Sitting of 30 October 1980

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Agricultural Land
    Mr Chapmanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of his consultations as to whether changes should be made in the classification and grading of agricultural land.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): My consultations with the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services are nearing completion.
    They will be followed by consultations with the agriculture industry, the local authority associations and the representative bodies of the professions and organisations which are concerned with development.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that much land that is classified as grade 3 is good, productive agricultural land? Is it not misleading to put such land in the same category as poorer agricultural land, especially at a time when the Government want to discourage good agricultural land from being used for urban development, except as a last resort?
    Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend is right. About 2·8 per cent. of the land is grade 1, 14·6 per cent. is grade 2 and 48·9 per cent. is grade 3. I believe that it is because my hon. Friend and I see eye to eye that he is pressing me to make sure that grade 3 land is not thought of as third-class, which it is not.

    Food Prices
    Mr Canavanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the average percentage increase in food prices since May 1979.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): In the 17 months between May 1979 and September 1980 food prices, as measured by the general index of retail prices, rose by 15·6 per cent., compared with a rise of 25·2 per cent. in the retail price index as a whole. The House will be delighted to see that over the past three months the food price index has shown a slight fall.
    Mr. Canavan: Is not the Minister ashamed of that disgraceful record, after 17 months of Tory government? How much of that increase was due to the absurdities of the common agricultural policy? Can he assure us that any so-called decrease in our Common Market contribution will not be paid for simply by increased food bills for families in this country?
    Mr. Walker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that my reply did not fit in with his well-prepared supplementary question. If he suggests that those figures show a monstrous and shaming policy, I point out that the performance is much better than the average increase in food prices during every year of the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if other industries, particularly those which the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) represents, had the same track record as agriculture in price rises, productivity and lack of strikes, we should not be in the mess that we are in now?
    Mr. Walker: In the interests of British politics, I should be grateful to my hon. Friend if he would give the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) a
    "teach-in".
    Miss Maynard: Does the Minister agree that there is a connection between food and farm prices? Does he remember the speech that he made at Wye college last week, when he said that in 1960 we produced 60 per cent. of our food, and

    675
    that we are now approaching 80 per cent.? Did he not further say that in the past 20 years there had been a 150 per cent. improvement in the productivity record of the agriculture industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if, as the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) said, we had that throughout industry, we should have a miracle in this country and throughout the world? Therefore, is it not a scandal that farm workers' wages are still £33 per week below the average?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. With every respect, many of those questions could be related to several later questions.
    Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. There has been a substantial improvement in productivity, and a very substantial improvement in wages in the agriculture industry, which is right in view of its freedom from restrictive practices and strikes.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our food producers have received price increases that have been much lower than the rate of inflation? Does that not constitute a remarkable track record for the whole industry?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. Agriculture has made an enormous contribution to the battle against inflation, as the figures that I have announced to the House today show.
    Mr. Mason: Is it not a fact that because of a series of green pound devaluations and an artificially high rate of sterling there is a United Kingdom positive compensatory amount of about 10 per cent? Although our food exporters may be benefiting from that, is there not a tax on food imports to this country which is likely to increase food prices by about 5 per cent? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman considered a green pound revaluation to reduce prices, give our consumers a better deal and help to tackle inflation?
    Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking that question, because it gives me the opportunity to clear up some incredibly distorted comments that have appeared in certain sections of the press. If I were to eradicate the whole of the present MCA advantage to Britain, the effect on the retail price
    676
    index would be ⅓ per cent. The headlines that talk about an 8 or 9 per cent. tax on food give a totally false impression. The Labour Party constantly points out the disadvantage to British industry of a high rate of sterling, so it should not be disappointed when there is a European mechanism that stops that disadvantage from occurring in agriculture.
    Mr. Mason: May I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he has no intention of revaluing the green pound? Does he accept that if the present situation continues he will be bound to agree to a general increase in food prices at the annual price review?
    Mr. Walker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there have always been discussions on the relativity of MCAs and prices, and I am sure that such discussions will take place at the coming price review. I assure him that at the present time I have no intention of revaluing the green pound.

    Sea Fisheries Committees
    Mr. Adleyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had concerning the future role of the sea fisheries committees; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I am reviewing a number of local fisheries matters and I intend to issue a consultation document which will cover, among other things, the sea fisheries committees.
    Mr. Adley: In view of the experience that we have had of regional water authorities and the personalities of the fishermen involved, will my hon. Friend take it from me that he will not need to undertake much consultation to understand that few fishermen want anything to do with sea fisheries committees being subjugated or taken over by, or merged with, regional water authorities? Will he give an assurance that that will be more than carefully borne in mind in the consultations?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Not least because of the direct representations that I have received from my hon. Friend, for which I thank him, I am fully aware of the

    677
    specific points that he has made. I assure him that those matters will be taken fully into account in the review.
    Mr. Beith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the opinion that has just been expressed from the South of England is even more strongly held in Northumberland, where there would be tremendous resentment if the sea fisheries committee were to be taken away, and even more resentment if its job were to be given to the regional water authority?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Far be it from me to be an arbiter on the strength of regional feelings. I recognise the strength of feeling in the North-East as well.
    Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that considerable concern has been expressed about the suggestion that the functions and responsibilities of sea fishery committees might be extended beyond river mouths? Will he assure us that that would not be done without wide consultation with, among others, representatives of Scottish fishermen?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There will be consultation on all these matters that affect the fishing industry.
    Mr. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that regional water authorities already have enough to do and that they are still settling down, even though they have been in existence for about six years? Transferring the power of the sea fisheries committee in Cornwall to the regional water authority would create not only opposition but resentment.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure my hon. Friend that no decision has been taken on the matter. Representations have been made, and if the functions of sea fisheries committees had to be altered in the way that has been suggested legislation would be required and the matter would have to come before the House.

    Milk
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what developments there have been during 1980 affecting the size of the dairy herd and domestic production of milk.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The size of the dairy herd in England and Wales in 1980 has been affected by a number of factors,
    678
    including the impact of the EEC's non-marketing scheme. Despite this, milk production during the year has held up, and indeed is slightly higher than in the previous year.
    Mr. Miller: In the light of the decline in the number of producers, partly as a result of declining profitability and the EEC scheme that my hon. Friend has mentioned, and the fact that we are not self-sufficient in milk production, will my right hon. Friend, if I may put it this way, give a clear steer to our dairy farmers on the Government's policy?
    Mr. Walker: The favourable effects on the industry of three green pound devaluations and the increase that it has received from the increase in the retail price of milk show that the Government consider it essential to maintain a major presence for the dairy industry. The big scope for improvement is in dairy products. That is why I am pleased to tell the House that over the past two months the proportion of butter sold to the British market that was British-produced has been higher than for many years.
    Mr. Torney: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the EEC levies act against the British dairy farmer when we have no surplus of milk or dairy products? Will he therefore take action with the EEC to ensure that those who produce the milk surpluses reduce the number of their dairy cattle?
    Mr. Walker: In negotiations last year, Britain, alone of the member countries, expressed sympathy for the Commission's proposal that additional levies should be imposed on those who produce the surpluses. That is a principle with which we are basically in sympathy.
    Sir Paul Bryan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that British dairy farmers are annoyed at having to pay the co-responsibility levy, and even more annoyed when they discover that French farmers are being compensated by their Government?
    Mr. Walker: I should point out that the period during which French farmers did not pay the levy was the last quarter of 1977, when I had no personal responsibility for these matters. I am glad to say that since that time French farmers have paid the levy.
    Mr. Strang: Are not the right hon. Gentleman's replies unreasonably complacent, since thousands of milk producers are going out of production as a direct consequence of his Government's high interest rates and the EEC co-responsibility levy? Was not the public burning of the EEC co-responsibility levy cheque by the chairman of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board ample evidence that the producers are reaching the end of their tether? When will the Minister take some action?
    Mr. Walker: When the cheque burning took place, the general impression created in the press was that French farmers were not paying the levy and that the cheque was burnt in protest at that. It is now known that the period when they did not pay the levy was the last quarter of 1977, when the hon. Gentleman had certain responsibilities in this sphere.

    Fisheries Conservation
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further meetings he has had with his EEC counterparts regarding fishing methods; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On 29 September the EEC Council of Fisheries Ministers agreed a comprehensive regime for the conservation of fish resources.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the deal between Britain and Denmark on the North Sea pout box was described by Scottish fishermen as totally irresponsible and wrecking? Is not the truth that the Ministry of Agriculture is so jealous of all the other Government Departments, which are smashing industry to the ground on the home front, that it is ensuring that large numbers of fishing fleets are being pushed into dry dock all round the country?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should discuss the matter not only with the Scottish fishing industry, but with other fishermen. He will discover that the pout box deal made in the Council of Ministers has been generally welcomed by the British fishing industry.
    Mr. Myles: Will my hon. Friend ensure that when there are changes in mesh
    680
    sizes for conservation purposes there is an adequate supply of the nets available and that changes are not made so often that fishermen have to buy new nets every other week?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am aware of the expense that can be faced by fishermen when there are changes in mesh sizes. I accept the point about the availability of nets. The increases in mesh sizes that have been agreed will take effect from 1 December, and were first proposed about 18 months ago. The fishing industry has therefore had a considerable period of warning that this increase in mesh sizes was likely to take place.
    Mr. James Johnson: Despite what the Minister said, somewhat unkindly, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), is he aware that there is considerable scepticism and dubiety among Hull skippers about the methods used by the Danes? I am talking not about the pout box, but about the North Sea. Similar sentiments have been expressed in Lowestoft over past years. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that according to what we are told, a senior Minister has done a deal at the last EEC talks, under which invigilation of fishing methods is to be carried out by a so-called EEC fleet? Many people in Hull and elsewhere believe that invigilation and enforcement should be the responsibility of our own national fleet, rather than that of others coming into our waters.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: While I might expect the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to get his facts wrong in relation to the pout box, I should not expect the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) to get his facts wrong. I point out to him that if we had not made the agreement at the end of September there would have been no pout box to the east of the Greenwich meridian. What we have negotiated means that 80 to 90 per cent. of the white fish stocks in that area can be protected. To that extent, the British fishing industry has welcomed the proposal.
    Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend assure those hon. Members who have constituencies nearer the sea than Bolsover that the only way in which we can have sensible conservation measures is by co-operation with the rest of the EEC?

    681
    This is one area in which the Community does a good job.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If my hon. Friend continues in this manner, he too will reach the sea fairly shortly. He is right. The best way to ensure effective conservation is to get international agreement and have it effectively enforced, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, implied. That is what we are seeking to do in the Common Market negotiations.
    Mr. Mason: Is the Minister not aware that what seriously concerns the British Fishing Federation is the size of the mesh used in the nets, especially by the Danes, who depend upon industrial fishing? The federation is worried that these fine nets will sweep the seas, and that British fishermen, using a larger mesh size, will lose the chance of taking the table white fish that we require. Will the Minister allay those fears?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I point out three things to the right hon. Gentleman: first, we have conserved a massive area of the North Sea where the Danes will not be permitted to fish, not just for six months of the year, as was the case previously, but for 12 months when the white fish by-catch can be only 10 per cent., much lower than previously. Secondly, fishermen are also entitled to fish for shrimps and other fish with nets below that size.
    Mr. Skinner: What about whiting?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Thirdly, in the control measures agreed this week we have agreed one specific measure which is that where two nets are carried one has to be stowed in a particular way, which makes policing of industrial fishing much more effective.
    Mr. Skinner: What about the red herring?

    Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies
    Mr. McQuarrieasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, as a result of his discussions with the European Council, he is now in a position to make a full statement on the common agricultural and fisheries policies which are due to come into operation on 1 January 1981.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I am not aware of any significant aspects of the common agricultural policy due to come into force on 1 January 1981 and shall therefore confine my reply to the common fisheries policy. Further steady progress towards a revised CFP was made at the Fisheries Council on 28 October, and on this I shall be making a more detailed statement later today.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he has viewed with interest the comments of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). We have never heard of Bolsover bass. It is probably a new fish that we shall hear about when the quotas come into being. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in making these satisfactory recommendations and decisions on the pout box and policing—especially the policing—there will be policing within the waters to such an extent that it will discourage the unfair competition that our fishermen are experiencing?
    Mr. Walker: In reply to my hon. Friend I can perhaps comment on the question put by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) to the Minister of State. The policing will be carried out by the member States, as requested by the hon. Gentleman, but I insisted at the Council that the Commission operates a system of supervision to see that all member States carry out their duties properly. I think that the fear of our fishermen is that we shall do our task properly and other countries may not. At the fishing Council it was agreed that the Community should make sure that each member State was carrying out its duties properly.
    Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman has whetted our appetite about his future statement. Can he say whether the policing control will be within 12 miles or 200 miles, whether there will be adequate quotas for our fishermen and whether the conservation schemes will be accepted by the European Community, as our fishing industry requires?
    Mr. Walker: The answer to the first question is 200 miles. Quotas will be the subject of the next Council meeting. There are agreed conservation measures, which I believe to be in the interests of our fishermen.
    Mr. Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend say what I can tell my inshore fishermen in Brighton, who find increasing difficulty in earning a decent living and whose stocks have been destroyed? What hope have they for the future?
    Mr. Walker: One of the most important matters of interest to my hon. Friend's fishermen is that we managed to keep the regulations on beam-trawling, which was such a potential danger to his fishermen.
    Mr. Wall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that any agreement on a common fisheries policy will have to include agreement on conservation matters, licensing, quotas and policing? Does he agree that the latter is very important if British fishermen are to get a fair deal?
    Mr. Walker: We have made it clear that we will not agree to any common fisheries policy without considering it in totality. Enforcement is a basic issue.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the state of the fishing industry.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On 7 August I announced a £14·1 million scheme of aid for the industry. My right hon. Friends and I keep in close consultation with representatives of the industry.
    Mr. Brotherton: When will my hon. Friend be in a position to give a definitive answer to the House about the future of the British fishing industry, particularly with regard to our European partners? Will he bear in mind that we require that fish around our coasts should remain our property? It has nothing to do with common ownership with the EEC.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is to ensure a proper future for fishing in this country that we are negotiating with our Common Market partners. It is our hope that we can keep to the programme of resolving these negotiations between now and the end of the year.
    Mr. James Johnson: Bearing in mind that the Minister knows full well that, in Hull, we are on our knees, will he accept that if he does not get a settlement by the end of this calendar year we
    684
    shall be on our backs, and finished as a fishing port?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for what underlies the hon. Gentleman's statement. It underlines the need to try to get the common fisheries policy settled. It is a matter that has been outstanding for far too long. I am glad that we have his support.
    Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most deep-rooted problem associated with the state of the fishing industry is the fact that fewer people in this country are eating fish, in contrast to what is happening in Europe? Will he give an assurance that his Department is actively considering an improvement in the marketing of fish generally, along the lines of what has sometimes been done in agriculture?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I share my hon. Friend's concern. Over recent years there has been a decline in consumption per head of fish. Marketing is a responsibility of the White Fish Authority. I shall be discussing the matter with the authority and others responsible.
    Mr. Mason: The original question asked the Minister to
    "make a statement about the state of the fishing industry."
    If the Minister were honest he would admit that the industry is in a dangerous and parlous condition, that the situation has worsened since his Government came to office and that he has not yet done much about it. What thought is being given within the Ministry to the restructuring scheme that is essential to revive the British fishing fleet in anticipation of the CFP deal at the end of the year, which is only two months away?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman knows that one of the reasons why the fishing industry is in a parlous and difficult state is the failure of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) to come to a sensible negotiated arrangement in Europe. The British fishing industry is now paying the price for that intransigence.
    I acknowledge the need to restructure the industry. The Community has made proposals for restructuring. We have welcomed the proposals in principle.

    685
    However, it is important to know precisely the opportunities for the British fishing industry in terms of quotas and access. When we know that, it will be sensible to deal with the question of structure, and we shall.

    Horticultural Industry
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to maintain a viable home-based horticulture industry.
    Mr. Wiggin: We are continuing to give considerable financial support to the horticulture industry through the capital grant schemes, an extensive research and development programme, free advice to growers by the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service and assistance towards improved marketing of horticultural produce, including the recently announced grant of £300,000 to the Apple and Pear Development Council towards the launching of the kingdom pack scheme.
    Mr. Ross: I welcome those comments and congratulate the Government on the action that they have taken. May I draw the Minister's attention to the glasshouse industry? In that context, has any progress been made on a common energy policy in Europe? Has consideration been given to making a once-for-all compensatory payment to glasshouse growers who are prepared to go out of business and pull down their glasshouses?
    Mr. Wiggin: The European Commission told the Council on 30 September that it was satisfied that the preferential gas price available to Dutch growers distorted competition. The Commission is taking action under article 93 of the Treaty of Rome. We continue to urge the Commission to do so speedily, in view of the gravity of the situation.
    Mr. Body: Is my hon. Friend aware that many glasshouse growers in my constituency are driven to the view that our right hon. Friend no longer has any power to deal with imports, from the Netherlands in particular, which are grown with the help of a considerable fuel subsidy?
    Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend's views on the Common Market are well known. Tomatoes are subject to EEC rules.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that many of the people engaged in the horticulture industry view the Minister's list of aids as worthy of derision, since they are so insubstantial? Is it not clear that in this matter, as in so many others, particularly when energy policy is involved, the Government are disdainful of national need and disregard the supportive attitude of Governments of other member States?
    Mr. Wiggin: I shall not answer for the horticulture industry as a whole, but I believe that progress in the apple industry has been remarkable, and something of which we can be proud. Difficulties still exist in some areas, and tomatoes represent one of those difficulties. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we spend nearly £19 million on research alone. That is an enormously high proportion of the total available. The hon. Gentleman's accusations are false.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Treaty of Rome permits discriminatory action to be taken against imports when our industry is being unsettled by abnormal imports? Now that the EEC has found that Dutch gas prices break the competition rules, will he please take unilateral action to keep out Dutch imports until action by the EEC on gas prices becomes effective?
    Mr. Wright: Unilateral action is neither likely nor called for on this occasion. Germany, France and Belgium are suffering in the same way. We are not alone in our complaints. We have the cause of righteousness on our side.

    Potatoes
    Mr. Freudasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the result of the homegrown potato crop; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: High yields, coupled with a high level of plantings, mean that there will be a surplus this year. It is not yet possible to estimate its size, but the Potato Marketing Board believes that it will be contained within the 422,000 tonnes already held under our joint support buying arrangements.
    Mr. Freud: Does the Minister accept that some of the glut is due to allowing

    687
    too many imports of non-EEC new potatoes? When he decides the date on which he will stop imports of non-EEC new potatoes next year, will he try to get it right?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that what he says is true. The early potato imports do not affect dramatically the main crop, to which the question relates. Imports caused anxiety this year, and we took immediate action in order to control them. We are having discussions with our suppliers about next year, to ensure that the market is treated in a proper and orderly way.
    Mrs. Fenner: Will my hon. Friend convey to our right hon. Friend the need to exercise the same stringency in the marketing of potatoes as he has in the marketing of apples? Will he accept my advice as a housewife—a rare breed in these parts—that the current potato crop is something of a disgrace? Is he aware that some people care no more for plastic-bag potatoes than for plastic-bag bread? Will he ensure that the potatoes on the shelf are a credit to the British potato crop?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not think that it is necessary for me to convey that to my right hon. Friend, because I am sure that he has taken note of it. The Potato Marketing Board, though it is criticised on some counts, has done a great deal to raise the standard of potatoes. Equally, many producer cooperatives are working hard to that end. I accept that there is scope for further action. It is one matter that is being studied by our marketing advisers.

    Dairy Industry
    Mr. Knoxasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the prospects for the dairy industry.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I believe that the structure and efficiency of our dairy industry continue to provide a sound basis for its future.
    Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that the costs of dairy farmers in my constituency are rising faster than the prices that they receive, and that they are worried about the future?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, we are aware of the difficulties facing dairy farmers. I remind my hon. Friend that during the last year, in relation to retail prices and in other ways, we have done our best to try to maintain incomes.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Since the Department has a general responsibility for agricultural policy in this country, will the Government bear particularly in mind the differential effect upon dairy farmers of current EEC and other policies in this industry?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, we bear that in mind. My right hon. Friend discusses it frequently with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I had informal discussions with representatives of the Northern Ireland Farmers Union this week, and that was one topic raised by it.
    Mr. Pollock: Is the Minister aware that production in the area covered by the North of Scotland Milk Marketing Board was 7·2 per cent. lower in August this year than it was in August last year? Does he accept that, unless there is a significant increase in the retail price of milk soon, production will fall even further?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One must bear in mind the needs of the consumer as well as the producer if our milk is to be sold. I am conscious that in certain areas and on particular types of farm there has been a decline in production, but the pattern is not even throughout the country. In England and Wales there will probably be a slight increase in the production of milk.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that it would be unacceptable to the British housewife if the Common Market were to force the pint of milk off the doorstep? Will he please take definite action? Is he aware that the issue affects the employment of thousands of distributive milkmen, who are threatened with being thrown out of work? Does he accept that the farm support schemes are based on milk being at the centre of the arrangements? Does he accept also that if milk production deteriorates the price of every other product that the housewife buys will increase?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I endorse the value to the British housewife of the door-to-door delivery of milk, not only in terms of producing a high quality foodstuff on a daily basis, but for all the side benefits—not least the social ones. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to spread scare stories. Nothing has come from the Communiy that threatens the door-to-door delivery. I assure him that we shall do everything possible to maintain the essential door-to-door service to the British housewife and consumer.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Jayasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's latest estimate of expenditure on the common agricultural policy in 1980.
    Mr. Leightonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the figure for the guarantee section of the EEC budget to pay for surplus products in 1980 compares with 1979.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The Community's expenditure for 1980 is expected to be kept within the £7,600 million included in the original published Community budget for 1980. Of that total, £3,400 million relates to export refunds compared with £3,100 million in 1979 and £1,600 million relates to internal surplus disposal measures compared with £1,000 million spent in 1979.
    Mr. Jay: Is it true that subsidised grain, as well as subsidised butter, is now to be exported by the EEC to the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Walker: With regard to reports that appeared today about certain forms of feedstuffs being exported to the Soviet Union, a meeting of the management committee in Brussels is taking place today to discuss the matter. From the beginning the British Government have suggested that the EEC should examine all exports—not just grain—to the Soviet Union. At that time such action was not considered essential, either by the Commission or the other member States. If the reports are correct, they will substantiate the view perpetually propounded by the British Government. I hope that in future the Community will abide by our suggestions.
    Mr. Leighton: Does the Minister accept that the guarantee section, which subsidises the food mountains, is becoming more expensive? Is he aware of the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 28 October, that instead of it costing 10 million units of account as it did this year, it will cost 12 million units of account next year? Is it not a fact that the CAP is becoming more horrendous every year? Would we not be better off outside it?
    Mr. Walker: A year ago the two worst features of the CAP in terms of cost were the surpluses in dairy products and sugar. The butter mountain has been reduced by one-third during the past 12 months, and instead of paying export restitutions for sugar we are now obtaining rebates because the world price is higher than the Community price. There has been a substantial improvement in those two sectors.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could make better use of the CAP resources if we were to change to a subsidy system, rather than the intervention buying system, especially for perishable goods?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I am no supporter of the intervention system for perishable goods. That is why it was an important breakthrough in the Community when we agreed to the premium payment system for lamb. By being able to point to the success of that scheme I hope that we can persuade the Community that it is a better system to ensure that perishable goods go to the housewife, instead of to the stores.
    Mr Spearing: If £3,000 million is being spent through the CAP on support for milk and dairy products, why is there a difficulty in the balance of retail and wholesale production of milk in Britain, which, as the Minister knows, is threatening the dairy industry?
    Mr. Walker: I do not think that that is the case. There is a considerable future for the British dairy industry. We have the doorstep delivery service, with a guaranteed high level of liquid milk sales. There is considerable scope for improvement in the manufacturing side of the dairy industry, as has been shown this year by our substantially improved

