitude to employees.
  Such hon. Members have only one let-out. They can argue that political parties should increase their fund raising and add to resources in their parliamentary offices to the extent to which Government assistance no longer meets the rate of inflation. However, that comes ill from the richest party in the land, the financial backers of which have always been among the richest in society. It is up to members of that party to decide where to direct their appeal. This is not the occasion to go into the more curious aspects of that, such as writing to people who have been given Government grants.
  Mr. John Townend: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a 75 per cent. increase to cover the period between 1978 and 1980 is considerably in excess of the rate of inflation? Is that not another example of one of the problems now facing the country, namely, being hooked on indexation? Other groups, such as the firemen, are being asked to accept 6 per cent. Why should not the employees of political parties accept wage increases of 6 per cent?
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is addressing his remarks to a party that believes in an incomes policy. There should have been an incomes policy from the beginning of this Parliament, rather than its being introduced this year. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that tonight's motion goes beyond what is necessary to cater for the increase in inflation since 1978. It remedies more than that by taking us back to the 1975 levels of support. I commend the Government for taking that step.
  The hon. Gentleman is not talking about the application of a 6 per cent. Pay

  533
  increase. He is talking about the application of 1978 cash limits to 1981. No Government Department in Whitehall has been asked to organise its salaries budget on the basis that it would receive either what it received in 1978 or what it received in 1978 plus 6 per cent. Enormous salary increases have taken place throughout the public service since 1978. More relevant are the salary increases that have taken place within this building during that time—not only hon. Members' salaries but secretaries' salaries—through the increases in the secretarial allowance—and the salaries of the staff of the House on a House of Commons Commission Vote. They received reasonable, and in some cases good, salary increases because of decisions taken by the House. Not allowing any reasonable increase in the funds available to Opposition parties would deny salary increases to those who are entitled to equal consideration.
  Conservative Members who made proper and extensive use of the funds for Opposition parties when they were in opposition should recognise that fact, as their Government have done, and should go into the Lobbies with their Government—where I expect to see a good total of Ministers—to ensure that there is some honour and decency in the House. We should not work on the basis that what is good for a party in Opposition is not good for a party when it becomes the Government.
  It would be a bad day for the House if we were to set the example tonight that advantages freely taken in Opposition were denied to others when that party became the Government. I hope that not many Conservative Members wish to take that course—
  Mr. Donald Coleman rose in his place and claimed move, That the Question be now put.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not yet prepared to accept the closure. I am conscious that this is a continued debate. I shall bear that fact in mind, but not at this moment.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: I am in favour of financial assistance for Opposition parties. It is bad for the country if there is not an alert and well-informed Opposition. It is bad for
  534
  the country not to have a good Opposition.
  I shall give the House the benefit of my experience when I first entered the House. The Department of the Serjeant at Arms informed me that I could not have a filing cabinet for the first six months. A cabinet was then put into the Gentlemen's Cloakroom, with the result that my secretary could not file my letters. That was not helpful. I had an Adjournment debate on the lack of facilities for Members of Parliament.
  I have never pressed for extra payments for Members, but, together with a well-known member of the Liberal Party and a member of the Labour Party, I have lobbied on such matters as not having free postage to write to constituents, not having telephone facilities, and having only a desk and a filing cabinet. I support the aim of providing sufficient secretarial and research help for Opposition parties so that they are able to do their job properly. However, I part company from the Government's motion because of the considerable increase in the amounts to be given.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who spoke for the Liberal Party, said that as people were working side by side with those who receive salary increases and with Members of Parliament whose last salary increase was about 10 per cent.—not 75 per cent.—it would be fair if they received an increase, but 75 per cent. seems to be going too far. I had hoped that one of the amendments would be selected for debate. I should have been happy to vote for the amendment that I signed. We must set an example, as we always have done, with our salaries and with other matters. This is a case where the numbers of staff probably could be cut, even if individuals are paid a proper salary in relation to those alongside whom they work.
  To show my disapproval of something that cannot possibly be accepted outside the House—a 75 per cent increase, even if it is spread over a longer period than one year—and as I cannot vote for an amendment, I feel obliged to vote against the motion. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House does not wish to give a further explanation and that he will not speak again tonight. I had hoped that he would. I

  535
  was not present—there is no excuse for that—when the matter was debated in August. I should like a little more explanation of why the amount is set at 75 per cent. We should know more about that. The figure is far too high when the country is being asked for sacrifices. I believe that Opposition parties should have full facilities and full back-up research, but the figure of 75 per cent should be cut to about 30 per cent. I am not voting against providing facilities for Opposition parties. I believe in those facilities for myself, for every hon. Member and for each Opposition party, but 75 per cent is far too much to ask our constituents to swallow.
  6.8 pm.
  Mr. Christopher Murphy: We are all aware of the so-called ratchet effect in politics. With each turn, we have in recent times moved further and further towards a Socialist approach. I believe, and I am sure that my hon. Friends agree with me, that the Government were elected to stop such a movement and consciously to turn in the opposite direction—hence the disquiet being shown by many of my hon. Friends about the motion before us to increase the finance available to Opposition parties.
  We have an opportunity tonight to put the brake on another aspect of the Socialist approach—the printing of more money, parcelling it, and presenting it to designated groups, in this case political parties. The political parties otherwise will become increasingly dependent upon this inflow of cash. The ordinary citizen unwittingly ends up by paying, both through increased taxation and increased inflation. Surely the political parties that would benefit from this increase in finance, whatver their philosophy, become immediately tainted, intentionally or otherwise, by the Socialist approach. The ratchet effect will be seen to produce continual movement in a Leftwards direction if the increases are agreed. I sincerely hope that my hon. Friends will be voting against them tonight.
  The Conservative principles on which I fought and won Welwyn and Hatfield lead me, regretfully, to view the acceptance of such political largesse as inappropriate and debilitating. I use the word "regretfully" with care, for I recognise
  536
  that the then Conservative Opposition benefited from this finance. However, I believe—and many of my hon. Friends agree with me—that that decision was erroneous, and it is to be fervently hoped that tonight such an error will not be compounded.
  In our view, Conservatism is based on freedom and common sense. Common sense surely tells us that to maximise freedom is to minimise dependence upon the State, and that should include a reducing of this golden cord between Government and political parties, with a view to ending it finally.
  I believe that we have before us tonight the opportunity to start ending that process, and I sincerely hope that many of my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby in voting against the motion.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I do not have any objections to the selection of means to ensure that opposition within the House of Commons is effective, for without effective opposition it is highly unlikely that we shall have effective government. But I believe, equally, that having established a principle there is not the slightest reason why that principle has to continue unchanged over a period of time, merely being updated, as it were, according to external circumstances, regardless of the evidence of its effectiveness or otherwise.
  There is a great danger that we shall decide this issue—the amount of money paid from public funds to Opposition parties—in the same way as in the past we have tried to justify wage increases. We have said "The cost of living has increased. Therefore, there should be an increase payable to workers in particular activities." It seems to me that that is now generally regarded as erroneous. We no longer think that everyone is automatically entitled to a rise in pay equal to whatever happens to be the rise in the cost of living.
  Although it may be that those who serve political parties in this House have to make considerable sacrifices and accept relatively low pay and long hours, they cannot be excluded from acceptance of the fact that no one has an automatic right to be given increases in salary based purely on the external changes in the price level.

  537
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) thought that I was being brutal when I made a comment about productivity. It was not intended in that sense at all. What I was attempting to say was that, whether or not we agree with the 6 per cent. limit which is being set on wages in the public sector, it is something that we are all having to discuss and explain.
  It is extremely difficult, therefore, for any Member when apparently it is suggested that there should be increases of an amount which can be set at 75 per cent., although I accept absolutely the point already made that we are talking about a percentage related to a base of 1978 and not the present day.
  I accept that point, but I believe that we have to sell policies to the public. It is part of our job as Members of Parliament to encourgae people to realise that an efficient House of Commons is to their advantage. I do not believe that it is possible to sell the kinds of figures that are produced by following the formula put forward by the Government in the motion.
  I should have much preferred to be able to vote for one of the amendments to which I put my name, but that is not possible, so again one must simply take the view that, if that is so, one must reject the proposal because it is not in line with the general proposals which are being put to the country and to which we are being asked to give our support.
  The next argument in favour of increasing the amount payable as a back-up to Opposition parties is on the lines of comparability—that hon. Members' secretaries are having certain payments and, therefore, those who work in the offices of the political parties should have similar payments. Over a period of years we have had arguments based on comparability, but surely we have come to reject it as the basis for deciding remuneration. There is very little comparability between jobs. It is almost impossible to find any two people who are similarly designated and who put the same amount of effort and energy into their work. I suggest, therefore, that the comparability argument is entirely unacceptable.
  A further point which has not been touched on previously this evening is the assumption that efficiency will somehow
  538
  be brought about by spending more money on a bigger bureaucracy, whether it be for a major party, such as that of the present Government, or a smaller party. I do not accept that spending more money means that one will be more efficient and effective. I have heard no case put forward to suggest that opposition has become more effective since these proposals originated in 1975.
  The question was posed earlier—I think that it was treated in a jocular fashion—whether there is any such evidence. I think that there is not. In practice, there is something to be said for encouraging political parties to look to those who serve the party—not so much the House as the party—to recognise that they have a role to play in offering personal service, in making sacrifice and also in offering voluntary service. I find it very difficult to understand why minority parties, which are represented in this House by a handful of Members, cannot use voluntary service to provide the back-up that they require.
  Finally, the argument has been advanced that people will be paid badly if there are not public funds available to supplement their salaries. I suggest that it is incumbent on the Opposition parties, whichever they may be at any given time, to pay their staff the proper going rate for the job and to make sure, therefore, that they use the number of staff that they can afford to pay. The staff should be paid properly, but the number and size of the bureaucracy should never be considered as being the measure of the efficiency of the back-up to political parties.
  I greatly regret that there will be no way of expressing my feeling that the proposals of the Government are based on a principle that is sound but that the financial terms of the formula are unacceptable. I shall, therefore, have to vote against the motion, trusting that the House will recognise that I have made clear that I am in favour of the principle of supporting Opposition parties.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: As one who has sat throughout the debate, from the time when it started before the Summer Recess, I have listened to all the arguments that have been made, and I resent the charge levelled early this

  539
  afternoon by some hon. Members who were not present when the debate started before the Summer Recess who suggested that those of us who were asking the Government to account for the reasons why they wanted the motion passed were being in some way childish or school-boyish.
  You will have observed, Mr. Speaker, that most of us who have spoken with misgivings on the motion have been Members who entered this House in May 1979. While I recognise that the House is being asked tonight to consider not the principle of assistance to Opposition parties but a narrow motion to increase that assistance, I think that it is right for those of us who had no part in the decision in 1975 and the debate in 1978 to indicate to the House that there is a new Parliament, with a very different complexion in terms of hon. Members elected who resent the principle of recourse to the public purse in order to fund Opposition parties.
  Had Brigg and Scunthorpe been fortunate enough to have a Conservative Member of Parliament in 1974, and had I been that Member, I would not have voted for the principle in 1975. I shall not dwell at length on the argument about the principle, but when we are discussing the extent to which we increase the support that on a previous occasion the House decided to give to Opposition parties, we are entitled to consider the eventual destination along which this route might take us.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) rightly drew attention to the fact that assistance to political parties was given before 1975. The position of Leader of the Opposition has been recognised in our constitution as an official post, in terms of payment, since 1937, and I do not resent that. We should give the Leader of the Opposition the right to an official car. But if the hon. Gentleman's point was that we should accept the principle of aid to Opposition parties because that aid had already been implicitly accepted in earlier years, when we gave official recognition in terms of salary to the Leader of the Opposition and to certain Opposition Whips, he is on a dangerous road. Where will it end?
  540
  The point that we must argue today is that if we agree that it is right and proper, having accepted the principle of providing financial assistance to Opposition parties, to index an increase in the funds for Opposition parties, where will that take us eventually? The local party in my constituency has to sustain a bureaucracy. My agent and my secretary are paid for by the local Conservative association, and they often have to undertake the equivalent of parliamentary constituency work in my constituency. They make arrangements on my behalf, for which my local party pays. They make arrangements for my surgeries and for many of my constituency engagements that I do not consider to be of a political nature, but I do not suggest for one moment that public funds should be given to that area of the Conservative Party's activity in my constituency which relates to carrying out the hon. Member's duty.
  Since the salaries of my agent and constituency secretary, which are paid by the local party, have to be raised voluntarily by my political party, whatever the rate of inflation, we have more than a slight amount of cheek when we resort to that cosy device of indexation—which is available to all people, including hon. Members, who are paid from the public purse. Many people in my constituency have had to accept pay increases far lower than the rate of inflation. They are not in the public sector, and they have to take account of the state of the economy and the possible consequences for their future employment of the wage rate that is negotiable.
  I object to the principle of bringing forward a motion in the way that this one has been brought forward by the Leader of the House, although he did so in an honourable fashion. One Labour Member suggested that the Government were reneging on a previous decision. I speak as an hon. Member who is behind the Leader of the House. He, as a member of a Shadow Cabinet before, has accepted that from the point of view of the Shadow Cabinet there are duties that need to be carried out by people who assist in the Shadow Cabinet and who assist in the Whips' Office, and he presumably accepts the point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. But there is a difference in accepting the

  541
  principle between those hon. Members who faced the electorate for the first time in May 1979 and the Leader of the House, although I do not wish to suggest that he is being dishonourable.
  I have made clear that the majority of Conservative Members who were elected in May 1979 would not have voted for the principle in 1975, but we accept that that position has been taken. However, we have a right to ask the Leader of the House and the House itself to bear in mind that many people in our constituencies and in our local political parties do not have recourse to the simple device of indexation to solve their problems.
  My local Conservative association was not very well off in 1975; it had had a bank overdraft for many years. Had it not been for the considerable effort of the local party in raising funds, the association would not have been able to sustain an election campaign that assisted me in promoting my party's views to the people of Brigg and Scunthorpe. My local party had been in Opposition for 40 years, but the driving force was that it had to raise every penny of its own money, and to this day I am proud to defend the policies of the Conservative Government.
  My agent rightly expects to receive an increase in her salary, as does her secretary, in the same way as the staff who work in the offices of the Opposition political parties are entitled to expect an increase. But I have to go out into my constituency, persuading Conservative supporters—it is an easy task—of the need to continue to finance my local political party. We are an ingenious Conservative association. It costs approximately £15,000 to run the association. Before the election it cost £10,000, but because there are now duties that devolve upon my agent and secretary that are of a semi-constituency nature, we have to raise £15,000 at a time when I also have to defend the record of my Government. It is an easy record to defend, and I am proud to do so.
  I assure the House that money has been flowing into my constituency coffers as it has never flowed before. I am happy to indicate to the House the sort of efforts that we have to make outside the House to raise funds where we do not have the benefit of indexation to pay the legitimate
  542
  requirement of my agent for an increase in salary. We are ingenious. We have pie and pea suppers, punch and paté lunches—
  Mr. Beith: We all know that.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman says "We all know that", but his party has not done its work out in the sticks and at the grass roots.
  Mr. Beith: Yes, it has.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman says that he does go out into the sticks and tries to raise the money.
  Mr. Murphy: Will my hon. Friend tell the House the reaction of his constituents, when he attends those important functions, with regard to public expenditure, and whether it is right to be spending more than an increase of 6 per cent?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend anticipates the central theme of my remarks. This is the nub of my argument. My hon. Friend indicated that it was wrong continually to accept the view that the general public must make efforts to restrain their salaries while those of us who are protected in the public sector with the device of indexation can simply jack up our salaries, our staff salaries or the salaries of those who work for opposition parties—even though they work for very long hours.
  Therefore, I simply say that before us is a motion that would implement the device of indexation, although that device is against the interests of the present Government's general policies, to restore the position of the salaries of those who work in Opposition parties. I do not accept that the figure of 75 per cent., to which my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) referred, is at all justified in the present economic climate. As we are having to ask steel workers, British Leyland car workers, and those in the private sector, especially the engineering industry, to make sacrifices—as some Members of Parliament expected each other to make sacrifices earlier in the year in respect of our salaries—it is only right and proper that our office staff and the staff of opposition parties should be expected to make a certain sacrifice.
  A new ball game was introduced last week, when the Government rightly announced a cash limit of 6 per cent. for

  543
  wages and salaries in the public sector and in local government. It is quite proper for that discipline to be accepted by the Opposition parties.
  I regret that it will not be possible for me to vote for one of the amendments to which I am a signatory. Therefore, I shall have no option but to vote against the motion.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I understand the arguments of principle against any financing for political parties and against any form of indexation. I prefer to come into the debate at a slightly different tangent, to ask whether it is reasonable to pay £290,000 to a political party and to give some help to small opposition parties. It is about £500 per constituency.
  It seems to me that if we are really fussed about the amount of money involved we ought to address ourselves to the back-up to Ministers, where it would be far easier to find the savings that would provide the equivalent sum in the Ministries. I am not arguing that we should necessarily cut the amount spent on back-up to Ministers just because we are putting the money up for Opposition parties. It seems important that the Opposition parties should have reasonable finance available for their parliamentary work. Obviously, it makes more of their funds available for their other political work, but that is something that we must accept. It would have been perfectly reasonable for the Government to bring
  forward a motion to raise the limit to £290,000 even if there had been no inflation since the last increase.
  Looking at the trend of increased assistance to Members of Parliament and increased assistance towards the way in which we try to discharge our job of controlling the Government, or at least being in a position to frustrate the Government at times, one needs to approach the question of support for political parties, especially Opposition parties, not in a partisan way. I recognise that very few partisan remarks have been made in the debate. The important thing is to ask whether it is reasonable that a certain amount of money should be made available.
  In my view, the amount suggested is reasonable. Even if we manage to kill inflation during the next year, I hope that the House of Commons will, in two or three years' time, consider what extra assistance should be provided to political parties, because in general Parliament does not do a good enough job—whether from the point of view of an individual Member of Parliament or from that of organised political parties—in examining what Governments try to do and the ways in which they try to do it. There is a great deal more progress that we can make. A small amount of money for political parties will not make all that much difference. It seems to be a move in the right direction.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 54.

  Division No. 498]

  AYES

  [6.34 p.m.

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cartwright, John

  Dubs, Alfred

  Allaun, Frank

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

  Alton, David

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Ancram, Michael

  Cohen, Stanley

  Eadie, Alex

  Anderson, Donald

  Coleman, Donald

  Eastham, Ken

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  English, Michael

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cook, Robin F.

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Ashton, Joe

  Corrie, John

  Evans, John (Newton)

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

  Cowans, Harry

  Ewing, Harry

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Beith, A. J.

  Crowther, J. S.

  Fitt, Gerard

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Cryer, Bob

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Ford, Ben

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

  Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

  Forrester, John

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Foster, Derek

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Foulkes, George

  Bryan, Sir Paul

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

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Buchan, Norman

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Freud, Clement

  Butcher, John

  Dempsey, James

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Dewar, Donald

  Gourlay, Harry

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dixon, Donald

  Graham, Ted

  Cant, R. B.

  Dobson, Frank

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dormand, Jack

  Gray, Hamish

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Greenway, Harry

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

  Sever, John

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

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

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mawby, Ray

  Silverman, Julius

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Maxton, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Sims, Roger

  Haynes, Frank

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Mellor, David

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

  Hicks, Robert

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Snape, Peter

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hooley, Frank

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Horam, John

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

  Sproat, Iain

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

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Howells, Geraint

  Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Huckfield, Les

  Morton, George

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Stott, Roger

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Strang, Gavin

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Straw, Jack

  John, Brynmor

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Park, George

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Parker, John

  Tilley, John

  Kerr, Russell

  Parris, Matthew

  Tinn, James

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Parry, Robert

  Torney, Tom

  Knox, David

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Lamble, David

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Penhaligon, David

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Watkins, David

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

  Welsh, Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Race, Reg

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

  Litherland, Robert

  Radice, Giles

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Renton, Tim

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Robertson, George

  Winnick, David

  McElhone, Frank

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Woodall, Alec

  McKelvey, William

  Rooker, J. W.

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  MacKenzle, Rt Hon Gregor

  Roper, John

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  McWilliam, John

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Marks, Kenneth

  Sandelson, Neville

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and

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

  Scott, Nicholas

  Mr. John Stradling Thomas.

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  NOES

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

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

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Banks, Robert

  Hawkins, Paul

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Hordern, Peter

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Spence, John

  Best, Keith

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Sproat, Iain

  Blackburn, John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Bright, Graham

  Loveridge, John

  Thompson, Donald

  Brinton, Tim

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Budgen, Nick

  Marlow, Tony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Moate, Roger

  Viggers, Peter

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Ward, John

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Neubert, Michael

  Wheeler, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Wickendon, Keith

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Pawsey, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Porter, Barry

  Mr. Christopher Murphy and

  Gray, Hamish

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

  Mr. Den Dover.

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Resolution of the House of 20 March 1975 shall have effect from 1 July 1980 with the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph 2 of that Resolution
  546
  "That for the purpose of determining the annual maxima of such assistance the following formula shall apply:
  £962·50 for each seat won by the party concerned plus £1·925 for every 200 votes cast for it at the preceding General Election, provided that the maximum payable to any party shall not exceed £290,000".

  PETITION

    FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION
    6.45 pm
    Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to ask leave to present a petition in the name of the Reverend Maurice Sidney Wainwright and approximately 150 signatories.
    The humble petition of lecturers in colleges of further, technical and higher education and others humbly prays that your Honourable House will

    1. Make statutory provision to replace sections 43 to 47 of the Education Act 1944;

    2. Consolidate the national aims for further and higher education as follows:

    Aims of Tertiary Education, Further and Higher.
    It shall be the overall aim of full-time and part-time education in all schools, colleges and institutions in receipt of public funds providing education at tertiary stages of further and higher levels to provide a general, social, political and fully liberal education by the inclusion among other things of non-special non-vocational studies in all courses

    (a) to form an appropriate background and perspective to any special or vocational studies,

    (b) to assist young people to prepare for the responsibilities of citizenship,

    (c) to enable young people to develop fully their various aptitudes and capacities, including the practice of arts and crafts and physical recreations,

    in and for a better democratic, technological and social world for themselves and for the present and future generations.
    3. Arouse public opinion and promote public debate by—amongst other things—
    (d) the issue of a new Circular … and the incorporation of that aim in a new Education Act for Tertiary Education.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

  NATIONAL TREE WEEK
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton]
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Sidney Chapman: I am delighted to have this opportunity, much earlier than I had dared to hope. to draw the attention of the House to the forthcoming National
  548
  Tree Week, which this year takes place from 15 to 23 November, and further, to the urgent need to plant trees both in our towns and in the countryside
  Perhaps I should begin by declaring an arboricultural interest. This goes back to when I first arrived in the House and was lucky enough to draw a place in the ballot for Private Member's Bills. That Bill made provisions, among other things to strengthen powers to discourage unnecessary tree felling. Unfortunately the Bill failed through lack of Parliamentary time, which led The Guardian to report the even in its next issue under the succinct heading "Trees Bill Axed."
  I am particularly grateful to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) and of many hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I hope that mention of those two hon. Members gives some geographical spread to the importance of what I hope to say.
  Having failed din, my legislative intentions, I mounted a campaign to try to persuade the Government to designate 1973 as national tree year. I express thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), then Secretary of State for the Environment, for taking up the challenge and, as only he can, giving it the succinct title, which caught the front headlines of the newspapers, "Plant a tree in 1973."
  Following that year, the Government encouraged the setting up of the Tree Council, which consists today of about 25 bodies drawn from major environmental organizations, professional institutes, public and private landowning interests, and very importantly, local authority associations.
  In its seven years of increasing activity the Tree Council has had three very distinguished and eminent chairmen. The first was Dame Sylvia Crowe, who at one time was president of the Landscape Institute. I count it as a great honour to have been elected recently an honorary member of that institute. Dame Sylvia was followed by Mr. John Workman, an eminent forester, who at one time was president of the Royal Forestry Society. The current chairman is Mr. Kit Aston, a former mayor of Windsor and Maidenhead and a business man, who has made

  549
  tremendous inroads into drawing attention to the importance of tree planting. I pay tribute to them all.
  The Tree Council decided that one of its activities should be to draw attention to its work by organising an annual National Tree Week. The next one begins this Saturday. In this connection, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who, when he was a Minister responsible not only for sport but for drought, rain and every other force majeure under the sun, took a particular interest in and had responsibility in the Department of the Environment for trees. He gave active help, encouragement and personal interest to the Tree Council in its formative years, backed, as it then was, by a very modest Government grant. Next year the Tree Council is going fully independent, and it has now become completely self-financing.
  I come finally to the right hon. Gentleman's successor. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) as Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who is to reply to the debate.
  When talking about tree planting, I wish to differentiate between the forests of Britain and amenity and landscape trees. It is the latter category to which I wish to address my remarks.
  The Tree Council has chosen as its theme for tree planting this year planting to commemorate Her Majesty the Queen Mother's eightieth birthday earlier this year, and I know that just short of 200 significant tree-planting events will be taking place in areas all over the country, each planting 80 trees to commemorate each of the Queen Mother's years. There will be many more tree-planting ceremonies. But National Tree Week is really to draw the need to the attention of the public, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will participate in some of these ceremonial tree-planting schemes.
  This year's National Tree Week also marks the beginning of a national tree campaign over the next three years. Again, the theme of that triennial campaign is to try to bring home, especially to young people, the importance of our arboricultural heritage and to set out on a very ambitious project to have planted
  550
  one tree per head of the population of Britain by the end of 1983.
  Right hon. and hon. Members may ask why we need to plant as many as 56 million saplings over the next three years. The answer is quite simple. It is because of the four Ds that are always affecting our tree stock adversely: disease, drought, natural death and new urban development.
  We all know about the havoc and ravages wrought by Dutch elm disease. The latest figures that I have show that of an estimated 29 million elms in Britain about two-thirds have already succumbed to the disease. The proportion of deaths of trees due to this disease in Southern Britain is much greater. It appears to be less prevalent in northern Britain, because elm trees are spread around more sparsely. But Dutch elm disease is only one. Beech bark disease is prevalent in many parts of the Chilterns.
  It seems almost inconceivable to remember that the summer of 1976 brought about what was probably the most serious drought this century. That resulted in the death of many saplings. It happened at a bad time, perhaps because many of those saplings had been planted during National Tree Year three years before.
  It is obvious that trees die in the fullness of time. In addition, many trees are uprooted because of new developments, with the insidious spread of urban land and town development into our countryside.
  Too high a proportion of our trees, specially in the countryside, are past their maturity. We should have been planting at a much greater rate over the last few decades. Quite irrespective of the ravages of Dutch elm disease, many of our landscapes will be affected adversely over the coming decade because too many of our trees are too old.
  Sadly, we have lost many of our trees, especially in what I describe as the eastern arable counties of England, as a result of modern farming methods. Far too many of our hedgerows have been uprooted, and our hedgerows are the seedbeds of much of our rural tree stock.
  It has been calculated that if we are to pass on to future generations a plentiful

  551
  supply of trees of amenity value we need to plant six saplings to ensure one mature tree for posterity, because of droughts, disease and developments.
  The main purpose of raising this issue on the Adjournment is not to ask my hon. Friend and his Department for money. I have always believed that tree planting is essentially an activity for individuals. It makes a refreshing change for an hon. Member to ask in the House that we should see what we can do to help preserve our arboricultural future rather than ask the Government at local or national level. I must make two possible exceptions, however. The first is that Government Departments, statutory undertakings, public utilities and local authorities have a responsibility where they are the owners of land. I draw special attention to the excellent tree-planting schemes of the Department of Transport in the building of new roads and motorways.
  I make only one suggestion to my hon. Friend about looking at the possibility of making direct grants. I believe that we need specific help in the wake of the havoc wrought by Dutch elm disease for what has been called "sanitation felling". I apologise for that phrase, but it is not mine. Perhaps I can explain what sanitation felling is. Where it has been found practical to try to check the spread of Dutch elm disease, some successful schemes have been adopted. Let me give two examples. The town of Brighton, separated as it is from the rest of Sussex by the Downs, has had a successful policy because it has been able to control the amount of infested timber entering the town. It has managed to form a sort of cordon sanitaire and has felled trees in order to stop the spread of this dreaded disease. Another example is the island of Jersey, where 80 per cent. of the trees are elms. After a somewhat belated start, Jersey now has an active policy on sanitation felling.
  There is a need to give certain local authorities help to carry out these necessary felling policies where there is a practical opportunity of saving some of their elm trees. I mention the Edinburgh area in particular, as well as some of the eastern counties of Scotland and most of the northern counties of England.
  552
  I commend the Forestry Commission, which comes under the aegis of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Minister is my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, who is a former Secretary of State for the Environment. He has had a happy translation for tree lovers. I pay tribute to the work done by the Forestry Commission, particularly with regard to the introduction of new plant health measures. Incidentally, that has been done in association with EEC regulations, so perhaps that is one good thing that has come out of the Community.
  In my view, these new plant health measures will minimise the risk of diseases being imported. I should also like to thank the Countryside Commission, which comes under the aegis of the Department of the Environment. It has done sterling work in giving practical and financial help in tree planting schemes, despite the modest sums of money available.
  I want principally to take this opportunity to encourage individuals and families to plant trees. I am sure that the Tree Council would want me to offer the following advice: of course, we want people to go out and, if they wish, plant trees in their front or back gardens, but it is important that they should get advice on the right species of tree to be planted, the right place, and the right time.
  The right species depends upon the nature of the soil and the amount of pollution in the air. Clearly, some trees, such as the London plane, are more resistant than others. As to the right place, it is vital to find out who owns the land as well as to check on any development proposals that may take place in that area. It would be quite absurd to plant a row of trees by a road only to find that in the next White Paper programme that road was due to be widened. The right time is not as easy as it may sound. Generally, we are at the beginning of the tree-planting season in the autumn, although we should avoid planting during mid-winter, when there is a greater risk of frost, even though the weather in this country is not at all certain. The alternative time for planting is the early spring.
  Secondly, individuals and families who are interested in supporting tree planting

  553
  should contact one of their local environment groups, such as the local amenity society or the local branches of the Civic Trust or National Trust, both of which are members of the Tree Council. It is essential to have a co-ordinated effort in a village or in the ward of a town rather than sporadic tree planting without any such co-ordination.
  Thirdly, people should call upon the abundance of expertise that exists, particularly from local authority departments. If the local authorities do not have the money, or do not consider tree-planting to be of a sufficiently high priority on which to spend money at this time, I am sure that they will use the expertise of their parks departments and managers to give advice to the public. I should like to see a situation whereby people would naturally plant trees—for example, to commemorate anniversaries, birthdays, and happy family events, or in remembrance of people who have passed on.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this subject. My parliamentary interest in trees now goes back 10 years, although I concede that during that time I have been out of the House more than I have been in it. When I was successful in getting the National Tree Year designated I can remember some of my hon. Friends referring to me in the Smoking Room as "the doggies' delight". There was some point to that, because at the time I was also the honorary secretary of the all-party animal welfare group.
  Thanks to the Tree Council, I believe that there is a greater public awareness of the need for tree planting. That gives me great personal satisfaction. The Tree Council deserves as much support as possible, and I hope that it gets it in three ways. First, I hope that it will receive the financial help that it deserves in voluntary donations from individuals and industry. Secondly, I hope that it will receive the active help and support of many more members of the public. Thirdly, I hope that it will receive the understanding of central Government and the support of local authorities. It is on that final point that I look forward to my hon. Friend's observations.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Not for the first time, the hon. Member
  554
  for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) has performed a service to the House. As a fellow campaigner on various issues, I think that the House would be somewhat poorer if some of us were not allowed to indulge in campaigns of this kind.
  I remember hearing the hon. Gentleman speak on this subject more than a decade ago, and I am sure that he has rendered a considerable service by returning to it again tonight. I am glad that he paid tribute to Dame Sylvia Crowe, who has done tremendous work. It was also generous of the hon. Gentleman to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who, as a Minister, took an active interest in these matters, as has the Under-Secretary who is due to reply to the debate tonight. Some of the most beautiful trees in Britain can be found in the Minister's area, although I am not sure whether Glentress and Glen Trool are situated in his constituency or in the area of Kirkcudbrightshire. At any rate, some of the most beautiful trees in the whole of Europe are located in that part of Scotland.
  I also pay tribute, as the hon. Gentleman did, to the work of the Countryside Commission. If there are any doubts about the work of the commission, one only has to look at what it has done for tree planting throughout Britain, both in Scotland and England. That tribute also extends to the Scottish Countryside Commission.
  No debate on trees would be complete without some reference to the herculean efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), who has led many expeditions to forests in all parts of Britain and has gone to enormous pains to interest his colleagues in forestry in general and in ornamental tree-planting in particular.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) has another Adjournment debate on an important subject. Therefore, I shall be brief and refrain from going on and on.
  Bearing in mind the cutbacks that are taking place in public expenditure, what is the Government's assessment of the way in which local authorities have reduced the tree planting that they might otherwise have done? It would be unreasonable to expect any accurate

  555
  answer, but there must, surely, be a general impression. My general impression is that tree planting, possibly understandably, has been considered a peripheral activity rather than a central one, and that like so many peripheral and desirable activities it has suffered accordingly. It is a pity that we should go through a decade during which little tree planting is done compared with what should be done.
  The age curve of trees should be kept as constant as possible. It is a fact that in areas of new building planting never happens except at the beginning. It seems that we do not get round to it. Planting has to feature in the original plan. I should like a refutation of the general impression, which many of us have, that tree planting has suffered greatly in an era of public expenditure cutbacks. I hope that I shall hear a governmental comment on that in relation to local authorities and new towns. My information from firms such as Scottish Land is that sales of saplings have decreased considerably in the past 18 months. It is my impression from the new town that I represent that many of the plans and expectations that it had three or four years ago have had to be slimmed down or curtailed. I ask for a factual statement.
  Having complained about cutbacks, let it be said that some of us are appalled at the amount of vandalism that has been done to newly planted trees. One wonders why in Britain, as opposed to what happens in France, the Federal Republic of Germany and in many other countries—indeed, some countries with a lower per capita income than that of the United Kingdom—such appalling vandalism should be inflicted on sapling trees that are planted in urban areas.
  It is easy to state the problem; it is more difficult to know what to do about it. Have the Government any ideas on how vandalism against newly planted trees can be reduced? Having stated the problem, it is easy to wring one's hands. It is another matter to know what to do about it. Has any guidance been given by the Home Office, the Department of the Environment or the Scottish Office? We know that, time and again, trees that are planted in good
  556
  faith by councils that are proud of what they have done are vandalised.
  A related problem lies in the planting of trees on derelict land. The Secretary of State for the Environment was asked in June what steps he had taken to encourage tree planting and natural vegetation on derelict land in inner city areas. The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services replied that he was seeking to encourage the return to beneficial use of derelict land in inner cities and that, where appropriate, that would include the planting of trees and other natural vegetation. The right hon Gentleman pointed out that the urban programme grant was available to help appropriate cases, especially in partnership and programme authority areas, and that the setting up of land registers would hasten the release of land owned by the public sector.
  I think that it is fair to ask the Government to explain their policy on tree planting on derelict land. Those of us who represent old coal and shale areas have been greatly impressed by what local authorities have been able to do, especially in the shale mining areas of the Lothians. It would be wrong to say that nothing has been done. Much depends on the activity of the local officers concerned. It is often a matter of individual enthusiasms, and where there are enthusiasms within councils or among officials a great deal has been done.
  It is right to ask for the Government's philosophy on what can be done, even during a time of financial shortage, to further tree planting on derelict land, either for timber or for ornamental reasons. What our ancestors used to achieve is astonishing. I shall have the good fortune this weekend to attend a conference at Ditchley. As some hon. Members will know, Ditchley is in the grounds laid out by Capability Brown. Many of the trees in the great parks go back to the 1740s or 1760s. There has been comparatively little planting since.
  As the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said, anyone who is concerned about aboriculture and the landscape of Britain has good reason to be concerned about the age curve. The problems have been compounded by Dutch elm disease. I shall not say much about

  557
  that. We in Scotland have been let off comparatively lightly. I know that the authorities have been extremely efficient in taking action at the first sign of Dutch elm disease. It is easier for us in Scotland than it is for those in England because we have fewer elms and, as the hon. Gentleman said, they are spaced further apart. It may be that control is easier. I should not like the debate to go by without paying tribute to the West Lothian district council and a number of other councils that have been extremely alert and vigilant. As soon as a report has been received of tell-tale browning leaves, they have done something about it.
  What is the policy on roadside trees? We all know what has happened as a result of the straightening of roads. The A904 used to be a beautiful road, with oaks on both sides. It is the Edinburgh-Bo'ness road. The road has been straightened and the oaks have not been replanted. The main roads are the responsibility of the Scottish Office or the Ministry of Transport. I do not suggest that we should go back to the Napoleonic lines of trees, but we should make some serious effort to initiate more planting in suitable areas. It would, for example, be unwise to plant trees alongside motorways, because of what could happen in 80 years time. We do not want motor vehicles travelling at 70 mph to crash into fallen elms, beeches or oaks. Nevertheless, from the point of view of land management and the beauty of the countryside, a great deal more could be done.
  I raise one further issue on tree planting, though it is not strictly within the terms of the debate. Had it been a later debate, I should not have raised it. Anyone who is concerned with tree planting must be concerned with what has happened over Corpach and Fort William. Wood is exported from Scottish ports to Scandinavia, where the wood is made into pulp, and the pulp is then brought back to the United Kingdom. That is hardly a sensible way of doing things.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: It would be easier, cheaper and better to do the pulping here.
  Mr. Dalyell: It is mad to demand that wood should go from Scottish forests to Scottish ports and acros the sea to Norway and Sweden. The wood is manufactured
  558
  and processed in those countries, and returns at an enhanced value. That cannot be good for the British economy. It is dispiriting to those who have worked hard to make such a facility available in the Scottish Highlands.
  The amount of unemployment benefit and the industrial grants involved at Corpach and in the For William area should be included in the calculation. In any calculation one must include the amount of unemployment benefit that is paid. That would not be necessary if we were to process our wood. It is legitimate to raise that question, because those interested in trees and tree planting will be concerned about the situation.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. John MacKay: My qualification for speaking in the debate is that my constituency is probably covered with more trees than any other constituency in the United Kingdom. The Minister may say that his is the most covered constituency, but I think that mine will beat his by a few hundred thousand sitka spruce.
  I should like to add to the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about tree planting in urban areas. Recently I was in Ballachulish, where the Scottish Development Agency has done some work, including tree planting on an urban scale. The foresters were most amused at the concentration of saplings. They would never have dreamt of planting trees so close together on the hillsides of Argyll. After we had laughed for a bit, we discovered that the reason, as the hon. Member for West Lothian said, was the vandal factor. The idea is that if trees are planted very thickly even vandals will get tired of knocking them down. I should like to think that the vandal factor will work, but I fear that it will not and that the vandals will come back the next day with renewed energy. Vandalism is a major problem in cities, particularly where young trees are involved.
  In my constituency the Forestry Commission has planted many sitka spruce in serried ranks. Most people will realise that although that was done for the best of reasons, it might not have been the best way of tackling the problem. However, there were many reasons for doing it. It was thought that such planting

  559
  would be a splendid way of keeping people in the countryside. Unfortunately, that has not been the result. My constituency has a few forest villages, and most of the houses are empty. The Forestry Commission is using those houses as holiday homes.
  The people who work in forests are so specialised that outside gangs are employed, for example, to plant. When the Forestry Commission wants to weed or thin the forest, gangs are brought in. Gangs are also brought in to extract. Such gangs come from all over the country, and many of them come from fairly large towns. They are not indigenous. That is one of the major problems facing the Forestry Commission in Argyll. In most of Scotland and in those parts of England with large areas of forest, the scheme has not achieved what we expected in terms of the population.
  The agricultural workers remain our best hope of maintaining an indigenous rural population. I do not understand why we cannot integrate forestry and farming, as other countries do. It is imperative that the Government should introduce a scheme in the near future that will integrate forestry and farming. The people of Chipping Barnet do not want to see blanket planting when they come to rural areas. They want to see open countryside as well as tree after tree. Integration is essential.
  If a small estate or a large farm does some planting alongside its farm work, it can increase its productivity. My hon. Friend the Minister is a sheep breeder of note, and he knows that that is so. Many estate owners in my constituency planted trees on a portion of their acreage. As a result, capital was released, which enabled them to invest in the agricultural side of their farms. They have thus increased their production of sheepmeat at while using fewer acres. That is important.
  I do not expect my hon. Friend to answers my questions, because he probably came armed to answer one debate about tree planting in cities, but, I hope that he will convey to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that we need a policy of general integration for forestry and
  560
  farming in the near future. With such a policy, both operations could continue and we should have the trees that we shall undoubtedly need. In addition, it would help to keep people in the countryside. Preferably, the same people will be involved in forestry and farming at different times of the year.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Robert Atkins: It is with a sense of déja vu that I rise to speak briefly. Before I became a Member of Parliament I witnessed the popularity and adulation achieved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). At that time he represented a constituency in Birmingham and he gained great respect by raising the topic of trees. We all remember the "Plant a tree in '73" campaign, and all that it did for my hon. Friend's political career. Like him, I am an urban animal. When I was a small boy I used to walk through some old woods called Highgate woods, in North London. They are in the care of the corporation of the City of London. I thought then—and I have not changed my mind—that the importance and attraction of those woods should be protected and promoted.
  Highgate woods were also in the former borough of Hornsey. You may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that those woods were famous, and the area was known as the garden borough of London. Because of the destruction caused by the war, a councillor encouraged local firms to plant flowers, shrubs and trees on bomb sites and other damaged areas. Those areas became more attractive. An otherwise badly hit urban area was planted with cherry trees and with other trees that flower in the spring and which make the area look very attractive.
  Such initiative should be encouraged and continued. I often travel to see friends in Hampshire. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) remind me of that area. The Collingwood oaks are found in that area. They are planted in serried ranks, and are extraordinarily beautiful. They add a new dimension to that part of Hampshire. I applaud the National Tree Council. I hope that National Tree Week will be a success. I have already contributed £25 towards it by buying a tree. I have not been told where the tree will be planted, but I hope that my successors

  561
  and those who live in the area in which the tree is planted will thank me for that, if for no other reason. Other hon. Members could also contribute in that way. I should like to encourage them to do so, because not only is tree planting important; the National Tree Council is providing all sorts of materials to make youngsters aware of the way in which trees contribute to society. They hope to make youngsters aware of the variety of trees, and they are giving them pictures, and so on. I heartily applaud these activities, and wish those involved well. I, too, know of roadside trees dying of Dutch elm disease. I am told that replacement trees cannot be planted alongside the road, but must be set back. Land owners, particularly farmers, are not keen to plant trees that will interfere with their fields in a way that trees alongside a road had not done previously. That prevents many trees being planted. I shall be delighted if that information is incorrect. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me that it is.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet on getting a debate on the subject. We often thank our ancestors for their foresight in planting trees all over the country and for the beauty and enjoyment that they give us. I hope that by raising this subject people will become more aware of the importance of planting trees, for whatever reason—good, bad or indifferent—whenever they get the chance. The more trees, the better it is for society.
  7.31 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) for giving us the opportunity to debate tree planting. He was the originator of the national tree planting year in 1973. I am sure that it must give him considerable satisfaction to realise that the seed that he sowed has grown over the intervening years and that there is now a much wider recognition of the need to plant trees. I am especially pleased that he was able to raise the subject this week. We should heed his words, as many people did in 1973. We should congratulate him on his personal success, which has been supported so generously and effectively by the Tree Council and many other bodies and individuals. He started
  562
  it all, and the House should recognise the part that he has played in this achievement.
  I have been pleasantly surprised at the geographical spread of the debate. I was naturally glad to have the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) involved, with his great knowledge of the countryside. I thank him for his kind words about the trees in Dumfries, although some, I accept, are in Galloway, and are equally beautiful there. It was pleasant, too, to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay). I know that he probably has more trees in his constituency, but the important point is that our constituencies have a greater percentage of their land mass covered by trees than any other region in the country. I certainly bow to him as he has the tallest tree in the country in his constituency. He also has immense personal knowledge of the countryside. I am also glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) is involved in the debate. He, too, made an important contribution.
  I am pleased that the hon. Member for West Lothian mentioned his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). We all know what he has done in what is the longest career in the present House of Commons through his involvement with the Forestry Commission. The country would have been much poorer on many occasions without his intervention to the advantage of the Commission.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian posed a difficult question concerning the impact of local authority expenditure cuts on tree planting. I must be honest and frank. I cannot give him an answer now. It is difficult even to give an impression. My Department has done its level best to shelter the environment from what restrictions on expenditure there have been by helping historic houses, national parks and ancient monuments. We have, wherever possible, taken a long-term view, which is imperative with tree planting and the countryside. I hope that local authorities take the same view.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has rightly spoken at length about National Tree Week and the National Tree Campaign, and I am happy to endorse his views. In answer to a

  563
  parliamentary question about tree planting in national parks, I replied on 5 June that it was the Government's policy to encourage planting of trees in all suitable places, and that of course includes towns as well as the countryside.
  My colleague Lord Bellwin took the opportunity of the debate on 16 April on the Trees (Replanting and Replacing) Bill to set out the Government's views about tree planting. I draw attention in particular to what he said about the advice given to local authorities in Department of the Environment circular 36/78 to develop policies within financial constraints for their own planting and to set an example to private owners. My noble Friend also said that we had no reason to believe that local authorities would award tree planting any lesser priority than heretofore. In mentioning the circular it is right to record that it was initiated by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). I welcome what was said about the right hon. Gentleman's part in the campaign.
  Lord Bellwin also pointed out the valuable contributions that can be made by civic societies, county naturalist trusts and other voluntary groups, and urged whole hearted support for the Tree Council's National Tree Campaign, which had been launched the day before.
  I endorse what has been said on both sides of the House about the Tree Council. Its chairman and membership have led the campaign enthusiastically and effectively. I also agree with what has been said about voluntary support to the movement, both physical and financial. I make the firm declaration that the Government understand the importance of the issue.
  It is also right to commend the Forestry Commission. The chairman, Sir David Montgomery, is a good Scot, as the hon. Member for West Lothian knows. His predecessors have also played their part. Those of use who move about the country are aware that it is becoming more and more evident that the Forestry Commission is opening up our forests—which, after all, belong to us as a nation—for recreation, walking and other forms of enjoyment. In Scotland it is particularly evident. The Forestry Commission has
  564
  the message firmly on board that people want to enjoy forests as well as looking at them from afar. There is much greater understanding of the importance of a degree of amenity planting around the conifers, which are bound to be the main weight of commercial planting in Scotland.
  I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll said about Forestry Commission planting in his constituency. There has been disappointment over the relative lack of jobs that have resulted from the plantations in the countryside. It is a fact of life that with modern machinery for extracting timber, fewer men are required. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll made an important point. We want to see people living in the countryside to keep it alive rather than travelling long distances by car to work and leaving rural communities relatively denuded.
  In discussing the planting of large acreages, we should record the part played by private woodland owners, particularly in variety and amenity planting. The hon. Member for West Lothian was moving rather far from the main issue when he brought in the serious problems at Fort William and generally in the pulping industry. Scottish timber growers have a welcome chance of exporting to Scandinavia, particularly from Leith. However illogical it may seem, it is better than not having the opportunity to fell timber. I certainly take the hon. Gentleman's point on board and I will pass on to the Forestry Commission the comments that should have been directed to it.
  Mr. Dalyell: That is all that one can reasonably ask for in such a debate. It would be improper to pursue the subject further. However, will the Minister make sure that other Government Departments take into account the social costs of not processing pulp in the Fort William area? Once social costs are introduced in the Highlands as a whole there may be a different answer to the question of the desirability of processing in this country rather than having wood and pulp transported between this country and Scandinavia.
  Mr. Monro: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will have taken all the issues

  565
  relating to Fort William into account in his discussions with Cabinet colleagues. It is a major matter and I am certain that the points raised by the hon. Gentleman have not been overlooked.
  I was pleased that hon. Members on both sides of the House mentioned the involvement of young people. I know that the tree campaign aims to encourage young people to take an active interest in this work, and I understand that schoolchildren and members of the major youth organisations are taking part in the tree-planting ceremonies this week. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is keenly interested in the promotion of planting and nurture of trees by schoolchildren and I understand that he will be setting out his views in a speech in London later this week.
  We must also consider the sad and serious issue of vandalism. A beautiful tree can be cut down in a few seconds by a young person who may not even realise what he is doing. Only by interesting young people, displaying to them the beauty of trees and using our schools to the maximum effect, can we have an impact on the problem. I hope that everyone who has heard the debate or will read what hon. Members have said will do everything possible to bring home to children the importance of seeing the growth of trees as well as the plants.
  We must involve individuals of all ages. We need a personal involvement. If everyone could plant a tree in a useful place it would be an immense benefit for the next generation.
  As Minister with responsibility for sport I have a particular interest in another aspect of the campaign—the involvement of sports clubs. I note from the Tree Council's recently issued "Trees for Tomorrow" pamphlet that the assistance of playing field committees and sporting clubs is being encouraged. We all know how beautiful many of our cricket fields are as a result of their setting among trees, and I feel sure that many of our playing fields for other sports could be enriched if more trees were to be planted around them. We certainly set a fine example at the national sports centre at Lilleshall, where there are some of the loveliest trees in the Midlands. They are looked after extremely well.
  566
  It is right that we should say to the Countryside Commission how pleased we are with the impact that it has made in the tree planting campaign. It has been a front runner in a national sense with its system of grants.
  I have been glad to hear that the Tree Council has been co-operating on matters of mutual interest with the Countryside Commission, and it would be useful if I were to draw attention to some of the valuable work which the commission has been undertaking on amenity trees. Tree planting forms a significant element in the landscape conservation being carried out in the commission's new agricultural landscape and demonstration farm projects.
  The commission has sponsored a special study into how small farmland woods are managed in order to determine how the present decline in these woodlands could be reversed, and after consultation with the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union it has produced a countryside conservation handbook, consisting of advisory leaflets giving comprehensible guidance to farmers and landowners on such aspects as the planting and after-care of trees and shrubs, hedge management, and dealing with the aftermath of Dutch elm disease. Over the past four or five years it has also provided grant-aid for tree planting schemes, to assist comprehensive local authority programme and to encourage private landowners.
  During 1979–80 about £1,400,000 was spent in this way, and I understand that the commission expects to spend a similar amount this financial year. That is a significant sum when one considers that we are talking about amenity trees and not the planting of large forest areas.
  While we are discussing the Countryside Commission's work, it would be appropriate for me to refer to hedge conservation. There have been demands to extend the scope of tree preservation order legislation to give protection to hedgerows in addition to trees and woodlands. The commission's conclusion, as set out in its "New Agricultural Landscapes" booklet, was that the conservation of hedgerows was more likely to be achieved by agreement than by compulsion.

  567
  To extend controls to hedgerows would place a heavy load on local planning authorities, and in the Government's view that could not be justified. The better approach is by way of advice, encouragement and agreement of the farming community. I referred earlier to some of the work being done by the commission to that end.
  Some hon. Members are obviously concerned about planting on motorways and where roads are improved. That is an important aspect and I shall write to the hon. Members concerned. I take a little humble pride in the work that I did as the chairman of the planning committee in Dumfries in the early 1960s on the planting of trees on the A74. They are at last beginning to show how beautiful they will be and some of the autumn tints on the A74 are most attractive.
  I should like to see more planting alongside roads. Those of us who drive on motorways know that, while there is planting in some areas, there is none in others. Of course, we must bear in mind the issue of safety, but we want planting to take place at a suitable distance from the roads, and all credit to the authorities that are doing that.
  I turn to the direct involvement of the Department of the Environment. The Royal Parks in London are controlled by my Department. Like most of southern England, they have suffered heavily from Dutch elm disease, losing more than 10,000 trees on this account, but they have been carrying out a major replanting programme and are currently planting 3,000–4,000 trees per year, mainly oak, ash, beech, lime, poplar and chestnut.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet produced the catch phrase "the three Ds—the dead, the drought and development". Those of us who come from Scotland could do with a little bit of drought this year, but I accept that the drought had a serious impact, particularly on amenity trees, in 1976.
  All hon. Members who have spoken have rightly mentioned Dutch elm disease. The hon. Member for West Lothian spoke particularly about the need for vigilance in Scotland. We have been desperately
  568
  concerned because of the scarcity of elms anyway, although there are some in very prominent places. I think that I am right in saying that all the trees in Prince's Street gardens are elms. It is very important that they survive the attack that could come from other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Sad though the felling of elms affected by Dutch elm disease has been, there is good news. Through the generosity of the Mitsui company in Japan, we have imported about 10,000 disease-resistant Japanese elms, and they have been distributed to local authorities. Four hundred are being given to the Royal Parks. The first was planted today by Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra at a ceremony in Regents Park.
  The Tree Council's theme is, excitingly, the Queen Mother's 80th birthday. I cannot imagine anything more appropriate than that that event should be recalled many years in the future by beautiful trees that have been planted this week and in the coming year.
  My Department sponsors research work into various aspects of arboriculture, and that is entirely appropriate. Most of it is carried out by the Forestry Commission.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for West Lothian mentioned research into the use of reclaimed colliery spoil heaps and other industrial wasteland. He and I would agree that in some areas of Scotland trees are covering up what were once very unattractive vistas. I hope and believe that the policy of planting on spoil heaps, which have often been substantially reduced in size, will continue.
  The Forestry Commission has done a great deal of work on this matter, and has produced a booklet, "The Establishment of Trees on Regraded Colliery Spoil Heaps". The Department has been involved through research by Dr. Reynolds, at Oxford university, into the problem of tree roots and building development. That is another issue that we want to keep an eye on, with an interest both in the trees and in buildings nearby. Research here has been significant.
  Hon. Members were primarily concerned about tree planting in urban areas. I have referred to the Countryside Commission, whose work, of course, is in the countryside. There is equally a

  569
  need for tree planting in town. I understand that the tree council concentrates its grants in urban areas.
  Earlier this year the Professional Institutions Council for Conservation sent me a copy of its booklet entitled "The Green Environment in Urban Areas" and sought my support for its view that there is much scope for more imaginative and extensive planting of trees, shrubs and other greenery in urban areas. In reply I was happy to confirm our support for its main concept that there is a need for a much greater use of trees, grass and other natural features in urban areas. I pointed out to the council, however, that the particular landscape policies and techniques to be adopted are a matter primarily for local authorities, and that I felt that the organisation's constituent members, embracing the local authority associations, the Institute of Landscape Architects and many other such bodies, were ideally placed to implement the ideas put forward in the booklet.
  I hope that I have said enough, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, who initiated the debate, to show how important the Government consider the planting of trees for amenity purposes, outwith their interests in forestry policy.
  I should like to end by wishing the National Tree Council a very successful future with its National Tree Campaign, its national trees weeks, and the other work that it will be doing in the coming year. I hope that the members of the council will feel in the years to come that all their effort has been worth while. The fact that my hon. Friend has been able to highlight it tonight and that he has been able to launch it again in 1980 after his significant work years ago gives me great pleasure. I wish all concerned great success.

  CATERING INDUSTRY (FOREIGN WORKERS)
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Neil Carmichael: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise some important human problems. I am pleased that the Minister of State, Home Office can be with us tonight, because we are debating these problems
  570
  a day earlier than we had originally expected. I hope that we are not keeping the hon. Gentleman away from some other engagement. At least he may have a slightly better time tomorrow night.
  I am concerned about the treatment that we as a nation give to foreign workers in the catering industry and in domestic service. I am not being party political when I say that our attitude, and particularly that of the Home Office, has been highlighted in the press and on television in recent weeks as a result of the deportation of Filipino domestic workers. I shall return to that problem shortly. I stress that their case is only the most obviously inhuman example of an attitude that, for some time, has been creeping into our treatment of minority groups. We appear to use such groups as and when they are required, and then to discard them with little natural justice when their usefulness has passed.
  Perhaps for a few moments I might speak about another problem that concerns me, again relating to catering workers and domestic workers. We are using methods of detection and control towards minorities which, if we are not vigilant, could be the justification for similar actions towards everyone in these islands. I have been told of police visiting premises in my constituency and in other parts of the country, arriving without warning and cross-examining all the workers, asking them to produce passports, identity cards and birth certificates. The premises of which I am speaking are mainly restaurants and hotels. There are many restaurants in my constituency owned and staffed by Commonwealth immigrants.
  The Minister may think that to describe those visits as "raids" is overdramatic and perhaps headline-seeking, but the matter has been so reported in many newspapers already, and that is how the immigrant communities describe them. I think that it is the only appropriate word.
  I am not very concerned about the immediate cost-effectiveness of such raids. The legal maxim that hard cases make bad law applies here. More than that, if we use this example to establish law it will make very dangerous law, not only for some of the immigrants, but for all of us.

  571
  I welcomed the Home Secretary's statement in July that the police would be more sensitive in the way in which they tracked down so-called illegal immigrants, but some points must be emphasised to the Minister.
  If the police get information that someone has infringed the terms on which he or she has entered the United Kingdom, it is the individual who should be questioned and not all those at his or her place or work who happen to have darker skins than those around. The vast majority of those who will be questioned and sometimes arrested or, euphemistically, "taken away to help the police in their inquiries", will be full citizens of this country who have satisfied stringent standards in order to gain entry.
  I would be interested to know how often the police follow up clues received by anonymous letters or telephone calls in other aspects of their work. I would not expect them to spend a great deal of time on this type of information. There is, however, a strong feeling in the immigrant community that anonymous telephone calls and letters, frequently from within the community itself, always result in the police chasing around looking for these individuals. Often, the belief is that the police spend an inordinate amount of time on this work. The Minister should give the matter urgent attention.
  I do not want to have to carry an identity card, far less a birth certificate, nor do I believe that this should be necessary for my fellow citizens whose skin happens to be darker. If it were to become accepted practice for newly arrived, first-, second- or sometimes third-generation immigrants, it would not be long before someone was seeking to extend the practice in the pursuit of efficiency and neatness. We have the option of carrying bank cards and credit cards. That is for our own convenience and not anyone else's. I hope that that is how matters will remain.
  I should like to turn to the question of the Filipino workers who have been so much in the news recently. They did not come here under the general conditions of the 1971 Act. Their permits were issued under pressure, mainly from the hotel and catering industry, to fill
  572
  vacancies in domestic jobs, such as those of chambermaids, porters and cleaners in hotels and restaurants, and, in some cases, the Health Service. A high proportion of the workers who came here under this scheme were Filipinos. As well as those who entered the catering industry, a good number went into hospitals, for which I know the Health Service was grateful. The permits were issued for 12 months but were renewable for four years, after which time permit holders could apply for permanent residence. After the fifth year, some permit holders went back to their own countries.
  The trade unions in this country, including my union—the General and Municipal Workers Union—opposed the quota system, believing that this category of permit would lead to exploitation of the holder, who in most cases was unskilled and who would be forced to rely on the good will of his or her employer. Most of those who entered under this scheme were women. The trade unions pointed out—and, unfortunately, have been proved right—that the concept of guest workers is an appalling way of employing people, using them and then discarding them. I hope that Britain never entertains the idea of guest workers, as practised in Germany, Switzerland and other countries on the Continent.
  Two requirements of these women, when they were brought here, appear to me contradictory. When the women applied for work permits the Department of Employment said that they should not have any dependent children, that is, children under 16, and should be single. The Home Office visa requirement stated that women coming here should have no accompanying children. I cannot believe, from my contacts over the last 20 years with people whose native tongue is not English, that these requirements are not at the very least confusing. These contradictory points could have occupied two sittings of a House of Commons Committee upstairs, regardless of which party happened to be in power at the time.
  The most sinister aspect was that these women were recruited through agencies that demanded large sums of money from them. Many of these women worked long hours in order to send money back

  573
  to their families and to help pay the agencies. In many cases they had got into considerable debt trying to get here. Some of the women applied for permission to bring their children here after they had been here for five years. Permission was granted in most cases, until November 1979, when the Claveria case reached the Divisional Court, which declared that the woman concerned had deceived the authorities by not admitting that she had children. After that time, women who had entered under domestic work permits and had fallen foul of this ambiguity were under threat.
  A number of points arise from this situation. If the women concerned had genuinely wished to deceive, would they have gone to the Home Office seeking permission to bring their children here? Secondly, in the past the Home Office has allowed women in this position to settle, but is now saying that there must be ministerial discussion before any such person can be allowed to settle. Thirdly, what was the role of the agencies in this situation? I am told by members of my union who have been involved that in many cases the women informed the agency of the true position, that is, whether or not they were married and whether or not they had children. Frequently, the agencies falsified the information, putting down "single" and "childless".
  I have heard that in some cases the agencies, so long as they had the money—they had a considerable financial incentive, once they were dealing with a woman with money, to get her sent here—instructed some women not to state that they had a family. The women were instructed to say nothing about children. This was not always possible. Where a woman was sending money home to her children, she was claiming, until 1978, the full child allowance. Many members of my union report that no questions were asked about children either by the agencies or by visa-issuing officers. Many of our members report that the women, having filled in the Home Office forms saying that they were not bringing their children with them, felt that they had answered all the questions that it was necessary to answer.
  574
  The courts have made a ruling that appears to me harsh and unsympathetic. It means that people have to answer questions that they did not even know existed. It seems exceedingly unfair that a group of women who entered the country in this way and have worked at jobs that no one else would take, for low wages, are now caught by an ambiguity that they did not even know existed when they first undertook to come to Britain.
  I should like to ask the Minister for help. Why have these women been accused of deception and thereby transformed into illegal immigrants only when they have wanted to bring their children to join them? The Government have known of these children for some time, through the Inland Revenue. This is an old bone of contention. Departments are created for the convenience of the Government. There is nothing sacred or special about them. Ordinary citizens, and particularly citizens who have no English—most of these people, I understand, speak Spanish, and certainly came here with no English—believe that when they are dealing with the Inland Revenue or any other Department they are dealing with the Government as a whole. They are perhaps not aware of the sophistication of arrangements in a country such as Britain. They do not differentiate between one branch or another. They felt that they were being honest, and believed that the Government knew that they had children, because they had been claiming, and receiving, tax relief on their children for at least four years.
  What is the position of those who were allowed to settle and brought their children to join them, legally, it appears to me, before the Claveria judgment? Only a small number of outstanding cases are involved. Those becoming eligible to settle are among the last to have been able to obtain this type of permit before it was restricted to workers from Western Europe in 1977. The Minister will know better than I how many cases are involved. Given the small number involved, the obvious anomalies in the situation, the fact that the Home Secretary has seen fit to exercise his discretion in about half the cases, and that the loophole that triggered retrospective Government action was closed three years ago, is it too much

  575
  to ask the Minister seriously to consider a general amnesty?
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) for raising this issue, not only as it applies to certain women, but in the context of how control is exercised generally—once immigrants are in Britain. My hon. Friend has covered the case of women from the Philippines.
  I accept that in many instances the law has been broken unwittingly. The Government claim that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but there is a qualitative difference in the cases under discussion. The problem arises because the agencies did the recruiting. They advised the individuals and were responsible, in most cases, for completing the forms. Each case will probably have to be dealt with on its merits, although an amnesty covering the entire group should not be ruled out. Where there is clear evidence that, for the purposes of exploitation and commercial gain, the agency agencies deliberately broke the law, that should not be held against an individual. The Home Office seems to take the view that responsibility rests upon the individual. I believe that to be wrong. The cases should be dealt with more sympathetically.
  I deal next with how immigration control is exercised once people are here. One of the cases that comes to mind is that of Bestway, a supermarket. A number of people were picked up, taken to a police station and held there because they had no documents in their possession to prove that they had a right to be here. Such action and its effect on community relations was well canvassed in Standing Committee B in 1971, when we were discussing the then Immigration Bill. We discussed the matter in relation to aliens and certificates of patriality. The discussions took place during the fifteenth to seventeenth sittings of the Committee. We were given the clear impression by the then Home Office Minister, the late Mr. Sharples, that there would be no question of stopping people at random to check whether they had the right to be in Britain. He made it clear that the police had no power to arrest people simply because they had no documents in their possession.
  576
  An amendment was moved to provide that if someone was asked to produce a document stating that he had the right to be here, the police must have a suspicion that a crime had been committed. We argued that if a document had to be produced the person concerned should be able to produce it within seven days. We argued also that there should be no question of a person being detained until he found someone who could produce the documents.
  Mr. Sharples said that it was important for the police to discuss with the immigrant communities and other organisations how they would carry out their duties. He said:
  "However, it is envisaged that the same kind of arrangement should exist as with a driving licence—that if a person is not carrying a passport with him, he should be asked, in cases of doubt, to produce it at a police station within a reasonable time. In my view, that would not be too onerous a procedure."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 May 1971; c. 741.]
  I agree that that would not be too onerous a procedure. If that were happening there would be less anxiety about the damage that might be done to community relations.
  We canvassed the issue thoroughly. Much to my surprise, the late Mr. Sharples had some kind things to say about a speech that I made on that issue. He said:
  "May I say, too, that I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I was particularly struck by his words, as reported in col. 785 of the Official Report of our last sitting. He said this: 'What matters is not the strict letter of the law, but its aplication. A law can be perfectly straightforward and reasonable, but if it is pushed beyond the point of reason, pushed to the stage of harassment and persecution, it can lead to all kinds of serious consequences'."
  Mr. Sharpies continued:
  "I do not think anybody in the Committee this morning would disagree with that. I certainly do not. But from the knowledge we have of the people serving in the immigration Department and immigration officers, and the police who will have to bear the responsibility of the detailed administration of the law—partiularly those police officers concerned with community relations—I believe that we can rely upon their good sense and their sense of responsibility to administer the law in the way in which the hon. Gentleman rightly suggests that it would administered."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 1971; c. 820.]