    691
    exports of dairy products to the Community and our much larger share of the domestic market.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will it remain my hon. Friend's intention broadly to oppose increases in Community prices for foodstuffs already in surplus? Is he satisfied that the present position of the domestic green pound is logically compatible with that objective?
    Mr. Walker: I think that my hon. Friend was absent when I pointed out that on the question of the green pound, the total effect on the retail price index was one-third of 1 per cent. As much of industry is complaining about the adverse effects of the level of sterling upon our export performance in industry, perhaps it is an advantage that in the sphere of agriculture the adverse effects are dealt with by a mechanism agreed within the Community.
    I shall not comment on the question of price fixing, which is many months away. We shall judge the position on the merits and the facts an figures that are then available to us.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 30 October.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
    Mr. Skinner: Quite apart from the question of who won at the Cabinet meeting this morning, will the Prime Minister confirm that she is proud that her crony Lord Matthews of Trafalgar House wants to haul down the British flag in order to pursue the right hon. Lady's low-pay policy? Did Lord Matthews get the wage-cutting idea from the Quinton Hazell subsidiary in South Africa—of which the right hon. Lady's husband is a director—which is paying starvation wages? What steps will the Department of Trade take to ensure that the code is no longer infringed.
    The Prime Minister: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I
    692
    think that he is referring to the two Cunard liners that are to fly under different flags. I understand that it is a matter of keeping the liners competitive. If they are not competitive they might leave British ownership altogether. On the second part of his question, the reports on Quinton Hazell have been given to the Board of Trade in accordance with the voluntary code. They will be placed in the Library of the House, as is the customary practice.
    Mr. Lyell: As the Cabinet rightly discusses further measures to bring public spending under proper control, will my right hon. Friend use all the weight of her authority to ensure that those measures bear upon the proper control of pay and current wending, and not on further cuts in capital expenditure, which provides jobs and investment for the future?
    The Prime Minister: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend's objective. It is better to make any public expenditure economies bear on the revenue side of the budget rather than on the capital side, which often goes to the private sector. Having said that, I have to say that it is not always easy to do so. Currently, our objective is to hold public spending to the levels previously published, not to cut it overall. There are certain aspects of the programme where public expenditure is increasing sharply, which means that there will have to be reductions in other parts of the programme.
    Mr. Foot: If the Cabinet this morning discussed further cuts in public expenditure, will the Prime Minister say what they are? Will she say what calculations were before the Cabinet about the further increases in unemployment that will result from such cuts?
    The Prime Minister: All aspects were discussed, and are regularly discussed, by the Government. I repeat that the Government's objective is to hold the public spending totals that have been published. In some ways I regret that we do not have the former Chancellor of the Exchequer's objective in mind when he reduced public spending by £5 billion in one year.
    Mr. Foot: As the right hon. Lady is responsible for the Cabinet, will she say what further increases in unemployment

    693
    will result from her decisions today? Has she taken into account the deepening unemployment crisis, based on the Department of Employment's figures, as described on the front page of the Financial Times today.
    "Service industries hit as employment figures plunge"?
    The Prime Minister: The way to secure good longer-term prospects for jobs is to make the defeat of inflation one's top priority.
    Mr. Bob Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British people's patience would be sorely tried if yesterday's vote by British Leyland workers were to lead ultimately to industrial action? Does she accept that industrial action can only damage the improving image of British Leyland at home and abroad?
    The Prime Minister: We are obviously very much concerned that just when British Leyland has a super new car, which we have all been doing our best to promote as hard as we can, there might be the threat of industrial action. We must leave this matter to Sir Michael Edwardes and the board to deal with. They have been very successful to date, and I hope that they will be successful in bringing British Leyland through this particularly difficult period. We wish the new car well.
    Mr. Torney: Will the Prime Minister between her engagements today, consider the serious plight of the woollen textile industry in my constituency and the surrounding parts of West Yorkshire? It is suffering mass unemployment. Will she take some action to stop the unfair competition from abroad, including from the Common Market, which is creating this problem, and will she give aid to this important industry, to alleviate unemployment in my constituency?
    The Prime Minister: We operate the multi-fibre arrangement and we increase the number of quotas where that is appropriate. At the moment there are some 400 quotas with a number of different countries. We shall continue to watch the basket regulation carefully to see whether there is any chance of applying for more. We shall need a new agreement. The present one was negotiated by the pre-
    694
    vious Government. There will be a new agreement because we are very concerned to see that textiles have a fair chance.
    Mr. Jesselasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 30 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a moment ago.
    Mr. Jessel: May I remind my right hon. Friend that most of us fought the last general election on the issue of giving top priority to the conquest of inflation? Is she aware that my constituents are pleased that the cost of living is now much more stable—(HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and that their message to her is that they want her to stick to her guns?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Will he please tell his constituents that the conquest of inflation must have top priority and that I shall do exactly as he says?
    Mr. Bagier: Will the right hon. Lady accept that, whatever the views of the constituents in Twickenham, the views of the constituents in Sunderland, South are vastly different? In the Cabinet meeting this morning was there any discussion of the serious effect of unemployment throughout the country? Is the right hon. Lady aware that, far from being prepared to receive lectures on the economy from her, the unemployed in areas like the North-East want to know what practical action she will take to alleviate their problem?
    The Prime Minister: In the longer run, good jobs must depend on the conquest of inflation. If we go the way that successive Governments have gone in the past 30 years—that is, reflating and printing money each time—we shall finish up with a higher level of unemployment and inflation. We have to break that cycle once and for all. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, I believe that even in Sunderland, South the constituents prefer a falling rate of inflation to a rising one.
    Mr. Rippon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the light of this morning's Cabinet meeting, control of the pubic sector borrowing requirement and

    695
    of the money supply remains at the heart of the Government's policy? Does she agree that the reason why both are rising so sharply is that the cost of public borrowing and the cost of unemployment are so high? That is because interest rates are so high. Are we not in danger of creating a society in which money lending is the only profitable business?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that there must be no question of printing money to get an artificial boom, which would lead ultimately to hyper-inflation and higher unemployment. The Government always confirm and stand absolutely on that. We shall not go in for printing extra money. My right hon. and learned Friend knows that I am every bit as anxious as he is to try to bring down interest rates, because I much prefer them to be lower. The key to getting them down is to reduce the amount of borrowing in the economy, and for that public spending must bear its share of the blame.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is the Prime Minister aware that my constituents want jobs? Does she not feel ashamed sometimes that she has managed to bring record levels of unemployment to an area that has never known high unemployment? Will she stop lecturing these people about high wages, because they have never had high wages, and they are still being thrown out of work every day as a result of her policies?
    The Prime Minister: I make two points in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The key to better jobs lies in keeping British industry competitive with other industrial nations on the Continent. There is no way out of that fundamental truth. The second point, which illustrates the first, is that in the past three years monetary demand has increased in the economy by 50 per cent. It did not go into increased output: it went into increased prices and increased imports. That is the answer to the Labour Party's policy, which is to reflate, which would be catastrophic.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 30 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Adley: In the light of the evidence of the increase in pacifism, as shown by the CND march the other day, and given the interest of the Soviet Union and, apparently, of certain Labour Members in British unilateral disarmament, will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to remind those in this country who are easily led of the result of appeasement in the 1930s, and the even greater horrors and dangers of nuclear appeasement in 1980?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that appeasement always has the same result. It gives encouragement to a potential aggressor. That is why this Government will never go the way of appeasement, although any Government formed by the Labour Party might.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Prime Minister take time to consider the fact that the majority of people in this country believe that the decision that her Government took this week to allow prisoners in the H block cells in Northern Ireland to wear civilian clothes was both humane and wise? Does she agree that if, as a result of the hunger strike, coffins are carried out of the Maze prison into the Catholic areas, the violence and confusion that will result will be unacceptable to this country? Will she therefore take further decisions to ensure that those coffins do not have to be carried out of the Maze prison?
    The Prime Minister: As I indicated last Tuesday, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had indicated previously, a decision was taken before the hunger strike began to allow all prisoners in Northern Ireland to wear civilian clothes, of prison issue, in place of prison uniforms. That decision had been discussed for several months. We thought it advisable to take it before the hunger strike began. There can be no question of any concessions to those on hunger strike now that the hunger strike has begun, and I sincerely hope that they will not persist in it.
    Mr. Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to point out to the Leyland workers and others in the public sector that with inflation, on a three-monthly basis, running well down into single figures over a

    697
    12-month period, in accepting a single-figure pay increase they will not necessarily reduce their standards of living?
    The Prime Minister: We are all most anxious for British Leyland to succeed and for the new car to have considerable sales. It is ironic that there should be a strike threat just when British Leyland has restored its share of the market and is up to about 23 per cent. We earnestly hope that that strike will not come about. We shall have to leave the negotiations to the management of British Leyland to secure that end.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Prime Minister find time today to reconsider her remarks about the competitiveness of British industry? Is she aware that with the present level of sterling there is no chance for whole sectors of British manufacturing industry to be competitive? So long as that remains the case, the prospects for employment and for the Prime Minister's borrowing requirement will get worse.
    The Prime Minister: Competitiveness has deteriorated sharply. A part is due to the exchange rate—the smaller part. The greater part, as the figures show, is due to people paying themselves increases for producing the same amount or less. That is abundantly shown by the figures. Two-thirds of the decrease in competitiveness is due to increased pay not matched by increased output. One-third is due to the exchange rate. The way to hope to bring down the exchange rate is to try to reduce interest rates substantially, and that goes back to the question of trying to secure reductions in public expenditure below the levels that would otherwise obtain.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for the Arts (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The business for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 3 NOVEMBER—Motion on Community document 9280/80 on aids for milk and pig production.
Motion on the National Dock Labour Board (Increase of Loans Limit) Order.
Motions relating to Consumer Credit (Advertisements) and (Quotations) (Amendment) Regulations.
TUESDAY 4 NOVEMBER—Motion on a draft directive on product liability, document No. R/2237/76 and R/611/77 and 9427/79.
Motion on a proposal for a Community driving licence, document No. 3075/75 and supplementary memoranda of 17 July and 28 October 1980.
WEDNESDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Lords amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill.
Proceedings on the Tenants' Rights etc. (Scotland) (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords message on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 6 NOVEMBER—Debate on the report of the Burgoyne committee on offshore safety, Cmnd. 7866.
Remaining stages of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Regulated Tenancies (Procedure) Regulations.
FRIDAY 7 NOVEMBER—Motions on the Common Agricultural Policy (Agricultural Produce) (Protection of Community Arrangements) (Amendment) Order and on the Sheep Variable Premium (Protection of Payments) Order. The relevant Community document numbers will appear in the Official Report.
Motion relating to food consumer protection proposals, documents Nos. 4101/80, 5561/80, 4709/80 and R/1444/78 and corrigendum and the Ministry of Agriculture's memorandum of 24 October 1980.

699
MONDAY 10 NOVEMBER—Lords amendments to the Broadcasting Bill.
[The following reports of the Select Committee on European Legislation &c. are relevant to debates on Community documents:
Investment Aids for Milk and Pig Production: 42nd Report 1979–80, HC 159-xlii, para. 1 (Proof copies available in Vote Office).
Product Liability: 5th Report 1977–78, HC 29-v, para. 4 22nd Report 1979–80, HC 159-xxii, para. 1.
Community driving licence: 6th Report 1975–76, HC 8-vi, para. 3; 39th Report 1979–80, HC 159-xxxix, para. 1.
Food Consumer Protection Proposals
Plastics in contact with foodstuffs: 2nd Report 1978–79, HC 10-ii, para. 1; 43rd Report 1979–80 (typescript available in Vote Office).
Marketing standards for eggs: 32nd Report 1979–80, HC 159-xxxii, para. 2.
Pesticide Residues: 26th Report 1979–80, HC 159-xxvi, para. 1.
Fruit juices: 29th Report 1979–80, HC 159-xxix, para. 2.
The Community documents relevant to the debate on the Sheep Variable Premium (Protection of Payments) Order 1980 and the Common Aricultural Policy (Agricultural Produce) (Protection of Community Arrangements) (Amendment) Order 1980 are Nos. 9370/80, 9521/80, 10439/80 and 10440/80 and an unnumbered explanatory memorandum dated 27 October concerning a proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of voluntary restraint agreements with non-member countries concerning sheepmeat and goatmeat.
The relevant report of the European Legislation Committee is the 43rd report of 1979–80 (not yet printed, but typescript copies available in Vote Office).]
Mr. Foot: Since considerable chunks of the business announced by the right hon. Gentleman for next week do not seem to bear much relation to the problems of the British people, will he take special note of the proposal that I made to him yesterday that in future Business Statements he should consider the proposition that in view of the rapidly deepening unemployment crisis we should have a debate in this House every month after the unemployment figures have been announced?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly take note of that suggestion, but I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, of all people, should think that these draft directives of the European Community are not of great importance to this country. After all, it is extremely
700
important that any proposals there should be fully scrutinised in this House, and the coming week will constitute a record in that respect.
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I said "considerable chunks", and I refer to the scrag ends of his miserable legislative programme.
Mr. David Steel: On the same topic, will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for Scotland and try to arrange for a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee during the spill-over, so that we may have a debate on the particular problems of job loss and unemployment in Scotland?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall consider that suggestion and pass it on to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: In view of the suggestion that has been made over and over again from both sides of the House that Foreign Affairs questions should last for one hour and incorporate the questions on overseas matters and overseas aid, will my right hon. Friend now implement such proposals?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have already made one alteration in Foreign Office questions and I am willing, if it is for the general convenience of the House and can be arranged, to look at the matter again in the new Session.
Mr. Abse: In view of the deteriorating unemployment position in Wales, including the lamentable announcement today of the closure of GKN in Cwmbran, will the Leader of the House now arrange for a debate on the Select Committee report on Welsh affairs, particularly since the Government have not as yet, after three months, given any formal response to that report?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall look into the matter of the response with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because there should be a reply to that report. That is the first thing to do, and we can consider a debate afterwards.
Mr. Cormack: In view of the gripping importance of the business next week, will my right hon. Friend consider adjusting it so that we can debate a topic about

701
which many hon. Members are concerned, namely, defence, so that we may also have a chance of listening to the views of the triumvirate in the Opposition Benches?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: There does not seem to be a great demand for a debate on defence from either side of the House at the moment.
Mr. Heffer: In view of the fact that the Government have announced a moratorium on council house building, and that if the Government's policy is continued there will soon be no construction industry, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that there will be a debate in the House at the earliest opportunity—next week, if possible—on the future of the construction industry, the effect of Government policy on it and the high levels of employment in the industry at present?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall bear that in mind, but the moratorium imposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is essentially temporary.
Sir Anthony Meyer: First, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservative Members of the Welsh Select Committee will be anxious to debate the report as soon as possible?
Secondly, will he say whether any progress has been made in providing for easier access for Members of the European Parliament who wish to enter this building in order to have discussions with Members of this Parliament and who do not wish to go through the usual scrutiny procedure at the entrance gates?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have noted what my hon. Friend said about the Conservative Members of the Welsh Select Committee, and they are subsumed into my response to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse).
With regard to the access of Members of the European Parliament to the Palace of Westminster, there is an outstanding report of the Services Committee on the subject, and I hope that the House will have an opportunity to debate it before too long.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places.
Mr. Cryer: May I assure the Leader of the House that there is great anxiety on the Opposition Benches to debate defence, particularly in view of the splendid demonstration last Sunday, which was a reflection of the wave of concern throughout the country at the warmongering attitude of the Government? [Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter. It could be a matter of life and death. May we have an urgent debate on the mad decision to spend £5 billion on Trident when we are short of money for vital public services in this country? Last Sunday's demonstration was an expression of opposition to the presence of Trident and cruise missiles in this country—a subject that has never been debated.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's desire for a debate but I have not received representations on the matter from the official Opposition. I shall certainly consider any representations along those lines. As to unilateral disarmament, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but he should respect the opinion of others, including that of the Government, that the way to peace is much better served by a policy of multilateral disarmament than unilateral disarmament.
Mr. Fitt: Does the Leader of the House recall that on 7 August he gave an undertaking to me that he would seriously consider allowing a debate on Northern Ireland immediately after Parliament resumed following the recess? In view of the deepening economic crisis that now exists in Northern Ireland—with thousands of people unemployed and the social deprivation that is worsening daily—and because of the danger to security as a result of the hunger strike, will he allow a debate at the earliest possible opportunity, next week if possible?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly consider that matter and discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. David Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most significant international events to have taken place during the Summer Recess

703
was the Polish workers' revolution? Will he arrange for a debate at the earliest opportunity on East-West relations before tragedy strikes in the country, and particularly in view of the forthcoming Helsinki review conference in Madrid?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's request, but the Government's attitude is quite clear—as is the attitude of the Opposition—which is that we have the greatest admiration for the Polish people in their struggle for fundamental democratic rights.
Mr. Ioan Evans: In view of the fact that the Cabinet has been discussing yet further public expenditure cuts, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is a statement next week? Is it true that there is likely to be a Budget early in the new Session? If not, will the Leader of the House arrange an economic debate, because it now appears that even Milton Friedman is disowning the Government's policies?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am not familiar with the works of Mr. Milton Friedman. As to the possibility of a Budget, no news of that has come to me. Had the Chancellor had that in mind I am sure that he would have let another Chancellor know. In due course we shall have an economic debate, but I do not think that I can make a specific promise at this stage.
Mr. Marlow: As the EEC draft directive on product liability, which we shall discuss next week, is causing a great amount of concern and worry in commerce and industry, as it will massively increase costs and bureaucracy, can my right hon. Friend tell the House what action can be taken on Tuesday to prevent the thing from ever seeing the light of day? When he replies I would be grateful if he did not say something about harmonisation being important to our industry, at a time when European food and the budget effectively cost every industrial worker in this country £2 a week.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: We cannot have Tuesday's debate today, although my hon. Friend has defined his position very
704
clearly. There will be a full opportunity—I point that out to the Shadow Leader of the House—to discuss it on Tuesday.
Mr. Silverman: I understand from the Business Statement that on Friday we shall discuss four directives—one on egg marketing, one on pesticide reserves, one on fruit juice and one on the effect of plastics on food. They are entirely separate matters. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how these matters can be debated together without proceedings becoming a shambles?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: There will, of course, be a full day's debate on these various orders. I shall look into the question of how we might be able to arrange the discussions on that day in the most logical and convenient manner for the House.
Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the anger and anguish over the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment to place a moratorium on council house starts, surely there should be an immediate debate on the subject. We should not be fobbed off with a statement that the moratorium is only temporary. If that is to be the answer, at the very least will the right hon. Gentleman inform us how temporary "temporary" is?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend has made it quite clear that this is intended to be an interim measure, pending a review.
Mr. Janner: How long?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That question must be addressed to my right hon. Friend, but I would have thought that it would be a matter of weeks rather than months before it disappeared. I cannot promise a full debate on the subject, but there are opportunities by which the matter can be raised. I absolutely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is an important matter.
Mr. Carter-Jones: Can we have an assurance that the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on benefits for non-contributory disabled housewives will be debated before any changes are made to the regulations regarding the duties that can reasonably be performed by a disabled housewife?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly look into that matter and see whether we can find room for a debate, but I am afraid that I cannot make a definite promise.
Mr. Rowlands: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the industrial and political patience of the Welsh people is wearing extremely thin in view of the tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost even during the Summer Recess since the Select Committee's report? As that Select Committee reported that there was a danger of social unrest as a consequence of growing unemployment, will not the right hon. Gentleman at least arrange for an early debate on that report so that the House can approve its recommendations, which were unanimously supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about the position in his own constituency and in Wales as a whole. I have said that I shall look into this matter, but the first thing is to ensure that the Government's reply to this important report is published.
Mr. Maxton: In view of the manner in which the Secretary of State for Scotland introduced an important document on the future of the colleges of education in Scotland, and in view of the almost unanimous rejection of those proposals by all education sectors in Scotland, will the
706
Leader of the House ensure that there is an early debate, either in the House or in the Scottish Grand Committee?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall discuss that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. George: Can the Leader of the House tell us when we will be dealing with the patriation of the Canadian constitution? In the light of the minefield that exists in terms of the constitutional, political and timetable aspects that Parliament, the Government and the Crown will face, will he consider referring the problem either to a Joint Select Committee of this House and the House of Lords or to any other Select Committee or Committee that may be appropriate for dealing with this googly that has been bowled to us by Prime Minister Trudeau?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I understand the hon. Gentleman's cricketing metaphor, and I am beginning to recognise a minefield when I see one. Practice makes perfect. I cannot give any undertaking about referring it to a Select Committee because, I am glad to say, the Government have received no request about the repatriation of the Canadian constitution. However, if and when such a request does arrive I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's most interesting suggestion.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (FISHERIES MINISTERS' MEETING)
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 28 October.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Minister of State in my Department and I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting.
The Council reached agreement in principle on a draft control regulation, which firmly establishes that each member State is responsible for enforcement within its fishery limits and empowers the Commission to make sure that member States fulfil their obligations on this aspect. The aim is for the new regulation to enter into force from 1 January 1981. At the behest of the United Kingdom, the Commission agreed that it was necessary for the Commission regularly to monitor the manner in which member States were carrying out their enforcement duties so as to guarantee that there was a uniformity of application of the regulation throughout the Community.
The Commission undertook that prior to the conclusion of a fishing agreement they would provide a paper setting out the operational methods by which they would ensure that all member States were fulfilling their obligations.
We welcomed the Commission's initiative in commencing a review of the market support system, for which we have been pressing for some time. We indicated that the United Kingdom expected the Commission to produce specific proposals in the near future and stressed particularly the importance of setting withdrawal prices at realistic levels, the desirability of a flexible but not too complex system, the need to extend the list of species covered by it, the importance of export refunds and the need for action to prevent imports from disturbing markets.
The Council had a further discussion of the criteria on which quota allocations should be based. I reiterated in particular the need to make greater allowances for past losses of fishing opportunities in the waters of third countries.
708
and the need to discount from the historic record excessive catches of human consumption species taken in the industrial fishery. The Commission has undertaken to produce revised proposals for the next Council meeting on 17–18 November, when discussion is expected to concentrate on the actual quota allocations and also, at my insistence, on the question of access. Intensive preparations for the meeting will meanwhile be undertaken by a committee consisting of senior officials from each member country.
Mr. Mason: From the statement the House will recognise that some little progress is being made towards a new common fisheries policy. We all recognise that these are small and the least controversial steps, and that the crunch has yet to come, especially on share-out and access.
Will the right hon. Gentleman briefly tell us what was achieved at the September Council meeting on fish conservation measures?
As to the possibility of a monitoring system of recording and reporting catches, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared, in spite of the suspected deal on timing, to delay beyond 1 January 1981 any Common Market fisheries policy if a monitoring task force is not established, and, more importantly, if the catch quota forced upon him does not satisfy the industry and the will of this House?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the industry and ourselves are still deeply concerned that only 31 per cent. of the total Common Market pool catch has been offered to the United Kingdom? Our demand throughout, in the light of losses in third country waters, loss of historic rights, and what we regard as our legitimate share in the Common Market pond, has been for a 45 per cent. share. Is he still negotiating for that percentage?
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman still pressing for a 12-mile exclusive belt and a dominant preference for our fishermen in a zone from 12 to 50 miles? I warn him that the industry is still suspicious of his negotiating posture. The industry fears a sell-out and that he will compromise our proper share of fish for some exclusivity. I hope that he will be able to deny that and give us assurances that that will not happen.
Mr. Walker: With regard to the vague pronouncements that the industry fears this and the industry says that, I meet members of the industry before every fishing Council and at every fishing Council. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that both before the fishing Council and at the fishing Council the fishing industry has expressed its total confidence in and support for the manner in which my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have been negotiating this matter. I am not complaining about the right hon. Gentleman, but I object to the constant mention in the press about the industry saying this and saying that, because the people in the industry have every opportunity to say what they like to me. I therefore welcome the opportunity of making the position clear.
As for the September meeting, we agreed basically on the conservation measures, including the pout box. As the Minister of State said in reply to a parliamentary question, that was a very considerable achievement for the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Minister of State negotiated it in Denmark. Had he failed to do so, on 1 October a substantial part of the pout box would have totally disappeared because of the legal action, started by the previous Government, that we lost. By skilful negotiation, my hon. Friend the Minister of State succeeded in obtaining what the fishing industry has told me it considers to be a very good deal.
With regard to the quotas that we are trying to obtain, I have never put and never would put a percentage figure upon the total catch. because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, various species are concerned. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in the negotiating position I am happy for as large a figure as anyone wishes to express to be expressed as our desire, because I intend in no way to weaken the negotiating position that I have. Every argument that can be used for improving the British quotas is being used and will be used.
It was agreed by the Community that we would do everything in our power to reach agreement by 1 January. The United Kingdom stands firmly behind the objective of trying to achieve agreement by 1 January. For the British fishing industry there is nothing more essential than obtaining an agreement. The longer
710
we go before reaching an agreement, the weaker our negotiating position becomes. [Interruption.] That is a fact. I only wish that I had been negotiating this matter three years ago.
I am only too pleased that all member countries join in my view that it is right to try to reach an agreement as speedily as possible. That is why, at an informal meeting of the Ministers two days ago, we agreed a series of meetings that would speed up the process of negotiation.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am pleased to be able to say that I shall again be able to call those hon. Members who have already risen.
Sir Walter Clegg: Does my right hon. Friend realise that he will have the full support of the House in enforcing conservation measures, as conservation measures without enforcement are useless?
What thought is the Council of Ministers giving to providing help to those fishermen who are made redundant through no fault of their own but simply as a result of having to leave Icelandic and other waters? On all sides we hear about help being given to miners and steel workers. What help will be given to fishermen?
Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with his considerable interest in and knowledge of the industry, for the support that he has always given to our efforts to reach a successful conclusion.
The plight and difficulties of various sections of the fishing industry will be discussed in terms of what is described as the structural package for the industry. I think that, quite rightly, that comes at the end of the agenda, after we know the position on quotas and access. We shall be dealing at that time with the matter raised by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Beith: What discussion was there about means of safeguarding the access of inshore fishermen to the waters immediately off our coasts? Was any threat posed to that access?
Mr. Walker: No threat was posed. Obviously, we have been having bilateral talks on the question. The important agreement at the Council was that we

711
should not discuss quotas alone. At the next meeting we shall discuss quotas, together with access. The hon. Gentle-man will agree that they are closely connected and that it is vital to discuss them together.
Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his very satisfactory statement is an essential prelude to the final negotiation on the common fisheries policy? Does he agree that there is now ample evidence that existing regulations are not being maintained? Will he therefore stand out for proper policing measures?
With regard to quotas and access, will there be specific proposals concerning the waters up to 12 miles and then beyond that, from 12 miles to 200 miles?
Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remark but, as the spokesman for the official Opposition said, the really tough and difficult part is quotas and access and not the various matters that we have so far agreed. What has been shown is that there is a desire to reach a genuine agreement between the member States.
It is essential that we have uniformity of enforcement. Although I supported the idea that each member State was responsible for enforcement within its 200-mile limit—and we have obtained that—I considered that on top of that it was essential that the Commission could see that every member State enforced the rules in the same way. That is why I am glad to say that the Commission accepted this British proposal, so that as well as being responsible within our own 200-mile limit—we know that we shall do that well—we shall have a guarantee that every other country will be made to do the same thing.
Mr. Jay: Although I realise that there have been specific quotas, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not accept a general figure as low as 31 per cent.?
Mr. Walker: I shall not deal with overall figures. I could simply answer "Yes". All the figures suggested so far are inadequate. The maximum figure has been 31 per cent. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the nature of the various species and their importance
712
to various fishing communities means that general figures have little substance. The easy answer is "Yes".
Mr. Warren: Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss with his colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence, the resources required to enforce this opportunity—which I welcome—of looking after and policing our fishing territory? Who will pay? Will the cost be shared by the whole Community, regardless of the coastline and regardless of the 200 mile-limit waters for which they have responsibility?
Mr. Walker: I am in constant discussion with my right hon. Friend on this subject. My hon. Friend may know that I pay the operational costs involved out of my Department's budget. I pay tribute to those involved in the Royal Navy and in the Royal Air Force for the fine, remarkable job that they have done for many years.
Mr. James Johnson: In view of the Minister's earlier statement, will he make the position clear beyond peradventure? There are only two months to go. If the right hon. Gentleman does not get a settlement that suits this House by the end of the year what will our position, as a fishing nation, be?
Mr. Walker: The industry knows that it is to our advantage to obtain a good, sensible agreement. As I am negotiating, it would be absurd for me to talk about what I would do if I did not obtain a sensible agreement. I am optimistic about achieving a sensible agreement. Good progress is being made. I have no complaint about any member countries in terms of the constructive way in which they are trying to enter the talks. It is therefore right to join in the general spirit of the Council and to say that I hope that we are heading towards a sensible and satisfactory result for the United Kingdom. It would be a sad thing for the fishing industry if we did not reach one.
Sir Albert Costain: When the Minister negotiates the quota system will he bear in mind that our inshore fishermen play a great part in manning the lifeboats? When ships are in distress they do not worry about nationality. We need to keep our small fleets for that reason.
Mr. Walker: The British fishing industry performs a very important service to shipping of every description. In addition, some communities in Britain are completely dependent on the fishing industry. For a combination of national security, humanitarian and community reasons, it is important to obtain a good fishing agreement.
Mr. McQuarrie: I am sure that fishermen in my constituency will welcome the remarks made by my right hon. Friend and the progress that is being made towards a conclusion of the common fisheries policy. We are all aware that there has been a tremendous amount of cheating on the part of foreign nations within our waters. Can we be certain that the policing will be adequate, and that the penalties will be a strong enough deterrent to wipe out such cheating, which has reduced the stocks available to our fishermen?
Mr. Walker: I accept that enforcement is the key to a successful policy. I am glad that we shall be responsible for enforcement within our own 200 mile limit. I am also glad that the Commission will constantly monitor the situation to ensure that other countries enforce the regulations in the same effective way.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is wide admiration for the skill and determination that he has shown in welding together strongly felt local interests, which often conflict, into the wider national interest? It is in the national interest to have a common fisheries policy that is effectively policed and that requires a minimum of joint action by the Commission, and by the institutions of the European Community.
Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. It is a great advantage to have a European policy of conservation, policing and monitoring, because it is in the interests not only of our fishermen but of the future fishing industry of Europe. Such a policy will give long-term stability to our fishing industry and to the European fishing industry.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Front Bench, I shall call the hon. Gentleman who has been rising from the Liberal Bench, although he was not here to hear the statement, or most of the ques-
714
tions. He has not been rising to catch my eye.
Mr. Penhaligon: Can the Minister name a nation, from those referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), that has ignored conservation laws more than the Scots have done in Cornwall in relation to mackerel?
Mr. Walker: I do not want to start a civil war.
Mr. Strang: Does the Minister intend to secure the phasing out of historic rights within the 12-mile limit? Will he assure the House that he is determined to secure a dominant preference for British fishermen within 12 miles and 50 miles?
Mr. Walker: Historic rights and access will be discussed at the next Council meeting. We are holding bilateral talks with those countries interested not only in historic rights in Britain but in other countries, such as Denmark. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not comment on the specific proposals that we shall make in relation to historic rights prior to those talks, one of which will take place later today. I assure the hon. Gentleman that our attitude to historic rights is based on conserving an effective 12-mile limit and on having an area of priority fishing beyond that limit for certain communities.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered.
That at this day's sitting, if proceedings on the Motions relating to Procedure, Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills), Special Standing Committees, Standing Committee on European Community Documents, European Community Legislation, Procedure (Supply), Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.), Standing Order No. 62 (Nomination of Standing Committees), Standing Order No. 60 (Constitution of Standing Committees), and Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) have not been disposed of by Ten o'clock, any Amendments to the first Motion which have been selected by Mr. Speaker may be moved, the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith and Mr. Speaker shall then proceed forthwith to put the Question upon the said Motion and any Questions necessary to dispose of the other Motions and of any Amendments moved thereto which have been selected by him; that the Motions relating to Supply, Questions on Amendments, Amend-

715
ments to Bills, Leave of Absence for Mr. Speaker, Nomination of Select Committees, Committal of Bills, Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills, may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after the first of the said Motions has been entered upon, whichever is the later; and that if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of by that hour Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of them——
[Mr. Boscawen]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE)
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to move the first motion, it might help if I were to make clear to the House that the terms of the business motion to which the House has just agreed provide for two separate debates. The debate upon which we are about to embark covers items 1 to 10 on the Order Paper and is due to finish at 10 o'clock, when all the necessary Questions will be put on the motions and on the various amendments that I have selected. A list of amendments is available in the Lobby, in the usual way. During the first debate it will not be in order to discuss items 11 to 18, comment on which should be reserved for the separate debate of one and a half hours' duration, which will begin as soon as item 10 has been disposed of.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you can help the House a little further. Your concluding sentence complies that you wish to take the substance of motions 1 to 10 during discussion on the first motion and that the motions and any amendments will then be moved formally. The alternative implication is that the first debate will involve procedure motion No. 1 with its amendment, and that we shall proceed thereafter on separate debates.
Mr. Speaker: If the House wishes, we shall have a debate on all 10. We shall cover items 1 to 10 until 10 o'clock. At 10 o'clock, I shall put any amendments that hon. Members may wish to move on those first items.
Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not having made earlier enquiries. There are a number of items to which several amendments have been tabled. If one is to try to cover not only the substance of motion No. 1 but also several amendments to different motions—as is true in my case and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)—in one speech, and if they are all to be decided at 10 pm, the House will be in great difficulty. I regret not having made the orginal inquiry, but I had expected that we would be taking motion No. 1 with its amendment and No. 2 seriatim

717
throughout together with the amendments as they came.
Mr. Speaker: It may be that the hon. Gentleman will have no discussion at all on some of the matters that he wishes to raise if that is so. Even if we follow the advice of the hon. Member, the House has decided that at 10 o'clock I must put the Questions on motions Nos. 1 to 10. If it pleases the House better—it is not without precedent—to group matters together to enable Members to make their respective speeches across the broad spectrum—we did it recently with amendments on salaries, and so on—there is nothing to stop us from moving seriatim. However, I hope that there will be no complaint if the further amendments have to be put without discussion at the end.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for the Arts (Mr Norman St. John-Stevas)rose——
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is this a different point of order?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House rose to begin his speech.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was not raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was getting up to begin my oration.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House may rest for the moment.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: We have passed the business motion, Mr. Speaker. I am relatively new to this procedure, but, as I understand it, in general this procedure has been adopted in procedure debates. I am not sure that this is technically a point of order. My right hon. and hon. Friends have some interesting amendments on the Order Paper. Do we assume that at the end of the debate the Leader of the House will wind up so that, if my right hon. and hon. Friends have already spoken, they will not be able to speak a second time, but at least the reply by the Leader of the House to their points will be made before we vote?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is my intention, with the permission of the House.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that we are to have just one debate from now until 10 o'clock covering all these subjects and with votes at the end? It does not appear to me to be a logical or convenient way to act, but, if that is the decision no doubt it is possible to carry on that way. I understand that that is what is intended.
Mr. Speaker: I agree that that is what we are embarking upon. We are to have one wide debate in which Members may make their separate points and have a reply at the end.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have followed this procedure on two previous occasions and it has worked reasonably well. We have had our general debate and Members have been able to vote at the end. It has worked satisfactorily.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be good enough to put the Question separately on paragraph (8) of amendment (a) to motion No. 1? There is a special reason. The proposed new Standing Order appears on the Order Paper with the side heading
"Instruments subject to affirmative procedure."
However, when one gets to paragraph (8) one discovers that that refers not to instruments but to measures. Measures are totally different. The arguments for and against that are different from the arguments concerning instruments. I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if the Questions were put, say, on paragraphs (1) to (7), then on paragraph (8) and then on paragraphs (9) to (14). That would enable the House, if it wished, to pass the amendment in so far as it is compatible with the side heading on the Order Paper but not as it applies to measures, for which the arguments are totally different. Alternatively, if, in your judgment, Mr. Speaker, that is inconvenient, would you accept a manuscript amendment merely to leave out paragraph (8) of this amendment, which is the other way of doing it?
Mr. Speaker: As regards a manuscript amendment, I should point out that the hon. Member had the opportunity of tabling an amendment if he felt strongly about it, because this is not the first day that this amendment has been on the Order Paper. It is one amendment. It would be a very untidy business if I started by saying that we would deal with this one clause by clause. It is one amendment, proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). If the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) does not like it, his choice is to reject all of it.
4.15 pm
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of recommendations (4) to (30) and (66) to (70) of the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in Session 1977–78.
I believe that this is an important day in the history of the House of Commons, because the House has the opportunity of completing its work in relation to the epoch-making report on procedure which was published just over two years ago, the Committee having been appointed in June 1976.
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams), the Chairman of the Committee, on the important work that he and the members of the Committee performed in relation to the report. With that I should like to associate my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) for his zeal and judgment in enabling matters, I trust, to have a happy ending today.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to start the debate in the right atmosphere. He said that the House had the opportunity of completing the work done by the Select Committee, to which he referred in kindly terms. I hope that he will in some way recognise that we cannot do that unless we make progress on the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), because that deals with the statutory instruments procedure, a major part of the Committee's work, which is not dealt with in the motions.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That may be so, but it has been open to any Member of the House to put down amendments, as did the hon. Member for Nottingham,
720
West (Mr. English). I welcome his amendment. I should have welcomed any amendments which other hon. Members might have put down.
At the general election there was a pledge in the constitutional section of the Conservative Party's manifesto which welcomed the report and promised that the House would be given an early chance of coming to a decision on its proposals.
There were 76 recommendations in six different sections. Clearly it would have been impossible to dispose of all those at a stroke. Therefore, the matter has been before the House on three separate occasions. The first was 25 June 1979, when the 14 Select Committees were set up constituting the system of departmentally related Select Committees. The second was 31 October 1979, when a wide variety of lesser but important proposals was put before the House, including the recommendations of the 10 Sessional Committees which had been lying about neglected literally for years. Eighteen motions were put forward on that occasion covering matters such as Sessions and sittings, early morning sittings on Fridays, the Opposition's right to vote on their own motions on Supply days, the experiment inaugurated by Mr. Speaker limiting the length of speeches by hon. Members at certain times on Second Reading debates and the motion, which was defeated, to modify the Standing Order No. 9 procedure. Now, almost exactly a year later, on 30 October 1980, the House has an opportunity to decide on the remaining recommendations of the Procedure Committee with amendments.
The motions cover three particular areas: first, the Public Bill procedure; secondly, European legislation; and, thirdly, the manner in which the House handles financial matters and Supply.
Looking back to the beginning of the Session, we have been beset by many vicissitudes before reaching the point we have arrived at today. Not everyone is an enthusiast for reform of our procedures. When the Committees were set up, there were some who wished to go no further. Nevertheless, the second stage was reached on schedule and now, after very considerable difficulties, we have arrived at the third stage.
This is the fourth date that I have proposed for the third stage of the proceedings. For a full account of the saga, the

721
House will have to await my memoirs. But I recall setting this down in August; it was then swept away by a little local difficulty; and earlier this week there was another one, the Home Secretary's Bill on imprisonment. At last, however, we have arrived and I am reasonably hopeful that nothing is likely to happen to postpone a vote on these matters yet again.
The motions before us today are hardly intelligible unless they are seen in the wider context of the role of parliamentary government and procedure. Of course, parliamentary government is a misnomer. Apart from that unfortunate interlude in the seventeenth century—and we all know what happened then—Parliament has never made any claim to govern. The function of government is carried out in reality by the Cabinet.
Since the second Reform Act of 1867, the Cabinet has succeeded in dominating the legislative programme, with certain exceptions. The House of Commons, apart, alas, from the restricted role of the private Member, no longer initiates legislation. The power of initiating legislation has passed in practice to the Cabinet. The powers which undoubtedly remain to this House are, first, that this House legitimises the decisions and proposals of the Cabinet and, secondly, scrutinises them and the legislation and the other measures which are placed before the House by the Government or on occasions by private Members.
In order to fulfil this second function, the function of checking and scrutiny, we rely upon our procedures. We have no constitution in this country; we have only procedure—hence its importance.
Our debate today may lack the flash and the sparkle, and the thunder and the lightning, of yesterday's occasion, when we had the added excitement of the two principal candidates for the leadership of the Labour Party paraded before us. I reflect, by comparison with that choice, that the American people are being offered in the presidential election there an embarras de richesse. I congratulate the Shadow Leader of the House on his witty and brilliant speech yesterday, but I do not know that it will do him much good. People are suspicious of witticisms. They associate them with Oscar Wilde and other undesirable persons. [AN. HON. MEMBER: "Like you."] Unlike me—but
722
Mr. Wilde had the further disadvantage of being an author. The truth is that in politics it is safer to be a co-respondent than a wit.
Mr. Michael English: Charles Dilke.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That rather proves my point.
In order to fulfil its role, Parliament has continually to renew its procedures. At certain points, we have had really major changes. One such moment came in the 1870s, when the Government were in the process of taking over the arrangements of this House from the private Member and arrogating them to themselves. Then, in the 1880s, owing to the disrupting tactics of Parnell and the Irish party, we had the closure introduced, which was followed by the guillotine. In the early 1900s, we had the Balfour reforms, and in the 1960s we had the changes introduced by Richard Cross-man. In the 1980s, we have another opportunity in this House to change and develop our procedures.
Behind all these debates and reforms there is a single unifying purpose: to redress the imbalance which has developed between Whitehall and Westminster and to enable the Commons to exercise its legislative and scrutiny functions more efficiently and effectively.
That is why one can claim—and I did claim it—that the setting up of the departmentally related Select Committees was one of the most important parliamentary reforms of the century. Some people thought that that was hyperbole. Understatement has never been by strong suit, but I believe that, in the experience that we have had of the working of these Committees up to now, those words have been fully justified. The dynamic contribution that these Committees have made has affected not only the Westminster scene but the Whitehall scene as well. That contribution has been made not only on specific matters; their influence is felt throughout the Government. No one, for example, who has studied the activities of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee could doubt that that Committee is an extremely influential part of the governmental protest—process
Mr. Bob Cryer: A Freudian slip.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: None of us is perfect—except. of course, the hon. Gentleman.
I attended that Committee the other day, and I was extremely impressed by the contrast between the in-depth interrogation and dialogue which was possible between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Committee and the somewhat perfunctory exchange of views which takes place at a normal Question Time. It is not that I think that Question Time is unimportant, but one can pursue a question in depth at a Select Committee in a way which is valuable both to Ministers and the members of the Committee.
Thus, I believe that these Committees are dispelling the view, widely held a decade ago, that Parliament has become a mere amateur body incapable of scrutinising effectively the work of the Executive. Not all Ministers welcome this fact, but every Minister has co-operated to the full with the work of these Committees.
Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne rose——
Mr. English: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I proposed to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), but then I must get on. The hon. Gentleman will have his own opportunities to speak.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I listened with care to my right hon. Friend's eulogy of the new Committee system. However, I wonder whether he has devoted any scrutiny to the amount of time which the Whitehall machine now has to devote to these Committees, because I think that he should do so in order to assure himself that the additional load which has been placed on the Whitehall machine is justified by the product.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have had no complaints at all from any civil servant about the work of these Committees. The Civil Service has co-operated fully with the Committees. I do not take my hon. Friend's premise. One should not think of it in terms of a load being placed on Whitehall. It is the duty of Whitehall to meet the needs of this House and the citizens whom we represent.
In preparation for this debate, I had, as right hon. and hon. Members will
724
know, consulted very widely in the House before the recess. These consultations showed, on the one hand, a general wish for Parliament to continue to adapt its procedures to provide more effective scrutiny. They also showed a recognition that Governments, of whatever party, have a legitimate need to secure the passage of their legislation. Those are the two aims that I have had to keep in balance.
There is one other general point that I should like to emphasise. We have to ensure that the procedures of the House do not place unreasonable or unnecessary demands on hon. Members. The House already carries a heavy legislative burden and the hours of sitting, taking account of Select Committees and Standing Committees, are long by the standards of other legislatures. It is the Government's aim that in future Sessions the burden of legislation in the House can be made less onerous by the simple expedient, although difficult to achieve in practice, of having less of it.
In the first group concerning Public Bill procedure, the most important recommendation is recommendation (5), whereby
"Standing Committees … should in future be permitted to have up to three sittings in select committee form for the purpose of taking evidence in public."
As the House will see, the Government have tabled a motion based on that recommendation. I must make clear the basis on which we have done so.
Looking at the evidence given to the Procedure Committee and taking account of my recent consultations, there can be no doubt that many hon. Members find the present line-by-line scrutiny of legislation in Standing Committee an inadequate means of examining a Bill. It is equally clear, however, that there are very different views on the best way of improving the present procedure. Some would like a pre-legislation Committee set up to examine proposals before Bills are introduced. My personal preference would be in that direction.
Others would like the majority of Bills examined through the Select Committee procedure as well as, or instead of, the present Standing Committee arrangements. The Procedure Committee's recommendation is very much in the nature of a compromise between leaving things