  577
  I am not challenging the right of the police to ask people to produce documents. When asked, a person should produce a document within a reasonable time. However, if the police have gone beyond acting with reasonable suspicion, and if they are taking out blank warrants and going to factories where they believe there might be illegal immigrants, without having a specific individual in mind, that is contrary to the spirit of the law, and contrary to the assurances that we were given when the legislation was going through this House.
  If the police go on "fishing" expeditions and question all the people in a factory, restaurant or shop about whether they have the right to be there, and take to the police station those who cannot produce documents, that is not within the spirit of the law. Although I have not checked thoroughly, I do not believe that regulations exist that give the police power to do that. Such action transgresses the power to arrest and detain because of the non-production of documents.
  We live in difficult times. I do not wish to dramatise or exaggerate the situation by suggesting that such action is widespread throughout the country, but it has been happening sufficiently often to cause anxiety. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify how the police should operate. I hope, too, that he will make it clear that the use of blank warrants—that is, taking out warrants and filling them in afterwards in order to make an arrest—is contrary to the law and should not happen.
  I ask the Minister to ensure that a circular is sent out to make it clear that there should be no "fishing" expeditions and that people should not be taken to police stations and detained. Although we are at present in a quiet period for community relations, we know that the situation breaks down from time to time. Trouble breaks out because there is serious concern among immigrant communities over the way in which their rights appear to be dwindling away. I hope that we shall receive some assurances from the Minister this evening.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Alfred Dubs: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this short debate. Before I turn to my
  578
  main point, the question of resident domestic workers and nursing auxiliaries, I wish to make a brief comment on some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). It appears that increasing demands are being made on people who are not white to produce documentary evidence, either at the request of the police or at the request of potential employers. They may even be required—it is only a threat—to produce identification for National Health Service treatment if the Government seek to expand the method of charging. All those things make people carry their passports with them so as to get rid of the pressures on them, or to prove their identity. Through those practices we have come close to ensuring that people carry their passports around as though they were identity cards.
  The Minister is shaking his head. I hope that he will use this opportunity to clarify the position. From talking to black and Asian communities, I find that they feel that pressure is on them and that they must carry with them a means of identifying themselves to the powers that be. That is only marginally away from feeling that they must have some form of identity and that they must carry identity cards with them.
  I turn to the question of resident domestic workers and nursing auxiliaries. I appreciate that the Home Office has been under some pressure from a variety of sources. I know that the migrants' action group has been in touch with the Minister, as has the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Representations have been made by trade unions, a number of Members of Parliament, and others. This issue represents a test of the Government's attitude to race relations and immigration. They have frequently maintained that their policy on immigration is fair. This is an opportunity for them to demonstrate that, and to make it clear that their policy will work fairly.
  I maintain that that policy does not work fairly at the moment. We are talking about fewer than 300 people. At least 50 of them have already been removed from Britain by the Home Office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) said, they came to Britain some years

  579
  ago, mainly to work as resident domestics and, in some instances, in the Health Service as nursing auxiliaries. They came mainly from the Philippines, where they were recruited by employment agencies. A disturbing feature is that they came to Britain to work for very low wages. The wages were so low that we could understand why some employers had an incentive—not a very reputable one—to recruit people. The employment agencies also derived financial benefit.
  It is an accepted fact that some of the employment agencies based upon the Philippines have been put out of business by the Philippines Government because of the way in which they recruited people. Some employment agencies in Britain were involved also. At the time that these people—mainly women—were recruited it was intended that they should not have any dependent children because they were to 1x employed in living-in jobs, where there would be no accommodation for children. The issue now hangs on the question whether, at the time of entry, those women should have disclosed the fact that they had children.
  When most of the women came to Britain it would not have been deemed an illegal entry if they had failed to declare that they had children. The evidence for that is that some of them, having completed four years in approved employment entitling them to resident status, then applied for permission for their children to enter this country, and that was allowed. There is some evidence that he attitude of the Home Office has changed and that it has recently tightened up on its approach to those people.
  Will the Minister confirm one point? It has been maintained that the application forms completed by those women included a question about children, but that it concerned only the question whether they were to be accompanied by children, and not whether they had children in Philippines. If the Minister can confirm that that is correct it will clarify one aspect of the matter.
  Perhaps the most important fact is based upon a series of court decisions on immigration status. One by one, the decisions have enabled the Home Office to tighten up on that group of people,
  580
  although the court decisions themselves are relevant to other immigrants, or potential immigrants. Those court decisions—the Zamir case was the latest in the line—held that a person seeking entry into Britain owed a positive duty of candour to reveal all relevant facts to the immigration authorities, whether or not the person concerned knew at the time that the facts were relevant.
  There are four reasons why the Minister should show compassion and discretion in favour of those people who are threatened with eviction from Britain First, some of the employment agencies—many in the Philippines, but some in Britain—were not playing it straight by their clients. There was an element of deception by the employment agencies, and the women were their unfortunate victims.
  Secondly, many of those women did not attempt to conceal the fact that they had children. They applied to the Inland Revenue for tax concessions and, on occasions, for entry permits for their children to come to Britain.
  Thirdly, the Minister would not be setting a precedent. We are talking about a small number of people—the quota for domestic workers was abolished in December 1979 and therefore the numbers are clearly finite.
  Fourthly, on all the facts available it appears that the Home Office is using retroactive measures. It is using reasons that were not relevant or applicable at the time when those women entered Britain. The Home Office is adopting a different attitude from that which it adopted when most of those women entered Britain.
  In those circumstances, I hope that the Minister will exercise his discretion on behalf of that small group of unfortunate people. It would be a humane gesture, and one that would be widely welcomed on both sides of the House.
  8.28 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): I first congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) on seizing the opportunity of having the debate this evening. As he knows, he was down for the Adjournment debate tomorrow night and, because of the intricacies of the

  581
  procedure of the House, his Adjournment debate tomorrow night would not have taken place. I thought that that would have been an ideal Adjournment debate for a Minister to answer. However, I do not blame the hon. Member for taking this chance to raise questions that are obviously of considerable interest and importance.
  I confess that I understood that the debate was to be about the attitude of the Home Office to foreign workers in domestic and catering work, rather than the wider topics that have cropped up during the course of the evening about operations concerned with illegals and overstayers generally. I shall concentrate, therefore, on the question of the foreign domestic and catering workers. But perhaps I ought to say a very brief word about the other topic.
  We have a law which governs things such as illegal entry and overstaying, and it would not be right or proper to say to the law enforcement authorities "This is a law that you do not have to enforce." It is a law and, if we decline to enforce it, apart from anything else there would be a very considerable loss of confidence on the part of many members of the public, not only on the part of the host community but on the part of the minorities. They believe that the law is there to be respected, and I would not argue otherwise.
  I fully accept—as does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—that in these operations there is a great need for sensitivity. As hon. Members have said already, the Home Secretary has said that these matters are to be received. We have been receiving them in the Home Office, and in conjunction with the police and the immigration service.
  I want to make it absolutely clear that we do not condone the use of random searches—or so-called "fishing" raids—and that they are not happening. I want that to be very clearly understood. There is no question of the police or anybody else having the power to pounce on people, to burst in somewhere, without having good reason for so doing. The essential point is that the police have to obtain a warrant.
  There has, I know, been some argument as to whether warrants under the
  582
  Immigration Act 1971 require to have specific individuals named, or whether it is possible for those warrants to be issued simply on the basis that the police should be able to search premises where there is strong reason for believing that something is going on.
  My advice is that it is not necessary to name individuals in such warrants. But the crucial point here is that the magistrate who issues the warrant has to be satisfied. It is not, after all, the case that the policeman can simply go out and say "I have a warrant." He has to go to the magistrate and show that there are very strong and good reasons why a search of some kind or other should be undertaken. That is, in fact, happening.
  There has been some argument, as I indicated, about whether, under the 1971 Act, people should have to be named. Our advice is that that is not so.
  Mr. James Dempsey: If the police intend to search a house in which there is one of these foreign persons and the police wish to establish the validity of that person's stay in the country, would it not be necessary to name the home of the person that the police want to visit and to search in order to look for the evidence, before any action can be taken?
  Mr. Raison: I am not sure whether I have understood the hon. Member's question, but the police certainly have to name the premises. There is no dispute about that.
  It has been argued that the police, under the present Administration, are adopting a different policy from that used under the previous Government. There has been some correspondence about this. I want to make it quite clear that it was not the rule under the previous Administration that the police were not allowed to operate except when they had specific named people. They probably operated quite often under the Forgery Act rather than under the Immigration Act 1971. I assure the House that there has not been a change in the overall policy since we came to power, and it is very important that that should be understood.

  583
  The other point that I want to make, before turning to the Claveria case, is that it has been suggested by the hon. Members for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) that there now is a feeling abroad that members of the ethnic minorities—the coloured or black population—need to carry passports. I want to refute that absolutely. I see no reason why someone who is lawfully here should think that when he sets out to work or goes out on his pleasure or anything else he has a need to carry a passport. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is very anxious that this whole impression should be dispelled.
  I put it to Labour Members—and to members of the public outside—that anyone who goes round saying that people need to carry passports is serving to build up fears which, in my belief, are unnecessary. Whatever Labour Members may think about this Government—they are entitled to be as rude as they like—I hope that they will try to help us to dispel the suggestion that there is a need for members of our ethnic minorities to carry their passports.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I apologise for not having given the Minister notice that I would raise certain specific points on the question of immigration control.
  I am not an expert on what happens in the immigrant community. In my part of the country we are insular, partly because of distance. Can the Minister say whether the press and other reports that people were taken from their place of work to a police station because they could not prove their right to be in this country, and that they were held until they could produce their passports, are true? Did that happen? If so, will the Minister discourage it in future? I stressed in my remarks that I did not wish to exaggerate the situation. I want good community relations, but I fear that that sort of action does more harm than anyone who wants to start trouble can ever do to encourage the sort of attitude that the Minister stressed he wished to avoid.
  Mr. Raison: In one of the operations that has been discussed, it is true that some of the people who were suspected of having committed immigration offences were taken to police stations for a while,
  584
  and they then left to try to find their passports. This is a difficult problem from the point of view of the police, and this is the sort of case that we shall examine in the inquiry that the Home Secretary has called for.
  The hon. Member asked why a person who is suspected of an immigration offence should be told to bring his passport to the police station within seven days, or whatever. I can see the force of that argument, and I understand the way in which it was discussed in the House in past years. However, there is a problem here that we cannot completely overcome. If a person is asked to produce his driving licence on those grounds, he will do so. If he does not do so, the police know where to find him and where to chase him up.
  The real problem about illegal immigrants or overstayers who may be liable to be removed from the country is that if they do not have the right passports they will not turn up at the police station. That will give the police the tip-off, and the immigrants will be liable to disappear or go to ground. There is a clear practical problem—a problem that crops up in different ways in the whole area of immigration. Ultimately, if a person is an overstayer, in a sense he has nothing to lose by disappearing because if he does reveal that he is an illegal immigrant, it is likely that he will be removed, anyway. We must consider that practical problem.
  Nevertheless, in approaching this problem, while the law must be enforced and the public confidence must be upheld, it is important that it should be done in a way that will cause as little friction as possible in community relations.
  I turn now to the question of foreign workers in the catering and domestic industries. As hon. Gentlemen have said, this is a matter that has received a good deal of attention in recent months. I would be the last person to deny the difficulty of the problem.
  It is useful to have the opportunity this evening to try to explain the Government's position and to try to correct some of the misunderstandings that have arisen.
  I shall deal with the cases of women—mostly Filipino—affected by the court's judgment in the Claveria case. But, first,

  585
  it may help the House if I explain a little about the system under which people have been allowed to come here from abroad to work. The hon. Member for Kelvin-grove touched on that, and I shall not quarrel with the accuracy of his description.
  The control of labour from overseas is exercised through a combination of the work permit scheme, operated by the Department of Employment and the immigration rules, which are the responsibility of my Department. With the exception of people coming for certain special categories of employment, anyone from overseas who wishes to work in the United Kingdom must obtain a work permit before he sets out, and show it to the immigration officer on arrival. Permits are issued by the Department of Employment in respect of a specific job with a specific employer, in accordance with criteria set down by them. In general work permits are now available only for overseas workers holding recognised professional qualifications or having a high degree of skill or experience. An application for a permit will be considered by the Department of Employment only if the vacancy necessarily requires such a worker, and the fact that a suitable candidate is not available here or in the European Community is not of itself sufficient reason for an employer to seek a worker from overseas.
  On arrival, a work-permit holder carrying a long-term permit which may be for 12 months is likely to be admitted for that period on condition that he changes employment only with the permission of the Department of Employment. At the end of the initial period of, say, 12 months, the normal practice is to grant an extension of stay—say, for three years—provided the person is still engaged in employment for which the permit was issued or other employment which has been approved by the Department of Employment. After four years in approved employment, the person may apply for settlement, which is likely to be granted provided that he is still in the approved employment. Once settlement is granted, conditions attached to his stay are cancelled and the person concerned is free to take any employment. The four-year period recognises that it is neither humane nor practical to try to keep people on strings indefinitely.
  Mr. Ron Brown: The Minister has gone on at great length in explaining the Government's position. I respect his viewpoint, while disagreeing with it entirely. While we speak about the general case, clearly we must also respect the individual case. Many individuals have, unfortunately, been trapped by legislation, or interpretations of legislation, over the years. That is the reason for our concern tonight.
  Being a representative of part of Scotland, I come into contact with immigrants, although quite rarely. One of them is Norma Bernardo, a girl who came here in 1976 and who worked extremely hard. She was advised initially how to fill in a work permit application and was advised how to work in this country and to be the ideal employee. Indeed, she has been, and no one can criticise her for that.
  On our part, we must also recognise that many such individuals, be it Norma Bernardo or anyone else, do not always understand the English language. That is fairly obvious from this debate. When one is speaking about foreign nationals, one must allow them a certain leeway. They have not committed any crime, in my view. We are speaking about human beings, and that is often forgotten. They are human beings who wish to work, who wish to stay here and who wish to marry. That is certainly true of Norma Bernardo.
  One can say many things on this subject. Norma is awaiting a divorce which is going through the Scottish courts.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order.
  Mr. Brown: Perhaps I may just say this.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Brown: We have given certain hospitality to—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order.
  Mr. Brown: Let us give hospitality to a girl coming from the Philippines.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Brown: That is my point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must realise that, if a Minister gives way, he should make only a brief intervention.
  Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman said that I had explained my position, but I had not started to explain my position on this matter. I was trying to set the background. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman did not raise this matter during the debate itself. After all, there was no time limit on the debate, at least until 10 o'clock. As he knows, he will be coming to see me tomorrow to talk about this particular case. I think that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it now. I shall discuss the matter when he sees me tomorrow.
  The debate tonight is concerned with domestic and catering workers. I should emphasise that the Home Office has no special policy directed at those in domestic and catering work. They, like others, are welcome provided they enter in accordance with the immigration rules and keep within the law while here.
  Until the beginning of this year quotas were made available by the Department of Employment for unskilled people to come here for domestic and catering work. This Government have ended these quotas altogether. I am sure that this is right. The importation of cheap foreign labour is not in the long-term interests of this country. If we want floors scrubbed or dishes washed, we really ought to pay the rate for the job to persuade people resident here to do it, use machines, or do it ourselves. That applies particularly at a time of relatively high unemployment.
  That, therefore, is the position regarding those who come here lawfully for employment. But there have, of course, been people who have taken work in breach of the immigration regulations, and it is largely those to whom hon. Members have referred tonight.
  Illegal workers fall into two main types. First, there are those who entered lawfully and then took work in breach of their conditions of admission, very often overstaying as well for good measure; and, secondly, those whose entry itself was illegal. The Filipino cases fall into the second category—those whose entry itself was illegal. A succession of court rulings has established that if a person gains entry by deception, the deception vitiates the initial leave to enter and any subsequent permission to remain based upon it. The situation is as though no leave to enter had been given.
  588
  Under the Department of Employment's criteria, work permits for resident domestic employment have not been issued for many years to people known to have dependent children. Deception about children was, therefore, fundamental to the obtaining of the permit and of leave to enter. If the existence of the children had been known, the work permit and leave to enter would have been bound to have been refused. This was confirmed by the Divisional Court in November 1979 in the Claveria case.
  Mrs. Claveria obtained a work permit for domestic employment by representing that she had no children, when in fact she had three. She was admitted to this country in 1973 and granted indefinite leave to remain four years later. Her deception came to light the following year, in 1978, when her husband attempted to join her here and was refused entry. She was finally removed as an illegal entrant last March. We know of over 250 similar cases, most of which involve Filipino women.
  The particular points which hon. Members have put forward tonight on behalf of these women have been made to us a number of times before and we have considered them most carefully.
  The hon. Member for Kelvingrove suggested that the women were the innocent victims of unscrupulous recruiting agents in the Philippines who filled in the work permit applications on their behalf and omitted to disclose that they had children. In law, the point is irrelevant. As I said, the courts have held that entry by deception is illegal even if the misrepresentation was effected without the person's knowledge.
  We have not simply rested on the narrow legal position but have looked into the question whether the women were aware that untruths were being told.
  Much has been said about the employment agencies. I do not seek to defend them generally. I do not argue that all of them have behaved scrupulously—quite the opposite. However, I have been told by some of the agents or employers, who between them dealt with a good number of these applications, that they went to considerable lengths to explain the requirements. They feel that they are being unfairly accused of sharp practice. That is fair in those cases.

  589
  The work permit application was only the first hurdle. The work permits were filled in, by and large, by agents or employers. Therefore, there was the theoretical possibility that the women concerned did not know what was going on. But there was a second hurdle. As Filipinos, the women had to obtain visas by filling in application forms which required information about their marital status and children.
  On the point made by the hon. Member for Battersea, South, I recognise that there is some doubt whether the visa application form in use between 1973 and 1976 required the disclosure of children who were not to accompany the applicant. We are looking closely at cases in which there is doubt about the extent to which the persons concerned were parties to the deception. But visa officers were specifically instructed to ask applicants whether they had children and to refuse applications if they had. So, in addition to the forms, there was a specific instruction to visa officers as well.
  It is also clear from the interviews that we have had with the women that in many cases they knew about the deception. I have no doubt at all on that point. I suspect that in many cases there would also have been word-of-mouth knowledge that anyone with dependent children would be ineligible to come.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Deliberate deception is one thing, but is it possible under these legal rulings for a person to be adjudged guilty of deception for not answering questions which he or she was not asked?
  Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me. His point is perhaps relevant to arguments about the Zamir case and the Mangoo Khan case, but I do not think that it has any great relevance to the Claveria case, and I do not think it would be possible for me to open up the whole argument. I must stick to these Claveria or Filipino cases.
  Let me come to our decisions. The House has recognised for a long time that it is normal policy to remove illegal entrants unless there are substantial compassionate reasons for allowing them to remain exceptionally. This is essential if an effective immigration control is to be maintained. It would be quite wrong for the Home Office to ignore rulings
  590
  of the courts which had a bearing on the control, and it would be manifestly unfair to all those who had pursued their applications honestly, and failed, if we allowed all those who deceived to benefit from their deception by gaining permanent residence here, with the right to bring in their dependants.
  The women are not being punished, prosecuted or deprived of any financial benefits they may have gained by working here. They are being required to go home to their own country and to their own families—to go back to the situations in which they would have been if the deception had not happened.
  I realise that the consequences are likely to be hard for many of these women and their families. I recognise that they have mostly shown themselves to be hard working and to have been motivated by a desire to escape from poverty and to do the best they could for themselves and their families. But it is an inescapable fact that immigration control involves keeping out many hardworking, similarly motivated people from poor countries. It is not pleasant to say "No", but we have to operate the system fairly and not allow the impression to emerge that those who succeed in deceiving the control will be allowed to prosper.
  The position in each case is being examined closely at a senior level to see whether they are genuine compelling reasons for exceptional treatment. Of course, many of the cases go before Ministers—they come mainly to me. Where there are good reasons, the woman is allowed to remain, as will also occur if we have pledged public faith, for example, by granting leave to remain or settlement in the knowledge that the woman has dependent children. If the decision is that a women must be removed, she has a right of appeal from abroad to the independent appellate authority.
  It is argued that we have been operating a form of retrospective legislation—that, when the Filipinos arrived, the law was not seen as meaning that if they came by deception they should be regarded as illegal entrants. It is said that the Claveria and other judgments changed the law. It is also said that the fact that the deception came to light only when the people concerned applied to

  591
  bring in their dependants showed that they did not know that they were in breach of the law.
  I do not deny that the interpretation of the law has been clarified or developed by the courts over time; but that is not the same as saying that the law has been retrospective. Moreover, I do not think that it is for Ministers to pass judgment on the way in which the courts have interpreted the law; and, of course, in the Zamir case, the House of Lords has ruled categorically that deception constitutes illegal entry.
  It has also been put to us that the numbers concerned in these cases are limited—that the problem is finite. Well, of course, it is in a sense finite, in that work permits for this category are no longer given. But it could be the case—I hope that it is not—that substantially more than the 200-odd that we know about entered by deception; and it is also the case that in immigration terms the numbers of dependants who could come in would be considerable—for we have taken the view that, if the Filipinos were allowed to stay, it would be unacceptable to refuse entry to their dependent children. So the potential problem could be significantly larger than some suggest. The figures show that where
  592
  there are genuine compassionate circumstances, exceptions have been made. Of the cases finally decided so far, 65 women have gone, while 93 have been allowed to remain. Another 100 cases are known to be outstanding.
  I cannot predict what the outcome of these latter cases will be, but I suggest that the figures so far show that we are going a good way to meet the essence of early-day motion 837, which was tabled on 28 July and which reads:
  "That this House urges the Secretary of State for the Home Department to continue to exercise his discretion and to do so more widely in order to allow the limited number of workers, chiefly women from the Philippines, who have worked in the United Kingdom for many years as resident domestics and are now held to be illegal entrants because they had dependent children at the time their permits were issued, to remain on compassionate grounds."
  I think that I have demonstrated that we are exercising our discretion and are doing so widely, which is what the motion asked us to do. I am afraid that we cannot agree that there should be a total amnesty for those whose entry by deception has been ruled illegal by the courts.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Nine o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Tropical Diseases (Research)
  Tropical Diseases (Research)
EMPLOYMENT
  Deaf-Blind People
  Deaf-Blind People
  Public Sector Employees (Pay)
  Public Sector Employees (Pay)
  Wolverhampton and the West Midlands
  Wolverhampton and the West Midlands
  Construction Workers
  Construction Workers
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Unemployed Women
  Unemployed Women
  St. Helens
  St. Helens
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Deaths at Work (Statistics)
  Deaths at Work (Statistics)
  Computer Programmers
  Computer Programmers
CIVIL SERVICE
  Rayner Review
  Rayner Review
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
ENERGY
  Methanol from Coal
  Methanol from Coal
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
TRADE
  Mock Auctions
  Mock Auctions
  Exports and Imports
  Exports and Imports
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  Biggin Hill (Accident)
  Biggin Hill (Accident)
  Bankruptcies and Liquidations
  Bankruptcies and Liquidations
  Companies Act 1948
  Companies Act 1948
  Consolidated Gold Fields
  Consolidated Gold Fields
  Japanese Motor Vehicles
  Japanese Motor Vehicles
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Employment (Glasgow)
  Employment (Glasgow)
  Gas Contract Prices
  Gas Contract Prices
  Public and Press Relations
  Public and Press Relations
  Scottish National Exhibition Centre
  Scottish National Exhibition Centre
  Fife College of Nursing and Midwifery
  Fife College of Nursing and Midwifery
  National Health Service (Laboratory Services)
  National Health Service (Laboratory Services)
  Fife Health Board
  Fife Health Board
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  New Forest District Council
  New Forest District Council
  Local Authority Manpower
  Local Authority Manpower
  Council Housing
  Council Housing
  Council Housing Expenditure (Moratorium)
  Council Housing Expenditure (Moratorium)
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977
  Stoke-on-Trent (Enterprise Zone)
  Stoke-on-Trent (Enterprise Zone)
  Charitable Bodies (Water Rates)
  Charitable Bodies (Water Rates)
  Elderly and Disabled Persons (Housing)
  Elderly and Disabled Persons (Housing)
  Home Insulation (Stockport)
  Home Insulation (Stockport)
  Partnership Committees
  Partnership Committees
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Football Matches (Violence)
  Football Matches (Violence)
  Liverpool (Urban Development Corporation)
  Liverpool (Urban Development Corporation)
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Academic Lecturers (Overseas Appointments)
  Academic Lecturers (Overseas Appointments)
  Migrant Workers
  Migrant Workers
  Landing Cards
  Landing Cards
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Rules
  Prison Rules
  Charles Richardson
  Charles Richardson
  European Remembrance and Reconciliation Association (March)
  European Remembrance and Reconciliation Association (March)
  Breath Testing Equipment
  Breath Testing Equipment
  Minor Offences (Prosecutions)
  Minor Offences (Prosecutions)
  Local Elections
  Local Elections
  Ethnic Minorities
  Ethnic Minorities
  Law Enforcement Costs
  Law Enforcement Costs
  Frankland Prison
  Frankland Prison
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
DEFENCE
  Ex-Prisoners of War (Pay)
  Ex-Prisoners of War (Pay)
  Public and Press Relations
  Public and Press Relations
  Health and Safety at Work etc. Act
  Health and Safety at Work etc. Act
  Army Reservists (Equipment)
  Army Reservists (Equipment)
WALES
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
  FORMER LAW OFFICERS
  FORMER LAW OFFICERS
  LICENSING AND GAMING LICENCE APPLICATIONS
  LICENSING AND GAMING LICENCE APPLICATIONS
  PUBLIC AND PRESS RELATIONS
  PUBLIC AND PRESS RELATIONS
  MAGISTRATES ADVISORY COMMITTEES
  MAGISTRATES ADVISORY COMMITTEES
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Further Education (Grants)
  Further Education (Grants)
  Playing Field Space (Woking)
  Playing Field Space (Woking)
  "Communication Outlook"
  "Communication Outlook"
  Older Pupils
  Older Pupils
  Public and Press Relations
  Public and Press Relations
  Overseas Students (Fees)
  Overseas Students (Fees)
  Workers Educational Association
  Workers Educational Association
  Teacher (Salaries)
  Teacher (Salaries)
  Schoolchildren (Packed Lunches)
  Schoolchildren (Packed Lunches)
  Schools (Kitchen Staff)
  Schools (Kitchen Staff)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Educational Provision (Inner London)
  Educational Provision (Inner London)
  Mountbatten Memorial Trust Appeal
  Mountbatten Memorial Trust Appeal
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Community Regulation 9651/80
  European Community Regulation 9651/80
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
ENVIRONMENT
  Professional Boxing
  Professional Boxing
  Housing Standards
  Housing Standards
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Council House Building
  Council House Building
  Hire Craft
  Hire Craft
INDUSTRY
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
TRANSPORT
  British Transport Docks Board (Humber Local Advisory Board)
  British Transport Docks Board (Humber Local Advisory Board)
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Coach Operators
  Coach Operators
  Lorry Parks
  Lorry Parks
  Road Markings
  Road Markings
  International Coach Journeys
  International Coach Journeys
  Euroways
  Euroways
  Greek Coaches
  Greek Coaches
  Sheffield-Manchester Railway Line (Woodhead Tunnel)
  Sheffield-Manchester Railway Line (Woodhead Tunnel)
  Motorway Service Stations
  Motorway Service Stations
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Armagh Gaol (Prisoners' Protest)
  Armagh Gaol (Prisoners' Protest)
  Ulster Polytechnic
  Ulster Polytechnic
  Security Statistics
  Security Statistics
  Civil Servants (Religious Beliefs)
  Civil Servants (Religious Beliefs)
  Holiday Caravans (Rates)
  Holiday Caravans (Rates)
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  House Building (Poleglass)
  House Building (Poleglass)
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Northern Ireland Housing Executive
  Northern Ireland Housing Executive
  Fair Employment Agency
  Fair Employment Agency
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  "Income During Initial Sickness"
  "Income During Initial Sickness"
  National Health Service Employees (Industrial Action)
  National Health Service Employees (Industrial Action)
  Research Reports (University of Calgary)
  Research Reports (University of Calgary)
  Preventive Medicine
  Preventive Medicine
  Maternity Facilities (Charges)
  Maternity Facilities (Charges)
  Family Practitioner Committees (Administration)
  Family Practitioner Committees (Administration)
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Disabled Persons (Supplementary Benefit)
  Disabled Persons (Supplementary Benefit)
  Disablement Costs Allowance
  Disablement Costs Allowance
  International Year of the Disabled
  International Year of the Disabled
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  St. Faith's Hospital, Brentwood
  St. Faith's Hospital, Brentwood
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  Tobacco Products
  Tobacco Products
  Paul Brown Inquiry
  Paul Brown Inquiry
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Unemployment Benefit (Scotland)
  Unemployment Benefit (Scotland)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Devonshire Cream
  Devonshire Cream
  Public and Press Relations
  Public and Press Relations
  Agricultural Development Advisory Service
  Agricultural Development Advisory Service
  European Community (Surplus Products)
  European Community (Surplus Products)
  Tate and Lyle Refinery, Liverpool (Minister of State's Meeting)
  Tate and Lyle Refinery, Liverpool (Minister of State's Meeting)
  Poisons
  Poisons
  British Sugar Corporation and J. Berisford (Merger)
  British Sugar Corporation and J. Berisford (Merger)
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Wheat and Maize
  Wheat and Maize

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.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
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 how the current level of unemployment compares with that in other member states in the European Community, what steps are being taken through the Community to combat unemployment and what their effect has been on the United Kingdom.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, unemployment rates in the member states of the European Community are not directly comparable because of differences in concept and coverage. United Kingdom unemployment is now a little above the Community average of 6·;5 per cent., which itself is made up of some wide variations. I am arranging for the information issued by the statistical office of the European Communities to be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House.
High levels of unemployment are of concern throughout the Community and regularly engage the attention of the Council of Ministers. The main need is to create new job opportunities, and that of course involves getting inflation down and ensuring that the Community's industries remain competitive against those of the rest of the world. While the main thrust of this approach remains the responsibility of the member states, the Community can help by co-ordinating economic and social policies and by making the best use of Community resources.
Several noble Lords: Oh! Too long.
Lord LYELL: The Community does have important financial instruments in the regional and social funds. The regional fund supports industrial development in the assisted areas and the associated investment in infrastructure. The European Social Fund provides Community assistance towards training, retraining, resettlement and job creation, of which at least half is reserved for schemes in regions of high unemployment, including the United Kingdom's assisted areas. This year the United Kingdom has been allocated £135 million from the social fund.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, I am sorry to say that I did not hear all of it because of a little disturbance going on opposite, but I should like to congratulate the Government because I understand that they have managed to get quite a lot of support from the EEC fund for a scheme in this country. I hope that will continue. Because of our contribution to the EEC I hope that we shall be able to benefit from whatever we can get from them for this purpose.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, perhaps I may reply briefly to my noble friend. First, I would apologise to the House for the length of the Answer, but, as I am sure the House will appreciate if your Lordships care to glance at the Question on the Order Paper, it is an extremely long and complicated Question to which I hope I gave a reasonable and satisfactory reply. My noble friend asked about the regional and social fund and I can assure her that the Government and indeed the Community are examining the question of the restructuring of the Community budget so that allocations from the social and regional fund will remain very much in line with our needs, and we hope that the entire budget can be restructured.
Lord GLENAMARA: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the figure of 6 per cent, that he quoted for the United Kingdom covers the most appalling black spots, where unemployment is 20 per cent., and sometimes 30 per cent., as a direct result of the Government's policies? What does he propose to do about it?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, that could be another very long answer but I think the Question on the Order Paper refers to the help that can be obtained from the Community and I hope that the noble Lord would not wish me to go into my lengthy Answer again. I can assure the noble Lord that the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom is substantially below that of at least two members of the European Community.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the crumbs which fall from the EEC table will not touch the serious unemployment that there is in this country, and is he further aware that, when he takes into account short-time working, people who do not register and the total unemployed, it all comes to over 3 million and that that is due entirely to the Government's monetary policy?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I do not propose to attempt to reply on monetary policy but I do not think—and the House would not agree—that contributions from the EEC of £135 million from one fund and £163 million from another fund are "crumbs". If the noble Lord thinks that, he must have quite a large appetite.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the monies from the EEC supplement or replace national monies?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, in some cases it supplements but in most of the cases to which I have referred it is a contribution to the United Kingdom so that we may make the best use of our own resources.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—and I ask this without trying to score any political point—
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord DAVIES of LEEK:—that some people are concerned about the de-industrialisation of Britain and would like to know, in view of the Treasury's report that one-sixth of manufacturing industry will be abandoned by the end of 1981, whether or not we have now reached a position where it is the policy to de-industrialise on a large scale and
1362
to take central Europe as the industrial area of the European Community, leaving Britain on the fringe as a de-industrialised area?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I have tried to answer a number of different questions but I am afraid that the noble Lord's question, while valid, would probably be better directed to my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who answers questions on industry.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will bear it in mind.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, given the questions and answers on this matter, would it not be a good thing if my noble friend made better known in this country the extent to which the recession is hitting other countries as well as ours?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, my noble friend has made the point very clearly. I am very grateful to him.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that we have a Conservative Government whereas some of those other countries have not, and that therefore we should be very much better off than they are?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I think the colour is immaterial. The policy is what matters and we believe that this Government have the right and the courageous policy, and we intend to pursue it.

ELECTRIC HEATERS FOR THE ELDERLY
2.44 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider supplying purpose-made electric-blanket type heaters suitable for use as a coverlet to an armchair or for a bed to those elderly people and others who cannot afford adequate overall room heating and are in consequence in danger of dying from hypothermia.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have recognised the impact of rising fuel prices on poor fuel consumers and are currently spending about £200 million a year on special help for them. However, ways of keeping warm are very much a matter of personal preference best left to the individual to decide.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, although it does not really seem to answer my Question at all. First, would he confirm that allowances given to people for fuel can be spent on other things and frequently are? Secondly, is he aware of the number of cases of hypothermia which have occurred in recent years? Thirdly, surely he would think that investigation of a proposal on the lines I am suggesting would at least be worth while. Does he further realise that, in addition to the suggestion that I had put down on the Order Paper, there are other alternatives which might be very welcome if they were on the market. In the war there were heated flying suits. One can imagine an armchair similarly heated. Would the noble Lord take this matter a little more seriously and investigate it?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the noble Viscount has asked me rather a lot of questions and I will try to deal with them. First, I think perhaps the most important question was the number of deaths by hypothermia. I should like to tell the House that there are just over half a million deaths in England and Wales each year, and there are about 20 deaths from hypothermia out of that total. I understand that there are death certificates showing it as either a main or subsidiary cause of death in the case of 600 or 700. So the incidence of hypothermia is nothing like as large as it is sometimes said to be, although I realise it is a very important matter. With regard to the noble Viscount's suggestion of blankets or coverlets, there are a number of such products on the market and they can be bought by anyone who wishes to do so. But there are problems with them for the elderly and infirm; it may or may not be wise for them to buy them. Plugging in such products, or zipping them up in some cases, is not at all easy for handicapped and disabled people.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, is not the fact that the suggestion is being made that old people should spend their lives sitting in armchairs wrapped in electric blankets a sad reflection on life in the 1980s under a Tory Government?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I quite agree that it would certainly be a very bad thing to do, either with a Labour or a Conservative Government.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, while appreciating the motive behind the noble Viscount's very well-intentioned Question, in connection with his Answer, may I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that overheating or too rapid reheating of cold elderly people could in fact be a potent cause of circulatory failure and indeed death? What is really necessary for elderly people is good food, warm clothing and an adequate standard of living. We really should bear in mind that there are grave dangers in merely heating them up.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for saying that. There is a rather good pamphlet available from all the health authorities giving people common-sense advice on this matter.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he is in a position to say whether the department will be undertaking, or is already undertaking, some kind of publicity to call the attention of people entitled to certain benefits, particularly the heating benefit, to the fact that these benefits do exist?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: Yes, my Lords, attention is drawn to this. The £200 million I mentioned in my first Answer goes very much to supplementary benefit families and also to those on family income supplement, and they are, of course, kept well in touch with the department.

HEAVY FUEL OIL DUTY
Lord DRUMALBYN: 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 would be the cost to the Exchequer of removing the duty on hydro-carbon oil supplied to industry.
The MINISTER of STATE, TREASURY (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, I assume that my noble friend is referring to heavy fuel oil which is used almost exclusively by industry. The loss of revenue from abolishing the duty on this oil would be £220 million a year.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, which correctly interprets what was in the forefront of my mind, will he confirm that the heavy fuel oil duty in this country is twice what it is in Germany, a hundred times what it is in France and a hundred and sixty times what it is in Italy? Would not the removal of this duty go some way, at any rate, towards making industry more competitive in export markets?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, while I am grateful to my noble friend for that information, I feel bound to say that percentage figures can, at times, be misleading. The present duty on heavy fuel oil in this country is approximately £8 per tonne. That is one of the highest, but not the highest in Europe. It represents less than 10 per cent, on the price of the oil and in relation to the costs of industry generally it represents less than 0·;2 per cent, of industry total costs.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, if there is a case for refusing to abolish the whole of the duty, is that not good reason for reducing the duty? Would it not have the beneficial effect of enabling those who pay less duty to employ more labour or even to use some of the surplus for the purpose of investment?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the level of taxation is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget, and I obviously cannot anticipate what decisions he might take in that connection. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that what he says will be duly noted.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, in giving the figure of £220 million did my noble friend make any offsetting allowance for the increased yield of corporation and income taxes which would result from the likely increased profitability of industry?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, it does not necessarily follow that if a tax is reduced the whole of the reduction in taxation appears in profits and that therefore contributes to corporation tax. A reduction in indirect taxation often results in a reduction in price and, indeed, the object in mind when people suggest that the fuel oil duty should be reduced, is to reduce the price of the product and therefore to make the product more competitive.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, does the noble Lord's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, indicate a recognition on the Government's part that this tax is affecting adversely, and, in the view of many of us, unreasonably, the competitiveness of vital parts of British industry?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, my reply indicates no more than that, in accordance with long-standing tradition, Ministers do not anticipate any decisions by the Chancellor on budgetary matters. I can assure the noble Lord that any representations which have been made and any comments made in your Lordships' House will be brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, when my noble friend brings this matter to the attention of his right honourable friend, will he also take into account that, according to a report in the Financial Times commenting on an EEC bulletin, we start from the position that fuel oil is £8 per tonne dearer in this country than it is in France, £11 per tonne more than in Germany and £12 per tonne more than in Italy? Those are the average prices given.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I could not necessarily accept what my noble friend says about the prices of fuel oil. A study on this matter is being conducted by the CBI and my right

1367
honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry looks forward with interest to receiving the results of that study.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the cost of £220 million for the extra tax on fuel oil is as nothing compared to the extra cost of interest rates borne by industry in this country as compared with our competitors?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, is the Minister aware how very much the House enjoys listening to him when he is explaining a really difficult question? His felicity of language, his knowledge and his skill are really a delight to the House, especially when he is not trying to blame everything on the previous Administration.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind remarks. I must admit that, in this particular instance, this tax was introduced in 1961 when we had a Conservative Government in power.

APPRENTICE TRAINING
2.56 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I beg I leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will encourage employers, trade unions and other interested parties to take joint action aimed at improving arrangements for the training of apprentices in the United Kingdom.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, we do so already. These matters are a constant preoccupation of the Manpower Services Commission. Nevertheless, both the MSC and the Government believe that there is scope for improving our national training arrangements for apprentices and others. Though some progress has been achieved in bringing our approach to skill-training up to date, apprentice training retains many unsatisfactory features. These issues are currently being studied by the Government and the MSC.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, so far as it goes. Would he agree that our apprentice training arrangements compared with those in, say, Western Germany are antiquated, inflexible and place too much emphasis on the serving of time and not enough on the attainment of relevant standards? Would he further agree that, since the pay of our apprentices relative to that of adult craftsmen appears to be higher—particularly in the last year or two of their apprenticeship—than the Government and industry between them can now afford, there is a strong case for reducing their pay to the benefit of our competitiveness and to provide more employment for young people?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I had hoped that I had pointed out in my original Answer that both the Government and the Manpower Services Commission were not totally satisfied with apprentice training. Indeed, all parties in industry, as well as the industry training boards, are seeking methods of improving apprentice as well as adult training for relevant skills. But I am sure that the noble Lord and the House will appreciate that apprentice training is very much the employers' responsibility. Therefore, standards which have to be attained are very much at the behest of employers and industry itself.
Lord GRANVILLE of EYE: My Lords, in view of the fact that industry may be changing over to the silicon chip far more rapidly than was originally estimated, would the Minister therefore consider very considerably increasing the INMOS scheme for the training of young school-leavers in engineering and science, so that we are not left behind by the Japanese and the United States?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I shall certainly bring that point to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is a rather detailed matter and therefore I shall bring it to his attention and, if necessary, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will the Minister and the Government bear in mind that they have just heard the Liberal Party say that it wants to reduce people's wages?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, that was not the only suggestion. I believe that the main thrust is to improve the quality of apprentice training, and certainly this Government are looking to that as their main objective.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that was not the view expressed by a Liberal Peer just now and that my question related to the pay of apprentices relative to that of adult craftsmen?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, your Lordships always enjoy small and quiet verbal arguments, especially across the floor of the House, and especially when they do not come from this Dispatch Box.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord think it fair to say that the responsibility for apprenticeship standards and everything connected with apprenticeships lies with the employer? Surely in matters like the period of time required to achieve a certain standard the trade unions have a very big responsibility in responding to the pressures that are already building up to reduce the period of apprenticeship training while still retaining the relevant standards.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I would go very far in agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I think that he and the House would agree that it is not the exclusive responsibility of employers; indeed, other parties have a major part to play in apprentice training. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, is present today, but his views play a very important part in apprentice training for the Engineering Industry Training Board.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: My Lords, will the Government not agree that one of the best forms of apprenticeship is compulsory apprenticeship in Her Majesty's Forces?—thereby alleviating the ever-increasing problem of unemployment, particularly as it relates to school-leavers.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, as one who has undergone this form of apprenticeship, I shall retain my own opinion on that matter; but I think that a very sound form of apprenticeship is to speak in your Lordships' House.

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE) (PROTECTION OF COMMUNITY ARRANGEMENTS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1980
3.1 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers)The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 17th October be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Common Agricultural Policy (Agricultural Produce) (Protection of Community Arrangements) (Amendment) Order 1980, copies of which were laid before this House on 17th October 1980, be approved. This order is one of the six statutory instruments required to implement the sheepmeat régime which came into operation on 20th October. The Community regulations establishing the régime, which have been published in the Official Journal, are directly applicable in the United Kingdom. Further domestic legislation is, however, required to provide for enforcement of the Community provisions and for the protection of Community expenditure.
It may be helpful if I were, briefly, to summarise the main provisions of the régime. The support arrangements, which are fully financed by the Community, consist of annual premia which are payable in all member states and are designed to guarantee the incomes of farmers who maintain breeding flocks. Member states also have the option of operating either intervention or a variable premium. Only France has chosen intervention. The United Kingdom is operating the variable premium. All other member states have chosen to operate only the annual premium. The variable premium, which we are operating, is a deficiency payments scheme on similar lines to our previous Fat Sheep Guarantee Scheme, which it replaced on 20th October. Member states which operate the variable premium must recover—or to use that dreadful word "clawback"—an amount equivalent to the premium which will be paid to the producer on sheep or sheepmeat which they export. Trade with New Zealand and other third country suppliers is covered by voluntary restraint agreements under which third countries will restrict their

1371
exports to the Community to a level which is slightly higher than that which has prevailed recently. In return, the Community's import duty on sheepmeat has been reduced from 20 per cent, to 10 per cent.
There has, of course, for over 12 months been a lamb war and the French, quite illegally as we all know, imposed very severe restrictions on the imports of British lamb to France, but this "confrontation" has now mercifully ceased as a direct result of these negotiations. These negotiations sought to resolve the conflicting interests of the different member states. The new régime conveys major benefits to this country. The price to the United Kingdom consumer is kept low. The return to the farmers goes up by about 17 per cent, in one year. France's illegally imposed import levies of 80–90p per kilogramme have now ended. If as a result of this, English exports of lamb increase to France and the French price drops, the French farmer gets reimbursed. The French get an intervention system, which they like. We keep the variable premium or deficiency payments scheme, which we like. It is all funded by the EEC, in which the United Kingdom will be the major beneficiary, with receipts approaching £100 million in due course. We shall save on the fatstock guarantee which we used to pay out of our own Treasury funds at a cost of about £3½ million this year. On top of that the interests of Australia and New Zealand are protected with the tariff on their exports to the community being halved. I really do think that it is a remarkable piece of negotiation, which satisfied all countries and which went to the credit of Europe.
There are, I know, significant difficulties at the moment over the clawback arrangements for lamb which is being exported, and we are keeping a careful watch on these. Any new system inevitably throws up difficulties at the outset and we very much hope that these difficulties, which I do not underestimate, will prove to be teething troubles and will settle down. We have a firm undertaking from Vice-President Gundelach that he will keep the clawback arrangements under review and that it is not the intention to hinder the development of our export trade. My honourable friend the Minister of
1372
State has this week talked to Mr. Gundelach about these difficulties and Mr. Gundelach has agreed to look into possible measures to moderate the effects of the clawback on our exports. We shall continue to watch the market and to press for action.
But the principle behind the new arrangement is, I would suggest, an example of how, given time and good will, the problems of the Common Agricultural Policy can be resolved—even if not as quickly as some of us would like. I really think that this is a good "deal" for Britain and I have no hesitation in commending it to your Lordships as a significant advance in the sensible and corporate development of the Common Agricultural Policy. The order itself adds various items, which are now subject to Community arrangements under the sheepmeat régime, to the list of specified commodities in the Common Agricultural Policy (Agricultural Produce) (Protection of Community Arrangements) (No. 2) Order 1973. The 1973 order provides general powers for the protection of the support system for Common Agricultural Policy products. It provides that persons dealing with the specified commodities may be required to keep appropriate records and to produce them on demand to authorised officers, who may enter land on which these commodities are kept for the purposes of inspection and taking samples. It may on occasion be necessary to use these powers to ensure proper administration of the support arrangements for sheepmeat. I commend this order to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 17th October be approved— (Earl Ferrers.)
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, we thank the noble Earl for his explanation of the new régime, but I think that he made rather light of some of the difficulties that have arisen. It is probably also worth examining the present difficulties and to ask him what he sees as the future for a very important sector of industry, not least Scottish industry. He will, of course, appreciate that this has been a long time coming; in fact, I can remember being involved in some of the negotiations about four years ago. Noble Lords should remember that I am not a fervent Marketeer, but we are members of it and we must make the best of it.

1373
I think that it was in May that agreement was reached and the intention was that, given that certain negotiations had to take place with New Zealand, Australia and others to obtain the voluntary restraint agreements, that could be done and would be introduced on 15th July. Well, there has been a long delay, and, of course, the more that delay overlaps a current season, the more difficulties there are in certain areas. I should tell the noble Earl right away that certainly in Scotland, where the pattern of marketing is very different from that which takes place in England, we lost out considerably due to the late implementation of the régime.
Anyone who knows what a bad time they had in Scotland in the less favoured areas over these past two years will appreciate that we are awaiting at the moment a review that I know is taking place with Ministers about some payment—and I trust there is no question that it will be made—of compensatory allowance to the hill areas in respect of that. I am prepared to leave that at the moment, but the position is quite critical for these areas. There has been a decline in breeding stock. I think it is about 15,000, a figure I heard quoted in the Scottish hill areas, and the drop in real income has been absolutely catastrophic for people in the industry.
When we come to this new régime there is immediately considerable help, and I think we should pay tribute to the Minister of State. I am sorry his father is not here. He could convey a message from me to Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, a good Scotsman, that he has done pretty well, but he must not weary in welldoing in relation to the hangover problems and the consequential problems which arise from this régime.
So far as the Community is concerned we have the dominant interest in respect of sheepmeat and products from sheep. The Community itself is about 65 per cent, self-sufficient. That means imports. Seventy-five per cent, of the imports are taken up by us. As indeed we are the largest producers, we are the largest consumers, and during this past few years we have been building up a valuable—very expensive—export industry, meeting all the demands of the EEC in respect of slaughter and transport and everything
1374
else, registration, qualities, and gradings. We have to look at this because surely we should be paying some attention to our own particular interests.
As the largest consumers and producers, we look at how this affects the producers There is an immediate, beneficial effect; there is no doubt about that. We have lost the fatstock payments. I think it was about 30p per kilo, and we have gained. Certainly in the first week the payment was about 63p per kilo. That is a considerable subsidy. This is open-ended—and that was demonstrated in the second week when prices fell for a reason I shall come to, and a dangerous reason in many ways—and I think the actual payment was 69p per kilo. That is a considerable subsidy; about 30p greater than what was paid from the Exchequer through the departments.
One of the pluses is that it is no longer an immediate charge on the taxpayer and on the Treasury, but paid fully by the EEC. The first week cost them £4.6 million. I reckon the second week cost them about £5 million, or more. Bearing in mind that in the EEC budget about £32 million was earmarked for the rest of this year and over £166 million for the whole of next year, how long is this going to last?
No doubt there are people who might be prepared to pay to get agreement, but once the net value of this to Britain comes home to them—and remember we too pay our share of that, and until such time as we get the financial matters fully agreed and fully into line we are paying more than our share of it—questions will be raised about this and suggestions will be made about a ceiling to be placed on these premia—or premiums. I am not going to follow the Minister into Latin plurals in this one. I think everyone talks about premiums in this particular case.
There is the first question. When we look at the producer, we see he has benefited. That is a plus. The consumer benefited because there had been considerable reductions in the price of lamb. Whether or not these reductions have been fully passed on to the consumer is a question that we shall probably look into in the months ahead.
On the question of our traditional exporters—and of course they are Australia and New Zealand, mainly New Zealand—

1375
I think it has been a pretty satisfactory deal to those of us who were concerned about the fate of New Zealand's industry, in respect of the way that they had supported this country through thick and thin, and the way they still support it. If you go to the Far East and throughout that part of the world the one place where you see loyalty to British industry is in New Zealand. You will probably see more British cars on the streets of New Zealand than you will on the streets of London, such is their loyalty to Britain. But we have done reasonably well this time, and I gather that the New Zealand Government are quite pleased about it. They are getting an increased quantity, and the levy has gone down from 20 per cent, to 10 per cent.
Then we look at the question of our own exporters. The Minister's words were that confrontation has ceased. The lamb war is over. What was the lamb war about? It was about the fact that France would not allow our exports to get in there. What is the position today? The position today is that there is little or no lamb going into France. The confrontation is over, but we have not won the war. Not only is there no lamb going into France, there is very little going into Germany, Holland, Switzerland and to the other markets that we have painfully and expensively built up. I gather that its value to Britain is about £60 million. I saw one particular firm quoted as having a potential loss of over £30 million. This arises from the fact that we have three options. We have not got one common policy. To get agreement we have got options. Each country concerned selected the option which suited it from the point of view of what was its dominant interest. Our dominant interest is the consumer and the producer. So what we have done is to opt for something we know about, the variable premiums.
But France has not. Therefore, high price is an intervention. Irish eyes are certainly smiling here; Ireland opted for the annual premium, the headed payment. The variable premium, as soon as a carcase is exported, is clawed back; it is paid back. So we are at a considerable price disadvantage when that is added; it is virtually a levy. It is a premium levy, and so we cannot sell. We are selling
1376
very little in France, and equally in the other countries within the EEC.
But it goes further than that because the premium is clawed back if you export outside the EEC to Switzerland, to Algeria, to the Middle East. I think it is a little more than a hiccup when we hear what the people who are doing the exporting themselves say:
"Mr. Eddie Sumner, president of the Abattoir Owners' Association, members of which kill 80 per cent, of the lambs produced in the UK, said the 100 per cent, clawback had effectively destroyed an export market which had taken years and huge sums of money to develop.
"The only lambs being shipped were being sent at a loss to maintain valuable trading links but this could not continue for long".
The Government have got promises from Mr. Gundelach that he will watch this situation, that he will do something about it. This is not something that we can do ourselves. In respect of this we shall need to get agreement from all the people concerned. Quite frankly, I am not all that hopeful that we shall get agreement all that quickly. Time is of the essence, because industry cannot stand something of this sort going on for weeks and weeks. I hope the Minister can give an indication as to whether this is being considered now and how quickly he thinks a change can be made in respect of clawback. We can understand the clawback so far as the EEC countries are concerned. It is more difficult to understand how, with regard to the premiums paid on an annual basis, they can export without any clawback at all.
I believe that in the first memorandum of agreement it was suggested there would be a harmonisation of prices within four years. That means that the consumer has a right to rejoice at the moment—in that we are getting the benefit there—but how long will that last? Are the EEC prepared to wait perhaps four years to get harmonisation of prices, with the variable premium then costing a lot less to them? We are left in the position of having high prices and, while the producers may be all right, the consumers will not be. Can we, then, switch? Will it be worth our while switching—because claw-back will be that much less if the premium is so much less—to another option at our will, or would that take another negotiation?
We appreciate what has been done and the difficulties there have been in this

1377
negotiation. We are concerned, too, about what we think are not just teething troubles: there is the question of difficulties about certification and the fact that it seems that every type, whether or not premiums were paid on them, was subjected to clawback. I think that is all being sorted out by our own actions, but, on the main business, the fact that there is clawback on 100 per cent, and that the clawback applies not only to EEC countries but to non-EEC countries is a matter of concern. We do not apply that in respect of other subsidised foods from the EEC. Consider butter, which is sold at subsidised prices outside the EEC. There is no clawback there.
We are considerably disadvantaged in this one section of our industry, and do not think it is a small section. At present, I believe that over 20 per cent, of our sheepmeat is exported abroad, and in Scotland the stake is even higher. Indeed, I believe that about 70 per cent, of all sheepmeat produced in Scotland is exported, not necessarily abroad but to the South.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: And Wales, my Lords.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: Yes, my Lords; I agree with my noble friend. We consume only about 30 per cent, ourselves. The less favoured areas have a very big stake in this and these are the areas we must protect. First, there must be a payment to make up for what we lost in the last year concerning the delay, and, secondly, there is the whole question of the future in respect of the developing export market.
I acknowledge that this has been a remarkable piece of negotiating, but it would be wrong to smooth over the difficulties and to talk about the lamb war being over and the confrontation having ceased. There are major problems, and I know that the Scottish NFU is working on some of them at the present time. So far as I can see, the biggest problem will be the clawback. The next problem is the question whether this is only a transitional stage that we are in. Shall we lose the benefit of the advantages given directly to producers to the satisfaction of consumers? I hope the Government will face up to the difficulties
1378
that exist and will say something reassuring about the problems in respect of exports at the present time.
3.25 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has covered the ground in his usual able manner. I have a few questions to ask along the same lines, but first I wish to reinforce them more from the strict practical viewpoint of the sheepkeepers and farmers, who are not exactly wild with joy now, having looked forward to this régime's implementation with a great deal of hope. They are now rather doubtful about the whole thing and, as Lord Ross said, they are worried lest the open-ended premium will come under attack.
I congratulate the negotiators on what they have achieved in an extraordinarily difficult situation; they have pulled out of the hat something which could work, but perhaps the Government could explain a little more the difficulties and their attitude to them. Can the Minister say whether it is purely a question, first of all, of delayed hope keeping back the numbers and therefore dropping the price of the large lamb crop we have had this year, and which is producing the extremely bad market prices that farmers are getting? Does he think this will be overcome and will smooth itself out? Or does he think there are other factors—all part of the general economic situation and so on—which are making lamb difficult to sell?
In regard to clawback, it is obviously logical that if lamb goes into France, where there is an intervention system, the exporter should not get two premiums; I think one says "premiums" or "premia" according to the side of the House on which one sits. Is it not a fact that lambs are going into France, where intervention is working, but the price there is low? Is that preventing our people from exporting? The Minister must have a great deal of information on this and I suggest that a rather fuller explanation of the difficulties would be beneficial and would reassure the sheep farmers of the country who, after hope, are quite worried as to how the whole thing will work. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said about New Zealand. It is most welcome that we have been able to

1379
negotiate and they have been able to accept the deal. While it limits the number of carcases coming in, it at least gives them a rather better deal than they were getting previously.
3.28 p.m.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced the order. Likewise, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who, as always, has done a great deal of homework; it is nice to see that somebody is learning about the sheep industry after so many years. As noble Lords will be aware, my family have had an interest in sheep for a long time. I entirely agree with the success of the negotiation. As the Minister said, it is wonderful what time and goodwill will do, but, by golly! it has taken a long time.
There are those of us who are struggling in a somewhat worried way, especially in the hills, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said. I am told by the agricultural colleges that we have seen a drop in income for this type of farming of something over 30 per cent, in the last two years. When that is set against the rise in the cost of everything we buy, which must have gone up two or three times that figure, and when one looks at the present rate of interest on overdrafts, time is something which is rapidly running out for a great many of the farmers concerned in the hills. I would mention to my noble friend, without carping, that while he talked about English lamb exports, I suppose Scotland on the whole does more exporting of lamb than England. However, I am sure it was a ministerial slip in that the Minister of State had probably not checked his brief.
In regard to the premiums that we got in the first week, I happened to be selling lamb in one market on that occasion and really the situation was very interesting. I do not know if I or my children are going to get for the lambs as much as the 69p which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, mentioned. But the thing that interested me was that in this market at Paisley absolutely top-grade lamb was selling to the butcher for about seven shillings a pound. Though the premium was fairly high it still meant that I was getting £3 or £4 less per lamb than I got
1380
for the same type of lambs this time last year. So the premiums are indeed extremely valuable but I have not yet seen represented in any shop that I have been to the fall in the butcher's price of lamb. I hope very much that my noble friends, who are doing their best to complete these negotiations with the EEC, will bear in mind that there is very little time left if a lot of farms in my part of the world are to survive.
3.32 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I will not bore your Lordships any more than I feel I must. As another sheep farmer who is engaged in exactly the same kind of activity as my noble friend who has just spoken, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and to the Department of Agriculture for having brought off this result. This is a remarkable success, considering the length of time it has taken. I agree entirely with both the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that the time factor is something which the agricultural people in Brussels apparently never really understand. They go on talking about things, thinking they are dealing with some dead object that is not going to change, when in fact they are dealing with live objects that alter all the time. If one's lambs are born in, say, April, they are not at all the same if the scheme comes into effect in November; they are a quite different kind of animal. They would still be called lambs but they would be twice as big. Those in Brussels do not realise that these delays are terribly frustrating.
Not only is this the case in this instance which of course has gone on for a long time; it happens over and over again. On the committee on which I sit in your Lordships' House—Committee D, dealing with agriculture—we have spoken over and over again in reports that we have made about the fact that the people in Brussels do not realise that they are dealing with livestock—not dead stock; that livestock changes and that one simply must get these matters through in time to make them effective at the moment at which they are really needed. The Minister of Agriculture in the last Labour Government had just the same difficulty. It is one of the things that we have got to