725
as they are and these more radical proposals.
The Government's view is that acceptance of the recommendation would provide a means of improving the scrutiny of some of the Bills that come before us, especially where the differences of opinion cut across party lines. What we have in mind is that we should next Session undertake an experiment with the new procedure and, if the House accepts the motion that we have tabled, select perhaps three Government Bills which raise substantial issues, not of acute party controversy, and refer them to a special Standing Committee.
The Procedure Committee itself recognised the need for any Government to retain control of the legislative timetable, and that is why the motion proposes that the new evidence-taking session should be concluded within 28 days from the date of the committal of the Bill.
It is in the nature of any experiment that the way in which it works will emerge only as we gain experience. My consultations have, however, shown a real anxiety that the new procedures should not compromise the accepted impartiality of the present Chairmen of Standing Committees. That is why we are seeking power for you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, to nominate a right honourable or honourable Member to take the chair during the new evidence-taking sessions when, if the practice of the present Select Committees is followed, the Chairman will play an active part.
I would expect that Government Departments and interested outside organisations would be invited to give evidence to the new Committees, but that is a matter for the Committees. The Minister in charge of a Bill referred to a special Standing Committee will, of course, be a member of the Committee throughout its proceedings, and be able both to take part, if that is appropriate, in the questioning of witnesses, and himself to appear as a witness at the evidence-taking sessions if that is necessary. I believe that conventions will be worked out to facilitate this novel and dual role of assistance to the Committee. Other Ministers with an interest in the Bills concerned will make themselves available to give evidence as required by the Committees.
726
The motion before the House provides for this experiment to be undertaken for a single Session, but we might well need to prolong it beyond that before reaching a final judgment on its effectiveness.
We also ask the House to agree to an experiment—I shall find the right notation.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Can we help?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, why not? If my hon. Friend wishes to do so, certainly.
Mr. English rose——
Mr. Frank Hooley rose——
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I give way to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).
Mr. English: Perhaps it will help if I make the intervention now that the right hon. Gentleman asked me to make at a later stage. He said earlier that every Minister had assisted the Select Committees. He should make it clear that there is one exception to that. The Lord Chancellor has not assisted in that way because his entire responsibility is cut out of the Home Affairs Committee's jurisdiction. That means, for example, that the Home Affairs Committee could, if it wished, discuss the Security Services of the State but could not discuss the Public Record Office.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I listened to most of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I have taken it on board and I shall be interested to hear it further adumbrated should the hon. Gentleman catch the eye of the Chair.
I turn to the experiment covering the same Bills on the lines of recommendation (6) in the Procedure Committee's report. A special Standing Committee could reconvene before reporting the Bill to the House for the purpose of considering amendments arising from undertakings given in Committee. We shall have to see whether this succeeds in saving subsequent time on Report. I should perhaps add that Hansard will be responsible for reporting the proceedings in these Committees. I understand that this may have implications for the present rules

727
on making transcripts available to Members.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell rose——
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall be grateful if I am allowed to continue and perhaps to reply to any issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises at the end of the debate, otherwise I shall not get through what I have to say.
Mr. Powell: I appreciate that, but I think that it would be germane if at this stage the right hon. Gentleman would recognise that we are here being asked to combine in one Standing Order two completely separate experiments directed to completely different problems, and that there is no reason why the new type of Standing Committee should be an appropriate test bed for the second experiment.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I appreciate that point, but we must see how these experiments work. I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's intervention and return to it when I reply to the debate.
Recommendation (8) proposes the prescription by Standing Order of minimum intervals between the stages of Bills, and recommendation (9) proposes a number of changes in the present procedures for guillotine motions. The Government accept the spirit of both these recommendations. I hope the House would agree, that it is not necessary to enshrine them in Standing Orders.
As regards guillotines, I think I can legitimately claim at the end of a very long and busy Session that the Government, unlike some of their predecessors, have been sparing in the use of the guillotine. But if the precise recommendations of the Procedure Committee were embodied in Standing Orders it might on occasion mean that more time would be taken up in what are never very constructive debates.
I turn now to the section of the report dealing with delegated legislation. The House will see that the Government have not tabled any motions recommending implementations in this section of the report. I should explain why. It is certainly not because we regard the recommendations as unimportant or be-
728
cause we think that the present arrangements are in all respects satisfactory. But we believe that the proposals made by the Procedure Committee have their own difficulties. For instance—recommendation (15)—it is both our view and our practice that debates on statutory instruments and prayers should not be held until the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has had the opportunity to consider the instrument concerned. But there must occasionally arise circumstances—and Ministers will do all they can to keep them as few as possible—when there is an overriding need for an immediate debate.
The most important recommendation in this group is probably recommendation (18), which seeks to give more powers to the existing Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments. The problem here is that the changes proposed would lengthen the time spent by Members in these Committees and would require more Members to be present, and it is not always easy to secure Members' attendance. On balance, we have concluded that we should not advise the House to make these particular changes.
Finally, in dealing with delegated legislation, there are recommendations (19), (20) and (21). They are addressed to the House and its Committees rather than to the Government. It is not, in our view, necessary to make any amendment to Standing Orders to achieve the object of these recommendations.
I express the appreciation of the House to the two Chairmen of the Standing Committees who are here today for the work that they do. It is very dreary and painstaking work. It takes up a great deal of time and does not receive much recognition. It is in the best traditions of this House that the work is voluntarily undertaken by hon. Members.
I now turn, if I may, to the recommendations on European Community legislation. This is a subject of considerable interest to Members on both sides of the House, and I hope that the House will therefore forgive me if I go through the relevant recommendations—(22) to (30)—in a fair amount of detail.
I am happy to endorse the recommendations—(23) and (24)—that there should be no extension of the powers of the

729
Select Committee in European legislation and that departmentally related Select Committees should be free to consider the merits of European Community documents within their own sphere of influence. It must be right that consideration of merits falls to the specialist Committees. I congratulate the Scrutiny Committee on implementing recommendation (24) to supply the Select Committees with material relating to documents in their own field. The Government are also willing to supply such material in the usual way.
Recommendation (25) is a key recommendation. It recommends a declaratory resolution setting out the circumstances in which the Government should be permitted to give their approval to European Community legislation. I say "European Community" as we are concerned with legislation made under the Euratom Treaty and European Coal and Steel Community Treaty as well as under the European Economic Community Treaty itself. As witnessed by the undertaking I gave the House on 13 July last year, the Government readily agree that wherever possible the House should have the opportunity to discuss documents recommended to it by the Scrutiny Committee prior to agreement being given in Brussels. I believe that the House would value a voluntary undertaking being framed as a declaratory resolution of the House.
Both the Government and the Scrutiny Committee have thought long about the content of such a resolution. I am happy that the Scrutiny Committee has reached a similar conclusion to our own. The resolution embodied in the motion we have tabled follows very closely the wording provided by the Scrutiny Committee. In so doing, it departs from the suggestion of the Procedure Committee, which favoured a firm commitment never to give final approval to a document which still requires debate. I do not think that this is realistic; and I am not convinced that a totally binding resolution would best serve the interests of the United Kingdom.
Of course, the Government should make every effort to ensure that a debate is held, but we cannot avoid the rare occasion when world and Community events move so fast that there is no time to do so. Our Summer Recess alone can give rise to problems because the Council of Min-
730
isters meets in every month except for August. I consider that the provision that a Minister must at the first opportunity explain to the House the reason for giving agreement prior to a debate should safeguard that exceptions to the general rule are made only when it is absolutely necessary. And I believe our practice since the election has followed that course.
Mr. Julius Silverman: One of the questions that has been raised is how the report of the Scrutiny Committee should be given to the House. I intend to deal with that later.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall be interested to hear any suggestions from the hon. Member about that report.
I turn to the recommendations that the Government should provide time for debates. Time has passed since the recommendations were made and I think that these are largely met. It has become the general practice to table motions which express a view of the proposals under debate. I shall certainly consider any suggestions that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) makes.
If come now to the important recommendation (28) concerning Standing Committee procedure. As the House will see from the motion, we have recognised that consideration of European Community documents is different from that of our own statutory instruments and have therefore tabled separate Standing Orders. The House has not found the existing procedure satisfactory and it has therefore been necessary to take many documents at a late hour on the Floor of the House. The Procedure Committee suggested detailed changes. I believe the core to be that the debate should take place on an amendable motion which puts all debates on Community documents, whether on the Floor or upstairs, on a par and that up to two and a half hours should be allowed.
From my soundings, I do not think that there is a general will to abolish the right of 20 or more Members to block a reference upstairs. Nor do I see a need to complicate the Orders by adding that where a reference is blocked time must be found within seven days on the Floor. I hope that the House will agree that a two-arid-a-half-hour discussion on an

731
amendable motion at a reasonable time of day is a considerable improvement.
Recommendation (29), to keep the House informed of the progress of documents through the often lengthy proceedings of Community institutions, presents real practical problems. We have to balance the work involved in relation to the end achieved. Updated explanatory memoranda are submitted where proposals have been significantly altered; these will continue to be provided, as and when appropriate. We will as far as we can ensure that the Scrutiny Committee has further information about the proposals recommended for debate and about the likely timing of Council consideration.
New procedures have largely met recommendation (30) on the Definition of Treaties Orders. The Procedure Committee also asked that the explanatory memoranda printed at the back of such orders should be more informative. We shall use our best endeavours to see that further factual information can be given without misleading the House as to the purpose of the order. The title of treaties which are the subject of such orders are now included as a matter of course in the title of the draft order.
Finally, on European legislation, I propose to use the opportunity presented by this debate to make slight changes in Standing Orders by changing references to "Commission documents" to "European Community documents" so that they will be brought in line once again with the terms of reference of the Select Committee on European legislation.
The third major proposal put forward this afternoon concerns financial control by the House of Commons. In the long run this could prove the most important sphere of all. The whole power and influence of the House of Commons ultimately rest on two things—the power of the Commons to grant Supply and the power of the Commons to regulate expenditure.
The fundamental principle has been established for centuries. In 1407 the principle first saw the light of day. It was then established that financial matters should be initiated in the House of Commons. We have accepted that all taxes and burdens imposed on the nation for the purpose of the State must be granted
732
by Parliament. That principle fully established itself in 1688. The Bill of Rights reaffirmed it and brought to an end the financial policies that had been followed by the Tudors and the Stuarts. It has also been accepted since 1713 by what was Standing Order No. 89 that any increase in expenditure must be initiated by the Government.
There is no doubt about the importance and clarity of the principle. However, there is grave doubt about the practice. We have our means of controlling financial matters. There are the Budget debate, the Finance Bill, the Consolidated Fund Bill, the Appropriation Bill and the Estimates. These are the great events of the Commons financial year. But it is also true that much of the control in relation to the Estimates is formal rather than real. Supply days existed for the purpose of debating Estimates. They have been appropriated by the Opposition for their own purposes. That is perfectly legitimate, but it means that there is often no detailed scrutiny of Estimates.
The other point to which I draw the House's attention is that we have not benefited from the divorce of the debates on expenditure from the consideration of taxation. It was a happy advance when in this year's Budget the expenditure White Paper and the Budget proposals were brought together.
Mr. Hooley: By accident.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: O felix culpa.
Widespread dissatisfaction has been expressed in different parts of the House, particularly by my hon. Friends the Members for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). The matter was considered to some extent in the Procedure Committee report, but it was not considered in the depth that is required.
I can deal quite briefly with the specific recommendations in the Procedure Committee report about the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General, recommendations (66) to (68), which have been overtaken by the publication earlier this year of the Green Paper about the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Government are awaiting the comments of those who have been

733
consulted, not least those from the Public Accounts Committee.
The Procedure Committee recommended that departmental Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, should be referred to the departmentally related Select Committees. Action has been taken to provide the Committees with proof copies of the Supplementary Estimates, as recommended in the first special report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee. I hope that the Committees will make use of this material.
Mr. John Garrett: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Green Paper on the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General legitimises the gradual transfer that has been taking place over the years of control over the Comptroller and his Department from this House to the Government, particularly to the Treasury? That fits ill with his protestations about wanting to enhance the power of the House.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not believe that that is so. The paper expresses an opinion of the Government. It is in the form of a Green Paper, not a White Paper. It does not contain any decisions of the Government and there is no final view in it.
More important than those recommendations is the fact that the Procedure Committee recognised that the system by which the House controls Supply is in need of radical review. I share that view, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The motion on the Order Paper accordingly provides for the establishment of a Select Committee at the beginning of the next Session to examine the whole of our present procedures for considering and voting on Government requests for Supply. Its effectiveness in the future must be one of the principal concerns of all those who care for the maintenance and strengthening of our parliamentary system.
The range of matters within that review would include—and I give these purely as examples—procedures for the examination of departmental Estimates, Supply day procedures and procedures for the consideration of the Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Bills. The task of the new Committee will be to examine those and other matters within its terms of
734
reference and to consider in what way the role of the House in that critical field can be made a more effective reality.
I shall do all that I can, if the House agrees to the motion, to enable the Committee to be established as soon as possible in the next Session. I am sure, too—and this is a matter for the Committee—that it will complete its work as quickly as is consistent with the importance of the subject.
The power of Parliament is, in theory, unlimited. It is a fundamental doctrine of our constitution that the Queen in Parliament is supreme. It is not a dead doctrine, but it is not applied fully and at all times. Nevertheless, the power is there potentially, ready to be called forth once again at the will of this House at any time. I believe that these reforms and proposals give the House of Commons another opportunity to adapt itself to the needs and signs of the time in an evolutionary but effective way. Hon. Members have an opportunity to restore Parliament to the centre of the political stage. The opportunity has been given by the Government, but how far it is taken depends on the attitude of hon. Members.
4.55 pm
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Leader of the House referred to the general support in the House for the changes in parliamentary procedure. "General" is the right word, because we should not include everyone. That is why the Shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), who spoke with such wit last night, is not here and I am. For this purpose today, I am Shadow Leader.
I, too, pay tribute to the development in this Session of the new Select Committees. There have been excellent reports. The report of the Home Affairs Committee on the "sus" laws shows the great value of such Committees. Their role is evolving. However, there is an overlap in the work of many of the Committees that we are setting up and we shall have to consider that.
I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. I am not making a political point, but the way that the Committee has obtained from the Chancellor facts and figures of monetary policy,

735
for example, is of the greatest importance. I spent the Summer Recess looking through back papers from the Northern Ireland Office, where I was Secretary of State. It is quite different from the big Departments of State.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is writing his memoirs.
Mr. Rees: I am not writing memoirs in what has come to be the generally accepted sense of the term. I love my fellow men—and women.
Certain decision-making in a Department is inappropriate to put to a Select Committee. However, very valuable information comes from the work of these Committees. I pay tribute to them.
I deal next with what I consider to be the next development and do not follow the order on the Order Paper. A Select Committee should be set up to examine the procedure for voting on the Government's requests for Supply. The right hon. Gentleman gave a brief and interesting analysis of the developments over the centuries. There is also an interesting article in The House Magazine by Charles Winnifrith. The report in 1977–78 did not discuss procedure, but it is time that we did.
When I was responsible for a large Department I was conscious that I could not have a real idea about the way that the moneys in the Estimates were built up. It is one thing to have any argument, as we do in this House, about the totality of public expenditure, but the detail should be looked at outside the Department concerned. That is an important development which I commend.
As regards the Public Bill procedure, there is an interesting section in the report on the role of parliamentary procedure—adequate explanation, safeguarding the rights of those affected by Bills and so on. We know of the role of Green and White Papers over the years, but I have no doubt that the normal Standing Committee is too often a charade. It betrays a lack of knowledge, which all of us share, and the system is time-consuming. When I was first elected to the House about 20 years ago, the one aim in life of older Members was never to get on a Standing Committee. Some hon., and subsequently
736
right hon., Members made a claim to fame from not having been asked to serve on a Standing Committee.
There is a need for a fact-collecting stage. Time is a problem. Perhaps I should have listened more carefully to the Leader of the House or read the Order Paper more carefully, but I am not clear whether it is intended that the Chairman should be the same right hon. Member or hon. Member who is the Chairman of what I call the normal Standing Committee.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The suggestion is that the Chairman should be a different Chairman, who would be appointed by Mr. Speaker. The suggestion came from the Panel of Chairmen. It could, for example, be the Chairman of the relevant Select Committee or it could be another person appointed by the Panel.
Mr. Rees: It is important that the Chairman should be neutral in both circumstances; and we shall have to return to this point in the debate.
As to the sort of Bills that will be involved, when discussions took place through the usual channels some months ago it seemed that we were talking about non-controversial Bills. When the Home Secretary first mentioned a nationality Bill I suggested on the Floor of the House that it would be an appropriate Bill to put through the fact-finding procedure. It is a complicated matter and I tremble to think what will happen if we do not have a fact-finding exercise on the Bill before it goes to Standing Committee. We could land ourselves in trouble and not do justice to the subject.
The only Committee that I served on in this Session was that on the Broadcasting Bill, chaired by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain). That was not a controversial Bill. Indeed, I do not regard nationality as controversial in the normal sense of the term. Our proceedings on the Broadcasting Bill would have been very much better if we had had a fact-finding exercise, because, with respect to hon. Members who served on the Committee, a great deal of our discussion was a waste of time.
What criteria are the Government putting forward in regard to non-controversial Bills? The Leader of the House suggested that the same Standing Committee

737
will look at undertakings given by Ministers. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out that that was not a recommendation by the Procedure Committee. I can see difficulties in that respect, because the first bite of the cherry is fact-finding, and the third bite is fact-finding of a different nature.
Mr. Spearing: The recommendation of the Select Committee was for a re-run procedure on undertakings given in normal Standing Committees, but the Select Committee did not link that with the present proposals for special Committees.
Mr. Rees: I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to hear views on that matter from both sides of the House.
I was not much involved in EEC legislation in the previous Government, but we have learnt of the debates, arguments and changes that took place in relation to that legislation. I read with interest in the report that at some stage the appropriate Select Committee might look at the merits of European legislation. That is why I said earlier that there is an overlapping in some developments and we shall have to be careful that that does not go too far. There must be clarity of responsibility.
I shall listen carefully to my hon. Friends who have tabled amendments on this matter. We shall have a free vote and my hon. Friends are making appropriate and relevant points. I do not propose to go further than that at this stage.
The declaratory resolution puts the existing practice of the House in the form of a resolution and I support that. There is an amendment down to that and, because of the difficulties of procedure, I propose to leave the matter to the hon. Members who support that amendment rather than to rehearse all the arguments now.
Certainly, as regards the responsibilities of the House, this is not the end of the matter. We are dealing with procedural matters and not the basic argument about the role of the Community and the way that it has influenced the House, but there is no doubt that we shall return to that subject in greater depth in future months and years.
The statutory instruments section of the Procedure Committee report has been left out and I listened carefully to the Leader of the House's explanation of
738
that. We all know that strong feelings have been expressed on both sides of the House by those who have had responsibility for business management in successive Governments.
The Leader of the House said that he had had enough trouble and would not reveal all until he wrote his memoirs. He knows those on the Opposition side who have doubts about the Procedure Committee's recommendations and we know who have doubts on the Government side. We ought to consider those arguments. If we are to get the development we seek, we shall have to convince right hon. and hon. Members—and most of those concerned are right hon. Members—that the House is not building in a system that will clog up the business and make it difficult for Governments, Chief Whips and future Leaders of the House to get their business through. The fear is that we are suggesting a clogging mechanism, whatever else our aims may be. It is important to indicate, though perhaps I am not doing it as delicately as I should, that there are strong forces on both sides of the House who believe that the Procedure Committee's recommendation is a device for making sure that Governments will not get their business through with alacrity.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I take the opportunity to put the matter beyond doubt and to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the part that he has played in getting the propoasls before the House. Throughout, he has been constructive, progressive and all those nice-sounding words that we like to have applied to ourselves. I am most grateful to him.
Mr. Rees: I did not have to take a decision and I am jolly glad about that. I would probably have been as unsuccessful as the right hon. Gentleman was. I am grateful for what he has said. We must answer the criticism that the recommendation of the Procedure Committee would lead to problems for a Government in getting their business through. We move slowly in procedure matters, and the Leader of the House deserves praise for the changes that he has made in this Session.
This evening there is a free vote. In general, on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench, I commend the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman makes to

739
the House. We should listen most carefully to the arguments relating to the amendments on the Order Paper. I have learnt from dipping my toe into the waters of parliamentary procedure in the course of the last Session that there is a fund of knowledge among a relatively small number of right hon. and hon. Members who are present for this debate. I shall listen carefully to the arguments that they put before deciding how to vote.
5.10 pm
Mr. Paul Dean: I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that this is one of the most important debates in the House of Commons this Session and it will remain important for some time to come. I also join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. This Session is already noteworthy for the introduction of the new Select Committees, which, in a comparatively short time, have made a major mark not only on our parliamentary procedures in the House but on the more effective disciplines that Parliament is now exerting on the Government of the day, restoring the authority of this House.
All too often in the past, parties in Opposition have been enthusiastic for parliamentary reform, but the minute that they come into Government that enthusiasm evaporates. They can find a whole series of arguments for not bringing reforms before the House. The present Leader of the House has been an exception. The fact that we are now debating a second major series of reforms in one Session shows that my right hon. Friend intends to make his mark as Leader in helping to restore the authority of this place.
I wish to confine my remarks largely to the suggestion relating to the Special Standing Committees. I am sure that the whole House would wish to express its gratitude to those hon. Members who served on the Select Committee and who produced this suggestion. It has been my good fortune in 16 years in this House to serve in almost every conceivable capacity on Standing Committees. I share the reaction of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South. If one serves as a Back Bencher in Opposition on a Stand-
740
ing Committee, one is encouraged to speak. Often if one serves as a Government Back Bencher one is encouraged to do something else and not to speak, so that the Government of the day can get their business. I have also served on the Opposition Front Bench in Standing Committees and as a Minister piloting Bills through Standing Committees. More recently, in this Parliament, I have presided over Standing Committees as a member of the Chairman's Panel.
This varied experience has left with me three strong impressions about Standing Committees as they now exist. First, they are losing their value as an effective means of probing the details of legislation, line by line and clause by clause. Secondly, what is called the adversarial character of Standing Committees does not lend itself to dealing properly with the complexity of modern Bills. Thirdly, the procedure is too late. By the time a Bill gets into Standing Committee it is in a rigid mould. The Government are too committed to it. I have therefore reached the conclusion that the time is right to change in the directions now proposed.
It is understandable why these developments have happened and why the traditional Standing Committee procedure should have been overtaken by events and the complexities of modern life. It is understandable that Governments of all political colours have found it appropriate, indeed necessary, to consult outside interests at an early stage before they draft the details of their legislation. We have reached the stage when draft Bills are actually circulated round the outside interests. This seems a sensible precaution for the Government to adopt, but the fact is that the House of Commons is not consulted at these early stages. There is no formal procedure for that to happen.
A wise Minister will consult his interested Back Benchers by discussions in the corridor. He might even consult his opposite numbers. But the reality is that the position now exists where the only people who are empowered by our constitution to enact legislation are the last people to be consulted. We are presented, in due course, with a Bill that has taken months or, in some cases, years to prepare. We have had no say in the

741
preparation of that Bill. Ministers, Civil servants and outside interests are consulted but not Parliament. This seems to explain why Standing Committees have become increasingly a ritual and less and less a process of effective scrutiny.
Hon. Members, particularly those who have had ministerial experience, know that Ministers can always use their last card which can be their trump card. If they have been out-argued on an amendment during discussion of a Bill in Committee and recognise that the arguments in favour of the amendment are overwhelming, they appeal to their hon. Friends sitting behind them by saying that the balance of the Bill has been so carefully drawn up and the Government have compromised here and there with interests outside that the whole balance of the Bill would be destroyed if the Government were to concede the powerful arguments that have been deployed. That is the last card that a Minister who has lost every argument can use. Often, he uses it to good effect. That is another reason why our procedures need bringing up to date.
I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say that he was in favour of a pre-legislation process. So am I. I hope that if we pass the proposals for a Special Standing Committee today this will be a step in that direction. Equally, I recognise that the Select Committee on Procedure in its report doubted whether this pre-legislation procedure would be suitable at this stage for legislation other than legislation that is non-controversial and non-urgent. However, the Select Committee also went on to indicate two developments of great significance. First, the Committee recognised the growing practice of Governments to proceed through consultation by White or Green Papers. This development has grown naturally over recent years. The Committee also pointed to some striking examples of pre-legislation Select Committees that have had a substantial influence on the eventual legislation or on whether that legislation should be brought forward.
The Select Committee on Tax-Credits sat in the 1972–73 Session. There is no doubt that the proposals which eventually emerged from that Select Committee were a substantial improvement on the proposals originally made by the Gov-
742
ernment of the day. When considering the timetable of events perhaps it is significant that because the proposals were put to that Select Committee there was not time to legislate on them in that Parliament. However, that is by the way.
Another pre-legislation Select Committee of considerable importance was that on the proposed wealth tax. That Committee sat in the 1974–75 Session. Probably as a result of that Select Committee's deliberations the proposal was stillborn. Whether it was a wise decision, it was a classic example of a highly complex matter being the subject of consultation in the House of Commons before proceeding with legislation.
We are evolving methods of making Parliament more closely associated with the early stages of the legislative process. That is encouraging and essential if Parliament is to win the struggle to gain better control over the Government of the day. After all, legislation these days almost invariably leads to expenditure which might range five or 10 years ahead. Unless Parliament has some say in the formulation of that legislation it will have ineffective control over the expenditure which flows from it. It is like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
There is another reason why the proposals are significant. They can associate the Opposition of the day much more closely with the formulation of policy. 1 nurture the hope that if the Opposition have an opportunity to have their say before legislation is formulated they are less likely to want to show their virility by saying that they will repeal the legislation when they return to power. We have suffered from that phenomenon many times since the war. Classic examples are housing and pensions. Whatever one might feel about the policies of any particular Government, if policies are to be changed when long-term planning is involved, insecurity, indecision and difficulties will be caused for people outside Parliament. Thus, another advantage of a pre-legislation procedure is that by enabling the Opposition to have some say over the form of legislation we might prevent some of the see-sawing policies which in some areas have created insecurity and difficulty.

743
I should like us to go to pre-legislation committees straight away—to re-establish the First Reading in a modern guise. I recognise that in this conservative place it would be unwise to attempt to go too far or too fast. I welcome the Special Standing Committee as a step in the right direction. It is in accordance with our well-tried procedures in Parliament and the process of sending for persons, papers and records. Hearing oral evidence is something with which we are familiar as parliamentarians. There is nothing revolutionary about the proposed change. It is a natural evolutionary process. I hope that we shall agree to try it and see how we get on. It could be as important a step in the evolution of parliamentary practice as the new Select Committees.
I was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend said about the role of the Chairman of the Committees. It is of cardinal importance that the role of the Chairman should not impugn the well-known impartiality which the members of the Chairmen's Panel try to exercise in the conduct of proceedings.
To summarise, I believe that in the proposals for the Special Standing Committees and the other reforms, which I shall not mention in detail, we are not aiming to usurp the role of Government, because Governments must decide and put their proposals to Parliament. We must scrutinise, probe and make Governments prove their case. That is the essence of parliamentary government. Today, and this Session, might prove, not for the first time, that this Mother of Parliaments is old but yet young; that this ancient and honourable House is secure in the wisdom that has been built up over the centuries by tradition, custom and precedent. We are also showing that we are responsive to new needs, to new fears and to the aspirations of the people whom we represent. We have an opportunity today to fashion new ways of ensuring that Parliament and people remain in communion with each other.
5.27 pm
Mr. Douglas Jay: My remarks and the amendments which I and some of my hon. Friends have tabled relate entirely to the control of
744
EEC legislation. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster uttered some worthy sentences about parliamentary control over legislation and some even finer words about the Queen in Parliament being absolutely sovereign. The object of our amendments, is to strengthen parliamentary control over EEC legislation as it goes through the House.
The immediate issue with which we are concerned is whether we can clearly establish by a declaratory motion that, when the Scrutiny Committee has recommended a legislative instrument from the Community for debate in the House, a Minister will not take a final legislative decision in the Council of Ministers before that instrument has been debated in the House.
If that assurance is not firm, the House has no control over EEC legislation. When the time comes to debate it, the Minister will say that, regrettably, the final decision was taken a fortnight previously in the Council of Ministers and that the regulation or directive is already law and binding in the Birtish courts. It is salutary that we should all remember that this is entirely an issue of EEC legislation—not of negotiation, discussion or consultation in the Council of Ministers—which becomes binding in the courts of Britain equally with legislation passed by the House.
Briefly, the history of the controversy is that as the European Communities Act 1972 passed through the House we received repeated assurances that a procedure would be established to enable the House to examine EEC legislation in a satisfactory manner. There followed the Foster committee, which recommended the setting up of the Scrutiny Committee, and, after the passing of the European Communities Act, that Committee was established. However, there was no guarantee that Ministers would not assent to EEC legislation before the debate took place in the House.
On 11 June 1974, in a general debate on procedure, I addressed a question to the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), about whether he could give an undertaking that no Minister would give his approval to legislation before a debate had taken place in the House. He agreed that any other procedure

745
would be intolerable. Some of us took that to mean that in matters of legislation, and where a recommendation had been given by the Scrutiny Committee, no Minister would act in that way. It is a comment on the way that we sometimes conduct our affairs that it is now more than six years since that undertaking was given. and we still do not have it fully embodied in a motion.
Mr. English: I understand my right hon. Friend's point. Is he not aware that no person can give such an assurance, because it would be illegal under the Treaty of Rome? Under Community law legislation can be passed by the Council of Ministers, and no one Minister who might be outvoted can give an assurance that it will not become law unless he wishes that. That cannot be done.
Mr. Jay: I am not clear what point my hon. Friend is trying to make. Unless the Minister gives his assent to the legislation at the Council of Ministers, it will not become EEC legislation. That is the issue at stake. Following that debate and the original assurance, Governments began gradually to water down the assurance and to introduce a qualification that it would be carried out unless, in an emergency, a Minister chose to do otherwise. He would then attempt to inform Parliament thereafter.
In the opinion of myself and some of my hon. Friends, that is not satisfactory. Far from carrying out the undertaking to give further parliamentary control over the Executive, if we assented to place in the hands of a Minister the power to decide that he would not bring legislation before the House at all because he found himself in what he might describe as an emergency, that he was in a hurry and that it would be a great deal of trouble to do so, that would be the greatest surrender of legislative power that Parliament has ever made.
The purpose of our amendments is to ensure that the House does not hand over an unqualified power to Ministers to act on a dispensation from the undertaking given. There are four amendments. Amendment (a) would remove the qualification in the motion tabled by the Leader of the House and would mean that there was a clear undertaking that no assent would be given until a debate had taken place in the House.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He said that no agreement should be given. The motion proposes that no Minister should give agreement. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that, if the motion is passed or amended in any way, it will be binding on the Leader of the House and the Government?
Mr. Jay: That is an interesting point. Perhaps the Leader of the House will make that point clear when he replies. I hope that we can take it that the words "should not be given" mean that no Minister would disregard the undertaking. Leaving that point aside, that would be the effect of amendment (a).
Amendment (b) relates to an important though less crucial point. It ensures that the matter, when it came before the House, would be on a substantive motion and not on the Adjournment and therefore would be capable of amendment. In effect, it ensures that it would be open to the House to say to the Minister "Go back to Brussels, amend the legislation in this fashion, and then it will have the approval of the House."
Amendment (c) would leave the Scrutiny Committee with authority to make its recommendations to the House but it would remove altogether the power of the Minister to give his assent in Brussels before the debate took place.
Amendment (d), which is an indispensable amendment to which no one could have any objection, would ensure that if the previous amendments were not accepted, and if the Minister were still allowed some discretion, he would be bound to make an oral statement in the House explaining what he had done and his reasons for it. That amendment is not sufficient; it is the minimum that is required. I regret to say that, as the Leader of the House probably knows, in recent months in several cases a Minister has carried out that undertaking only in an answer to a written question after the event which was probably not noticed by a great number of hon. Members.
I recommend the amendments to the House. They are intended simply to give us some control over EEC legislation. When we are saying that Standing Committees are not good enough and that we must have a pre-legislative Committee in

747
addition to Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading, it would be ironic if, in the case of EEC legislation—which is equally binding in the courts—we should have not only no Second Reading, no Report stage, no Third Reading and no Royal Assent but no discussion in the House at all. I hope that the House will agree that these amendments are the minimum that is required to deal with EEC legislation.
5.40 pm
Mr. Terence Higgins: Not infrequently in previous debates on procedure steps have been advocated to ensure that hon. Members keep their speeches short, and I certainly intend to do that. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) will forgive me if I do not pursue his points about the Common Market and so on.
I should like to speak exclusively on the motion entitled "Procedure (Supply)" which states
"That a Select Committee should be appointed at the beginning of the next Session of Parliament to examine the House's present procedure for considering and voting on the Government's requests for Supply, and to make recommendations."
I must tell my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I warmly welcome that motion. Perhaps I might also express by thanks and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who heard the opening remarks of the Leader of the House but is unable to be here now, for the kind remarks by the Leader of the House about the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, which has got away to a good start.
If there is one thing that is less modest and more unpopular in this House than quoting one's speeches, it is quoting from one's articles. None the less, I am emboldened to refer to one which I wrote in the National Westminster Review in August 1978—if I am allowed to make a commercial. I found, to my surprise, that even in "Erskine May" there is no real account of our financial procedures. There is certainly no clear description of when particular matters may be debated or voted upon, or of the parliamentary timetable.
748
I therefore thought it right, with the assistance of the Clerks, who have no responsibility for what I wrote but were kind enough to check it, to spell out what the procedures are. I think that that is helpful. In the article I explained, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has, that while we are told that the whole historic foundation of the power of the House rests on the control of Supply, developments over the years have created a situation where Supply is almost the last thing we debate in any detail. There are 29 Supply days, but they have fallen into the hands of the Opposition Front Bench. Although it is technically possible on occasion on a Supply day for a Back Bencher to debate a particular item of Supply, it is a fairly brave Member who will do so at the beginning of an important debate on a broad and important subject. As a result of that, it has become virtually impossible to secure any detailed debate on these matters.
Very often our historic precedents lead us to create a good framework within which to operate. However, the question of Supply has, over the years, run into a blind alley, and therefore I welcome very much my right hon. Friend's suggestion that a Committee should examine it to see how we get it back on the rails.
A recent innovation has been the integration of cash limits with Estimates. However, in that context we still do not have an opportunity to debate cash limits in any detail. Given the complexity of modern government, there is an overwhelming case for the Estimates that are put before the House, however carefully Treasury Ministers may have sought to scrutinise them, to be surveyed also by the Committees of this House and, if necessary, debated and voted upon in detail on the Floor of the House. That simply is not possible at present. There may well be specific items which hon. Members, perhaps across party lines, feel they should have an opportunity to debate and vote upon.
It is sometimes said that we should consider in that context what happens with the public expenditure White Paper. We thought that there would be great debates upon it, but in some years the debates have turned out to be unbelievably dull. To a large extent they are frequently badly attended because hon.

749
Members know that they cannot vote on this or that item or on the totality of the expenditure which is proposed at various stages in our procedure. I am sure that these debates would attract better attendances if that were not so, although obviously it would be helpful if the Committees responsible for particular Departments had scrutinised Estimates or cash limits and made recommendations on them in advance.
Other points need to be considered by the Committee that I hope will be set up. Expenditure approved in one year cannot be transferred into a subsequent year, but in this respect there has been a dangerous development lately to which the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service has drawn attention. It is that the Government may, in the course of pay negotiations, make firm commitments for a subsequent year which are not covered by the cash limits for the current year. As a result of that, the procedure is effectively being circumvented. As a Parliament we do not have true control over that. We therefore need to be able to bring the annual system of Estimates and cash limits back under parliamentary control.
That means that we need to look at the Estimates and cash limits in detail. They do not have the force of law. They are eventually embodied in legislation, generally in the form of the Consolidated Fund Bill. We have reached a very odd situation with that Bill. On the Second Reading hon. Members can debate anything, but they cannot vote on any of it. In the later stages they can vote on the whole lot, but they cannot debate it. That surely cannot be sensible.
In all these respects, therefore, there are real opportunities here for discussing these matters and putting them right. It is not satisfactory when hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) have to exercise great ingenuity in order to get a debate on matters involving expenditure of thousands of millions of pounds which would otherwise be approved on the nod. That is the wrong way to set about it because it invariably causes a great deal of controversy. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) pressed a number of Divisions a few months ago to register our protest about what has become a severe
750
restraint on parlimentary control of the Executive.
I hope very much that it will be possible for the Committee to report rapidly, because these matters are well known to many hon. Members. I hope that we shall he able to carry out a reform in time for the next Consolidated Fund Bill, although that depends on how one works it. However, whether any of these proposals mean anything depends on whether the Government of the day are prepared to give time for these matters to be debated. Clearly, it would be unsatisfactory for the Opposition of whichever party if the number of Supply Days were severely curtailed. It may be necessary to make some adjustments at the margin. None the less, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take on board the fact that these reforms are meaningful only if the Government are prepared to give up time to ensure that Parliament reasserts its traditional role in these areas, which are of vital importance.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already introduced some extremely important reforms. I believe that if he carries through this one as well, dealing with that which is at the heart of our parliamentary affairs—namely, finance—he could well turn out to be the most effective reforming Leader of the House we have seen, certainly this century.
5.49 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There was a retrospective section in the speech of the Leader of the House in which he referred to the working so far of what are called the new Select Committees. I should like to associate myself with the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) in uttering a word of anxiety, although I personally, on the Select Committee on Procedure and in the House, wholeheartedly supported the principle of the establishment of these Committees, regarding them as a logical and necessary extension of the development of the Estimates and Expenditure Committees of the past.
My anxiety arises not out of the Standing Order which created the Committees but out of a quite separate decision of the House, namely, that the public might be admitted—which means in practice that

751
they almost invariably are admitted—to the sittings of the Select Committees. The admission of the public has carried with it the convention that the Committees are deemed to have reported their evidence day by day.
The effect of that has been to turn some of the work of these Select Committees into instantaneous comment and debate on, if not investigation into, the matters of the day, which often anticipates and in some way replaces the function of the House in calling Ministers rapidly to account where speed is necessary. It has also altered the peculiar character that was always associated with Select Committees—that of asking a question or a series of questions and pursuing them by the interrogation of witnesses until satisfied that a point of clarification had been reached which justified them in sending their report to this House.
In modern cinemas, apart from the main show, there can be subsidiary cinemas in which subsidiary films run at the same time. Something similar seems to have resulted from the creation of the new Select Committees; but we should be jealous of our Select Committees losing their peculiar character, not merely of impartiality, but of exclusive attention to extracting information beyond what the House is capable of doing.
I turn to the motion that is technically before the House. With respect, it is not quite correct that we are completing our work and have dealt with all the recommendations of the Select Committee. I have drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House one such recommendation, recommendation (10), to which it was specifically promised on an earlier occasion that attention would be given. That has not happened. In that recommendation the Select Committee recommended that the proposals of the Committee on the preparation of Legislation—the Renton committee—for an ex-expedited procedure for Bills to re-enact for Scotland the provisions of United Kingdom Acts should be implemented and that a similar procedure should be applied in respect of Northern Ireland.
I shall not trouble the House by rehearsing the argument in paragraph 2.40 of the Committee's report; but undoub-
752
tedly this is a recommendation that would save the time of the House without in any way opening the door to unscrutinised legislation going on the statute book. It would simply enable the consolidation conventions and procedures to be applied to Bills duly certified as applying, subject to the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland, legislation that had passed through Parliament in the normal manner already. The House has indicated—I think with justice—that it is impatient of the additional burden placed upon its time by the necessity of re-enacting for parts of the Kingdom other than England the same legislation, simply with application clauses or with account taken of local legal differences. I hope that when the Leader of the House replies he will not merely refer to this but will indicate sympathy with something that would substantially alleviate the burden on the time of the House.
I make this observation in no way with prejudice to any questions regarding the future constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland. I simply say that as long as this House legislates for Northern Ireland and Scotland we should do so with expedition in the manner recommended by the Select Committee.
I turn now to some of the proposals on the Order Paper. I was disappointed that the Leader of the House, although he welcomed the amendment relating to Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, did not adopt it or offer to consider it on behalf of the Government or propose an alternative. It is a standing scandal which has existed for some 30 years that Parliament passes legislation providing for Parliament to control subordinate legislation, and then by its own procedures the House prevents itself from doing so. I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), that there is a question here whether such procedures might not be used merely for the purpose of obstruction of Government business—though in some circumstances there is something to be said for the obstruction of Government business. The beginning of the 30 years' scandal was in the 1950 Parliament, where there was a very narrow majority, when the use of what we colloquially call prayers was deliberately resorted to in order to harass and tire the Government of the day—a process not normally to

753
be achieved. As a result of that experience, by a series of changes in procedure, the House denied itself the opportunity which should be open to it of exercising control over subordinate legislation, particularly negative control by way of prayer.
Sir Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman probably recollects that when the 11.30 pm rule was introduced the Leader of the House gave an undertaking that time would always be found for prayers.
Mr. Powell: Yes. I also remember that Lord Boyle of Handsworth and I were reluctant, even at that stage, to agree to this retrenchment of what should, by reason of our statutory declarations, be a process automatically available.
The stage we have reached at the moment is that some of these motions for annulment are sent to Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, but the procedure in those Committees is a farce. The Standing Order prevents the Committees from doing what the House would do if it was dealing with a statutory instrument on the Floor: it would come to a decision on the prayer—for or against. There is something odious about a Standing Order which forbids any manifestation of this House to reach a decision.
The reason for it is not that prayers might otherwise become a means of obstructing Government business. A Standing Order that prevents a decision "Yes" or "No" or the consideration of an amendment, does not increase the number of sittings; it does not afford an opportunity for harassing the Government. On the other hand, it does require the Government to ensure that, if necessary, they have a Government majority on that Committee.
That is a different matter. The House may consider that it would be improper to institute a procedure which self-evidently could be used for the frustration of business. It is a different matter to refuse to remedy a deficiency to spare the Government having to secure a majority on a Committee in the morning. That is only a Whips' reason, if I may so put it—I have the assent of the Leader of the House who is not a Whip, nor likely to be nor, I think, has been. We both escaped that. Consequently, I read into
754
his assent more than the usual warmth: he recognises that the Whips' argument has limited validity, if any.
The proposals on the Order Paper, which derives from the deliberation of the Committee, are a careful attempt to meet the problem of enabling, within limits of time, a Statutory Instruments Committee to do its work properly by coming to a conclusion for or against the proposition that the instrument should be annulled, and to have a debate which should conclude, as is proper for debates, with a decision.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman—and certainly the House—has not heard the last of this; for it is not tolerable that year after year we deny to the public the means of controlling through us the exercise of delegated legislation by Ministers. To that extent I am disappointed with what we have before us.
I now come to the special Standing Committees. Here I believe that we are using the device of an experiment to save ourselves the trouble of deciding whether or not a proposal is inherently practical. It is a method to which we sometimes resort when faced with something which, if throughly examined, would be found to be contradictory, to say "Let us have an experiment, let us try it". That method has been adopted in more serious contexts than that of the constitution and procedure of Standing Committees of this House.—[Interruption.] I have in mind the Northern Ireland constitution.
There is an inherent contradiction and difficulty about this proposition. A Standing Committee on a Bill is this House in miniature; and a Standing Committee on a Bill ought to be able to behave, and be allowed to behave, as this House would behave when considering a Bill in Committee. That is how these Standing Committees came into existence, in order that, like an excursion train, the House could run in duplicate, in triplicate, and sometimes higher multiples.
I do not agree with those who say that the line-by-line method of consideration is ineffective. It is one of the most effective methods of examining legislation to force a Minister to debate a specific amendment on a specific line. I do not think that is diminished by the fact that in Standing Committee, for

755
reasons which are well understood, one half of the Committee tends to be mute and the other to be vocal. The mute part of the Committee is not necessarily ineffective because it is mute. For one thing, it hears the arguments. [Interruption.] I am being generous. I am not one of those hon. Members who have a clean record of no-service on Standing Committees over the last 30 years, and I know that Members on the Government side who take an interest in the Bill do listen to the arguments which are being put against its provisions, and if there is a Division they do have to decide whether or not to intimate—indeed, to intimate earlier, if possible—to the Whip that they do not think the Minister is on a good case. Everyone knows that is what happens in practice. So it simply is not true that the Standing Committee procedure is ineffective for the scrutiny of a Bill.
That scrutiny, like the scrutiny on the Floor of the House, is what is called adversarial; and where the provisions of the Bill are politically charged, there will be political debate in the Committee and decisions will be taken on political and on party lines. Let the House not suppose that by having three sittings, or how many it might be, of the Committee as if it were a Select Committee, that will transform the consideration of the Bill into that kind of consideration which a Select Committee ought to undertake with the assistance of witnesses. It will remain controversial, and the interrogation of witnesses—which will take place in public, because the proceedings of Standing Committes, being proceedings of the House, ought to be in public—the selection of witnesses and the jockeying for position in putting questions to witnesses, will be purely political and politically motivated. It will not bear other than the resemblance of a caricature to what happens in the working of a true Select Committee, nor will that be altered by giving it a different Chairman, so that he can do what the Chairman of a Select Committee does, which is, in effect, to conduct the interrogation of the witnesses.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I was listening very carefully and I had some difficulty in understanding why the right hon. Gentleman contends that the presentation of
756
oral evidence before the Special Standing Committee will not enable the members of that Standing Committee to form a better view of the merits of the Minister's case.
Mr. Powell: A Committee on a Bill where the matters are in controversy will be endeavouring to prove its case on one side or the other and to elicit only those facts which it considers to be germane to its own case. That is an entirely different approach to the examination of witnesses from that which we expect from a Select Committee.
I will take a point which was made by the Leader of the House. He said that he expected that the Minister in charge of a Bill would not merely be a Member of the Committee but that he would step down, go round to the other side of the reporters and turn into a witness. The notion that a Committee on a Bill, with the Minister in the seat in front of it, will get any more change than it will out of the adversarial procedure is, in my view, a delusion. I think it will make a mockery of Select Committee procedure and of the examination of witnesses by Select Committees.
I am not sure that the Leader of the House is not half aware of this, because he is to choose for this experiment three Bills "not of acute political controversy". Yet it is where the political controversy is acute that people have expressed, inside and outside this House, the desire that there might be some opportunity of bringing outside evidence to bear upon the shaping of a Bill. I simply think that in this we are on a loser, that it has not been thought through or debated sufficiently, and that it is a mistake, that being so, to experiment with it.
With that experiment we are combining, quite illogically—or proposing to do so, under motion No. 3—a very different experiment, of an entirely different character, and one applicable, if applicable at all, to all Bills which go through Standing Committee. It is an experiment which I think we could dispense with and go straight to a Standing Order; for all hon. Members, I should have thought, regret the loss of time in the Report stage which is taken up by the Minister bobbing up and moving an amendment and