1381
keep hammering at all the time in Brussels; otherwise they will not take it in.
I agree with all that has been said about this order. I hope it will be a great success; I hope that it will continue and that it will not, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, quite wisely said, be so costly to the CAP that they will feel unable to carry on with it. That would be a disaster. I also agree that at the moment the sheep industry in this country is in such a bad way, overdraft rates are so enormous and the problems are so great, that we shall be grateful for any help that we can get.
The question of the clawback is some-that must be looked at very carefully, because in point of fact the export industry is almost at a standstill. As a great many of the lambs and the sheep in Scotland are exported it would be nothing short of a disaster if, although we do get this subsidy—and I am not saying that it is not very valuable and that we are not most grateful for it—at the same time there was no export trade. I can remember that two years ago, when one was selling lambs in the markets, if the French market closed, down went the price of lambs. If all our export is going to be hit very badly by this, whatever else is done will hardly make up for the fact that there is no export trade.
I wish the Government luck in this because it is going to be very hard work. They will have to operate against the French again and try to get the clawback changed. If they can do that, then certainly it will be a great triumph and will greatly enhance the value and importance of this order. In the meantime, I should like to add my congratulations on the fact that the Government have succeeded in doing what they have done, and I hope that it will be a tremendous success.
3.35 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords may I intervene briefly to highlight one particular aspect of this order? I should like to join in the congratulations to the Government on bringing off an arrangement which puts an end to a serious situation, nevertheless leaving a difficult situation remaining. I should like, if I may, to compliment my noble friend on the way he introduced this order; it was a model of
1382
brevity and clarity. I should also like, again if I may, to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. It is quite a long time since I listened to a speech of his where I agreed with practically everything he said.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: The noble Lord has been away too long.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have been here recently; the noble Lord has come just recently.
The point I want to stress above all is the position in the crofter companies in Scotland. We understand the reasons for the delay in getting the arrangement, but the fact is that it came too late for the sales of the store ewes in the Highlands and the Islands. I know that there is a scheme to help the Western Isles, although it is very small in comparison with what is being done in Southern Ireland through the Community. But the effect upon the Highlands has been really disastrous. With costs in a year going up 20 per cent., prices have gone down 40 per cent.; so that the net income from the sale of hill ewes is sbout 40 per cent. of what it was.
There is a short-term problem here. I know that my noble friend Lord Mansfield has been working very hard on this and that the right honourable gentleman Mr. Buchanan-Smith did give some hope that something might be done, but it would be very helpful if my noble friend could hold out some more tangible hope to the Highlands in the short term—some kind of hill lamb compensatory payment on the hill ewes that have had to be sold off this year at a very low price indeed. Noble Lords will know that this is something that takes place annually. I do not suppose they have ever had such a bad year as they have had this year; costs are going up so much.
The population of the Highlands is dwindling. The sheep population and the hill cow population are both diminishing and something has to be done in the short term to compensate for the fact that it was not possible sooner to reach agreement at Brussels; but also in the long term to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen again and to build up the basis of the Highland economy which depends so largely upon livestock. I do not know how that is going to be done, but I hope

1383
that work is going on and that there will be help from the Community, first of all to renew and then to sustain growth in the Highlands. If not, we shall have fewer and fewer people there, the cost of services per head of population will grow more and more and therefore services will be withdrawn. Really it is a very serious situation indeed; so I hope my noble friend will be able to give some comfort and some hope that special measures will be taken for agriculture in the Highlands.
We know there is a Highlands and Islands Development Board, and that co-operates where it can; but that is not its primary responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, set up that board and it has done very good work within the narrow limits of its possibilities. But something such as a rural developments scheme for the whole of the Highlands and Islands is now called for, and I hope that this is the right occasion on which to highlight the point to your Lordships, since alas! we do not have many opportunities for so doing.
3.40 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am very grateful to your Lordships for the way in which you have received this order. I entirely accept the point which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has made, and which was indeed made by my noble friends Lady Elliot of Harwood and Lord Glenkinglas, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, about the difficulties that have been facing hill farmers. I know that they have accepted very high increases in costs and the result has been that this year they have received a lower return for their animals.
One of the most important factors in that respect is that there should be an underlying security, which I hope the sheepmeat régime will provide. If this works in the way that we hope it will work—and there is no reason to think that it will not—then there will be a security for the fat lamb market and that will work itself through to the store market and to the markets that are supplied by the hill sheep farmers. That does not mean to say that I do not recognise the problem that has affected them so far. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn asked what was going to happen. I can tell him that the
1384
hill livestock compensatory allowances are currently under review, in consultation with the farmers' unions, and the Government will make a statement on the outcome as soon as the matter has been concluded.
I am bound to say that I thought that my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas was in spiking form. First, he told the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that he was glad that the noble Lord was at last learning about sheep, and then he told me that I had not read my brief. I must tell my noble friend that that observation went through me like a spike. If I used the word "English", it was not supposed to be in an exclusive sense; it was supposed to be all-embracing. I think that perhaps we are not quite so touchy on this side of the Border as are those on the other side of the Border. If I offended my noble friend in that respect, of course I apologise. What I said was meant to include the Scottish aspect. I must tell my noble friend that it was not that I had not read my brief, because that part of my brief I wrote myself.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I am not in the least touchy about this matter, but I can assure the noble Earl that there are four or five million Scots who are very touchy. I did not say that the noble Earl had not read his brief; I said that he had not asked his friend the Minister of State to check it.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I accept the point, and of course if I incurred the displeasure of the noble Lord, or worse still, that of those 4 million of his countrymen, I apologise.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, who, if I may say so with the greatest respect, possibly had a touch of a dismal Jonah attitude, pointed to the difficulties currently facing the sheep industry, and I accept that those difficulties are there. He said that I had made light of them. I hope that I did not. I tried to suggest to the noble Lord that the régime came into operation only on 20th October. It is now 12th November. While the difficulties over clawback arrangements, about which he is rightly concerned, might prove to be longer-term, I hope they will not be. It is too early to say that this is a long-term problem. However, I would draw the noble Lord's

1385
attention to the fact that my honourable friend the Minister of State spoke to Mr. Gundelach only this week, and Mr. Gundelach acknowledged these problems and confirmed that it was not the intention of the new arrangements to hinder trade from the United Kingdom.
Mr. Gundelach agreed to examine urgently three specific difficulties. First, there were the exports from the United Kingdom to third countries outside the Community. Secondly, there was the extent of the clawback of the variable premium, which does not take account of the costs of transport between the United Kingdom and the Continent: this is an important point. Thirdly, there was the uncertainty facing exporters who did not know the rate of clawback at the time that they arranged their exports for the coming week. Those are important points, and I can assure the noble Lord that we are not satisfied with the position as it is at present. I very much hope that this will not prove to be a long-term feature, but if it does, we shall take action on it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, and, I think, my noble friend Lady Elliot said that the delay in bringing the arrangements into operation really had messed up—of course my noble friend did not use so colloquial an expression—the prices for the hill sheep farmers. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, asked why on earth that was so. The Government never subscribed to the implementation date of July, although that date was actually mentioned during the negotiations. We secured agreement that the date would depend on the conclusion of the voluntary restraint agreements being introduced. That gave the New Zealanders a vital negotiating card in seeking acceptable arrangements, and it allowed them to turn down the arrangements if they thought fit. The Commission conducted the negotiations as quickly as it reasonably could, but the French held up the agreement at the July Council. However, despite that, it was possible for agreement to be reached at the next Council on 30th September, and the arrangements were introduced as quickly as possible thereafter.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Elliot that these delays are bad and that they can affect trade and industry adversely. I think it is one of the facts
1386
of life that sometimes when one tries to secure an agreement among all members of the Community, it takes rather longer than one might wish; but it has been achieved.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred to the exports which have suffered, and he said that though I had stated that the lamb war was over, nevertheless we are not exporting any meat to France. The lamb war related to the illegality with which the French precluded entry of our sheep into France. That is over, but of course while it was taking place we saw a very marked drop in our exports to France. In 1977 they were about 20,000 tonnes, while in 1979 the figure dropped to 5,000 tonnes. While that process was going on we built up an export market to Belgium and Germany which in 1977 amounted to only 3,000 tonnes, but which by 1979 had risen to 31,000 tonnes. It is that market which at the moment has been suffering, while at the same time we have not yet been able to build up our market in France. We have in fact lost that market, and even with the best will in the world it cannot be expected that it can be renewed immediately. But we hope that it will be possible for the French market to be built up.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, also referred to the problem of the reference price being increased over four years, and he asked what would then happen to the subsidy to the farming community. Will it stop? This is a complicated subject, and I shall try to explain to the noble Lord exactly how the arrangement operates. Each country has a guide level. In the United Kingdom, if the market price is below the guide level, we receive a variable premium which brings up the figure to the guide level, and above the guide level there is a reference price. At the end of the year a calculation is made which brings the return up to the level of the reference price, and that is paid by annual premium. At the moment, the reference prices are different in all the various countries of the Community, because we have only recently started the régime. In France the reference price is 213p, in Italy it is 232p, in Germany it is 195p and in the United Kingdom it is 181p. Over the four years, those prices will come into parity and therefore as each

1387
of the four years goes by the annual premium, in the case of the United Kingdom, will increase until it reaches the level of the reference price, which will by then be common throughout the Community. So the two things will operate: the annual premium, which will be made up to the reference price, and the variable premium, which will continue, as I think the noble Lord understands.
I am grateful to your Lordships for the approval which you have given to this order. I hope I have answered the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, asked me, mainly on there why have not been exports to France. I hope I have given him the reasons for that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REMAND (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1980
3.51 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the Remand (Temporary Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th October 1980, be approved.
We had some discussion of this matter on 30th October, when I answered a Private Notice Question from the noble Lord, Lord Blease. I shall not therefore take many words to introduce it now. Prison officers in Northern Ireland have since 29th October been taking limited industrial action in support of their colleagues in England and Wales. They refuse to accept into the prisons new committals on sentence, new remand prisoners and returned remand prisoners. To meet this situation, the Government have taken certain executive action. They have established a temporary prison at Magilligan, known as Her Majesty's Prison Foyle. Headed by a regular governor, it is being run by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, with the Army guarding the perimeter. It is receiving prisoners whom the prison officers will not receive into the existing prisons.
The purpose of the Order in Council now before your Lordships is to avoid the
1388
temporary prison being immediately flooded by an influx of all the men currently on remand, who are entitled to a remand hearing every eight days. The Order in Council permits the hearings to be heard in the prisoners' absence, unless the court direct in any individual case that he should be brought before them in person.
Under the terms of the urgent procedure used to bring the Order in Council into force, it must be approved by Affirmative Resolution of the House within 40 sitting days of being laid. The Government of course deeply regret the need to make such special procedures. It is for that reason that the Order in Council provides for renewal by my right honourable friend by order at intervals of one month if it is not to lapse. The Government sincerely hope that the dispute which has caused this action will be rapidly resolved, so that the Order in Council may be rescinded. As I explained to the House on 30th October, we in Northern Ireland have very little control over this difference since the prison officers are not in dispute with us in the matter.
The prison officers in Northern Ireland have much to contend with, and discharge their duties with great dedication. Some of the difficulties which they face are much in the news today, but they are not the subject of the present order, and I do not therefore propose to discuss them. I invite your Lordships to approve the order.
3.54 p.m.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord for his clear explanation of the terms on which this order was urgently introduced and of the unusual way in which the order came into operation on 29th October. He has given a detailed explanation of the reasons for the introduction of the order and the way it is proposed to operate it; and in general terms I understand it to be such.
I think it is right that he should draw attention to the particular role that the Northern Ireland prison officers have performed in Northern Ireland. The role of the Northern Ireland prison officers is the same as that of their colleagues in England and Wales, which is to detain securely in custody those committed to

1389
prison under the law and to operate a prison service under public scrutiny and in accordance with humane rules and practices. However, we are all aware of the unique and extended nature of the work and functions of the prison officers in Northern Ireland, which is totally different from the prison service work in England and Wales.
The Minister has already paid tribute to the prison service personnel and tributes have been paid before in this House, and indeed in another place, to the restraint, the calmness, and the devotion to public duty displayed by the Northern Ireland prison officers. Despite the murder of colleagues and of their families, and despite the acute provocation and the terrible strain under which the Northern Ireland prison officers have to work, experienced international organisations and other reputable bodies have placed on record that the Northern Ireland prison staff continue to treat all prisoners alike with fairness and humanity, regardless of the nature of their offences.
I consider it important to understand and to approach the matter of their sympathetic action with reason and with informed good will. I believe that the informal and formal channels of communication require to be exercised to the full at this time and I am convinced that, given these approaches, the prison officers in Northern Ireland will continue to uphold the best traditions of public service for all citizens and in keeping with the understanding and solidarity of their prison officer colleagues in England and Wales.
There are a few questions I should like to put to the Minister concerning the order. As I understand it, the order before us today is being considered for affirmative approval in this House, as it was of course on 10th November in another place. It is due to come before this House again for renewal under the negative procedure within one month of the coming into operation of the order. As I read this order, that is what it states. May I ask the Minister whether this means that we shall not have an opportunity to receive a report of the operation of the legislation or to review the procedural arrangements, or even to debate the circumstances pertaining at a particular time? If this is so, I feel I must give notice
1390
that we on this side of the House will wish to consider initiating a prayer against the negative procedure because we consider this is a very important piece of legislation.
As I understand it, the order applies alike to terrorist and non-terrorist offences, and I understand that the prison officers in Northern Ireland have an informal arrangement with the courts regarding the maintenance of custodial procedures for high-risk prisoners. Can the noble Lord confirm that this is so: that terrorist and non-terrorist offences will be treated alike or that this arrangement for high-risk prisoners pertains?
Am I correct in assuming that the cases of remand prisoners will be reviewed by the courts every eight days, either with or without the prisoner being present in the court? Would it not be more in keeping with justice and a fair court procedure that the order should provide for the appearance before the court of a prisoner on remand at stated intervals of, say, every four weeks? In other words, I am suggesting that because of the nature of the order it is important that prisoners on remand should appear before the courts at some stated occasion and that they be given that opportunity.
The Foyle Prison in Magilligan has been in existence for some time. May I ask the Minister, whether a new wing has been erected or new premises built there recently, or is it still the old Magilligan prison that these remand prisoners will be detained in?
Even in terms of Northern Ireland the Magilligan site is in a very inaccessible area, and I can understand the circumstances that make it so. I understand that there are about 50 persons on remand there at present. What facilities are readily available for persons on remand to contact and consult solicitors, legal representatives, advisers, welfare personnel or social workers? What arrangements or facilities exist for relatives to visit prisoners? Can the travel expenses of approved visists be reimbursed to relatives? Like the Minister, I am hopeful that the difficulties which give rise to this order may soon be resolved. At the same time, I must say that we on this side of the House have grave reservations about the procedural arrangements

1391
relating to this particular order, but we do not wish to oppose it on this occasion.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, I am sure the whole House must join in hoping sincerely that the present industrial action by prison officers in Northern Ireland will be speedily brought to an end. As has been said, they are not in disagreement with the authorities on the issue which has caused the dispute in England and Wales, but at present are taking action purely in sympathy with their colleagues over here. We must all hope that those in Northern Ireland may speedily see fit to resume their duties in full, in the execution of which they have earned so much respect. In the meantime, I cannot see that it is profitable to oppose this Remand (Temporary Provisions) Order for the Province, which has to be renewed a month at a time. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his introduction of it; and I was also interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Blease, had to say, and the questions he asked.
This is not a good time for a lengthy debate on prisoners and prisons in Ulster today, but perhaps I might take the opportunity to pay a tribute to Mr. Gerry Fitt for what he said in the debate in the other place on Monday. He not only condemned in the strongest terms all terrorist attacks, by whomsoever committed, as outrages on the community and declared that no concessions should be given to evil men; he also admitted, with unusual frankness for a politician, that he had made a grievous mistake in 1972 by pressing for the introduction of special category status for supposedly political prisoners. He is a man of very great real courage and integrity, and it is only a pity that Church leaders have, it seems, according to some reports, taken offence at some of the things he said. That sounds very sad. I say again that I shall be interested to hear the answers that the noble Lord gives to Lord Blease, particularly about what I think is called the negative procedure; but I repeat that we feel we should support this order as a temporary measure.
4.3 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lords opposite for their reception of this order, and I should like
1392
to reply as best I can to the points which the noble Lord, Lord Blease, has raised. He started off with a concern, which he shares with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, about the parliamentary procedure. I said at the outset that we do not like using this procedure, but it is necessary in order to ensure proper parliamentary supervision. First, there is this debate today, which is necessary for the order to remain in force for the first period; and thereafter the negative procedure is applied to the order at monthly intervals. That procedure in fact means that the order is laid, but it suffices for the order to be laid for it to remain effective unless it is prayed against.
The noble Lord has suggested that it will be a good thing if we see how this is going on and look at it from time to time. The negative procedure does not provide for this except by means of a prayer. The noble Lord, I think, might consider, through the usual channels, discussing whether that would be the most appropriate way to institute the supervision he quite properly desires, or whether this would have the effect of making him at least appear to be opposed to the order in principle, and whether possibly an Unstarred Question or some other device might be employed; but that can be pursued outside the Chamber.
The procedure applies to all types of offence, without difference. The noble Lord is anxious about high-risk prisoners. I can tell him that the Foyle Prison is a secure prison if high-risk prisoners should go there. The best answer, of course, is for the prison officers to end their action so that prisons specifically designed for the purpose can be used. He asked where the prison was, and whether it was new. It is not the old Magilligan Prison; it is a new prison, and is not adjacent to it. The facilities there include facilities for prisoners to receive visitors; and families of both sentenced prisoners and prisoners on remand who are entitled to supplementary benefits may claim reimbursement for one visit per month. I think that is information for which the noble Lord asked. There are no other financial provisions from Government sources for that purpose.
There is a total of 50 prisoners in the Foyle at the moment, 21 of whom have been sentenced and 29 of whom await trial; and there are six buildings occupied.

1393
The noble Lord also wondered whether it would be possible for prisoners who were on remand under this procedure to be assured of a hearing in person, say every four weeks. This is entirely a matter for the courts. The order places it in the hands of the court to require a prisoner to be presented before them, and, if it so requires, the court's wishes will be met. The prisoner, of course, will not then be returned to the prison from which he has been brought unless it is a temporary prison; he will be taken to Her Majesty's Prison at Foyle. My Lords, I think those are all the questions which the noble Lord asked me, and once again I commend this order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRODUCT LIABILITY: ECC REPORT
4.7 p.m.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on product liability.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, my purpose today is to invite your Lordships' House to take note of the latest report of the Select Committee on the European Communities—the 50th Report of this Session—dealing with the liability for defective products.
This report is of somewhat limited scope. In particular, it does not go into the main principles of defective liability, and I feel that perhaps I ought to say one word as to why that is so. The explanation is contained in the opening paragraphs of the report, and the reason is just this: this ground has been gone over a great deal in recent years. There was a previous report on this very subject presented by the Committee in November 1976, at a time when the question of product liability was under consideration in various places. Since that report in November 1976 we have had a joint report by the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission. They made a joint report in 1977; and of course there has also been the report by the Royal Commission presided over by the late Lord Pearson. All these bodies came down in favour of the principle of product liability.
1394
Since then there has also been the revised directive which is the immediate subject of this report; and there has also been the draft convention produced by the Council of Europe.
The result of all that is that three bodies within the United Kingdom and two bodies in Europe have examined this subject, and have all unanimously come down in favour of the principle of product liability. In those curcumstances, the Select Committee did not think it would be profitable or useful to go over the ground again and to investigate the principle of product liability. They therefore started from the assumption that the principle is to be accepted, and they have considered the present draft directive from the point of view of whether it gives effect to that principle or whether there are points in it which ought to be improved or corrected.
Without going into it, therefore, may I remind your Lordships once more of what exactly is the principle? It is stated in the first article of the draft directive, and it is as follows:
"That the producer of an article should be liable for damage caused by a defect in the article whether or not he knew or could have known of the defect".
A great deal of the criticism which is directed against this draft directive centres on the words, "or could have known", for it means that, even if, in the state of knowledge at the time the article was produced, the producer could not have made himself aware that it was defective, he is nevertheless liable. Your Lordships will have seen that in a debate on 4th November in another place an indication was given by the Minister for Consumer Affairs that the Government were inclined to modify that liability and that they favoured modifying it by introducing the defence known as the "state of the art" defence; that is to say, putting it loosely, that, if at the time when the product was made the producer could not have been aware that it was defective, that should be a defence. That was not a matter considered by your Lordships' Select Committee and it is not a matter on which I wish to express the view (and I have no authority to do so) of the Select Committee. It may be that my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman, who I am glad to see is to take part in this debate, and who has had

1395
experience of this matter as chairman at one time of the Law Commission, may wish to say something about it.
It follows from what I have said that this report is of somewhat limited scope and that my remarks in support of it are also going to be limited in scope. I feel that, while that may be a good thing for those of your Lordships who are kind enough to listen to me, it may cause some I disappointment outside to many bodies which have written to me and, I am sure, other noble Lords, raising what are really points of principle upon this draft directive. So far as I am concerned, I do not propose to deal with them at all but to confine myself entirely to what is in the draft report. Within that field, I wish to direct attention to only three particular points which I consider to be of importance.
The first is this. By Article 7 of the draft directive, a global limit is placed on the amount of compensation to be paid for all personal injuries caused by identical articles having the same defect, That is to say, there is a total limit to the amount to be paid out for all injuries arising from the same article. The limit, so far as personal injuries is concerned, is provisionally fixed at 25 million European units of account which, I believe (and I am subject to correction) is about £15 million or £16 million. There are also limits placed on the total amount of compensation payable for damage to movable and immovable property; and they do not raise separate principles so far as this is concerned. The proposal to put a global limit on the amount of compensation was considered by the Select Committee with some care and we came to the view that this was a serious defect in the draft directive.
We considered how it could work. It is possible that it might mean that the first claimant to make a claim within the global limit would be paid in full and that others would go on getting paid so long as the limit was not exceeded, but that once the sum was exhausted later claimants would get nothing; so that it would be "first come, first served". That would obviously be inequitable. The Select Committee did not spend much time on the point. We regarded it as quite clear that that was not what was
1396
intended. However, if that is not what was intended, the only other alternative seems to be that if a claim were made it could not be met, negotiated about or settled until all possible claims arising out of that particular article had been received, and then, when they were all in, added up. If the claims were still within the limit, all would be paid. However, if, in total, they amounted to more than the global limit, then the sum would have to be apportioned between the claimants in proportion, presumably, to the value of the claims.
That is quite a complicated process because we assume that the limit is intended to apply to the whole Community, so that all claims throughout the Community would have to be aggregated. There is the further consideration that claims can be received for a period of 10 years from the date when the product was put into circulation; so, until the cut-off period of 10 years has been exhausted and until some further time has been exhausted for the claims to come to fruition, one could not be sure that there would not be more claims. The practical result of that would seem to be that a claim made in the first year after an article had been put into circulation could not be paid or settled until at least 10 years later. The delays of the law are notorious but if a delay of that sort was inevitable then it seemed to the Select Committee that that would be wholly unsatisfactory.
It may be that this sort of limit of total compensation is appropriate where one is dealing with compensation for a single event—say, a single accident to an aeroplane or a vehicle. It may be quite right then to have a total which can be divisible among the claimants injured in that accident because it all happened at one time. But where you have the position, as in this directive, of claims which may mature over 10 years or slightly more, then it seems to the Select Committee to be unworkable. For that matter the Commission took the same view. They said that an equitable division was impossible without unacceptable delay if any global limit was to be applied. Your Lordships will see that the recommendation of the Select Committee, which is in paragraph 47 of their report, is that the article in its present form is unworkable and should be deleted.
I should say that, as I understand it, the justification which is put forward in support of the article which introduces the limit is that it will facilitate insurance because it is said to be very difficult, if not impossible, to insure for unlimited liability. That may be so, but unlimited liabilities exist in other fields and those who wish to be covered against them are able to insure by taking the sensible measure of insuring up to the maximum amount that they think they are likely to be liable for, and they stand at risk to bear any excess. It does not seem to lead to great difficulty in practice. That happens in employers' liability and must happen for retailers who may be liable under the Sale of Goods Act for selling defective goods. So the existence of an unlimited liability is not in practice a very great difficulty. That is the first point: that the global limit as at present proposed is unacceptable. There are various drafting infelicities in this article, one of which is the optional form in which the global limit is expressed; but I shall not dwell on that for I think it is clear enough what is really intended.
My Lords, the second point is a less serious one, which also arises on Article 7. It is the question of what is meant by "identical articles". As I mentioned, the limit applies to claims for injuries caused by identical articles having the same defect. This difficulty is explained in paragraph 44 of the report and the question is this: when does an article which is subject to slight changes cease to be identical to one not having those changes? If I may take a hypothetical example, suppose there were a motor car made which was called the Fraser motor car. I am sorry that there is not; but suppose there were and that the 1980 model of that car had a defect in the steering which was dangerous and liable to lead to claims. Suppose that, halfway through the year, the Fraser motor car 1980 was modified by making changes not in the steering but perhaps in the springs or the engine or something of that nature. Would that article still be identical to those produced at the beginning of the year? It will have the same defect in the steering and probably be as dangerous; but is it identical? In the literal sense, plainly it will not be so. It seems to the Select Committee that that could raise difficulties. I have put forward a rather
1398
crude and simple example to explain what I mean, but it seems that this raises a real difficulty, and some definition ought to be provided as to the meaning of "identical articles".
The third and last point to which I want to draw attention is that it is proposed to exclude liability under this directive if the defective article is a primary agricultural product, a craft or an article produced not industrially. I wish to concentrate attention mainly on the primary agricultural products. This is dealt with in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the report. This has been added by amendment to the latest draft of the directive; and it was added, we understand, because of the proposal made in the European Parliament that it should be added.
This raises a point which could be a matter of dissension and could be slightly embarrassing, I suppose, because the Law Commission for England and Wales did not favour making an exception for primary agricultural products. The Scottish Law Commission, however, did favour that exception. If we are to count heads, in favour of the Scottish Law Commission's view there is the directive, or those who drafted it; and the European convention. The Strasbourg convention also has an optional clause allowing individual states to exempt agricultural products. On the counting of heads, there is a slight preponderance of votes in favour of exempting agricultural products. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear me say that my sympathies are naturally in favour of exempting them, that being the view of the Scottish Law Commission.
I will attempt to explain why the matter arises and why it is thought to be difficult. The underlying theory of product liability altogether, as I understand it, is that liability should rest upon the person who creates the risk and who also is in the best position to exercise control over its quality and its safety, and also to insure against the risk. In the ordinary case, the manufacturer of a product is in control of its quality and he can insure against the risk of defects.
Agricultural products and fishery products also are in a different position—to some extent, at any rate—because, if an agricultural product is defective, it is

1399
very likely that the blame rests not upon the farmer who grew it but upon those who polluted the atmosphere or the water in which it was grown or perhaps upon natural causes, the stress of weather. Those are matters outside the control of the farmer, the producer, and it was therefore thought that it might be unreasonable and unfair to put upon the producer the normal liability for a defective product which goes out from his hands.
There is also the further point that the basis of the directive is that the producer is presumed to have sent out the product in its defective state unless he can prove the contrary. In the case of primary agricultural products—and this applies to other food products, also—it may be difficult to do that because they tend to be perishable in nature, and it may be difficult for the farmer to show that the article which was defective when it was consumed by the housewife or her children left his hands in perfectly good order, and the defective condition was due to delay, hot weather or bad storage in the shops. That was an additional reason why it was thought unfair to put this burden upon the farmer producer.
This is a matter which will have to receive attention one way or the other. The present draft directive comes down in favour of exempting the primary agricultural products. Speaking entirely for myself—I cannot say I have the authority of the Select Committee—that seems to me on the whole probably reasonable. The Select Committee drew attention to the fact that the whole question of food products may require further consideration because of the risks which I have mentioned already, that the defective condition of a food product when it is consumed may be due to some fault which is not that of the producer at all.
That is all I am going to say about particular points in the draft directive. No doubt many other noble Lords wish to draw attention to other defects in the drafting and the proposals. I would only say this in conclusion: the principle of product liability having been accepted, as I have said, by so many bodies who investigated it, I suggest that it is right that one should accept that principle and concentrate attention now upon trying to
1400
improve the relatively detailed proposals in the draft directive, to remove ambiguities and to remove serious defects such as those that I mentioned first about the global liability. Possibly one should try to go further, as the Select Committee would wish, and secure, so far as one can, that the draft directive fits in exactly with the Strasbourg convention, so that the proposals which we are considering today may without great difficulty be adopted by the wider European community to whom the convention is open for signature. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on product liability (50th Report, H.L. 236).—(Lord Fraser of Tullybelton.)
4.26 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, we are indeed grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this interesting report, and for having given us his advice upon it. It is a subject which bristles with difficulties, to several of which the noble and learned Lord has already referred. He referred to but did not criticise the 10-year cut-off period. This is one of the overwhelming difficulties that seems to me to present itself. How a 10-year cut-off period can apply to an aircraft, a tin of beans and every other product under the sun seems to me quite incomprehensible. That is one of the extraordinary difficulties with which this topic is beset. However, that is by the way, and I had better go back to the beginning of what I had proposed to say.
Some years ago Lord Chief Justice Goddard was trying a case of a claim for damages for personal injuries. It did not seem a very strong case. Lord Goddard was never one for concealing the way that his mind was working and he intervened in the case to say that the idea seemed to be gaining ground that whenever somebody suffered some misfortune, somebody else ought to be made to pay for it, but that this was no part of the law of England. It still is no part of the law of England, my Lords. Of course, it could become so. The law is not immutable, and if this directive were accepted we should have gone a very long way down that road.

1401
It is said that a strict liability can be justified because of the situation which obtains under the Sale of Goods Act. It is said that under the Sale of Goods Act a purchaser enjoys a claim for strict liability against the seller for an unlimited amount, whereas everybody else has to prove negligence in order to establish a case against the supplier.
What surprises me—and I say this with great respect of course to the Pearson Royal Commission and the Law Commissions—is that nobody ever puts this question the other way round. Nobody ever says: "Since everybody in the world except one has to prove negligence if they wish to succeed in a claim against a supplier, why is there one person (the purchaser) who is put in a vastly superior and privileged position over everybody else?"
It is said, of course, that negligence is difficult to prove, and so it is; but let it not be thought that under a law of strict liability plaintiffs are going to escape the difficulties of establishing proof. Take, for instance, the case of a "Fraser" motor car which is nine years old and breaks down because of a fault in a component. I suppose it must be beyond human ingenuity to design a car in which all the components are going to fail at the same time. However, after nine years a component fails and the car is defective. I can think of four possible reasons why a defect occurs. It may be due to a design defect, or a fault in the manufacture of the component; it may be caused by a failure of maintenance by the car owner during those nine years, or it may be due to pure and simple wear and tear. Any proposed plaintiff is going to have to do a good deal of sorting out of the burden of proof among those possibilities before he can establish a case against the supplier. No wonder that in a recent paper the Consumers' Association said:
"It will still be necessary, as under the present law, to prove a causal connection between a defect in a product and the accident which caused the injury: very difficult in practice".
Do we achieve justice in singling out the producer, who may be without fault, rather than society as a whole, in order to pin the blame? If the producer is a huge corporation we achieve rough justice because a huge corporation, I suppose, is a microcosm of society as a whole.
1402
But consider the case of the small producer. Supposing there is a small firm in a market town which makes step ladders and it sells a step ladder to a company chairman who lives in the manor house. His wife uses the ladder to go apple-picking and the ladder collapses under her; she falls and breaks her hip and becomes permanently disabled so that she then has an enormous claim against the small firm.
The defect is found to be in one of the metal fittings; there is a crack in the metal which has been painted over and cannot be spotted by any ordinary inspection, and so the small firm goes to the local builders' merchant—who also may be a small firm—and says: "Can you tell us who supplied that metal fitting?" The builders' merchant says: "Several firms in Birmingham supply these standard fittings and we deal with all of them from time to time. We usually deal with the one whose traveller arrives first after we need to restock. We could not possibly say which manufacturer made this standard fitting". According to the way this directive is going to emerge finally, the bill is going to have to be met either by the firm which sold the ladder or by the builders' merchant, or both of them together. It will remain to be seen—and they may face financial ruin.
Of course, it is said that they can insure against this risk. The noble and learned Lord referred to insurance. It is not easy to insure for an open-ended commitment in respect of some gigantic claim. Even if you can find an insurer to take on the risk the premium is going to be very high. I cannot help thinking that some small firms will say: "We can afford to pay moderate claims out of our profits but when it comes to huge claims the risk is very remote and the premium extraordinarily high, so we will take a chance and bear the risk ourselves". The outcome may well be that the biggest claims, which are the most serious from the point of view of the consumer, will be the claims that cannot be met.
In singling out producers, irrespective of fault, we are embroiling ourselves in appalling difficulties in matters of detail, some of which the noble and learned Lord mentioned. Take, for instance, this difficult matter of development risks, about which I believe the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament

1403
cannot agree. The best illustration would be to consider pharmaceutical products. A firm may produce a new drug. They put it before what used to be called the Dunlop Committee—I believe it is now called the Committee on Safety of Medicines. The committee, when they pass the drug, presumably are not saying to themselves, "We are satisfied that this drug is absolutely safe in every possible circumstance". Presumably they are saying, "The side effects may in some cases be very severe and there may be somebody who is perhaps so allergic to this drug that if it is administered to that person his health will be impaired rather than improved. Nevertheless, we say that the evident benefits of this drug are so overwhelming, and the disadvantages so small by comparison, that we think it is in the public interest that this product should be put on the market".
If the firm producing the product continue to hold back and continue their safety tests, they will come up against appalling pressure. It will be asked: "How much longer do people have to die who might be saved if only this wonderful new drug was available?" I should have thought that a firm marketing a drug in those circumstances would be entitled to say: "That amounts to a good defence, because we have done what is regarded overwhelmingly as being in the public interest through the committee officially given the task of satisfying themselves on this aspect of safety".
I have dealt with the question of insurance, but there are other ways besides insurance of spreading the risk among the community as a whole. Already the National Health Service goes a very long way towards reinstating the victims of personal injury. There is the criminal injuries compensation scheme, whereby a fund is provided by monies voted by Parliament, and money is awarded to the victims of violent crime. It might be that a scheme along those lines could be adapted for this purpose.
Of course, industry might well be required to contribute to any such fund, and in passing I might say that industry already does so by means of VAT. I know that hypothecation of tax revenues is very much frowned upon in some quarters, but I would imagine that a
1404
Minister proposing the allocation of a fund which amounted to a small fraction of 1 per cent, of the VAT revenue would probably find favour with Parliament.
There are industrial training levy schemes, which are well known to those who sit on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. A levy among manufacturers and producers might well be a solution. One might have a licensing system, with manufacturers licensed upon payment of a fee to manufacture particular products, the licence fees to be paid into the fund to provide compensation. Of course, if there appears to be a prima facie case of negligence against a producer, let that case be proceeded with in the court and, if the case fails, it might well be that the unsuccessful plaintiff's costs might be a charge upon the fund, as well as the compensation to which he would otherwise be entitled.
Spreading the risk, without first pinning the blame on probably innocent producers, avoids some of these appalling difficulties which the noble and learned Lord has mentioned and which I, too, have tried to mention. I am thankful that, before a final directive is issued from Europe, there has to be unanimity, as I understand it, at the Council of Ministers. What I would ask Her Majesty's Government to do is to urge upon the Council of Ministers the advantage of proceeding along the lines of spreading the risk among the community at large, rather than pinning the blame upon a particular producer who might be entirely without fault.
4.42 p.m.
Lord SAINSBURY: My Lords, this is a very complex subject for the layman. I hesitate to intervene, particularly after hearing the opening speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton. The draft directive is also of great concern to industry and we will be fortunate to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, with his great industrial experience, later in the debate. I hope, therefore, that it will not be amiss if I state the views of the consumer, as expressed by the consumers in the European Community group—an umbrella organisation—without necessarily endorsing all that they say. They believe that the draft directive should be supported.

1405
Product liability involves many difficult legal concepts. In their view, the present system which is in operation in the United Kingdom is illogical and complicated. To illustrate the current situation, I should like to quote the example that they use, which, incidentally, was also used by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in our earlier debate on product liability last November, and which was also used a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
If a man buys a defective ladder which causes him injury, the retailer is strictly liable, under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, and must compensate him. If somebody else—for example, his son—suffers similar injury, he has to prove that the manufacturer has been negligent before he can receive compensation. To many people this seems unjust and illogical. In the first place, responsibility should lie with the person who created the risk; namely, the producer. In the second place, it seems unfair that the injured party, if he is not the purchaser, has the burden of proving the negligence of the manufacturer—a process that can be lengthy, costly and difficult.
As the consumers see it, the draft directive proposes to make manufacturers more liable for their defective products which cause injury, only to ensure that the minority who are injured have more adequate and prompt compensation. Certainly, strict liability would increase a producer's insurance costs, but many think it would be a small cost for a more just system of compensation. In any case, it would be included in the final cost of the product.
While I am not qualified nor able to enter into the legal arguments, I do not think I would be wrong in saying that the aim of the draft directive is to achieve justice for the victim. The Government and manufacturing interests, by seeking the exclusion of development risks, are, in the view of the consumer organisations, making the achievement of this laudable objective more difficult. The Pearson Commission concluded,
"To exclude development risks from a régime of strict liability would be to leave a gap in the compensation cover, through which, for example, the victims of another thalidomide disaster might slip".
1406
I A tiny percentage of products cause injury or damage. When they do, victims should be easily and adequately compensated. As The Times so aptly put it in a recent article,
"Compensation is not intended as a punishment for manufacturers producing faulty goods, but a redress for those injured as a consequence".
May I end by saying that I sincerely believe, fully conscious of my lack of legal knowledge, that the Government should have second thoughts before excluding all development risks from a régime of strict liability.
4.49 p.m.
Lord SCARMAN: My Lords, first I should like to express gratitude to my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Tullybelton for giving the House the opportunity to consider this very difficult though unfortunately very complex, problem. Secondly, I must make a personal apology both to my noble and learned friend and to the House. Owing to a public engagement, I shall not be able to attend for the whole of what promises to be a very interesting debate.
Like my noble and learned friend, I am a member of the Select Committee which produced this report and I conceive it my duty to the House to convey, if I can, the message which the Select Committee was seeking to convey. As I understand it, the Select Committee, in very broad terms, has reached very much the same conclusion as it would appear Her Majesty's Government have reached. Opening a debate last week in another place, the Minister for Consumer Affairs said that the Government intended to negotiate constructively with their partners in the Common Market on the basis of the Commission's draft directive which we are now considering. The Select Committee goes along with that completely. The Minister also said that, in the view of the Government, the draft directive did not yet strike a proper balance between the interests of the consumer and the interests of manufacturing industry. I think broadly, although perhaps for different reasons, the Select Committee of your Lordships' House reached the same conclusion.
I should like to put in very broad terms, avoiding if I can legal complexities, what was the view of the Select Committee. First, the Select Committee was by

1407
no means sure that the draft directive is, as we lawyers say so unpleasantly, intra vires the treaty—in plain English, within the powers conferred upon the institutions of the Community by the Treaty of Rome. I do not intend to develop that point but I think that your Lordships' House should bear it in mind. The argument would be: does a draft directive, the intention of which is to bring about an approximation of the relevant laws relating to product liability among the member states, directly affect the functioning of the Common Market? I say no more than that there are strong arguments that it does not. There are equally strong arguments—which might, I think, the world being what it is, be more likely to prevail in the European Court of Justice—that it does. I mention the point in passing.
The draft directive was not the first effort of the Commission to do some work in this field; they produced an earlier draft in 1976 which, as my noble and learned friend said, was the subject of the Select Committee's report in that year. The broad object which the Select Committee would like to see achieved is to secure a number of amendments to this draft so as to bring it very much more in line with the Council of Europe's convention, the so-called Strasbourg convention on the same subject—product liability. If your Lordships will allow me, I will spend just a moment or two saying why the Select Committee thinks that the Strasbourg convention is a useful model and one to which the Brussels Commission should perhaps pay a little more attention than they have so far done.
First, the convention has an advantage which no amount of work in Brussels can give to a Common Market draft directive. If the convention were to be ratified and come into force, it would be an international obligation to bring the law into line with the convention in some 21 European countries. A directive of the Common Market can apply only in the member states. I have seen representations—very valuable representations, I thought—prepared by the CBI in which they said, speaking no doubt on behalf of manufacturing industry, that if you are going to have some uniform system of strict liability for defective products without proof of
1408
fault, then the wider that approximation of laws is spread the better. And one can see why. The Select Committee took that point and it is one of the reasons why, if one can get an "approximation", to use the treaty word, between the draft directive and the convention this would be a most desirable object.
Secondly, the convention in some of its detail has, I venture to suggest to your Lordships, more attractive features—I cannot go into all of them this evening—than are to be found in the draft directive. The convention would limit the damages recoverable without proof of fault to death or personal injuries. That is to say, the law would be focused upon protecting the consumer who buys a defective product and finds himself personally injured by it. The convention would exclude from the recoverable damages in this class of case damage to property and economic loss. I think it relevant for the House to bear in mind that when the Law Commissions of the Kingdom considered this problem, as they have done recently, they also were in favour of limiting damages in this field to damages for personal injuries.
There are a number of reasons why that is desirable. First, even ordinary citizens are in the habit of insuring their property—their houses and so forth. Secondly, one does not know what the insurance problem would be for manufacturing industry if damages were recoverable in this field for anything like economic loss or ordinary property loss. It is essential, and in this respect the draft directive recognises it, that the remedy we are considering in this field should be one available to consumers and not to businesses. Again, that is clearly an extremely important limitation if one is to have any chance of resolving the insurance problem.
Again tackling it, if I may, broadly, because I think that is perhaps the most helpful way in which I can discuss this matter in your Lordships' House, what is this draft directive about? It is a measure intended for the protection of the consumer. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, was absolutely right to stress that this measure of consumer protection, which is known as product liability or liability for defective products without proof of fault, has been considered in the last 10 years

1409
again and again by a number of bodies, both European and national. As my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Tullybclton said, those bodies have come out in favour of the principle. For that reason, the Select Committee did not go into the question of principle, but I venture to say to your Lordships' House that after that highly expert, elaborate consideration over a period of something like 10 years, we should really be putting the clock back quite unreasonably if we were now to call in question the principle.
If that is so, what is our task? I suggest that our task now is to look at the problems of manufacturing industry and to ask ourselves how far can we go to meet their undoubted difficulties without fatally undermining the principle of consumer protection which the draft directive is intended to enshrine. If one does that, one finds at once that the problems of manufacturing industry are threefold; they fear that product liability of this sort may undermine their competitiveness; they fear it may add to the cost of their goods; they fear it may increase, to a formidable extent, the cost of insurance.
I will say just a word or two about each of those. If, of course, one can get an approximation of the relevant laws over the member states, and particularly, when the Common Market is extended, over quite a large European membership, then the argument based upon the competitiveness begins to diminish in importance; and if, of course, it could be extended to the convention countries, then I suggest there would be very little left in the competitive argument.
When one comes to the cost of goods, this has been examined. It can be fairly described as a corner of the problem not fully illuminated. The European Commission seems to think that this objection has been overrated. I as a mere lawyer would not express an opinion. It is not my field. But the objection has been there all these 10 years and has not seemed insuperable to the various bodies that have considered it. The cost may go up; but it may not. I just would not wish to say anything, except that this is a matter which we must examine if we desire to be sure that we are affording manufacturing industry the safeguards which, undoubtedly, it is entitled to have.
1410
When one comes to the insurance difficulty, the European Commission clearly thought, when they prepared this draft directive, that there was no insuperable insurance problem. That is not the view of the British Insurance Association, nor is it the view of many others. I think this has got to be looked at. Of course one way of dealing with the insurance problem would be to ensure that the directive includes a sensible provision for limitation of liability. Unfortunately, as my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser said, it does not. I myself like the comment made by the Law Society of England and Wales on Article 7 of the draft, which is the article dealing with its proposal for some sort of global liability in this field. The Law Society said that the earlier provision—that is an earlier draft—was impracticable; now by amendment it has been made unintelligible. With the greatest of humility, I completely agree. I do not understand how it can work, But my Lords, the Strasbourg convention has a very sensible approach to the limitation of liability. First, it makes it optional that signatory states may introduce such a scheme or not, as they wish. Secondly, it suggests that there should be a limitation upon each claim. I think the figure is 70,000 units of account. It does not matter—I am speaking from memory and I may have the figure wrong, but that is a sensible approach which could work. Thirdly the convention suggests that if we wish, in any signatory state, to relieve the burden upon manufacturing industry, there is no objection to the state or some other body setting up a guarantee fund that would look after the damages in this field.
So I think, as I believe Her Majesty's Government think as well, that with goodwill we could enter into a negotiation with our partners in the Common Market which would go some way towards meeting the problems of cost competitiveness and insurance which legitimately bother manufacturing industry.
My Lords, there is so much detail in the draft directive that of necessity I have to be like my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Tullybelton—eclectic; I must just choose one or two. I have mentioned the problem of damage; let me mention, also, since the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, mentioned it and so indeed did the noble

1411
Lord, Lord Airedale, the "state of the art" defence. The "state of the art" defence merely amounts to this: If, at the time the product which has been proved defective was put into circulation, nobody could reasonably have known, in the state of scientific and technological knowledge at that time, that it was defective, that should be a defence. Plainly Her Majesty's Government are impressed with the cogency of the case for introducing that defence which the Commission in this draft directive has rejected. The European Parliament were in favour of it. The Select Committee of your Lordships' House has sat on the fence.
Expressing a purely personal opinion, on the whole I would be against allowing the defence in; I think it is nicely balanced and I certainly would not wish your Lordships to think that this was a matter on which one could not change one's mind. The reason I do it is the reason which appealed to the Pearson Commission in the passage which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, quoted and which appealed to the Law Commission. If you introduce the "state of the art" defence, you are really reintroducing negligence or fault by the back door.
It there is anything in the principle of consumer protection—and I have indicated to your Lordships why, in the broadest possible terms, I think we must accept that there is—then this particular defence, if introduced, would really be like a torpedo hitting the ship below the water line. Having said that, my Lords, there is something to be investigated. As your Lordships will see, I do not wish to take sides. I have been like a lawyer, taking no sides at all and therefore giving no guidance. That is an endemic error of our profession. But I am bound to tell your Lordships—because it does not appear in the committee's report; neither do I think it was mentioned in the debate in the other place—that the Americans (that is, those who live in the United States of America, because there are other parts of America as well), who have been the champions or in the forefront of developing a strict liability for defective products, have now produced a model uniform product liability Act which the States may or may not accept. There is also a federal Bill at the moment in Congress, which reintroduces the "state
1412
of the art" defence. I think they have found that damages, which of course are awarded by juries in America, have risen so astronomically that something must be done to limit this field of liability.
I do not accept that there is really a close enough comparison between the legal and social and economic world of the United States and that of this country and Europe to draw any too facile an inference from the American experience; but I think it is a matter that should be borne in mind by those who will have the task of negotiating on the basis of this draft directive. On the whole, I suggest to your Lordships that you can welcome this draft directive. It is a great improvement on an earlier draft. It has moved a long way towards the recommendations of our own Law Commissions and of the Pearson Commission. It has taken note, I hope, of the strong assertion in this House in 1976 that contributory negligence—that is negligence of the purchaser or the person who suffers—should be a defence. It was not in that first directive; it is there now.
I can see absolutely no objection at all to giving the draft directive a welcome, congratulating the European Commission on the work they have done, and seeking to improve it, not by undermining consumer protection but by seeing what we can do to protect the legitimate, and so far very moderately expressed, objections of manufacturing industry.
5.12 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, it is indeed an honour to follow such a brilliant exposition of the purposes of the directive and the points which we need to observe which have been stated to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. I feel somewhat hesitant, because I shall endeavour to put to your Lordships another point of view on some of his points in due course. We must indeed welcome this debate and be most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, for initiating it. It is of interest that it is barely a year since we had a similar debate, initiated at that time by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who I am delighted to see will speak later in this debate.

1413
Before addressing your Lordships further I should declare an interest, in that I work for a trade association in the food manufacturing industry and my remarks will to a certain extent be biased in that direction. Indeed they were largely so in the debate of 28th November last year to which I referred. I then gave at some length the points which I shall in a minute briefly summarise to your Lordships. I do hope that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench, when he seeks to have the debate looked at by his advisers, will invite them also to look at col. 435 in the Official Report of 28th November 1979. It will save a lot of your Lordships' time for me not to go through it all over again. Surprisingly, I found the speech one which I really could recommend. So often when one makes a speech it does not read very well a year later. This time it seemed to me that it did.
To summarise the points about the food industry to which I gave such weight, and really in relation to the particular point in the draft directive seeking to exclude primary agricultural products which have, as they describe it, clearly not been industrially produced, I would seek to persuade your Lordships, the Government, and indeed in due course the European Commission, that all food, not just primary agricultural products, should be excluded from the terms of the directive.
There are two main reasons for that. One is that there is extremely comprehensive legislation covering food and its relationship to consumers, some of which is of great antiquity. I was reading the 1938 Food and Drugs Act of this country recently and discovered it repealing parts of Acts passed during the reigns of King Henry VIII and Mary Tudor, not to mention practically all the monarchs in between. The point of saying that is to show that Europe—because, after all, our sister members of the European Community are at the same level of development in this sort of general area as ourselves—has been bothering about protecting its consumers from being either deceived or poisoned by food for many centuries, and it would seem that that is a good reason for not entering into the complications of including food within this product liability field.
1414
The second reason is the difficulty of identifying at what point in what is called the food chain strict liability, if it is to be applied, should be applied. One can show, for example, that the food on the farm has been subjected to chemicals, and indeed has been manufactured, or at least harvested, with machinery which is no more potentially harmful or no less potentially harmful than the chemicals and the machinery with which the later processing takes place. It is, therefore, extremely difficult to pin it down to any one particular sort of food and say, yes, the fault should normally be said to lie there.
Another factor is that food, being perishable, unlike the vast amount of the goods I am sure the writers of the draft directive had in mind, has a limited life; whether it is going to be suitable to eat in due course depends to a great extent on the purchasers themselves. It is so easy for the purchaser to be the main cause of fault if the food is unpalatable or even possibly harmful at a later stage. So, unlike many other products, food is in a special category. Indeed the report which we are considering recognises this point both in paragraph 16 and in paragraph 17, and in the latter paragraph draws the attention of the Goverment to special consideration being necessary in this area
While referring to paragraphs in the report, I should like to refer to paragraph 10, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has already referred to it. It questions the vires of the draft directive or the revised draft directive as a fundamental point. It would seem to me that, with the points I have made, which are emphasised in paragraph 17, the basic legal point made in paragraph 10 and, indeed, all the other points in paragraph 56, there is, if this directive is not amended in a pretty massive way, potential for an absolute field day for lawyers. There are very many points on which decisions taken under the directive could be challenged, points which are quite readily seen by your Lordships' House and indeed by the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, which consists very largely of the best lawyers in the land.
It would seem to me, therefore, that the fundamental point, which the Government have picked up, is that the draft

1415
directive itself needs most thoroughgoing consideration, much deeper than that which, clearly, was given to it by the Commission between the original directive and this revised draft which we are considering today. My experience now with the Commission is that I do not think that they have either the inclination or possibly the ability to consider draft legislation of this type—which is a minefield of potential trouble—in the depth required. The much maligned parliamentary draftsmen, who so often get stick in your Lordships' House, really could help the Commission greatly on many features. I do not know whether it would be appropriate to ask the Government to offer the parliamentary draftsmen to the Commission so that they could have a rather better chance of doing the fundamentals of improving this draft directive. Perhaps we could not spare them, but that is a thought which my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench could bear in mind.
Therefore, having welcomed the Government's intention to press for revision of the draft, I also welcome—although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, rather warned against this—their intention of seeking to incorporate the state of the art. I shall come in a moment to the consumers' attitude to this matter, but, as I see it, basically the Government are saying that there is not a fair balance of emphasis within the draft directive as between the provider and the consumer and they seek to put that right. It seems to me a point of fairness that, if one really did not know when one was making something that it would be harmful in the long run, because one just had no means of knowing, then it is not fair that one should be held responsible for what happens, unless it can be proved that one has in some way been negligent.
The other point is that if the state of the art defence is not included in the directive, there will unquestionably be a slowing down of the development of all sorts of means of benefiting the human race as a whole. If the people who carry out the studies and try to put on the market place the types of things which benefit mankind at large—the consumers in not only this country but countries overseas and the third world, the people who really require very many more benefits than we
1416
require—are to be limited in the way in which they can risk putting new products on the market because of the implications of what might happen in 10 years' time, then they will not do so nearly as readily and we shall all be the losers in that respect.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said that it was a neat balance and he tended to come down on the side of the view put forward by the consumers. I would not say that he came down on the side of the consumers—he came down on the view put forward by the consumer organisations, which is slightly different because I think that the consumers themselves will suffer if we have this restraint. I come down very firmly on the other side of the fence and I am delighted to see that the Government have put this in their proposal.
Lord SAINSBTJRY: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, but I think I am right in saying that they do not have this defence in West Germany. If that is so, I am sure that the noble Lord would not suggest that West Germany has been weak in industrial or commercial innovation.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I am not sure about that because there are all sorts of areas in which original, basic research and basic thinking has come more from this country than from many others. It could well be that, on looking into this matter rather more thoroughly, we should find that the West Germans have tended to develop new concepts which other people have tried out first. I would not like to pursue that point too far, but it may be that that is the case.
I should like to take up the point which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, made—a point which is worth taking and is important. He referred to the awful shadow which rests over the whole of this debate of the thalidomide disaster, and it certainly rested over the setting up of the Pearson Commission. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, making a great point about this during the debate last November. I would suggest that that kind of disaster—which is so terrible and which the insurance world called catastrophic—is one which was solved, and solved no doubt by some very I thorough, if possibly very courageous,

1417
journalistic work to ensure that it was solved. It involved vast sums of money being put aside, sums of money as regards which it would be extremely difficult to make a guess as to whether they would have been provided to a similar level if the possible terms of this draft directive were put into effect with its limit to liability included.
What I am trying to say is that this particular disaster—hopefully a similar one will not occur in anything like the immediate future, because obviously all the pharmaceutical firms will be doubly careful not to risk it for humanitarian reasons quite apart from anything else—can be said to have been dealt with. Therefore, we do not want to have our view of this draft directive—which is one that has wider ramifications than special cases in the catastrophic areas of pharmaceutical disasters—too coloured by it, because it was dealt with and there are other factors which, as I suggested, make it highly desirable that we should allow the state of the art defence. It would surely, on balance, be in the best interests of the European Community to follow the intentions that my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Consumer Affairs said on 4th November that she was going to follow in seeking to have this draft directive amended in a way in which it would be fair and balanced and meet the needs of all the persons concerned. I commend that approach to your Lordships.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to raise one matter regarding West Germany. The Minister told another place, at column 1196 of the Official Report for last Tuesday, that:
"Germany does not have strict liability. It has a state of the art defence, except for pharmaceuticals".
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much indeed.
5.29 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I was going to say that I was glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone; I suppose I might add the words "at last". I am particularly glad to be able to follow him because I find myself so much in agreement with his general attitude and approach. Of course, I should also like
1418
to join with him in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, for the way in which he presented this report. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said that he had an interest to declare and probably, in view of one or two of the things that I will say later on, I should say that I do not any longer have an interest to declare.
Paragraph 1 of the committee's report tells us that the directive relates:
"to the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products".
In other words, again we are up against our old friend, harmonisation. I believe that the case for harmonisation in this area is not conclusively made out. I understand that the directive is based on Article 100, which declares that there shall be no distortion of competition within the Community; it is thought by some people that there is a distortion because of the differences in the legal provisions with regard to defective products. However, as I say, this case has not been conclusively made out and, indeed, despite what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said, in paragraph 10 the committee itself states that no evidence was furnished by the Commission which proves that competition is distorted. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said that there were strong arguments on both sides. I can only say that I have not heard them.
In any case, if there were distortions in some areas of Community activity, it would seem to me that, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, we should be very careful indeed before applying legal provisions equally and inflexibly across all the industries and all the services within the Community. Life is much too complicated for that. The noble and learned Lord dealt with some of these complications, but I confess that I was not convinced by him that it will be possible easily to find a solution which would sort out the various complexities and complications that exist within given industries, let alone between one industry and another and between one service and another within the Community. There are these special features and factors and many of them can be justified—they are well founded. I suggest that we should not easily override them by some directive from Brussels.