757
hon. Members bobbing up and rehearsing what they said in Committee, and thanking the Minister for having done what they knew perfectly well from Committee that he was going to do. This is a tedious waste of time on the floor of the House.
If it can be dealt with by straight undertakings, which are not open to further debate, being implemented before the Bill reaches the House, the House will then be in a better position to consider the Bill on Report. For hon. Members who have not been on the Standing Committee often find themselves faced with an Order Paper as long as your arm, where only careful detailed work on the proceedings of the Committee will enable them to sort out which amendments are the fulfilment of commitments and which represent genuinely new or unsettled points that ought to be properly debated on Report.
I hope we shall find some way of dividing this Standing Order into two Standing Orders, one of an experimental character and another not, dealing, as they do, with entirely separate matters.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has already addressed the House on the subject of European Community Legislation. We are here trying to do by Standing Order that which it is impossible to do by Standing Order. We are attempting to pretend there is no conflict between control over the law by this House and this country's membership of the EEC. There is an inherent contradiction: if there were not, we would not have had to pass the European Communities Act 1972 in the form in which it stands.
The Divisions that we shall no doubt have on amendments (b), (c) and (d) are no more than manifestations of the incompatibility. It is contrary to the very nature of the Council of Ministers for this House to be able to say "Yea" or "Nay" to the final form of everything that passes through the EEC and becomes the law in this country. We are simply attempting to put off a decision that will be taken sooner or later. Our parliamentary self-government and independence are incompatible with membership of the EEC.
758
I agree with other hon. Members that it is desirable to have a Procedure Committee on Supply and that it is desirable to examine that subject from top to bottom. I am not sure whether the Committee's work will be easy. It will have to combine a notion of scrutiny of one kind with protection of those opportunities for debate and criticism of government, afforded by Supply procedure, which have developed over the centuries. Nevertheless, one wishes the Committee well in its attempt to do so. Even if it does not find the solution to that dilemma, it will dig up some interesting and, perhaps, important recommendations. I ask the Leader of the House, however, not to allow the setting up of a Select Committee on Supply procedure to stand in the way of our having a Sessional Committee on procedure once again. We should have a Sessional Committee on procedure in the next Session. Subjects already exist that should be considered by such a Committee, and no Committee with a large remit such as we are assuming for a Committee on Supply procedure could address itself to those subjects. The Leader of the House would do well if, at the beginning of the next Session, he were to propose the establishment of a Sessional Committee as well as a Committee to examine the procedure of Supply.
6.12 pm
Mr. Kenneth Baker: There are few hon. Members who have such a deep knowledge of and reverence for the procedures of the House as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Those of us who served on the Procedure Committee for nearly three years during the last Parliament found his advice and contribution immensely enriching to our discussions. His foot seemed to stray closer to the brake than to the accelerator, but that is no bad thing when discussing the procedures of the House. We should not be to quick or too anxious to change our procedures all the time. In the absence of a written constitution, our procedures preserve not only the liberties of this House but those of individual citizens. Our procedures buttress and support them in subtle and complex ways, which may not be fully understood until they are tested in this Chamber or in Committee.

759
It is the nature of institutions to change, just as it is the nature of human beings to change. The skill of changing our institutions lies in the continuum of interest from the past to the present and into the future. In that continuum of interest, that which is being changed must not lose its identity. That is the spirit that should dominate our attitude to procedural matters.
I tried to persuade the Procedure Committee to adopt one recommendation, namely, that when a Select Committee on procedure reports, the report should be tabled as a complete report, in the form of recommendations. I do not suggest that for all Select Committees; but a Select Committee on procedure, which examines procedures carefully, should table all its recommendations. If the Government did not want to approve the report, they could table amendments or a negative motion. If we had adopted that procedure we would have debated several subjects, including the proposals made about Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments. Our recommendations are not tabled in the way that I have suggested, and that means that we can debate them only on an amendment, as we have done today.
I share the view held by the right hon. Member for Down, South about our proposals for Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments. I voted for those proposals two years ago and I shall vote for them again tonight. They are sensible and right. We are allowing the scrutiny and control of delegated legislation to slip out of our control. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), because he understands the very complex subject of statutory instruments. I can remember the details of our proposals for only about an hour after I have read them, but I know that they remain fertile in the hon. Gentleman's mind. I strongly support the recommendations as regards amendment (a).
Among the other things that we have not been allowed to debate are some interesting and engaging recommendations at the end of our report. We suggested that we should try to curtail the long sittings of the House. It is a contro-
760
versial subject and the vote was not unanimous. Different views were held.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not accurate to say that the House has been prevented from discussing such matters. The fact that the Government have not tabled a motion on a particular subject does not mean that any hon. Member is prevented from tabling one. A number of other amendments could have been tabled along the lines of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and anything could have been discussed. However, other motions were not tabled.
Mr. Baker: I accept that that is the position, but if all the motions had been tabled by the Select Committee there would have been an onus on the Government to marshal arguments and votes against them. That would have placed the burden of proof on the other foot.
Among the subjects that have not been included are the proposals relating to the 10 o'clock rule. We have a rule that the House should stop at 10 o'clock every night. As hon. Members know, that rule is suspended nearly every night. The Select Committee thought of a way of making the rule stick to some extent. It was proposed that the Question should not be decided in the affirmative unless no fewer than 200 hon. Members vote in the majority in support of the motion. That proposal did not receive the unanimous support of the Committee. There was another suggestion that there should be a 12 o'clock rule after the 10 o'clock rule, and that the numbers should be increased to 400. The House sits late at night and many hon. Members are puzzled and resentful. I appreciate that there is a strong case for holding debates after that hour, and interesting debates often take place at such times. However, the subject could be debated.
We also suggested that there should be more information about the dates of the Christmas, Easter, and Whitsun Recesses. We made a helpful, if minor, suggestion to the effect that the Easter Recess should be longer than the Whitsun Recess, because school holidays are longer at Easter. However, I shall not press those points as they are relatively trivial.
I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South on the subject

761
of specialist Committees. It is an experiment that is worth trying.
Several arguments led me to support the concept of a Standing Committee taking evidence for up to four sittings. First, many outside interests feel that they are excluded from this process of legislation. They make representations to Departments and Ministers and go to see them. Some of them are seen; others are not. However, other outside interests also feel that they would like to get their voice in edgeways in some public way so that they can present their evidence. On certain complicated financial and insurance legislation, for example, I can think of several Bills during the last 10 years which would have been improved if that opportunity had existed.
I am not in favour of a pre-legislative stage—adding another process to our legislation. However, this seemed to be some way of meeting the arguments of those who are in favour of a pre-legislative stage.
Secondly, it is valuable to have those sittings before, as it were, the cement sets and is fixed and firm about a Bill. Often when a Bill goes into Committee, Ministers are briefed to "Resist these amendments on all counts, as we want to get the legislation through." But sometimes they are moved away from the brief during the debate line by line. I do not say that the examination line by line is a solemn farce. We have seen balances of view change in Committee. I could point to examples where there have been changes by Ministers as a result of debates—changes not related to the voting strength in Committee or on Report. Therefore, I should not like to have all Bills go through a Select Committee procedure. Some Members want that. I think the value of debate on a Bill is one of the special qualities of the House. I have not been impressed by what I have seen of the examination of Bills in other legislatures—principally the old Commonwealth legislatures—which have gone almost to a Select Committee examination of Bills. On the other hand, I am glad that the Government have said that they will try to select three Bills of a more technical and not particularly controversial nature for this experiment.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said that he thought
762
this would clog the legislative process. It would add probably up to four sittings for a Bill. But I should have thought that, on balance, the advantages that I have tried to set out would outweigh the disadvantages. If all legislation were treated in that way, it would slow down the process. Of course, there are those who would say that was a good thing. Some of the original members of the Select Committee four years ago, before they left for other jobs, avowedly said that their whole purpose was to try to clog up the machine. I have never said that. That is not my purpose. It would be an absurd purpose, because at the end of the day the Government have to get their legislative programme, but not before proper scrutiny and examination by the House.
Sir Graham Page: My hon. Friend talked about proper scrutiny. If the examination of witnesses were along the same lines as the procedure in a Standing Committee—that is, one side keeping mute and the other side talking—would that discover the facts from witnesses?
Mr. Baker: The proof of the pudding to some extent would be in the eating. I should have thought that in an examination of witnesses we would not get what we get in the early stages of debates in Standing Committee—namely, very long, virtually Second Reading speeches. I should hope that under this procedure hon. Members would ask a series of questions in rotation and work out amongst themselves a balance of questioning. That happens in the new Select Committees upstairs. When a Committee has a prime witness before it—for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Employment, or the Governor of the Bank of England—there is a little jockeying, as it were, as to who should run off the first four or five questions. In my experience on the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, hon. Members in discussion come to a reasonable solution. After all, we are reasonable people.
I come now to the proposal dealing with the new Select Committee on Supply. I agree entirely with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the campaign which has been conducted by my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford

763
(Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)—at one stage almost single-handed—to bring about change in this matter. It is evident to all of us that the capacity of the House to control Supply has slipped away. It can be changed in many ways, and I am sure that the new Select Committee will examine the matter. The question of the capacity of either Select Committees or the House to vote in detail upon Supply will arise. I rather favour that. A vote in the House commands not only one's footsteps to come here but one's mind to think about what one is voting upon.
We have had absurd examples during this Session. On the Consolidated Fund Bill we can debate anything for as long as we wish—at least until 9 or 10 o'clock in the morning—with no votes being taken. The votes are taken virtually on the nod. Of course, matters can be voted upon in certain instances, but without debate. That seems inappropriate. The House must change its method of control over Supply.
I support the plea made by the right hon. Member for Down, South about a Sessional Committee on procedure. Certain matters constantly recur in the House. For example, again and again hon. Members ask: how can we stop the solemn farce of 20 questions being placed on the Order Paper asking the Prime Minister to state her engagements for the day? Ideally, this could be looked at by a Sessional Committee. As regards Prime Minister's Question Time, one simple change which should be considered is that if 20 questions appear on the day after they should appear all asking my right hon. Friend about her engagements for the day, on the second day all but one should be taken off the Order Paper. That would leave one general question, because the House wants to get at the general issue at least once. That would have the effect of increasing the ingenuity of hon. Members in trying to formulate more interesting and varied questions. That would also have the effect of the Prime Minister of the day welcoming the acceptance of a broader range of questions.
A Sessional Committee could look at certain other matters, too. The whole matter of Private Bill legislation should be looked at again. This takes up a con-
764
siderable time of the House. Allowing the House to have virtually unrestricted debate on Second and Third Reading of Private Bills can become a considerable method of obstruction, if it is used as some Members have been able to use it. Perhaps the use of Private Members' Time should also be looked at.
When the Committee is set up in the new Session, rather than having a separate Sessional Procedure Committee, perhaps the Sessional Committee could be given powers to consider other matters referred to it by the House. There should be some mechanism whereby that can be done.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having brought forward and promoted the procedural changes of the last Select Committee on Procedure. Laudatory adjectives have showered upon him—I do not intend to add any more—to such an extent that they have driven him from the Chamber. However, I believe that he has the interests of the House at heart by being interested in procedural change and in bringing about the possibility of such change.
6.29 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I thought that someone had warned the Leader of the House that he was about to receive a compliment from the Liberal Bench and, therefore that he had better make himself scarce lest it should be reported in any dangerous quarter. I follow the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) in saying that we owe a debt of gratitude to the Leader of the House, particularly those of us who have toiled for many years on the Procedure Committee, for the care that he has devoted to securing time for the debate of our recommendations and, indeed, giving his personal support to so many of those recommendations. We should be grateful to him for that.
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone seemed eager to add to the tasks of the new Procedure Committee which is recommended in one of the motions. I hope that he is offering himself for service on it. He is certainly giving it a great deal to do if he expects it to combine the Sessional Committee's functions with the major tasks of reviewing procedures on Supply and expenditure which are to be remitted to it. I hope that he makes that

765
offer, because he served with distinction on the previous Committee.
I follow the hon. Member for St. Marylebone and some other hon. Members in wholeheartedly endorsing the proposals about Public Bill procedure, which are one of the features which today's motions seek to bring into effect experimentally. My answer to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is "Let us see." It is the same answer as I would give to other hon. Members who have intervened is such a way as to suggest that this procedure will collapse or become a farce—let us see.
I genuinely believe that, given the opportunity to question witnesses at a number of sittings, the members of a Standing Committee will be able to make profitable use of them. I do not believe that we should select entirely uncontroversial Bills for this purpose. I think that if we are to take about three Bills, we could have a range of Bills—perhaps one of a highly technical character and one of a much more controversial character, and I add my voice to that of the shadow Shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), in saying that I hope that the nationality Bill gets something of this kind of treatment, because it is a Bill on which we need to hear the views of people who are qualified to advise us from outside the House.
I do not believe that this replaces in any way the line-by-line scrutiny of Bills. I do not think that any of the advocates of the Public Bill procedure think that that aspect is unnecessary. We all know its faults and the ways in which it can be misused, but it remains a fundamental cornerstone of our procedures that no Bill can get through the House without being scrutinised line by line. That is why we all get very agitated when guillotine motions are before us. It is also why some of us are very critical of the delegated legislation procedure—a matter to which I shall return shortly—because one of the things that that does not do is to afford line-by-line scrutiny of what eventually becomes the law of the land. Nor is the new Public Bill procedure the same as having pre-legislation Committees. It serves quite a different function, because one is sure in the case of this new procedure that the same Members as hear the witnesses are those who go
766
on and do the line-by-line scrutiny. It is not one group of people set aside in a previous Session, perhaps, giving their views as to whether there should be legislation in this field and what it should contain, who are then replaced by perhaps a largely different group who go on to study the Bill in detail. This attempt to marry two different activities, although it may have problems, is worth trying. Let us see how well it works.
It is right that we should be seeking to make improvements in the consideration of European business. I am glad that these recommendations of the Procedure Committee are before the House. I strongly support the setting up of a new Procedure Committee, the focus of whose activity will be procedure of Supply and finance. That is long overdue.
The Procedure Committee in the last Session felt that, with the tasks that it had undertaken, it was quite unable to undertake the major and quite separate duty of devising better procedures for Supply. We very much need to do that. The report of the Treasury and Civil Service Affairs Committee underlined that need. There is now no one, I think, who dissents from the proposition that we must improve our scrutiny of Supply.
But that leaves us with the major area on which I want to concentrate. It was referred to at some length by the right hon. Member for Down, South, with whom I wholly agree on this matter. It is the procedure on statutory instruments. In my service in the House, which is relatively short, and certainly in the time of the right hon. Gentleman's service here, the area covered by statutory instruments, the extent and the number of them have extended enormously and there is now almost nothing which cannot pass into the law of the land by way of statutory instrument, including taxation. One thinks of value added tax, or of what is in practice, though not in theory, taxation—the national insurance fund, major decisions on the levels of contributions for which are implemented through the statutory instruments procedure.
Increasingly there is a tendency for Ministers to seek statutory instrument powers, delegated legislation powers, for whole sections of Bills. Very often Members serving on a Committee on a Bill are unwilling to challenge Ministers'

767
desires to do this because it arises from attempts to make concessions. During proceedings on a Bill, Ministers often say "I am willing to go some way to meet the point that the hon. Member makes, but I do not feel that it would be possible to do it in the Bill now. However, if I am given the power to make regulations on this aspect, I shall do so in the spirit of the amendments moved by the hon. Member." So, quick as a flash, written into law is yet another area in which delegated legislation procedure is all that will govern a whole area of activity. It is done in that case for quite genuine reasons, but it seriously undermines the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of that legislation.
That situation has worsened steadily over a period of years. Even the affirmative procedure for delegated legislation has its deficiencies in the fact that all the debates we have are on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, in which the House cannot express an opinion on any aspect of what is before it but can only decide whether it accepts or rejects the instrument. One of the minor reasons for which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has tabled an amendment, with my support, is simply to ensure that the decisions on affirmative resolutions eventually taken by this House are taken at a proper time, at the commencement of public business; and that was, as I understand it, always the intention but has never been given effect to in the Standing Orders.
The affirmative procedure seems almost watertight when compared with the negative procedure, which is bad enough in theory and even worse in practice. Under the negative procedure an instrument comes into force unless it is annulled by either House of Parliament and the Prayer procedures upon which we depend in order to try to challenge these instruments have a time limit set to them and no guarantee is available to Members that they can secure either a debate or a vote on the Prayer that they have tabled. In many instances the Government can simply defer the debate until the time limit has expired, or refer the debate to a Committee, which has the consequence, as the right hon. Member for Down, South illustrated, that no vote of any significance can take place on the Prayer.
768
It is worth reminding the House that until 1954 all Prayers could be debated on the Floor of the House. There was no restriction on the ability of the House to debate Prayers. Any Member could put a Prayer down for debate on any sitting day except a Friday, and unless a closure was carried, there was no time limit on the duration of these debates on Prayers. Then, in 1954, the 11.30 pm rule came in. That ensured that there were only the four periods a week between 10 pm and 11.30 pm in which Prayers could be discussed. Of course, many of these periods are eaten into by Divisions lasting until 10.15 pm or 10.30 pm, thus reducing time for the debate to only an hour or so.
I think that it was the right hon. Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) who said that when that recommendation was made it was still assumed that all Prayers would be debated on the Floor of the House and time would be found for them. The then Leader of the House, Captain Crookshank, said that if hon. Gentlemen tabled Prayers, time would be found for Prayers. We can see how very far we have moved from that position.
In 1973 the Procedure Committee was set up to provide a place to which to send Prayers that had not been debated. That is not objectionable in principle. I do not dissent from the view that many statutory instruments can properly be discussed in a Committee—if that Committee can reach a conclusion on them or, at the very least, if we are certain that the House can reach a conclusion on them following the debate in the Committee. At present neither of these things is available. It is not merely that the Committee has no effusion, as the right hon. Member for Down, South puts it; there is no effusion at all, because the matter need never come back to the Floor of the House in any way other than that of the formal report "That the Committee has considered the instrument"; and that formal report still comes to the House even if the Committee has voted that it has not considered the instrument.
We had a classic example only a few months ago. Hon. Members spent some time in Committee discussing whether one should be prohibited from having a sidecar on the right-hand side of a motor cycle. The Committee came to the conclusion that the instrument should not be

769
approved, and voted that it had not considered it. However, the formality is that a report must be made to the House that the Committee has considered the matter, which means that the Committee's decision is of no effect. That is a farcical procedure. It is repugnant to the notion that the purpose of the House is to make the laws of the land and to scrutinise their making. Surely there can be no remaining defence for such procedures.
The right hon. Member for Down, South suggested that the Government were unwilling to make reforms because, if they did so, they would have to secure a majority on the Committees to protect themselves from defeats in the morning on statutory instruments. That has already happened. Even under the present system, the Government find it embarrassing if a Committee votes that it has not considered the instrument, even though no consequences flow from that happening.
On a recent occasion we waited for a Committee to begin its consideration of a statutory instrument while Government whips buzzed around keeping Conservative Members out of the Committee because of the fear that a vote might take place on the consideration motion. It was not until a certain hon. Member had given an assurance that he would not seek a vote on the motion that a quorum was found to enable the Committee to begin. All the problems concerned with the Government having to ensure that they have a majority are with us now. They do not represent an argument against ensuring that the Committees may reach a decision. It is right that the Procedure Committee should have made such recommendations and that they should now be before us, thanks to the initiative of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). His amendment, to which my name is added, sets out quite precisely the recommendations made by the Procedure Committee.
I still do not consider—I did not consider at the time—that the recommendations are adequate to ensure full control of delegated legislation for the House. However, they represent an improvement on what we have now. I appeal to hon. Members to support the amendment. It cannot be represented as a devastating weakening of the Government's control
770
over delegated legislation or an imperilling of their legislative programme.
The opportunity on affirmative instruments that the recommendations would provide is merely for a meaningful vote to take place and for the Committee to give an opinion on the changes that might be desirable. Under the negative procedure, the hurdles that the Committee left in the way of hon. Members wanting to secure that the measures returned to the House are quite considerable. A negative instrument, under the procedures recommended, would be considered on a motion that the Government recommend the annulment, withdrawal or approval of the motion. That means that the vote, at least, would be on a matter of substance. The Committee did not extend to negative procedure the suggestion that the motion should be open to amendment. It will still be a take-it-or-leave-it debate on negative instruments.
If a Committee tries to throw out a statutory instrument and recommends annulment, and the Government do not find time for a debate on the matter in the House within seven days, it is recommended that Members should have the right to insist on a one-hour debate. Incidentally, that would secure a vote on the issue. That is the most significant improvement that the Committee has suggested. It is a desirable improvement and I do not see how it can reasonably be opposed. The only flaw is that it could lead to the Government refusing to send Prayers against instruments to Committee in the first place. At present they have little incentive to do so, even though they sometimes adopt that procedure. They might be given an incentive by this procedure.
There are further steps that hon. Members could take within the proposals it the Government refused to send an instrument to Committee. However, in doing so they would have to have the support of half of the House, which is a pretty large number. If the opposition parties and a substantial minority of the Government grouped together in their opposition to a statutory instrument, I rather suspect that the Government would be forced to take action even if their action did not appear formally on the Order Paper. That is an illustration of how

771
careful the Committee was in its recommendations not to overstep the Government's claim that their legislative timetable and demands must be respected. These are modest recommendations.
The Leader of the House said that he welcomed the amendment. I do not know whether he intended to use the word "welcomed". However, I hope that it means that the Government will give their support to the implementation of this feature of the Procedure Committee's recommendations.
Mr. David Crouch: I am not following the hon. Gentleman when he talks about the commencement of public business and a one-hour debate. Does his amendment suggest that the prayer against a statutory instrument would take place at the commencement of public business in the Chamber, or does it mean that that procedure would take place in Committee?
Mr. Beith: I said much earlier that the vote on an affirmative instrument—that is merely a vote and not the debate—should take place at the commencement of public business. As for the rare cases where a Committee seeks to carry a Prayer and thereby throw out a statutory instrument, the Committee should be able to secure, if the Government do not make their own provision for a one-hour debate. I cannot remember whether that was to be at the commencement of public business or at a later stage. I think that a later time was favoured.
Our only determination was to ensure that a one-hour debate—a very short debate—would take place. By that process a vote was guaranteed and adverse recommendations from Statutory Instruments Committees could no longer be buried, as they are now, in entirely misleading reports in the Journal of the House that the matter had been considered.
The effect of the present procedure is to ignore and to bury a clear recommendation from a Committee that some further action should be taken. The effect is to disregard a recommendation and falsely to report in the Journal of the House that it is satisfied with what has happened.
I should like to go further than the recommendations that are before us and
772
ensure that amendable motions are the basis of discussion on statutory instruments on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I do not want the Government to be able to prevent a debate on a Prayer, whether in Committee or on the Floor of the House. I would not expect half of the House to have to be in support of the Prayer for that mechanism to be triggered. As few as 10 Members should be sufficient to secure that a vote can take place on a Prayer where there is some issue and controversy. However, that is not before us today.
We are dealing with modest recommendations. The Leader of the House has told us that he regards the debate as a means of completing the process of dealing with the epoch-making recommendations, as he described them, of the Procedure Committee. We shall not complete that process unless we do something about our delegated legislation procedure. Let us make a beginning by accepting the recommendations that the Select Committee has put before the House.
6.48 pm
Mr. David Crouch: I shall not detain the House for long. I say to the House, and especially for the ears of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that I welcome the innovations and reforms that have been enacted so speedily. My right hon. Friend has not become bogged down in the conservatism that is so easily the lot of Leaders of the House. He has listened to the arguments for reform and advanced rapidly in some respects. In some ways there has been rapid advance that might give us cause for reconsideration.
I welcome, I think, the 12 new Select Committees. I think that I have served on Select Committees for about 13 years. I am not on one now. I do not say that in any sense of sour grapes. I understand that I was turned down for one of the new Select Committees because I had an outside interest. When I reflected on that I did not immediately get into a state of high dudgeon and complain to the Leader of the House. In fact, I thought that perhaps the Committee had a point. But on further reflection I realised that the ultimate debate in this House is not upstairs. It is in this Chamber. I still have such an interest when I take part in the

773
debate on the Floor of the House. I am obliged to declare that interest. It is published in the Register of Members' Interests and I know that all hon. Members know my interest. It happens that I am concerned with an industry that is sensitive in Government. I am a director of a pharmaceutical company. I believe that there are only two or three hon. Members who are so concerned.
I believe it is wrong that an hon. Member who has an outside interest that might appear to be close to the interests of the work of the Committee should be excluded from that Committee. He could exclude himself from it. I was told that because of my interest I had not been chosen and I readily accepted that. But on reflection I think that the House should consider whether it is wise to say that a Member is not suited for a Select Committee because of a special interest. There are occasions when he seeks to speak on a subject, for example, on the general area of health. This House often considers the National Health Service or some Bill relating to health. I believe that it is wrong, when the House is moving along a new road which tends to empty the Chamber of Members and fill Committee rooms, to exclude hon. Members who may have specialist knowledge of subjects from opportunities upstairs that they may not have down here.
Mr. English: I have great sympathy with the hon. Member. For example, I think that it would be quite inappropriate to exclude lawyers from the Committee that was concerned with various types of changes in the law. However, all that the Procedure Committee did was to recommend that the membership of these Committees be recommended to the House by a committee of fellow Members. We did not make any recommendations relevant to the hon. Members' case. We merely suggested that, instead of the Whips alone recommending membership. when they might take all sorts of considerations into account, a committee of Members should do so.
Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the hon. Member for reminding us that it was not the Procedure Committee that made any such recommendation. I am not complaining, I am merely advising the House that such a decision was arrived at and I believe that the House should reflect on
774
it and consider whether it was a wise action. I hope that this trend will not develop further. If it does we shall keep out of Committees farmers who know about farming, engineers who know about engineering, journalists who know about the media, and even management consultants who know about managing industry.
Mr. Hooley: The hon. Member is confusing two points. There is all the difference in the world between having engineers who know about engineering and architects who know about architecture on a Committee and having people who have a direct financial stake or interest in the matter before the Committee. It is not a question of having professional specialist knowledge. That is quite a different matter.
Mr. Crouch: It is up to the House to reflect on what I have said and to weigh up the case that I have made for persons like myself.
I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) is not in his place. I am sorry about that, because I am about to let him down. He spoke to me before the Summer Recess asking me to support motion 3—the recommendation of the Committee that we should form Special Standing Committees. He wished to advance that case and he has been successful in getting the Leader of the House to put the motion on the Order Paper. When I first heard of this I thought that anything which could improve the line-by-line study of a Bill in Committee would be an advantage. However. the advantage of a debate is that one listens to the other side of the of the argument. I stayed in the Chamber particularly to hear the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) argue cogently against the proposal and I then listened to the reply by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone, also well argued. But I think that on balance I come down on the side of the right hon. Member for Down, South because I have served on Standing Committees and Select Committees and there is a big difference between the parliamentarian when he is on a Standing Committee and when he is on a Select Committee.
When one serves on a Standing Committee one is reflecting this Chamber upstairs. Every hon. Member has his

775
party allegiance and wears his party clothes. He is conscious of the party Whips and if he wishes to argue on a particular point it takes courage to go against party policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Some hon. Members may not think that it takes courage—well, perhaps one should say that it takes something—interest and a little energy perhaps.
It is quite a different matter when one goes to serve on a Select Committee. In my experience of eight years on the old Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and five years on the Public Accounts Committee I remember only one occasion on which we came to a vote and were split. That was at least 10 years ago, in the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. It is extraordinary that on Select Committees hon. Members come together with an examining approach, questioning witnesses and considering memoranda. There is very much an investigative atmosphere in Select Committees.
If a Standing Committee, wearing its party clothes, forgets those party clothes for the first three or four sittings and sits around the table, I wonder whether the experiment will be successful. Admittedly, we know that we shall have a change of chairman so we shall not have a participating chairman. He will be completely impartial, but I still cannot help wondering whether this experiment will be just an escapade in reform.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend has emphasised the party political character of Standing Committees, but would he not agree that that is one of the important criticisms of the process by which we scrutinise legislation? If we give Standing Committees the power to call witnesses, surely we shall give them a certain independence of the political party and surely that is a desirable process.
Mr. Crouch: I am in two minds about this. It is not so much that I enjoy the adversarial approach, either here or upstairs, and sometimes I prefer the analytical parliamentary approach of the investigative activities of Select Committees, but there is a point about pursuing a particular aim which is the aim of one party. It is the Government's aim to get a Bill into a certain shape and it is
776
the Opposition's aim to oppose it in many areas. That is the adversarial and party approach.
No Procedure Committee, or even recommendation from this House, can alter the attitude of hon. Members and the way that they behave, unless we limit the length of speeches of those seeking to oppose measures upstairs, as we do on Second Reading. There is a great deal of filibustering in Committees, which makes them tedious. In the end, one is faced with the sanction of time. On the Government Benches one is asked to shut up, because the legislation must go through, and never mind the small point that is being argued.
I am prepared to see what happens and accept a trial period of three Sessions.
Mr. George Cunningham: Does not the hon. Gentleman see that whether we are talking about Select Committees, Standing Committees or the Floor of the House, if hon. Members vote for things that they do not believe in strongly, the whole place is a waste of time, irrespective of the procedures that we adopt?
Mr. Crouch: I entirely agree, but that is not the point that I was making. We have heard that many hon. Members on the Government Benches in Committee say nothing because they do not want to waste time. They feel that the talking will be done by the Opposition. That does not apply to me, but the hon. Gentleman should see what happens to the Whips when I exercise my freedom as a critic of all and sundry.
Now that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marleybone has returned, I am prepared to say that I shall give the experiment at least three tries, but I am not wholly convinced that we can turn ourselves from a Select Committee into a Standing Committee successfully. For example, on the Health Services Bill we were in Committee for two months. Had we sent for persons and papers, we should have taken a further two months on each detailed aspect, such as whether family practitioner committees should continue, or whether we should raise money for hospitals through flag days. We used the old procedure, and hon. Members had to equip themselves with what knowledge they could by getting briefed on these subjects.

777
I listened to the arguments put forward by the right hon. Members for Down, South and for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on the motion dealing with European Community legislation. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North is not a very strong European. I still am. I am not terribly happy about the latitude given in subparagraph (b) for the Minister apparently to bypass Parliament when it suits him. I doubt whether I could support that, as a strong European. There must be an opportunity to pray against and to protest. Sometimes it is only one hon. Member who has spotted a significant point in a piece of legislation coming out of the Community that may be detrimental to his constituents' or the country's interests. If such matters can be decided without the House being consulted, and only later will the House know, we are shrugging off an essential duty of this Chamber.
7.4 pm
Mr. Julius Silverman: I propose to deal solely with the Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I am Chairman. I hope to express the views of the members of the Committee.
That Committee is in an entirely different position from other parliamentary bodies which scrutinise the Executive and Government of this country. Our Committee scrutinises the activities, legislation and propositions of a body outside this country in which our Government plays a small part. Also, we are considering legislation that this Parliament cannot reverse. We must always remember that. That is why such attention was paid to that procedure by the Foster committee several years ago.
Members of the Committee generally welcome the proposals, on the Scrutiny Committee with certain reservations. Apart from the proposals from the Procedure Committee, most of the others have been suggested by our own Committee.
With regard to motion 4, the present procedure in the Standing Committee on European Community documents has been a farce. The Committee had a limited amount of time and has come to no conclusion. There has been no impact on the proceedings of the House. For all practical purposes, this Committee has
778
been abandoned. I welcome the proposals in motion 4.
With regard to whether a piece of legislation or a document should be discussed by the House or in Standing Committee, our Committee has already stated that it will adopt its former practice of making its own recommendation. Naturally it is for the Government or for the 20 hon. Members who stand up to decide whether that recommendation is accepted.
Our Committee generally favours the line proposed in the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) to secure that the matter should be voted on at the commencement of business or at 10 o'clock. These are only votes and not a debate, and will not exert undue pressure on the time of the House or the Government. After a Committee has made a recommendation, the business should not be delegated to a time late in the night, with only a few hon. Members remaining. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
On motion 5, the Leader of the House knows that on behalf of my Committee I have made representations suggesting a form of words which, in general, have been accepted. We believe that if, for special reasons, a Minister agrees to a decision in Brussels before a debate takes place in the House, he should not only explain his reasons to the House but should explain them orally. For that reason, I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to accept amendment (d) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North. On a few occasions recently Ministers have got out of their obligations by making written statements in reply to questions. That is not good enough.
The members of my Committee agree that the occasions when a Minister has to go outside our recommendations and agree to a decision in Brussels should be few and far between and should occur only in exceptional circumstances. We say that there should be a loophole, but that it should be used rarely. Our recommendation should not impose an undue burden on Government time.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I pay tribute to the good work that the hon. Gentleman has done as Chairman of his Committee, but on the principle of expressio unius est exclusio

779
alterius, with which he will be familiar, does he mean by implication that the House should withhold approval from the other amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and should leave the wording as it is, with the Minister as his own judge of whether reasons are special?
My experience of the legislative processes of the Community, which is not inconsiderable after six years, is that the pace is slow and it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which there would be such an emergency as to deny the application of the principles indicated in the amendments.
Mr. Silverman: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman to some extent. If the Government would organise their business within the Community properly, many of the occasions when urgent action became necessary could be avoided, but I accept that there may be exceptional circumstances or unforeseen developments that call for sudden action. I am prepared to agree that a Minister should have a loophole, but he should immediately afterwards give an oral statement to the House on which he can be questioned.
Amendment (a), which has not been selected, provided for a ban on Ministers agreeing to anything in Brussels before a debate in the House.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: My question was directed to amendments (b) and (c).
Mr. Spearing: Do I understand that in my hon. Friend's recommendation concerning amendment (d) he was expressing the view of the Scrutiny Committee. which was without dissent? Is the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) asking my hon. Friend to state his personal position on amendments (b) and (c) or the view of the Scrutiny Committee, which, in fact, may not yet have taken a view on those matters?
Mr. Silverman: There has been some discussion in the Scrutiny Committee and I shall be able to express the Commit. tee's view on amendments (b) and (c).
Amendment (c) deals with the Scrutiny Committee itself, giving consent. The difficulty is that that is not practicable. One of the main difficulties arises during
780
the long recess when the Committee does not meet. In cases of urgency, the problem is usually that it is not possible to go to the Committee in time. The Committee is being reasonable. It says that there needs to be a loophole, but that it should be used only in exceptional cases.
Amendment (b) proposes that when a matter comes before the House it should be on a motion. The Committee has discussed that proposal but has not come to a conclusion on it. In recent years. under successive Governments, such matters have usually come before the House as a motion. The amendment has been complied with in practice and the Committee has little to complain about. I do not know whether it is necessary to press the amendment.
Motion 10 arises out of a report of the Committee in July 1978 following a shambles in the House when legislation that was not based on a Commission document was debated in the House. An hon. Member then pointed out that the matter did not come within the provisions of our Standing Orders because it was not a Commission document. Motion 10 places other Community documents on the same basis as Commission documents.
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North does not intend to press his amendment (b), which was probably tabled because of a misunderstanding of the position. We approve of this. It is not important. All it amounts to is a proposal that it is not necessary to move a motion in order to get these instruments discussed by the House after the interruption of business at 10 pm.
Those are the Committee's views. I hope that it will be possible for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to indicate that he is prepared to accept the two amendments that I have mentioned. They are essential and will impose no particular burden on the Government. Generally speaking, we welcome the proposals.
7.21 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I shall focus the attention of the House on the recommendations concerning the Special Standing Committees. I welcome the recommendations. They are important. One of the most telling criticisms of the

781
way in which this House conducts itself is the manner in which hon. Members process and scrutinise legislation. Although I have been in this place for only 14 months, I feel that we are failing to do that task properly. One of the problems is the volume of legislation. I thought that I should remind myself of the volume of legislation that we are passing by contrasting the 1911 Parliament with the 1975 Parliament.
Hon. Members will recall that the 1911 Parliament was one of the great reforming Parliaments of all time. I looked in the Library at the volume of statutes. I found that the 1911 Parliament passed 58 statutes which were contained fairly comfortably in one volume. When I looked at 1975—I chose that year as an example with no hostile intention—I found that 83 statutes were passed, which were incorporated in three volumes, each of them equal to the 1911 volume. This paid no attention to the statutory instruments, which were contained in no fewer than 15 volumes. One could not conceive of bringing that number of volumes into the Chamber for the purposes of demonstration.
This burden and volume of legislation is a real concern. The House must grasp, as I am sure it does, the fact that much of the legislation that we are passing is of an extremely complex character and imposes considerable burdens on large and small sections of the population. Both in Standing Committee and in this Chamber, hon. Members are ill-equipped to deal with the complexities of the legislation involved. Finance Bills of an enormously convoluted kind come before us. If we wish to scruntinise that legislation, we are bound to rely on our own researches, on our own Front Bench—always a doubtful thing to do—on the party brief, on the Library, or on people who are keen enough to lobby us. This process, by its very nature, is inadequate.
It is highly desirable that interested bodies should come before a Committee to explain that legislation is defective or oppressive, giving reasons and suggesting that hon. Members should do this, that or the other. I believe that Standing Committees and this Chamber should be well informed. I believe that, if possible, hon. Members should be more independent than is the case at present. The natural tendency simply to support one's
782
Front Bench derogates enormously from the authority of this place.
I should like to make two points about the proposal concerning Special Standing Committees. I recognise why the fact-finding process should be confined to 28 days. That seems perfectly sensible. I do not understand, however, why we should say that there should be only four half-day sessions, especially when one is to be in private and only three are to be public evidence-taking sessions. I cannot understand why the Chairman of such a Standing Committee should not say We will take as much evidence as we deem necessary provided that we do not exceed the 28-day period."
Mr. Spearing: I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question straight away. My recollection of the reason is that, if a proposal was wide open within the 28 days in which that Committee could meet on a large number of occasions and provide a particularly wide opportunity for the time and commitment of hon. Members, the principal proposal would not have been acceptable to the House. The limitations were therefore written in.
Mr. Hogg: That is a good pragmatic argument in favour of the restriction. It does not go to the principle that I put forward, namely, that the fact-finding process should be as wide and extensive as possible. This brings me to the other point with which I believe the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will also disagree. Standing Committees, so far as I am aware, do not have power to instruct advisers, although Select Committees do have the power. I can see no reason in principle why a Standing Committee, serving as a Special Standing Committee, should not have the power to instruct independent advisers to advise it. It would be helpful.
I listened with considerable interest to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The criticisms of his speech can also be directed at the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). They argued that we should see in the Standing Committees merely a reflection of this House. If it is a fair criticism of this House to say that it is imprisoned by the party system, the same criticism is to be made of the Standing Committees. I want to loosen the vice. I will do anything that I believe

783
will release the grip of the party system of government on the present method of conducting our affairs. That is one of the important reasons why we should give the Standing Committees both the power to call evidence and the power to instruct advisers. We want to give these bodies—essentially our only scrutiny bodies—a status that is slowly becoming independent of the Executive or, alternatively, of the Opposition.
I want to strengthen the view that these Committees have an obligation, not primarily to their party, whether Government or Opposition, but to their own judgment. If these Committees were given the power to sit and listen to evidence and to assess the professional advice that was tendered, they would be more independent than at present. I would welcome that development.
Mr. Jay: I was once a member and, indeed, Chairman, of a Select Committee that had expert advisers and took evidence from a great many expert people. Before long, it fell entirely under the grip of the party system that the hon. Gentleman dislikes so much.
Mr. Hogg: This is a danger. I am not suggesting that any proposal that I have put forward would remedy this problem. It is deep-seated in the way that we govern ourselves. If one goes back in our history, one finds that when we were an effective controlling body, we were essentially independent of the Executive. Going back a long time, one finds that the King's Ministers were outside Parliament, at least in many of their functions. The process of control can be properly operated only when there is a degree of separation between the legislature and the Executive. When they are merged in the same body the process of scrutiny and control becomes virtually impossible. For that reason, I emphasise the importance of the independence of any institution through which we exercise our powers of scrutiny and control.
Mr. Crouch: Is not my hon. Friend confusing the function of an hon. Member when he is on a Committee to examine a Bill? If he wants to take Committees out of the vice of party control and allow them freedom upstairs to operate as Select Committees—taking advice and not relying on the party line—he
784
should go the whole way and say that Bills should be examined completely by the Select Committee process. Does he agree that after the three or four sittings, or the 28 days, the Committee members will revert to their party positions and return to the Standing Committee process?
Mr. Hogg: I do not agree. It is clear that the scrutiny of a Bill has to be entrusted to an ad hoc Committee. It is not reasonable to ask Select Committees to maintain detailed scrutiny on Bills as they come from the House. We have to rely on ad hoc Committees. If we do that the evidence-taking process must be entrusted to that Committee which subsequently will have to review the legislation line by line.
If we are effectively to discharge our traditional and historic task, which is scrutiny of legislation and control of public finance, we must try to fortify the independence of the institutions upon which we rely for that purpose. The establishment of a Special Standing Committee is a small step towards that. I support it strongly on that ground.
7.32 pm
Mr. John Garrett: I welcome the proposals to establish Special Standing Committees on Bills and to convene a Procedure Committee to consider Supply. However, in both cases my welcome is somewhat qualified.
It is obvious that the present system of Standing Committees on Bills is not adequate for an effective parliamentary scrutiny of the content of Bills. Standing Committees make a genuine attempt to amend Bills, but much more time is spent simply in attempts to delay them. Much time is also spent genuinely seeking explanations of the content and meaning of Bills. Many of the explanations would be better sought under a Select Committee format through the cross-examination of Ministers, civil servants and expert witnesses. Explanatory papers, which might be important, could be placed before the Committee. This could provide a genuine opportunity to open an enhanced debate on public legislation—to reveal thoroughly the intention of the legislation, for example.
The reform involves a considerable risk which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)

785
and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). The risk is that, far from being an attempt to unravel the complexities of a Bill in a more or less objective way, it becomes simply a time-consuming exercise in which rival tame experts defend or attack the Bill at the instigation of the Government or the Opposition. The Government might choose to wheel in civil servants to say that the Bill was a noble and essential creation; the Opposition might wheel in experts to say that it was rubbish. We should still not comprehend the intent of the Bill and we should be no more enlightened at the end of the exercise than at the beginning. That risk apart, the reform is well worth our perseverance.
If Committee members could bring themselves to behave responsibly, a Finance Bill would be the ideal Bill for such a Committee. Much of the interchange on a Finance Bill involves asking Ministers questions. The Minister turns to a civil servant for the meaning of "a close company" or "an oilfield" and the Committee has to wait for a distorted reply to come back through the Minister from the civil servant.
Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the language in Finance Bills is totally unintelligible? Does he agree that the drafting of legislation is a fundamental reason why we do not discuss matters properly? The language used in Finance Bills in particular is ridiculous.
Mr. Garrett: That is all the more reason for trying a new method to unravel the complexities of the language.
The first main reform proposed by the 1977–78 Procedure Committee to be implemented was the setting up of departmentally related Select Committees. This was an important development and has been universally welcomed. However, the House was provided with a structure for scrutiny but with little else. It was only a first step and the Leader of the House over-emphasised the achievements that he attributed to the Select Committee structure. Much more development needs to take place.
In order to make the Committees fully effective, at least three changes are required. First, they must develop a more systematic approach to the Departments that they shadow. Secondly, the Commit-
786
tees need more research staff. They need full-time expert research staff instead of outside experts engaged for the duration of the inquiry. They need some countervailing power of their own in research and analysis to set against research and analysis that the Government provide in evidence.
Thirdly, the Committees can function with full effect only if they are provided with far better information on the performance of Departments. They need what one might call a management information system rather than a historical compendium, which the supply procedure has become.
When I say that the Committee should take a more systematic approach, I refer to the way in which they operate now. Apart from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, which I exempt from the criticism which I am about to make, and up to a point the Social Services Committee, the Committees concentrate on single issues. For example, the Defence Committee has examined munitions storage and pilot training. The Agriculture Committee examined the CAP on dairy products and animal welfare. The Education and Science Committee studied the British library services, the funding of courses in higher education and the future of the promenade concerts. The Home Affairs Committee has studied the "sus" laws.
They are important questions and they have given rise to some useful reports which have thrown light into dark corners. However, they illustrate the preoccupation of many hon. Members with single issues rather than with departmental. overall systems for setting objectives and priorities in policy programmes. By concentrating on single issues, the Departments are never obliged to justify their spending or their aims in respect of producing some public good.
In addition to studying individual issues, it would be more sensible to set up Sub-Committees which could ask each Department "What are your overall priorities? What is the justification? What is the aim of your spending programmes? How do you propose to measure their impact on the community? What is the operating efficiency of the sections in your Department?" The Committees should view the Departments