1419
I have in mind the effect that the directive, unamended, could have on the aerospace industry. Few, if any, industries spend a greater proportion of effort and resources in research, innovation and change. Few industries—and I can think of only one—have a greater potential for doing damage if anything did go seriously wrong. But I would also say with confidence that few, if any, industries take greater care than the aerospace industry in testing, checking, rechecking, quality control and certification. Certainly there are committees in the case of the drugs industry, but so far as I know there are no established certification bodies in any other industries as there are in the aerospace industry.
I understand that on behalf of the industry the Society of British Aerospace Constructors have stated that they are prepared to accept the principle of the reverse burden of proof. I should have thought that that was a very considerable concession. But to go further than that and to say that in all circumstances, whatever the fault and whatever the care taken, strict liability should attach to the aircraft manufacturer, is surely to go too far. I would suggest that it is going too far for a number of reasons. The possibilities of insurance in this field are especially limited. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, mentioned some of the difficulties, but they are particularly so in the case of the aircraft manufacture and operating industries. An aircraft with an operating life of 15 or 20 years could not be insured against the risks which we are talking about for more than one year or possibly two years at a time, and even then not on an open-ended insurance of the kind which strict liability would entail.
I believe—as noble Lords have said and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, made this point particularly impressively—that the question of the ultimate consequential cost to the consumer in many industries is important; and it possibly outweighs the probable benefits of the extra protection which this directive would make available. That cost should be taken into account when decisions are taken. But in the essentially innovative industries, like aerospace, I suggest that the consequences could go further, and the possible penalties or the risks facing
1420
the producer if strict liability was applied could mean a serious slowdown—if not a halt—to further developments. Again, I would emphasise the special position of the aerospace industry in this respect. Strict liability could put a blight not only on the development of aircraft but on the whole range of products in which hitherto aerospace research has spearheaded progress.
The doctrine of spin-off is not so fashionable now as it used to be, but it should not be ignored. I recall many years ago the enthusiasts at BAC drawing up a list in alphabetical order of the advances, to us all that had taken place as the result of research in the manufacture of new types of aircraft. Perhaps I could refer to them just very briefly. Modern adhesives, which we all enjoy, owe quite a lot to the work that was done on the old wooden Mosquito aircraft. Going from A to B, if we look at modern bearings, again there have been great advances as the result of research in the aerospace industry. The lightweight carriages on the Victoria Line today are mainly the result of the work that was done on materials for aircraft. I could go on right through the alphabet, from tyres and textiles, right through to x-ray testing techniques and fire-resisting yarns at the end of the alphabet. It would be a penalty for the consumer and for society as a whole if that sort of work was discouraged. I suggest that we should be very careful before we appeared to be discouraging it.
I understand that the proposed directive has been the subject of a communication by the French Government to the EEC. My understanding is that the French Government have said that if it is applied unamended, without taking into account the "state of the art" argument, it would have a stultifying effect on the aerospace industry. They have asked that the industry should be excluded from the provisions of the directive. I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord who is to reply for the Government will be able to give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will take a similar line to that taken by the French.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord two incidental questions, which he may be kind enough to answer. Given strict liability, what is the position

1421
of the Government in this matter if a Government agency—for example, the Civil Aviation Authority—has given a certificate of airworthiness for a particular aircraft type?. Is that certificate to have any weight? Are we to recognise it as being, as we have always thought it to be, just about as authoritative a judgment on the aircraft as it is possible to get? Or will that be disregarded if strict liability was to be applied to the products of this industry? Then I would also ask the noble and learned Lord about the Warsaw Convention and the limits placed upon liability by that convention. Would they be overridden if the directive was applied? I gather that speedy action is unlikely but in the meantime I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could answer those two specific questions.
5.41 p.m.
Lord PLOWDEN: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said that this was a difficult and complex subject. If it is difficult for the noble and learned Lord, how much more so for the layman and the industrialist. But as an industrialist I welcome the statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy made in another place last week. It was right to take time to come to a conclusion. Industry in general, and the CBI in particular, are glad that their representations have been taken into account in spite of the persuasive and lucid arguments against them in various official reports—those of the Law Commissions and the Pearson Commission.
If I understand it rightly, the Government have decided to seek a régime which would be common throughout the Community and would be based on strict liability, and which would incorporate a "state of the art" defence. It has reserved a final decision until the precise nature of the régime has been clarified in further negotiations. We are still, of course, in the early stages of negotiation in the Community. Therefore, I would seek only to elucidate two major points in the Government's policy; namely, "strict liability" and the "state of the art" defence. I believe that if these points are properly and adequately dealt with, then the many detailed points such as the 10 year cut-off period, the limits of liability, the position of component manu-
1422
facturers, and so on, will be comparatively easy to deal with.
Strict liability, so I am advised, means "liability without proof of fault". It does not mean that the question of fault is irrelevant. Yet the draft directive, as I understand it, is based on the concept of "liability irrespective of fault", in which case the question of fault quite clearly is irrelevant. Some of the admitted absurdities in the probable consequences of the directive arise from this approach. The problems of printers were extensively ventilated in another place last week. It is possible—no one quite knows—that a printer, if he exactly reproduced information which was incorrect due to the fault of another, would himself be liable under the terms of the directive.
Again UNICE, which is the organisation representing industry at the EEC level, to which the CBI belongs, was told by no less a person than Commissioner Davignan of another example. A component manufacturer who makes to the exact specification laid down by the person ordering it a component which subsequently turns out to be defective because of a defect in those instructions would himself be held to be liable despite the fact that he had done everything that could be expected of him. That is something which seems contrary to justice and equity.
These two examples I have given show that liability irrespective of fault can have the result of transferring liability from someone who is at fault to someone who is not. Surely that cannot be right, nor indeed acceptable. But I do not believe that it can be satisfactorily corrected by introducing a whole series of special rules for printers, for component manufacturers, or for the aircraft industry, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has suggested. It must, I submit, be put right by getting the approach of the directive changed. I should like to know, when the noble and learned Lord replies to the debate, whether that is what the Government mean when they say they will aim at achieving a strict liability system.
Now let me turn to what has been described as the "state of the art". That is a phrase which seems to convey different meanings to different people. I hope that the Government share my understanding and that of the CBI, which

1423
is that a defence based on "state of the art" would have two important aspects. First, it would prevent any element of retrospection, of liability for the unknowable, which is the single most objectionable feature of the present draft directive.
Secondly, it would enable the definition of "defect" or of "defective" to recognise that an element of judgment, or of compromise, is always present in cases concerning the design of a product or the warnings and instructions which accompany it. It would always have been possible, looking back, to have made a product safer, or to have provided more comprehensive warnings or instructions. However, to have done so might have introduced other dangers, it might have put up the price of the product unreasonably.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scar-man, suggested that if all the members of the convention were to have a common law then this would not matter. But to the best of my belief there are 21 countries in the convention—or is it 25?—but there are many other manufacturing countries in the world, notably the United States. Therefore, I do not think that that is an argument which carries much weight. Indeed, if we go back to the question of instructions, it might have resulted in a formidable body of instructions so long that in practice few people would have read them.
I submit that this element of reasonable compromise must be recognised in any eventual legislation, as the United States Model Uniform Law recognises. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, seemed to suggest that it was different in the United States. It would be different here and we need not worry about what has happened in the United States. But any industrialist who has sold things in the United States is well aware of the full horrors of what has happened with this product liability legislation that exists there now. As a result, the US Model Uniform Law intends to modify it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will say that the Government have this point firmly in mind.
Finally, last week in the other place the CBI was alleged to have given details of the estimates of what insurance would cost. I asked them for details of those costs, and
1424
they assured me that no estimates had in fact been made by them since there are no firm bases from which to start. Insurance premiums for a fixed amount of cover are based on turnover and, of course, on the products involved, so that a premium figure which will buy one manufacturer a certain amount of cover is of no great relevance to another manufacturer.
Again it is possible, working on the basis of the estimates which insurers have made on possible increases in premiums which would follow the enactment of the draft directive, to make some estimates of the extra insurance premiums which would result for industry as a whole. But these figures are highly speculative, and, of course, relate to only one part of the extra costs which industry might have to incur. Industry and the consumer organisations do, of course, accept that extra costs, for instance for record keeping, monitoring, and so on, will be involved in any move towards a stricter form of liability than that which exists at present. If the law is a reasonable and balanced one, then the costs should also be reasonable.
The Government have decided to seek to achieve a reasonable balance and as an industrialist speaking on behalf of the CBI, I welcome that decision. I wish them every success in persuading our European partners to take the same view and I hope they will resolutely stick to the two main points in their announced policy, namely strict liability and the "state of the art" defence. Industry in general and the CBI in particular is very ready to take part in any consultations aimed at a successful outcome of the Brussels negotiations.
5.51 p.m.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, I wish to add my thanks to the Select Committee and to the clear exposition we had from its chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton. This is a very important topic. We debated it about a year ago and no doubt we shall be debating it again in future Novembers. I spoke at what I now see was some length when we debated the matter last November and I certainly do not propose to say all over again what I said then, but there are a few comments I wish to make speaking in the main as a member of the Pearson Royal Commission.

1425
We on the Royal Commission had quite a lot to say about the operation of the system of tort or delict and about how some of its deficiencies might be tackled, and ever since we reported I have been hoping there would be some evidence that someone had actually read our report, but that hope is diminishing with the passage of time. Whatever the arguments about tort in general, all of us felt in no doubt that the protection of the consumer injured or killed by defective products was far from satisfactory and that one did not have to be a rampant consumerist to reach any such conclusion.
The housewife who buys a tin of salmon and then suffers from botulism poisoning can probably establish her rights under the law of contract. But the members of the family who eat the stuff at the same meal have to depend on establishing an action in tort and have to embark on the hopeless task of proving that somewhere along the road someone was negligent. The Royal Commission thought this position was quite indefensible and welcomed the approach in the draft EEC directive and the Council of Europe convention in the direction of strict liability subject to certain specified defences. I would explain to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that we contemplated that the injured person would still have to show that the product was defective, that the injury was caused by that product and that the defendant was the producer of the product.
I was glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, placed such emphasis on the desirability of doing nothing which would preclude our acceding in due course to the Council of Europe, the Strasbourg convention and, for reasons I shall come to shortly, it is a matter of great regret to me that the Government seem to be set on a course which would achieve precisely what the Select Committee recommended should not be achieved, and that is to make it impossible for us to accede to the Strasbourg convention.
The debate has shown clearly that there are a variety of points on the draft directive. Like earlier speakers, I propose to be eclectic and pick out for brief comment four points before coming to what I regard as the main issue and difficulty, the one of development risks.
1426
First, for what my views are worth, I agree that the article about putting limits on the amount of damages which may be awarded against a producer is both defective in its drafting and I think also in its principle and could produce inequitable results. I should like to see it out or at any rate dealt with on the lines it is dealt with in the Strasbourg convention. Secondly, I go along with the view that the convention should not apply to property. This was an issue, as it happened, outside the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, but that need not preclude me from expressing the view that such a provision should not have a place in the directive and that the Strasbourg convention is here in the right.
Thirdly, taking up a point touched on by my noble friend Lord Plowden, I still think that, in spite of all the problems, the producer of components should remain strictly liable, and I would go along with the directive and the convention on this issue, although in view of the opposite line taken by the Scottish Law Commission, it will be interesting to hear what the Lord Advocate has to say on this when he speaks. Fourthly—a point which has not been touched on much—it seems to me very important not to underrate the significance of the responsibility which should rest on importers of products which prove to be defective and cause injury or death. The poisoned tin of salmon to which I referred—the case was not altogether hypothetical—came from Canada. The point about importers is one about which I feel fairly strongly at the moment because of the frustration one experiences in finding articles in the shops which are actually produced in this country and not in, say, Taiwan.
But the most important issue, to which a number of noble Lords have referred, and the one on which I think in the end the directive will stand or fall, is the issue of what the Royal Commission and the Select Committee describe as "development risks". I cannot bring myself to use the phrase "the state of the art", which seems to me a singularly unfortunate phrase, although I realise it is now becoming a bit of accepted jargon. On this question of development risks, the Select Committee, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser—who I hope did not arrive in this Chamber in a Fraser Nash—

1427
made clear, was sitting on the fence, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scar-man, said the matter was very finely balanced, though he went on to give his personal view that that was a defence that should not be allowed. I propose to take the plunge and say I am not sitting on the fence at all; I do not think the arguments are finely balanced and I come down firmly on the side opposite that on which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, came down.
When we debated this topic a year ago the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said at column 451 on 28th November that
"it is not Conservative Party policy that we shall accept the state of the art defence".
We understand from what was said in another place last week that everything is now different and that it is indeed Government policy to do just that, and to seek to get the EEC directive amended accordingly. But there is the difficulty that some other members of the Community already have strict liability without any defence for development risks. There has been reference to West Germany, and I will not argue about the statement made about its position overall because I do not know enough about it. What I do know is that West Germany introduced this strict liability, without such a defence, specifically for pharmaceutical products, which perhaps is the most difficult area of all, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, following the thalidomide tragedy.
What I do not know is whether the Government are expecting France, Germany and Luxembourg to turn back the clock to meet our convenience or whether they expect that the British view will prevail for the directive but that the defence of development risks will still not be made available under the domestic law of certain of our partners. If the Government are proceeding on the latter assumption there seems to me to be a distinct probability that this country, with perhaps Italy, might in the end become the sort of testing ground for new products and the British, as The Times put it the other day, be turned into the guinea-pigs of Europe. But, on any basis, I cannot see at the moment any escape from the conclusion that the decision taken by the Government in this regard means that they
1428
have determined that we are not going to accede to the Council of Europe convention since that convention, as I read it, does not allow such a defence. This seems to me a decision of very considerable significance.
On another point, quite a lot has been said about the cost of insurance. I do not really want to add very much to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, have already said, but perhaps I could put on record that the Royal Commission, for their part, thought that the fears of excessive cost were much less justified than some of our witnesses had suggested. Not very long ago the Director General of Fair Trading said he thought that the concern of British industry in this regard was largely unfounded, and the Minister for Consumer Affairs herself said in another place on 16th June—column 1107 of the House of Commons Hansard—that she was certain that some of the estimates of insurance costs had been greatly exaggerated. One or two noble Lords have said there is an absence of figures, but at any rate we do have one figure from West Germany. The insurance industry there calculated that the cost of introducing strict liability for pharmaceutical products added a cost of five pfennig in every 10 Reichmarks of turnover; this is a percentage of one-half of 1 per cent.
There have been one or two references to the USA. I think the problem of drawing analogies is extremely difficult, given the very real differences which exist between us in our legal and social systems, including the facts of the lawyers acting on a contingency fee basis and the award of damages by juries, although I can well understand the concern of any industrialist who has to trade a good deal in the United States. But I would make the point that, although it is perfectly true that the federal Government have produced a new model Bill and commended this Bill to the states, and although as I understand it there is currently a federal Bill in the House of Representatives, it is equally true, as far as I know, that not a single state legislature has so far touched the draft Bill.
Coming nearer home, we should not forget that in recent legislation we have already gone some little way down the road of strict liability, especially under the

1429
law of contract, without the defence of development risks and without the skies falling in. Obviously it would be absurd not to recognise that there are powerful arguments to be advanced on behalf of industry, in particular perhaps the risk of putting a brake on innovation, although I have seen those who have been unkind enough to suggest that perhaps people here may be not quite so keen on using novel products once they realise that they are not going to get any compensation if things go wrong. But in the end, and it looks as though this is a long, long way ahead, the question is whether these arguments on behalf of industry are not outweighed by the counter-argument that it is wrong that it should be the individual consumer who is not covered by the law of contract who is required to bear, without remedy, without compensation, injury caused by defects in products which were bought in the full expectation of reasonable safety.
The Royal Commission—we were unanimous on this—concluded that the balance was clearly on the side of putting the burden on the manufacturer who is, after all, marketing the products for profit and can muster the resources needed to insure, if need be, by small price increases spread over the whole body of consumers. The Government, alas, prefer to put the whole burden on the ordinary citizen who has no such resources and, as the writer of a letter in The Times today puts it, is not really in a position to produce expert witnesses in court to counter the expert witnesses produced by the manufacturer.
On reading the winding-up speech by the Minister for Consumer Affairs last Tuesday—in particular, I am looking at column 1193 of the debate on 4th November—I am not sure whether the hope is to alter the directive so that the defence of development risks will be available but also to legislate here so as not to exclude from compensation victims of a tragedy like that of thalidomide, even at the stage of that tragedy when no woman who took the drug had any reason whatsoever to suspect that there was any risk. If that is what is intended I hope that when the noble and learned Lord comes to speak he will be able to tell us how such a miracle of reconciliation can be achieved, because I for one believe that the two aims are fundamentally irreconcilable and that,
1430
with this defence allowed, the whole purpose of the directive to get away from the need to prove negligence is seriously undermined.
The Royal Commission was set up very largely because of the thalidomide tragedy, and I wonder if the parents who settled for some percentage of what they could have obtained in court proceedings, if the court proceedings had been successful, would altogether go along with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in regarding the matter as having been satisfactorily disposed of. I wish, too, I could share his optimism that no tragedy on similar lines—though heaven knows we hope not on the same scale—is likely to recur. After much thought the Royal Commission made proposals aimed at avoiding a possible repetition. I fear that I can say only that it is a matter of great regret to me that the Government's considered decision that such victims ought not in law to be entitled to be compensated by the manufacturers means that we have failed.
6.10 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I should like to join in the thanks extended to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, for having enabled your Lordships to discuss this very important subject. It is a highly technical subject for someone who has been to the EEC countries only once and who is not a member of the Select Committee. However, I have a small interest to declare in that I have spent most of my working life in the insurance industry, though with very little experience of product liability itself, and I suppose that if one is looking at the matter from the insurer's point of view there can be fewer more contentious items in the field than product liability and the amount of litigation which can ensue therefrom.
From reading the report it seems to me that we must strike a balance between the very great care taken by most manufacturers, whether of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, aircraft, or other products, and the risks that are applicable to the consumer in these advanced technological times; and the subject of consumer protection has been debated in your Lordships' House on many occasions.
I should like to say a few words about the chemical industry. I have no interest

1431
to declare as to being employed by the industry, but for several years I have been a member of the all-party parliamentary chemical industries group and I have attended a number of seminars addressed by authorities from the United Kingdom and from Europe. In the chemical industry products are subjected to considerable market research and an extensive amount of further development. I think it is quite right that the Government—as I understand from the debate in the other place on 4th November—have accepted the premise that if genuine efforts have been made to recall a product suspected of being, or known to have been, defective, a claim in law will not be constituted. I realise that that is a very technical point. Whether it be in the chemical industry or in any other industry, bearing in mind the degree of sophisticated research and the proliferation of new products on the market these days, it is essential that the closest possible researches are made.
Reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, to the thalidomide tragedy, of which many of us have very sad memories—and always shall have. I think that the lesson learnt from that tragedy is that where a drug is produced in a country other than that in which it is marketed most, the research carried out on it must be very careful indeed. I hould have thought that with, the advent of the medicines Act and other legislation a repetition of the thalidomide tragedy, and all the problems emanating from it, is not likely to occur.
Of course, consumer protection is of major importance, but there is the problem as to how far one can protect, no matter how many directives are issued. So often when a product is marketed and retailed the consumer does not bother to read the large print, let alone the small print, and it seems very unfair that in that event the producer of the product should be made liable. Here again the chemical industry has taken all conceivable precautions to ensure that inherent dangers are highlighted. There is the example of road transport. There was a terrible tragedy a few years ago involving a woman who got out of her car, and unfortunately a lorry carrying a very powerful chemical came to a halt, or did
1432
something of the kind, and the woman met a terrible death. But since then a number of very important protections have been put into force.
This debate is very much for the expert and very much for those, unlike myself, who understand EEC law and the law as a whole. It is a subject of major importance and anyone who is concerned with industry or commerce, which is likely to be involved with the subject of product liability must regard a debate of this kind as very important; and surely it is to be warmly welcomed.
6.18 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, so much has been said, and said so ably and so fully, that there is little left to add, except some doubts of my own. But I can give the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, the assurance for which he asked: I have read the Pearson Report. I have read it with admiration. I have read it, believe it or not, my Lords—and this I think for the first time in my life—almost with enjoyment. It is extremely well written. It has a special clarity. It is extremely expensive, and one always feels a little better of an expensive book if one has not had to pay for it; and I doubt whether a better job has been done. We all regret that its principal author is no longer with us.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in his querying the term "state of the art". I think that it is one of those expressions that came from the United States of America, and which seem to have their own characteristic defects. After all, we are talking about the sale of black puddings, and I do not think the "state of the art" necessarily refers to the skill of a meat boiler in Bury, Lancashire, according to Mr. Stanley Holloway, who has composed a complete record about it; but there are, I think, real doubts as to how it is going to work.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, introduced the familiar ladder, and with the familiar ladder there is only one advantage so far as I am concerned and that is that it introduces for the first time in eight years the only subject on which I feel more fully informed, probably, than any other Member of the House. I have fallen off them in my youth and I have clung

1433
desperately on to them through the last eight years of my life, until my son and daughter laid down an absolute ban upon the procedures. But the present difficulties about the ladder, the special defect under the Sale of Goods Act, which would have delighted Charles Dickens, really have got to be understood with some qualification, and the question of defect does, I think, need rather more definition in this special case.
To start with, ladders which were customarily made of wood and varied considerably with the nature of the wood, the state and age of the wood, and indeed with where it was stored, how long it had been rained on, whether the wood had swollen, and so on, now are being very rapidly replaced by aluminium ladders. Aluminium is, I believe, cheaper than wood, though I am not sure that the retail price reflects that difference at the moment. Aluminium is light, it is usable, and it has the defect that it is perhaps a little more liable to blow over in the wind, and if you happen to be on it when it blows over in the wind your fate is very similar to when you break a rung or a lower rung comes out. An accident can be an extremely unpleasant thing. But I do not think that really can come in, except under defined circumstances, as a liability. If the defect is there at the time of the sale and if the defect does its deadly work, and within a very limited period, then I think it will come within the Act.
Other speakers have expressed their apprehension at the fact that some few details and some few specifications have been available for special cases within the Bill. I see no difficulty in that, I see no objection to that, and if anyone can get over it by collective drafting, so much the better.
My Lords, it was unfortunate, perhaps, as I think happened even in another place last week, that many Members were thinking in terms of thalidomide, which is not a very good example from either point of view. It is an imported product. It was said that an action for damages for negligence could not succeed. I find it very difficult to think that that was true all along the line. I can well understand people coming to the conclusion that that might be the position. I can well understand the solicitors of the Distillers' organisation advising them to fight, if
1434
we are dealing solely with liability and I without emotion; but the accumulated evidence, the accumulating facts, really, I think, meant that that action could succeed and could have succeeded under our own interesting law. In the event, of course, it is a remarkable case.
My Lords, may I refer, from memory, to a case I had not intended to refer to and do not intend to bear on—indeed, one which is still a matter of dispute. In Michigan—and this is a precise example, dealing with the case of agricultural products—a rather small firm, not very impressive either in its appearance or in its record, was producing two forms of drug, two of those many hundreds, or even thousands, of drugs that can now be produced on the basis of quantative rather than qualitative analysis; and, of course, there was the discovery of the man I have frequently referred to in this House as the real man on the Clapham omnibus. One of these drugs was being sold for the purpose of making, or claiming to make, woods fireproof, really for the fireproofing of furniture, of which there was some evidence of success. The other was something to add to the corn products of the area to make them more palatable—a more useful and beneficial food for cattle and everything, for most farm animals and birds.
All went moderately well until one day the producing firm ran out of the sacks that were specially made to house the product. They rapidly improvised paper packages, rather like concrete bags, and wrote on them a protective description giving a certain amount of warning to whoever used them; but they forgot that the protective description would not help the negro worker who could not read or write, who had defective sight and who was being directed to put these notices in the appropriate bags. He did not do it. They were distributed round a considerable area of the State of Michigan, and within a week or two men, women, children, animals and birds were suffering from a form of wasting poisoning which the highest medical opinion now says is one of the rare poisons that are proof against the normal metabolism and which can operate throughout one's life and pass to one's children, who will quite likely inherit the same inability to profit physically by the normal metabolic changes.

1435
That is what happens when people decide to put things on the market early. I beg your Lordships to reconsider these observations—the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I am afraid, for once, was guilty of them—that many people may well be tempted to put drugs on the market early.
My Lords, I had not intended to say more about drugs but, of course, penicillin is the other example. I had the privilege of a rewarding acquaintance with Sir Alexander Fleming. I have said this before, I know, and I do not want to bother the House again; but what I have not said is that the real tragedy with penicillin came in the way in which it was used long after it was proved. The benefits to mankind of penicillin were largely destroyed by the wholesale administration of it for everything, until men, women and animals acquired a resistance. I see the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, nodding his head; I thought it was in dissent. Surely he recalls how this affected the war against malaria, for example. In our reaction against penicillin there was the development (I am not quite sure what the right word is) of the antibodies, or whatever they are, which meant that penicillin ceased to effect its purpose—and that history is undoubted, and proven.
Again, of course, in the area of this particular proposal we are dealing with the very special circumstances which prevail in connection with the making of poisonous drugs—drugs to destroy vegetation, either in war or in peace, but stronger in war than in peace—and these are problems which cannot be cured by the suggestions contained in the observations of the last speaker about small print and large print. Many houses today, and particularly houses that have lawns, gardens and so on, have a considerable variety of fairly deadly poisons which carry no warning and carry no analysis. I venture to say on a personal basis that anyone who has fought, as I have all my life, on the question of industrial disease, on industrial accident, and on the claims against producers that we are now discussing, will know the strength and the power of the resistance which is there—Dow Chemicals in America, and the great Swiss firm which we found in the
1436
end (it is not fair to say "in the end"; we found a little after the accident) owned the factory at Sevres are examples. They have very great powers of propaganda; they have very great influence; they can send out glossy pamphlets by the dozen. We had it, too, in the way of asbestos.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, talked of contributory negligence. We have to remember that, at the time when I was a boy, contributory negligence was an absolute defence. Damages were not then shared out between two guilty parties; contributory negligence was a defence. I can understand some arguments for a plea of contributory negligence; but I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that there is really only one way of doing this effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred, in terms which are quite familiar to me, to a harvest for lawyers. The harvest for lawyers comes when there are doubts in the Act, when there are matters for argument, and when there are obvious matters left not dealt with in the provision and the drafting. That is why I think it is extremely important that we should do this.
I come finally to an observation that I make tentatively and with hesitation. This is an EEC directive. I was on the EEC Committee of this House for several years, from its inception. I had the opportunity to see the wonderful work that was done by Lady Tweedsmuir, as chairman, which I regarded as one of the greatest Parliamentary performances I have seen in my lifetime. From the start, we were having difficulties about directives. In the initial stages a directive was something that we did not have to follow in absolute detail but which we had to follow. It involved a peremptory request for legislation. It was not quite so peremptory later on because delays became a very considerable feature of the matter, and one can well understand that.
My Lords, do the advantages of a series of directives in the Common Market, with all its difficulties today, outweigh clear and unequivocal legislation, especially when the Council of Europe's own convention already meets with many of the difficulties? I feel doubtful when I compare the observations of the Law Commission and the observations of the

1437
Pearson Committee with the rather scrappy bits of paper that come through from Brussels, the curious way of drafting amendments by issuing sheets of foolscap paper, and so on. However, I have spoken too long already. I do not regret it and I do not apologise, because this is a matter on which I have waited a long time to speak and on which I was anxious to raise at least some points that I propose to pursue.
6.38 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I think this is a very difficult subject indeed, and I hope that we can keep it out of the emotional and party political field. First of all, I should like to pay tribute to the Royal Commission's report, which am sure most of your Lordships will know is a very worthy document at least two inches thick; but it has considered very carefully and without bias all the problems that this legislation raises. I should also like to say how excellent I think is the report of our Select Committee. I think it might be useful at this stage to look at what our present legislation is, and why we really must make some change—or logically should make some change.
We have first of all the law of negligence, and to date it has been necessary, in the case of a firm, to prove that they were negligent before one could claim damages. That has been virtually impossible, because one could not get the evidence—and do not forget for a moment that a firm can pay in a big way for the best legal advisers and, of course, can take the case to higher courts. But a more common or garden example is if you are riding as a passenger in a car. If you have an accident and are badly hurt, then, if you can prove that the driver was negligent, you can very often get immense damages; but if you cannot prove negligence you get absolutely nothing. So this in fact is a lottery as far as the consumer is concerned. It is like the pools. It does not do the average consumer any good and he probably never gets anything out of it. What are we trying to do? Are we trying to punish the manufacturer? Maybe that is part of it, but from any other point of view this is wholly unsatisfactory and largely historical. It is how our law has grown up.
1438
Let us take the Sale of Goods Act. This is very interesting because you have not got to prove any negligence at all; it is a question of contract. If I climb up a ladder on which one of the rungs is faulty and I fall down, I can sue and, if I am badly hurt, get substantial damages. On the other hand, if my family is climbing up the ladder—nothing. So there again we have a case of complete (or almost complete as far as the purchaser is concerned) liability—without any question at all, strict liability. So one can see that from almost any point of view that the law is not very satisfactory. I would maintain that what we are really trying to do is to take out an insurance for the consumer so that the people who are injured get compensation where they are injured in the sort of way which is bad luck. New Zealand has gone the whole distance on this and if you are injured there you get compensation. I do not think we should move too quickly because there are always side effects and, unless one has to move quickly, it is a good thing to see what they are.
I should have mentioned earlier, logically, another area where we have almost strict liability. That is the old Workmen's Compensation Act and, following on that, the regulations today. So we have accepted this principle in a number of fields. I can see that there is a problem in compensation and, because I am thinking of the consumer, I believe that one cannot accept the excessive damages which are sometimes awarded—and certainly not at the moment when, as I say, it is just a lottery. We have to consider insurance, and insurance must be able to assess the risks, so that we do not want something utterly open-minded. I think that here we might look at what happened in America where negligence has been pushed to an extreme by the courts so that a doctor who gives a wrong diagnosis or treatment which maybe could have been better is claimed to be negligent. According to our meaning of the word "negligent", he was not negligent at all. But the damages there are so enormous that it is costing the consumer something like 25 per cent, on the doctors' fees; and I am not sure that it is not a good deal more.
A word about the defence of the state of the art. This, I know, is questionable, but I think the manufacturers are tending

1439
merely to say, "Rule this out of court straightaway". But if you look at it my way, which is primarily that of the insurance policy for the consumer, I do not think you should rule it out. There are several arguments for not allowing a defence of the state of the art. If other European countries do not have it then we, as members of the EEC, could well become the guinea-pigs of Europe. We do not want that. Then I think we must come back to the question of thalidomide. Nearly everyone says, "Yes, they were right; compensation had to be paid". All right, but then you have to find an answer. You cannot simply sit back and say, "State of the art" and all the rest. That sort of thing might occur.
Then, of course, it negatives my personal feelings (and I think I am utterly logical) about the benefit to the injured person. What we are really doing in many cases if we do this is restoring once again this ridiculous idea of negligence. So, on balance, I am not in favour of giving this to the manufacturers but I am in favour of limiting their liability. In the case of a new product there might be exceptions. I was impressed by the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, about the aircraft industry, and it could be that some other arrangements would have to be made. It needs thinking about. But I do not believe we should go forward and give this straight away as a defence.
Once again I would say that in all this we must at every stage look at the likely side effects. We can do this by looking perhaps in Europe to countries that have had rather similar legislation to what is now proposed and see what the effects are there. I will give one rather minor, unfortunate side effect, in my opinion, of the state in America. When you read the instructions supplied with a product they are umbrella instructions. You will get, as I got, with a rotary grass cutting machine, some 15 warnings of what you should not do, including, "Do not get off the machine when it is moving" and "Do not take a light near the battery just after it has been charged". All right, all those warnings could go in the instruction book. But what you want is three major warnings in bold type. If you give 15 what is the chance of the most important ones being observed? That is a small side effect that has come from America.
1440
All importantly, in my opinion, we must prevent this area becoming a lawyers' paradise. I am sure that people on this side of the House, at least, would say that what they want is that the consumers shall get their due compensation. And the more we complicate the law, the harder it is for them to do it. I think at every stage we should try to see whether we can make the legal situation clearer than it is at present. Every exception we make, particularly, of course, with regard to the state of the present art, I can see could result in days of useful debate for the lawyers.
6.49 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, may I first apologise sincerely to the House because, owing to a prior engagement from which I cannot escape, it will be impossible for me to stay to the end of the debate. I apologise particularly to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate who is to reply. Clearly we are at the beginning and not at the end of a discussion of this very complicated and important subject. Some of us certainly see the issue primarily as an issue to improve the position of consumers needing a defence in a complicated and developing economy.
I echo and for a moment develop the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. We are very much today, in regard to the defence of the consumer, in the position that we were in relation to the defence of the worker a hundred years ago. Your Lordships will remember that a hundred years ago we were moving from the situation in which the only defence the worker had against injury incurred at work was the plea under the 1880 Act of employers' liability that the employer was negligent. We know that that provided virtually no protection at all.
We therefore moved to the situation of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1896, under which there was no question that the employer was to blame in any way; blame was not being attributed to the employer. But the employee injured was entitled to compensation simply by virtue of the fact that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. That is the position that we are in for the consumer today. The consumer cannot be adequately protected if he is only to be protected

1441
where the employer can be shown to be at fault, because there are so many things that can happen which cannot be properly held to be the fault of the manufacturer or blameworthy in terms of what the manufacturer has done. But they none the less constitute a risk and can lead to serious damage to the consumer.
That is what we are trying to deal with. This is why I do not accept—and I agree with noble Lords who do not like the English grammar—the "state of the art" defence. The state of the art defence really is bound up with the idea that there should be no liability unless there is blame attached, however modified that blame may be. That is what we are arguing about, whether we are saying that we are looking for a way—recognising that it is extremely difficult to find—which will give adequate protection to consumers. Of course the answer that we get—and I understand this very well—is that in trying to give adequate protection to the consumers we are dealing unfairly with the manufacturers.
The issue appears to be: How can we I meet the primary aim of protecting the consumer while not putting the manufacturer at undue risk? Here surely there is room for considerable discussion and negotiation with those people, the Commission, who are drafting the directive. Considerable discussion has still to take place about this before we get a really acceptable directive. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, suggested that this would not be equitable, but I suppose if we can get rough justice in this matter we are doing pretty well. So rarely does one get justice of any kind that rough justice is usually an advance. Some limitation to the absolute liability would not be something unreasonable to propose; that the sky should not be the limit. We certainly do not want the ridiculous claims and settlements that have characterised the American application of the principle of consumer protection.
Another way in which the manufacturer surely could have a strong defence and a mitigation of his liability could be where it has been shown that he has applied recognised standards. Here I speak with an interest because I have a close connection with the British Standards Institution (which, incidentally, has come out in
1442
favour of this approach to consumer protection) that if recognised standards have been applied, this should be argued by the manufacturer as some mitigation of his liability, that this would encourage the introduction of standards and the improvement of the level of safety work that is undertaken. This may not be entirely compatible with the idea that the employer is not to blame. I think that is what the Minister is going to say. But surely we want to use this legislation as an instrument for encouraging the better application of higher standards in manufacturing than we have had up to the present time.
The only other point that I want to make is this. I am most surprised that it has been suggested—and I say this humbly because I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who made the suggestion—that certainly there was some doubt as to whether this was an appropriate subject for an EEC directive. But surely if one country is going to apply this kind of legislation, if one country in mitigation of the liability of the employer, for instance, is going to encourage as we want them to encourage the spreading of the risk and therefore insurance costs, then this affects the competitive position of that particular country. Anything that affects the competitive position of the country—which giving greater protection to the consumer is undoubtedly going to do—is something which should be the subject of an EEC directive in order to ensure fair competition between manufacturers in different countries of the Community.
Therefore for this reason it seems to me that this is an appropriate subject for a directive; that the objective of protecting the consumer without blame to the manufacturer is something that we must pursue because, as other noble Lords have made clear today, the present position of consumer protection is no longer acceptable. But the directive as it stands is not really adequate and a great deal more work and negotiation needs to be done in connection with it.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I join with others who have paid tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, for his introduction of this Motion, and for the clarity of his exposition

1443
of some of the problems involved in this draft directive. I have the privilege—although I do not speak in that capacity this evening—of being a member of the Law Sub-Committee of your Lordships' Select Committee which is responsible for the report now before us. I therefore add to what I have already said a word of personal thanks to a most efficient and ever-courteous chairman. If I may say so, the sub-committee indeed deserves well of your Lordships.
Both noble and learned Lords who have spoken in this debate have drawn attention to specific points out of the many made in the report in regard to this draft directive. They are very important points and they merit the closest attention. I have counted well-nigh 30 of them. They include questions of intra vires, briefly referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman; the definition of the word "article"; what is or is not supposed to be a primary agricultural product; who is or is not supposed to come within the definition of "producer"; whether or not the safety of property is meant to be included in the definition of "defective"; the defence of "assumption of risk"; the appearance now in the directive of the defence of contributory negligence; the query as to whether Article 6(c) can be construed as including damage for pure economic loss; very practical questions arising on the limitation of liability which the noble and learned Lords, Lord Fraser and Lord Scarman, developed; the concern over the precise meaning of "identical articles", which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, dealt with; and the urgent need for a full revision of Article 7, in regard to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, quoted with approval the stringent comments of the Law Society, of which I am privileged to be a member.
Then there was reference to the difficulties posed by the proposed cut-off period, and a look in this connection at the United States model act to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, referred in broad terms; its provision of "usual safe life"; the divergencies between the directive and the convention and the relative advantages of the convention, again referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman; and the
1444
possible advantages of introducing a guarantee scheme to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was possibly referring; and various—to use Lord Fraser's elegant phrase—"drafting infelicities".
Most of these matters have been referred to in the course of this debate in which some of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, and others, who are distinguished experts in various fields of our national life and industry, have made such worthwhile contributions. They will, I am sure, be taken on board by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate.
In attempting to sum up this excellent debate on behalf of the Opposition, as I had the honour to do from this Dispatch Box precisely a year ago when we were debating the Pearson Report on a Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbey-dale, whose contribution then was as notable as his speech this afternoon, I feel I should concentrate on a few important items which arise from our own consideration of the draft directive.
The first point is—and this is my comment on the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale—taking it for granted that we have the definitions right, the language clear and the practicalities ironed out, ought the Government to go ahead and in the Council of Ministers support the broad principle of strict product liability as generally propounded by this directive? It has been said again and again—and this report emphasises it—that over a period of years the English and the Scottish Law Commissions and the Pearson Commission have separately examined this issue in the greatest possible detail and have said unequivocally that our law is defective and that the consumer, not being the direct purchaser, safeguarded as that purchaser is by the law of privity of contract, the Sale of Goods Act and other statutory enactments, is unfairly and wrongly disadvantaged in having to prove fault in addition to defect and damage.
On a broader front, the European voice has spoken through the European Convention—the Strasbourg Convention as it is known—and the draft EEC directive, and has said the same. As the report I says, and as the noble and learned Lord,

1445
Lord Fraser, emphasised in his opening speech, there is surely no point in going again into that general issue. The concept to us and in our law is in no way revolutionary since, as has been said so frequently this afternoon, we already have strict product liability where there is privity of contract and a direct relationship of vendor and purchaser. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will forgive me if, sitting where I do, I am not anxious, to use the phrase of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, to put the legal clock back in this case for about 100 years, but rather concerned to set it for the future.
One moves to a rather more difficult issue when seeking to apply this principle of strict liability, of liability irrespective of being able to prove "fault" or "negligence", where there is a defect resulting in damage. We owe a duty to act justly and equitably to consumers—right as it may be that they should be protected, as innocent sufferers, from a defective product—but we must also sensibly balance this with a duty to be fair and reasonable to our industries, and to all industries, whether it be the aerospace industry in regard to which my noble friend Lord Beswick spoke with the authority he always commands and, if I may say so, always will command, or the food industry where the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, speaks with such knowledge and experience, or in the pharmaceutical and medical fields referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and by my noble friend Lord Hale.
We must not over-penalise our industries, if "penalise" be the correct word, or overburden them so that they cannot fairly compete with their foreign competitors, least of all in a recession. We must not endanger initiative and innovation. None of us would sensibly want to do these things if this was really the effect of these proposals. But we must be sure that we are not being misled, however honestly, by those who would have us create exceptions or whittle down the strict liability concept by exaggerated claims as to the burdens which would be imposed.
In this context, I specifically refer to the defence for which the plea has in various places been made this afternoon: that of "state of the art" or, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, so rightly said, to use a more
1446
homely phrase, "development risks". I would say to your Lordships that in the district of London in which I was born the use of the term "state of the art" would presumably indicate either a very serious medical condition or a very warm romantic disposition. But on the question of development risks, I would certainly tell the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that he need have no fear in regard to the matter to which he specifically referred.
There seems to be no fixed political position in regard to the admission or not of this defence. The Solicitor-General in the last Labour Government said that he favoured the inclusion of this defence. The Government, in the debate on 4th November in another place on this directive, said that they similarly favoured this defence. The Opposition spokesman in another place, Mr. Fraser, indicated that he thought it wrong to include it. His honourable friend the Member for Widnes, Mr. Oakes, from the Opposition Benches, spoke in favour of including the defence. The honourable Member for Grantham, Mr. Douglas Hogg, whose relationship to a most distinguished and learned Member of your Lordships' House is not unknown, spoke from the Government Benches against the inclusion of the defence and he based his view on the natural evolution of our existing law.
If we are to make a balanced judgment on this issue it seems to me that we must have the facts. What really is the likely extent of the burden which would be placed on industry by the absence of this defence? In my submission, we would have to be satisfied that there would be a very heavy and unfair burden indeed before we admit a defence which, as the Pearson Report said and as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, quoted so effectively, would—and I am quoting, just as he did—
"leave a gap in the compensation cover through which, for example, the victims of another thalidomide disaster might easily slip",
and a defence which our Law Commission examined and would not admit, as indeed is a position of the Strasbourg Convention and this directive. The European Commission, in turning down a recommendation of the European Parliament in this connection said—and these are words which are quoted in the report before us—
"such risks are in any event extremely rare";

1447
and I quote again:
"the effect would be to require the consumer to bear the risk of the unknown".
My Lords, what is the likely additional cost of insuring against this particular risk? Would not many of us be convinced, whatever be the special, if sincere, pleading by those who represent various industries, if we found that the extra insurance cost could reasonably be borne and if necessary passed on to consumers generally, all our EEC competitors being in the same boat, that the balance must be tipped in that event in favour of the consumer? We know that otherwise the consumer will be met with very considerable difficulties and the possibility in any event of very expensive litigation in trying to disprove a producer's defence of the "state of the art". He may, most unfairly in the event, be left without a remedy, as so many of the thalidomide children would have been had it not been for the pressure on the Distillers of public opinion through the media.
As a contributor wrote in The Times this morning—the noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to this in the course of his speech and, with your Lordships' permission, I will read it: it is only a few sentences and I think it ought to be read—
"If, however, the producer can plead state of the art in his defence he will have readily available a number of experts to show that there was no way in which he could have discovered the defect. The plaintiff will fail unless he has with him on his Clapham omnibus more convincing experts to show that the plaintiff's experts are wrong.
"This would reverse the reversal of the burden of proof and so remove the basis of strict liability, or at least emasculate the whole concept".
A year ago, in the debate on the Pearson Report, the noble Viscount, Lord Tren-chard, replying on behalf of the Government, said—and I am reading from the Official Report of 28th November, 1979, at col. 453—
"I would say to him"—
he was referring to a contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter—
"and to other industrialists that I hope they will talk to insurance brokers and try to give information to the Department of Trade, perhaps with their insurance firms, on what the situation might be under the various proposals we are considering. That would be extremely helpful and I say that to industry in general and to the CBI".
I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, when he follows me, to
1448
be good enough to tell us what information he has received in reply to the request of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about the likely insurance costs which would be added if the development risks remained both for industry in general and for those with specially high risks, such as we have heard of this afternoon. If the reply be "None", surely we may be entitled to be somewhat suspicious that this answer has not been given. I suspect that other Members of your Lordships' House are as misinformed about this as I am.
I suggest that we get little or no help from the American experience, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, said so persuasively. American juries award very much higher damages than do our judges. Americans are much more litigious as a people. As a legal practitioner I say that with, perhaps, some envy. Their medical expenses and expert fees are astronomically high. They also have an unfortunate system—as we professionally see it in this country—of lawyers often being paid a fixed proportion of the damages recovered by way of fees. Such evidence as I have been able to look at in Europe, however, leads me to believe that the cost would not be oppressive—certainly not in general cases.
The report before us has the following quotation at page 7, on which it is fair to say the British Insurers Association have raised a query, so far as it relates to insurance in respect of products with a heavy development risk potential. The European Committee of Insurers apparently told the commissioners,
"that insurance cover for these risks"—
obviously, I am referring, as they did, to development risks—
"is not likely to lead to appreciably greater costs of insurance than those payable following the introduction of a liability irrespective of fault".
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will allow me to intervene for one moment? He has obviously gone into this very carefully. He has dealt with the question of cost, and he is rather suggesting that it is not a very important consideration. Can he now deal with those cases where I suggested it would be quite impossible to get insurance?
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I hope that what I am about to quote will be of some assistance to those of us who really are trying to inquire into this matter, in order to obtain a proper judgment on this very important issue. I hope that my noble friend Lord Beswick will find this quotation of some assistance. Furthermore, I see from a document which I received yesterday—as no doubt did other noble Lords—from the national Consumer Council that,
"Given that the change in the law is not a considerable one, it follows that the costs, to be faced first by manufacturers and then by the consumers who buy their products, will not be large. And indeed all the available evidence suggests that they will be very small. European insurers gave evidence to the European Parliament of the expected additional costs. In every case but one they were a fraction of 1 per cent, of turnover. The only exception—where the cost of insurance might go as high as 1 per cent, exception—was explosives. In America—where awards of compensation are much higher than here—the Final Report of the Federal Government 'Task Force' noted that the average estimated cost of product coverage barely exceeded 1 per cent, in 1976 for firms operating in the high risk category".
I pause there, because that was obviously the part of industry to which my noble friend was referring.
The document continues:
"The German insurance industry"—
and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to this—
"has estimated that the actual cost of introducing strict liability for pharmaceutical products, probably the most difficult area, amounts to 5 pfennigs in every 10 D.marks of turnover, again half of 1 per cent. In all of the conferences about product liability the message from insurers has been the same; it is difficult to estimate the precise extra cost until there is a precise piece of legislation, but all suggest that the extra costs are unlikely to have serious effects on the price of products and commonly it is suggested that any increase in insurance premiums for general engineering products is likely to amount to 0·1 per cent, of turnover. Such costs are tiny when compared to the amounts spent on advertising and promoting the same products".
This may be right or it may be wrong, but I feel that unless and until the Government are satisfied beyond doubt that the costs incurred by and the burdens imposed on industry by not including the "state of the art" defence are prohibitive, they would be quite wrong to advocate the inclusion of this defence of the "state of the art", especially in general terms. Indeed, they will be flying in the face of the recommendations of our own commissions and their reports and will be
1450
asking for another thalidomide-like outcry in future years should—Heaven forfend!— another such tragedy occur.
Finally, I turn by way of comment to the, to me, frightening delays which occur, apparently of necessity, in the formulation and agreement of these EEC directives, and thereafter in regard to the date when they become effective. The Minister in another place seemed to be taking some comfort for herself and for industry from her statement to Parliament—and I quote from the Commons Official Report of 4th November 1980 at cols. 1108 and 1109—
"the negotiations will inevitably be protracted, and it is likely to be years and not months before the directive is adopted, let alone implemented".
This means that justice for consumers here will be substantially denied them in law for several years to come.
We have already waited several years since the thalidomide disaster highlighted a scandalous vacuum, and indeed anomaly, in our law. The commission, which was set up largely because of that disaster, has reported long since and has recommended the alteration of our law to one of strict liability. So have our Law Commissioners. It is not one of the most acceptable aspects of our membership of the EEC that, because of that membership, consumers in this country will now, presumably, have to wait several years more before they have a proper right of redress. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, concluded his final address in this House a year ago—and he was speaking as a member of the Pearson Commission—
"Our concern has been that the debate has been so slow in starting … At the end of the day, my Lords, I still cannot get out of my mind those thalidomidechildren".—[Official Report, 28/11/79; col. 459.]
Apparently, those children will be middle-aged before there is legislation to deal with the unsatisfactory legal position to which their case drew attention. Is that not regrettable in the extreme and can we really be satisfied with such delays?
7.20 p.m.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, as has been made clear from the debate, this is a matter of great public importance and it has already been the subject of a number

1451
of investigations. I would draw attention particularly to the examination of the problem by the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, following on a reference made to them in 1971. I was privileged to participate in the latter part of that exercise as a member of the Scottish Law Commission. Although there were differences in detail between the commissions, they agreed that the existing law, both in England and Scotland, was inadequate in this field and recommended therefore that an additional right should be created under which a victim injured by a defective product should be entitled to obtain compensation from the producer. They rejected the concept of a "state of the art" defence—that is their phraseology, so perhaps I may be permitted to use it, even though I remember that it could be open to misinterpretation in some quarters—partly at least because they thought that the producer would already escape liability in many cases as a result of the definition of "defective", while their recommendation was broadly but not exactly on the lines proposed in Article 4 of the latest draft directive.
Both commissions recognise the advantages which would accrue from the adoption of a common product liability régime over as wide an area as possible. Neither of them felt able, however, to recommend acceptance of the EEC draft directive as it stood. The Law Commission felt that the Strasbourg convention met all the main points which they would like to see in a product liability régime. We in the Scottish Law Commission, however, while acknowledging the value of the work done in Strasbourg, felt unable to recommend accession to the convention, which failed to meet our recommendations on a number of important issues.
The revised draft EEC directive meets many of the criticisms which both law commissions made about its predecessor. We should, I am sure, have been far less critical of the present draft than we were of the first draft, but I am reasonably satisfied that we should have shared the Government's view that the present draft as it stands remains unacceptable.
Apart from this, as we have heard, the Royal Commission, under the distinguished chairmanship of the late Lord
1452
Pearson, examined this matter very fully indeed. I should like to join in the very felicitous way in which Lord Hale expressed his regret that we do not have the advantage of the presence of Lord Pearson now. We regret his passing and pay tribute to the very distinguished work which he did as chairman of that commission. I was privileged to appear before it as a witness and I therefore pay particular tribute to Lord Pearson's courtesy to rather nervous witnesses. I should say that it was Lord Allen of Abbeydale who asked me the questions then, so perhaps that contributed to my state at that time.
The point of principle raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has therefore been examined by at least three commissions. I am sure that the House would not like me now to recite the reasons which led them to their conclusion upon this matter. However, I would commend the Pearson Commission's report upon the matter, and also of course the joint report of the two law commissions as expressing good reasons for wishing a change from the present system.
The Government's position on the directive was set out by my right honourable friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs during the debate on the draft directive in the other place on 4th November. A good deal of reference has already been made to that. Noble Lords from all parts of the House are aware of the Government's position and have referred to it during the debate. I believe the Government will take considerable encouragement from the expression of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, that the select committee of your Lordships' House has reached a view broadly in line with the Government position—not of course in detail but broadly in line with the Government position.
It may be convenient if I remind your Lordships of what that position is. In the first place, the Government have taken careful note of the support which a number of other member states have given to the principle underlying the draft directive. I emphasise that the support has been given to the principle rather than to the existing text. No member state, so far as I am aware, is prepared to accept the draft directive as it stands. The Government also readily accept that there

1453
would be many advantages in establishing a common system of product liability throughout the Community. It would clearly, for example, be helpful to manufacturers if the product liability régime was the same throughout the Community. The Government cannot take a final view on the introduction of a Community régime for strict liability until the precise nature of that régime has been clarified in further negotiations. Therefore, if I may, I would accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said about this—that we are not at the end of this matter; there is a good deal of negotiation still to be done. Until we can take a final view, we shall be willing to negotiate constructively with our partners on the basis of the Commission's present draft.
In our view, the draft does not strike a proper balance between the interests of producers and those of injured victims. One important improvement which the Government will be seeking is the incorporation of a state of the art defence so that a producer will not be liable for damages caused by a defect which could not have been detected in the light of scientific and technological knowledge at the time it was put on the market. It may seem strange that the Government are seeking a state of the art defence when both law commissions and the Royal Commission recommended against such a defence. The European Parliament, however, has taken the contrary view and argues that if manufacturers were liable for such defects, innovation would be impeded, to the detriment of the consumer as well as of industry. A considerable number of trade associations which the Department of Trade consulted last year argued strongly on these lines.
The Government have considered the problem very carefully indeed and have certainly not lightly departed from the views of the law commissions and the Royal Commission. They are conscious of the need to protect the consumer, particularly the innocent victim of a defective product that he or she has not purchased and who will therefore need to establish negligence if he is to obtain compensation under the present law. However, we recognise the strength of the argument on innovation. Our industrial success has been based on innovation and we must encourage British industry to
1454
innovate in the future in order to maintain our competitive position in world markets. We recognise also the benefits that consumers as a whole derive from innovation. We believe therefore that it is important that a state of the art defence should be included in any product liability directive and shall seek to persuade our partners to accept such a defence.
It has been suggested, for example by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, that one must be careful not to reintroduce a fault by the back door. He says that this is a matter of considerable difficulty. His view is, as he expressed, at present rather against it, although he said, which is of considerable comfort to me personally, that it is a matter upon which one could well change one's mind in the light of the evidence available.
Reference was made to the United States experience. I agree of course that one must be cautious in drawing lessons for us from that experience. Equally, however, it would be wrong to ignore it. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, gave us an impressive list of examples. He indicated that he could readily go on to fill the whole alphabet, if we should wish it, with the innovations which have resulted in very considerable benefit to consumers as a whole from very difficult development work in the aerospace industry. Accordingly, it is in the light of these considerations that the Government decided to take the stand on this position that they have.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord is leaving the subject of the state of the art defence, can he say whether the Government will consider establishing a public fund for the limited purpose of compensating the victims whose claims fail purely on a successful plea of the state of the art defence?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, that is a proposal which has been made to cover this situation. Certainly it is a proposal which is worthy of consideration.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, may I also ask the Minister how he would deal with a thalidomide case, having once accepted a state of the art defence?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: My Lords, that depends upon the facts which are established. Certainly there is some doubt about the precise state of knowledge as the thalidomide difficulty developed and I certainly accept that some of the thalidomide victims might have been deprived of a remedy by a state of the art defence on the lines which I have just indicated—I think that is reasonably clear—but by no means all of them.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, is that the only answer?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: My Lords, it is the only answer that I was proposing to give at the moment. As I have said, this is a matter which will be the subject of negotiation and this is the position as we go forward in these negotiations. The effect of the Government's decision is that we shall maintain our general reserve on the draft directive during the discussions in the Council working party. We shall seek to persuade our partners to accept a state of the art defence and we shall seek a number of other changes where we feel that the existing text is defective. A number of these have been mentioned, and perhaps I may briefly indicate our attitude to them at this moment.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, I am sorry to cause a further interruption but, if the Minister is leaving the state of the art defence, can he say whether the decision means that we cannot accede to the Strasbourg convention?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: My Lords, since the Strasbourg convention does not have a state of the art defence I certainly think it means that the decision of the Government on this matter is incompatible with accession to the Strasbourg convention. Of course at the moment that is a hypothetical question. So far as I know no one has ratified the Strasbourg convention yet. In any event it would be necessary for us to follow out the negotiations on the directive and it is only then that the question of acceding or not to the Strasbourg convention would become a realistic issue.
In my submission, my Lords, it is a question of examining the situation as it develops in the light of the text as it
1456
emerges from the negotiations. If it is acceptable, my right honourable friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs has indicated that the Government would implement the directive through primary legislation. If, of course, the final package is not acceptable we shall have to consider whether to seek to reopen negotiations or to reject it. I hope, however, that, as is generally the case, careful and detailed negotiations in Brussels will achieve a solution which is acceptable, not only to the United Kingdom but to all member states.
I have indicated that certain of the problems which have arisen in relation to the directive are matters on which we have preliminary views, and perhaps I may deal briefly with some of them. First, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, mentioned the global limit provided in the present Article 7. We respectfully agree with him that the present draft is quite unworkable, but it is a very important provision of the present directive and has a very important bearing on, for example, insurance costs. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, appreciated that when he asked me about costs. There is no point in trying to get reliable estimates of cost until one knows what one is seeking to insure. The question of a limit on the claim in some shape or form is fundamental to that, as I am sure your Lordships will appreciate.
It has been suggested that one way of dealing with this is to put a limit on individual claims. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned, that immediately introduces an element of rough justice in relation to the very badly injured person. A person badly injured from a single defect might be very badly hit by such a provision. So the matter is by no means easy. It is fundamental to the whole question of the practicability of this régime and therefore I think it indicates the wisdom of looking at the thing as a whole in the result, as the Government would seek to do.
The same point arises in relation to the 10-year cut-off period and the difficulties mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, in regard to that, taken along with a global limit. The reference to identical articles clearly requires some elucidation. Is a blue Cortina an identical article to a red Cortina, for example?

1457
The question of primary agricultural products and food products generally is a difficult one and, if one retains that sort of distinction, there is a difficult definition required when one passes from the primary agricultural food products to manufactured food products. Then there is the question of whether damage under the directive should include damage to property and economic loss. Our present view is that the text requires amendment in respect of those points. A difficult question arises on components, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, drew particular attention to that. It is a difficult question on which negotiations will require to proceed. The "producer" should be defined to include an importer into the EEC. That is the way that Article 2 at present defines it.
Some attention was drawn to the side effects and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, particularly referred to this matter. One has to take account of side effects if one of the results of a directive of this sort is to multiply warnings, not so much with a view to people who get the products acting on the warnings, but with a view to covering legal liability. We should be in the sort of exercise which used to be a difficult one—and perhaps it still is—of trying to draw up exclusions of liability for contractual purposes. That is a side effect of a directive like this or a régime of this kind which certainly has to be taken into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, also referred to the possibility of making some reference to standards and the desirability of standards having some effect in this field. I think insistence on that is probably incompatible with a complete rejection of the state of the art defence but I believe that form of the state of the art defence is certainly one possible form and a compliance with standards might be regarded as important.
That brings me to answer the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. First, there was the one about the Civil Aviation Authority and the airworthiness certificate. The position is that an airworthiness certificate is a very important certificate indeed but even under our present law it does not relieve the producer of any liability he may have, for example, for defective manufacture, and the same
1458
would arise in relation to the new régime, subject to the point I have just made about it being possibly relevant to some form of the state of the art defence and a reference to standards for judging that.
So far as the Warsaw convention point is concerned, I can perhaps deal with that also conveniently now. The Warsaw convention limits the liability of the carrier. This directive is concerned with the liability of the producer—in this case the producer of the carrying machine—and the Warsaw convention would have no effect on that, so the two would coexist, if I may use that expression.
The other questions which have been raised relate to the position in some other countries. I have already mentioned the United States of America and I shall not repeat that. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, gave some indication of what he understood to be the attitude of the French Government to this directive and, so far as I know, the French Government have not challenged the directive on the grounds stated by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. Indeed they say that there is already strict liability in France, with no state of the art defence. We understand that the views described by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, may be those of the French aerospace industry, who may not accept that French law already implies strict liability. I am really not in a position to give a very cear answer on this matter; there seems to me some vagueness about it. But certainly we have not been able to ascertain with absolute precision what the bearing of the French law, particularly on the aerospace industry, might be at the present time.
That brings me to say a word about the situation in West Germany, because I think there may be some misunderstanding about that. As I understand the present position in West Germany, there is no strict liability régime generally and the law there in general is not dissimilar to our own. However, in 1978 West Germany did introduce strict liability with no state of the art defence for pharmaceuticials, but it is obviously too early to say what the effect of that will be on the innovation, or the innovative success or the success in innovating, of the West German pharmaceutical industry. The law in this matter has changed a good deal.

1459
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale asked some questions about the effect on small businesses of particular accidents. I think it would be right to say that many of the difficulties that he raised for a strict liability régime would arise under the present law in some circumstances. There would certainly be a question, for example, whether the person who supplied the ladder should have detected the defect notwithstanding that it was painted over, depending on how obvious the workmanship was in the repair. I know that these questions were raised primarily in relation to this matter of principle. My main answer on that is to invite the noble Lord again to look at the Pearson Commission Report, and possibly also, if he has time after studying that exhaustively, to look at the joint report of the two law commissions.
Some reference was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, to the question of whether this directive is empowered by the terms of Article 100 under which it is supposed to be made. I am very grateful, as I am sure the Government will be, to have Lord Scarman's own view on that matter. It is a view which is shared, I know, in a number of quarters.
If I may sum up the position, I believe that this has been an extremely useful and helpful debate to Her Majesty's Government. During the forthcoming negotiations in the Council working party the Government will take full account of the views which have been expressed by noble Lords today. The widespread support for the general line of the Government's policy both in this House and in the other place will clearly strengthen the hands of our negotiators in Brussels, and will, I hope, enable them to achieve what we all seek to achieve, a final text which meets the Government's objective of a directive which will provide proper and adequate compensation for people injured by defective products without imposing undue burdens on industry. Perhaps, in view of my profession, I ought to join very heartily also in the wish that whatever emerges it will not produce a field day for lawyers.
I think it would also be right that I should record my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton,
1460
for introducing this matter, to the noble and learned lord, Lord Scarman, for his valuable contribution, and to all noble Lords who have taken part for their very thoughtful and useful interventions, which I am sure will prove very valuable to our negotiators. I would also like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the work that has preceded this debate in order to enable us to reach this position. I know that Lord Allen of Abbeydale feels sometimes that people do not pay the right sort of attention, as full attention as they should to the report of the Pearson Commission. I can assure him that the Government have certainly paid a great deal of attention to it, and I know that among the Government there are quite a number who have read the report very thoroughly. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will feel that this debate has been well worth while.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down—and I am sure the House is very grateful to him for a very fine exposition—can he comment at all upon the rather dreadful delays which occur with these EEC directives? One appreciates that they have to have the agreement of a number of states, and indeed, in the Council of Ministers I believe, unanimous agreement, before the directive can be effective. But when we are dealing with such vital rights as these, have the Government decided that no intermediate legislation, such as Western Germany has, for example, is appropriate, and that we have to wait for this directive?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: My Lords, the attitude of the Government on this point is that this matter ought to proceed, if at all possible, by agreement. As the noble Lord says, under Article 100 agreement is required. It is a very difficult area, and I think this debate has demonstrated that; there are very different views found to be held in various parts of the House; they do not divide on any political basis. They are views genuinely held having regard to people's individual appreciations of these very difficult problems. It is surely better, if at all possible, to proceed by way of agreement. The object of a directive under Article 100 is to achieve harmonisation, and surely, if that is what we are aiming at, it is very wise to attempt to proceed by agreement. If the delays became unacceptably long

1461
then a different situation might arise, but for the present our view is that this is the way to proceed.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to thank the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, for the very full reply he has given to the points raised. I am glad to notice that the Government's view seems to be in exact coincidence with that of the Committee, that all the points mentioned in the report do require consideration at any rate by the Government in the course of negotiation. As I expected, the debate has ranged a good deal beyond the boundaries of this particular report, and I am not going to make any attempt to deal with the points raised, except one, and that is the question of whether this draft directive is within the vires of the Community. Something was said about that by my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman, and rather more by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. What the Committee said in their report, as you will see in paragraph 10, was a very carefully modulated sentence; they said:
"The Committee are not convinced that the draft Directive is intra vires of Article 100".
That is quite right; they were not convinced because they had had no evidence. But, speaking for myself, I do not think it would be at all difficult to be convinced, because I find it very difficult to think that if you had strict liability in one country in the Community and not in another there would not be unfair competition between those two countries. I think that must underlie the view of the CBI, which is, I know, that they are in favour of reaching agreement on as wide an international front as possible. The vires point, while it is alive, seems to me to have very little real substance in it. Subject to that, I do not propose to take up any further time. I hope in a modest way this debate will have been a useful and constructive part of the process of consideration which the Government must now be engaged upon in relation to this draft directive.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
HIGHWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the said amendments to be printed.
  RECONVICTION PREDICTION CALCULATIONS
  RECONVICTION PREDICTION CALCULATIONS
  THE NCB CONCESSIONARY COAL SHEME
  THE NCB CONCESSIONARY COAL SHEME
  GRAND METROPOLITAN LIMITED AND CORAL: PROPOSED MERGER
  GRAND METROPOLITAN LIMITED AND CORAL: PROPOSED MERGER
  MICRO-ELECTRONICS: TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES
  MICRO-ELECTRONICS: TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES
  UNEMPLOYMENT: COST TO THE EXCHEQUER
  UNEMPLOYMENT: COST TO THE EXCHEQUER
  SEWERS AND PIPES: ESTIMATES FOR REMEDIAL WORK
  SEWERS AND PIPES: ESTIMATES FOR REMEDIAL WORK
  NORTHERN IRELAND: SEWAGE DISPOSAL SCHEME STANDARDS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: SEWAGE DISPOSAL SCHEME STANDARDS
  N. IRELAND: HOSPITAL ADMISSION WAITING LISTS FOR CHILDREN
  N. IRELAND: HOSPITAL ADMISSION WAITING LISTS FOR CHILDREN
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTORATE: RATE DISTRIBUTION
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTORATE: RATE DISTRIBUTION
  EMPTY PROPERTIES: SHORT-LIFE USE
  EMPTY PROPERTIES: SHORT-LIFE USE
  PUBLIC SECTOR INDEX-LINKED PENSIONS
  PUBLIC SECTOR INDEX-LINKED PENSIONS