787
as management systems with outputs in services and other community goods.
For such an approach, the Committees must employ expert staffs. They must have permanent specialists. Each Committee would need a dozen or more such experts. However, I understand that there is strong resistance from the Government to the provision of specialist staff on that scale. There would be, would there not? They would arm the specialist Committees with much more effective tools of inquiry. It is incredible that that nineteenth century relic, the Public Accounts Committee, has 650 staff examining whether books balance, yet the 10 departmentally related Select Committees that are supposed to consider policy have fewer than 50 staff between them. That gives an idea of the order of priorities in the House.
In addition to more staff, the Select Committee system cannot function without better information—information that would enable Departments to answer the questions that I have posed. We do not have the information to enable us to examine the effectiveness of spending programmes or the efficiency of Departments. Parliament has never insisted on the provision of information. The regular information that we have is provided by the Supply procedure of Estimates, Votes and Appropriation accounts that was invented in the 1860s to stop fraud and misappropriation. It had nothing to do with explaining to Parliament the purposes of the expenditure. In the public expenditure surveys that are steadily becoming less informative and the mass of unrelated incomprehensible statistical data poured out by Departments, we have a mountain of data but no information. We are told what we are spending but never what we are buying. We cannot tell from the Supply procedure the efficiency of a Department. We cannot tell from the public expenditure surveys how effective is a spending programme.
For years the Expenditure Committee asked for departmental spending to be broken down by accountable units within a Department so that we could examine the efficiency of individual parts of Departments, measure effectiveness—the
788
results achieved by the spending programmes and attach the results to spending programmes in the public expenditure survey. The Treasury has always said that that was too difficult. It said that it would be too burdensome for Members to be provided with that information and that the public expenditure survey would be a great volume instead of the slim, uninformative document that it is at present.
Those arguments are absolute rubbish. There have been massive advances in the processing of information and the management of Government in recent years that belie the Treasury position. For example, the United States federal budget—there is a copy of one a couple of years old in the Library—shows how it is possible to present information to a legislature that shows the purpose of spending and the results of past spending and illustrates the key policy decisions of departments.
Our Supply procedure shows separate Votes varying in size from thousands of millions of pounds to a few hundred pounds. It does not show which divisions of a Department are responsible for spending, and it tells us nothing of the past or prospective management performance of the Department. Let us consider the Class XI Health and Personal Social Services, Supply Estimates for 1980–81. The classification is nothing short of eccentric. In the health Vote, which comes to £7¾ billion, there is one category of £7 billion on advances to health authorities, yet separately shown is £28,000 to a midwife teachers' training college. It shows £540,000 on capital advances to health authorities, yet separately shown is £61,000 to certain religious bodies for hospital services. There is no sense in that sort of classification. I think that it was invented to conceal rather than to illuminate.
If we look at the chapter on health and personal social services, we would not know that the aim of that spending was to improve somebody's health. We would think that it existed solely to fund institutions, which is an intermediate objective. It is true that money should be available for the institutions, but we do not know at the end of the day whether the nation's health improved in any way as a result.

789
Similarly, the public expenditure survey, in which one might expect longer-term studies of the results of past spending, and the White Paper produced at the beginning of every year show huge aggregations of money thrown at what target we do not know. The current division in health expenditure gives only current and capital expenditure. At the back of that section there are all sorts of statistics that bear no relation to spending—for example, the number of in-patient days for a period five years ago, the size of doctors' caseloads, and so on. But we are unable to relate any of the output measures to the money spent. We have no idea of the intended impact in the community of the money spent. We have no idea of the relationships between programmes or between spending and tax reliefs. We have no idea whether it is more effective to make a grant or to give a tax relief to an individual as an anti-poverty measure, or to a company as a means to promote innovation. Those questions are not illustrated in the regular data that we receive.
We cannot use the account survey and the pile of statistics to establish public accountability. We cannot tell who carries the can. We cannot examine the policies or the results of Departments. We need to return to square one with the Supply procedure and ask ourselves what is the proper form of our national accounts that is required to enable us to examine the purposes, objectives and results of expenditure, the way that expenditure reflects policies, the efficiency with which Departments discharge their tasks and the accountability of Departments.
The details of Supply may seem technical and boring, but I believe that a reform of the Supply procedure and a new look at the way in which we present our national accounts and statistics is at the heart of public accountability and is long overdue for a thorough scrutiny by the House.
7.48 pm
Sir Graham Page: I wish to address my remarks first to one or two of the recommendations concerning delegated legislation, which are not included in the Government motions. Much has been said already about our ineffective procedure for enabling Parliament to keep control of Executive legislation, delegated legislation, subordinate legis-
790
lation, or whatever one chooses to call it. But no Parliament could function if it did not use the device of delegated legislation. It would be overburdened with detail and would have to sit all hours of the day and all days of the year. However, as one has to resort to that sort of device to make Parliament and government function, it is essential that Parliament keeps control, or at least the power to supervise and control, the legislation so delegated.
First, we have a responsibility, which is only seldom realised, when we are passing the parent statute that gives the power to delegate. We have no rules or conventions as to the form of scrutiny that the delegated legislation is to take in any particular case. If a Minister is advised by his civil servants: "In this case your directions should be put in a statutory instrument", the Minister will probably reply "Good gracious, does that mean that I shall have to face prayers, or are you suggesting that I have to put it to an affirmative resolution?" The civil servant might reply "Oh no, Minister, simply say that it must be laid; there is no parliamentary procedure applicable to it then."
I shall not mention the Department concerned, but shortly before one Christmas there was an occasion when a Secretary of State made two orders. Those who knew how to lay an order in the House were too busy with the Christmas party. They sent the office boy to the House to lay the two instruments. The office boy had no clue how to lay them. He wandered around a rather empty House, which was in recess, returned to the Christmas party and put the orders on the desk. Came Easter! Another party was held, someone moved the desk and the orders were found behind it. That is the sort of disregard that Departments show for legislation which should at least be laid before the House. In that instance they lost only two orders.
Recently a Department lost two words when putting before the House an order which had to be made by the Secretary of State within a certain period after a report. It was found that two words were missing from the order. They were important since the order did not make sense without them. The Department therefore had it reprinted. Because it was rushed for time, it had the whole order

791
reprinted including the Secretary of State's signature. Therefore, the order that was eventually laid before the House was not one that had been signed by the Secretary of State. The principle put forward by those civil servants before the Scrutiny Committee was: "Oh, but this is what the Secretary of State intended to sign and therefore it must be deemed to be what he did sign and is quite in order." The House will find that reported in a report from the Scrutiny Committee.
So, we have seen how two orders and two words were lost. Recently there was the loss of two weeks when a Department failed to notice the expiry of an order that needed an affirmative resolution in the House within 28 days. As a result—and I do not think that the people concerned knew this—many people at the Lancaster House conference were sitting there for a fortnight and were illegally in the country. The Department was nervous to bring forward another order and show that it had made a mistake. In evidence to us it stated that it would shortly be embodied in an Act and so it did not matter that there had been a gap during which people had been in the country illegally. Perhaps the Secretary of State did not intend that, so it was deemed that the order he had made remained a good order.
That is the sort of way in which the officials in many Departments treat the need for this House to examine subordinate legislation. I can assure the House that some of the matters that come before the Scrutiny Committee are at times frightening. It is important, therefore, that at the beginning, when we are passing the parent statute, we should be clear about the form that the scrutiny will take. Should it merely be a statutory instrument that is laid before the House? Should it be one that is subject to annulment by a prayer within 40 days? Incidentally, that does not mean 40 days of the sitting of this House, because if the other place is sitting the 40 days start to run. If anyone intends to pray against an order that was made during the recess they had better calculate the days that the other place has been sitting if they are intending to table a prayer within 40 days of the order having been laid.
One might think that the best approach is by affirmative resolution, that we
792
should provide in the parent statute on as many occasions as we think right that the Secretary of State, being given a power to legislate, should do it by first laying a draft before the House. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House opened the debate he objected to any provision that such a draft should first be examined by the Scrutiny Committee before it came before the House. He said that that would clog up the wheels of government—I paraphrase him. He must know that there have been four occasions in the past few years when the Government—I think this applies to Governments of both parties—have brought a draft order before the House, the House has solemnly debated it, someone from the Scrutiny Committee has reminded the House that the Committee has not looked at it, the House has solemnly approved it, the Scrutiny Committee has then advised against it on the ground that it was ultra vires, and the draft has had to be withdrawn. That has been an utter waste of the time of the House.
Under present practices, therefore, it is not always safe to require an affirmative resolution for a draft that has been laid. We could greatly improve the procedure and create a certain amount of safety for the House if we were to adopt recommendation (15). That provides that a statutory instrument should not be brought before the House until it has been examined by the Select Committee and so reported on. We should also adopt recommendation (17), that if the House receives an adverse report from the Select Committee the affirmative procedure should apply if otherwise the negative procedure would apply; that is, if it is a statutory instrument against which an hon. Member can pray, and it is reported by the Select Committee, that would turn it into one which needs an affirmative resolution. That means that the Government must bring it before the House.
It may be that the House will not want to debate the instrument. It may go through on the nod. But, at least, then we are assured that there is an opportunity to debate it and not, as there is now with a prayer, the problem of trying to arrange through the usual channels that the prayer be given time. In such circumstances, unless one can work up a public scandal about the matter and have

793
it reported in headlines in the popular press, one is unlikely, through the usual channels, to get time set aside. Of course, if one does manage to get the time set aside for a prayer, the prayer is sent upstairs to one of the useless standing Committees dealing with statutory instruments.
Perhaps a small solution to the uselessness of the present Standing Committee procedures relating to statutory instruments would be that for at least a year after a Bill had received the Royal Assent or came into operation it should be possible to recall the Standing Committee that examined the Bill to deal with any statutory instruments issued by the Secretary of State. That Committee would know what power it intended to give the Secretary of State in the delegated legislation and would be able to deal with the statutory instruments with some interest.
The House must take back the power to control delegated legislation. The volume of that legislation is probably greater than the volume of statutes as we are passing them now. But certainly the details of the delegated legislation affect the individual citizen more closely than the clauses of a Bill or the sections of a statute. They contain the detail that affects the citizen and govern his life far more than the Acts that we put on the statute book.
I wish to move on to two other motions. The first is No. 3 dealing with the mixture of a Select and Standing Committee. I fear that if we tack a Select Committee on to a Standing Committee at the beginning of its sittings, that Select Committee will act in exactly the way a Standing Committee acts now on a poltically motivated Bill. There would be silence on one side and questioning from the other—and political questioning, too. I think that this recommendation was made before we set up the departmentally related Select Committees. Why have a dog and bark oneself? We have set up departmental Select Committees, and although some reports have been minority reports based on political affiliations, on the whole the Select Committees are not acting in the political way that a Standing Committee acts in dealing with a Bill. We should keep the Standing Committees and not try to combine them with—if I may say so—an amateur Select Committee.
794
The second part of motion 3 states that the undertakings should be dealt with in Standing Committee. I recall that I gave evidence suggesting that. It is a matter that I have always held to be complete nonsense as it stands. The draftsmen, although they may have an amendment on the Order Paper for weeks before it is reached, will never draft that amendment as the Government want it even though they are advising the Secretary of State to accept it. Either they should draft the amendment there and then or leave it to the end of the Committee proceedings, recommit the clauses that it affects, finish with it in Committee and not bring it back to the House on Report. That is a waste of the time of the House. I am sure that the proposal in the second part of motion 3 is satisfactory.
Motion 5 deals with the reporting to the House of European legislation to which a Minister has agreed before it has been debated in the House, as recommended by the European Legislation Committee. Having had experience of recent occasions when a Minister has reported by way of an answer to a planted written question, I find that unsatisfactory. It should be possible to question a Minister on why he thought that his agreement was so urgent. Therefore, I hope that the House will support amendment (b).
But I would like an assurance that what is meant by "European legislation" is not only that which applies directly but that which has to be embodied in our law either by statute, by delegated legislation, or otherwise.
Three types of legislation originate in the Commission. There is the regulation that applies directly, and it may be said that that is all we need in this motion because we never get a chance to debate it; we can debate only the penalties that we put on it. Then there is the directive which has to be embodied in our legislation, whether it is in primary or delegated legislation. It may be said that that is not important because the House is bound to debate it at some stage as a statutory instrument or as a clause in a Bill. But that is not so, because there is the power that is used, not frequently but frequently enough, to bring a directive into operation by administrative action.

795
For example, with regard to approval of types of motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts, the Department claims that it can bring decisions into operation purely by administrative action without the House ever hearing about it. At present, if a Minister thought that agreement was urgent he could agree and then announce his agreement in a written answer. It is then enforced by administrative action and the House will never have an opportunity of considering the proposal for that legislation in any form, or the result of the Minister's agreement. I should like an assurance that what is meant by European legislation is everything that is or would be put before the European Legislation Committee. At least that Committee has a definition of it which would cover the sort of proposals that I have explained.
There are more important points in the recommendations of the Procedure Committee and perhaps more important points in the motions on the Order Paper, but I return to my first "love"—the delegated legislation. It is the duty of the House to take in hand the growing scandal of the lack of control that we in this House have over the Executive when it is legislating for the citizen.
8.5 pm
Mr. Michael English: I should like to add my congratulations to the many that have been showered upon the Leader of the House. He has brought the Procedure Committee recommendations before the House and he has endeavoured to implement most, if not all, of them. I welcome the setting up of the Procedure Committee because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who has made a deep study of the matter, pointed out, there is something radically wrong with our procedures for approving enormous sums of expenditure. For over a century there has been a Contingencies Fund. which should not be confused with the contingencies reserve. At one time we spent money on floods, tempests, and so on. During the last few years 2 per cent. of all Supply expenditure on a rolling basis goes to that fund—over £1 billion—which can be spent without any approval by Parliament. It was used to set up BNOC. The money then has to be replenished after the event from
796
the Supply expenditure. It has been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee, and by the Expenditure Committee, which take an interest in such matters. I hope that the new Procedure Committee will also take an interest in it.
I chaired a Sub-Committee of the Procedure Committee of which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and others were members. We discussed simultaneously the Standing Orders relating to statutory instruments and to European legislation. Although they are distinctly different, there are similarities in the procedure and in the remedies. I am glad that the European Community proposals are included on the Order Paper basically in the form in which we suggested. I realise that there are certain modifications, which I shall not go into at this hour. If the Leader of the House really wants to allow 20 Members to add to the burden of work on the Floor of the House, I do not mind. We did not propose that. We suggested that those matters should be discussed in Committee. But I warn the Leader of the House that, now that the European Community procedure has been sorted out in this way, if 20 Members do so rise, particularly if they are 20 PPSs prompted by Ministers who do not want the matter discussed, he would not get away with the previous excuse that there was too big a log-jam and that it would be too much of a burden. If instruments are prevented from being discussed in Committee, the Government will have to find time to discuss them on the Floor of the House. He did not have to put it back. We did not suggest it. But now that the Government themselves have done it, they will find that they may have created a rod for their own backs.
Although we dealt with statutory instruments and European orders at the same time, the statutory instruments are completely left out. That is strange. Upon investigation, I understand that perhaps it is not so much the right hon. Gentleman's desire to leave them out but, rather, that the business managers of the House have some worries about the procedure. We said that a new standing order should be created. In fact, that is set out in the amendment in the names

797
of members of all four parties represented on the Procedure Committee. We also said that:
"any Member should be able to take part in the deliberations of a committee, and should be able to move motions or amendments",
though not vote. What is wrong with that? The Whips may find difficulty in staffing boring Standing Committees, but why should they wish to prevent those who are interested from coming along and saying their piece?
Our second recommendation related to the 20 or more Members rising in their places. That was intended to help the Government by not burdening the Floor of the House. Our third recommendation was that a Committee should in future consider a proper motion
"that the Committee recommend that the instrument be approved",
instead of the silly "have considered" motion which has hitherto been discussed in the debate. We slightly lengthened the time of the Committee, but that is the sort of thing which the right hon. Gentleman could have changed. We said that.
"if a committee recommend the approval of instrument, the subsequent motion in the House should, as at present, be put forth-with, but at the commencement of public business".
The only change there relates to where in the day's business this should be placed. These represent quite small amendments that were not designed to burden the Government or to distort the procedure of the House in an anti-Government way.
I have added my name to amendment (a) to motion No. 1 in the terms of the proposal of the Procedure Committee. I do not agree with every word of it. I did not agree that it should not be possible to initiate the procedure on a Friday. If hon. Members choose not to come on a Friday, I believe that that is their problem and not something that we should legislate for. There are other small points. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take this away and discuss it again with the business managers of the House, the point being that we on the Procedure Committee did not automatically assume that everything we proposed should be approved by the House by way of a text that was identical to what we suggested. We imagined that the Government might wish to make changes and that the House itself might wish to do so. But it seems to me that the Leader
798
of the House is abrogating his responsibilities if we are not to do anything about our existing statutory instrument procedure.
The right hon. Gentleman's powers and responsibilities are far greater than he perhaps thinks. He said earlier that he was in favour of pre-legislation Committees. I do not think that a "Committee", in the singular, has ever been a practicable matter, for the simple reason that there is too much legislation for one Committee to deal with. However, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to have pre-legislation committees, all that he has to do is to persuade one of his departmental colleagues, or perhaps himself, in his capacity as Minister for the Arts, to send the instructions to the draftsmen to one of the existing Select Committees before they go to the draftsmen, so that the Select Committee can consider the details of legislation before it is drafted. That would be extremely simple. One would not need a resolution of the House. The Select Committees already exist, and I am sure that most of them would he willing to consider such instructions if they were offered. It is governmental secrecy and reservations which caused this not to happen. There is now a structure which would enable pre-legislation matters to be considered if the Government so wished.
Two quite small recommendations, (47) and (48), were proposed by the Procedure Committee. One is down on the Order Paper for discussion tomorrow and I shall not deal with it now. The other simply permits the proceedings of Sub-Committees to be published. We recommended that they should be published. At present, if a Member wishes to write a minority report, he has to wait until the report drafted by a Sub-Committee reaches the main Committee, and discuss it all over again in order to make sure that his minority report or amendment appears in the printed text of the proceedings. That is a waste of time. I totally fail to understand why such an innocuous little proposal, which no one on the Procedure Committee thought controversial, should not appear.
I come finally to the issue of the Special Standing Committees. Our Standing Committees are most peculiar bodies. They were created by accident. On page 63 of the first Procedure report hon. Members

799
will find a detailed history of our procedure. The extraordinary thing is that before the latter half of the 19th century we had a procedure whereby Bills which were not dealt with on the Floor of the House were dealt with in Select Committees. Almost every legislature on earth has copied that practice. Therefore, our Standing Committees, which are a modern invention, are unique to this legislature and to a few of the more recent Commonwealth legislatures. However, in America, Europe and everywhere else, legislation is considered by what we would call Select Committees, It is not considered by mini Houses of Commons such as Standing Committees represent.
I shall not go into the details of all this, but it is true to say that originally Standing Committees were also intended to be Select Committees of the sort that our specialist departmentally related Select Committees are. As a compromise, Standing Committees were, until 1948, given all the powers of Select Committees. They always had the power to call witnesses until 1948, although they never exercised it, basically for the strange historic reason that Bonar Law did not want them to. Therefore, the House of Commons never really intended to arrive at the boring and useless Standing Committee procedure that it now has.
Mr. George Cunningham indicated dissent.
Mr. English: My hon. Friend will be replying to the debate. No doubt most Front Bench spokesmen will take the view that Standing Committees are incredibly useful devices. They are perhaps useful in keeping Back Benchers quiet, but they certainly waste a great deal of time compared with Select Committees.
While the Leader of the House is undertaking this experiment with regard to the Special Standing Committees, I had hoped that he would also have undertaken an experiment using existing procedure. It is already possible to refer Bills to Select Committees for their Committee stage. In fact, that is regularly done every three or five years in respect of our Army Act revision. I strongly recommend that, as well as experimenting with three Bills under this proposed new procedure, the Leader of the House runs a concurrent
800
experiment with another three Bills in Select Committees, so that in a couple of years' time we could see which procedure worked better. If the right hon. Gentleman does not do that, we shall unfortunately be unable to test the experiment properly. As the scientists put it, it will not be a controlled experiment.
Almost every hon. Member has criticised the proposed procedure in motion 3. Unlike the departmentally related Select Committees, this was not unanimous in the Procedure Committee. I believe that all the critics are right, basically because we could deal with legislation in Select Committees much better and more effectively. They already have the power to call witnesses and they are masters of their own procedure. They cannot be filibustered out of existence because, if they want to, they can curtail the debate. As long as the Government do not lose their majority, they can deal with the matter effectively.
The procedure in motion 3 is an undesirable compromise. I do not propose to fight it to the bitter end. I think that an experiment should be tried, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will try the experiment of Select Committees.
One of the points made by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is certainly valid—that the content of our legislation is atrocious. Books have been written on this subject. Our drafting methods are far behind those used in some other countries where clear legislation can be produced setting out the rules and the principles of whatever is the subject of the legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right—as he so often is—in saying that something should be done about pre-legislation. I suggested to him a method of doing it without involving changes in the procedure of the House. I hope that he will let us at some time have a dialogue between a Committee and a Department on what legislation it would like, before the heavy hand controlled by the Victorian precedents of some of our draftsmen is laid upon the ideas of Ministers.
8.21 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: It is with some diffidence, as a new Member of 15 months standing, that I seek to intervene in a debate on the procedure of this House. I do so not

801
from a profound knowledge of the procedures of this House, as the length of my stay would indicate, but with a profound concern for the way in which this House has been conducting its business in relation to what we call Supply.
One of the primary functions of this House—-what the ordinary taxpayer and the ordinary elector outside expect us to do—is at least to control the amount of money supplied to the Government, and therefore the amount of taxation imposed upon the ordinary citizen of this country only by this House.
When we examine in any detail the way in which we do this, it is quite clear that this House has long since given up any serious attempt to fulfil what I regard as one of our primary duties. By not insisting upon that control we have endangered this very important democratic parliamentary institution, and because it does not do its duty properly and because its debates on this subject are not properly informed, what happens is that the public's esteem of this House is thus reduced.
It is with great diffidence, therefore, that I say how much I appreciate the work that has gone on in this House on the procedure, particularly in relation to the control of Supply. I should like to join the chorus of congratulation to the Leader of the House on setting up the Procedure Committee on Supply. It is incredibly important not just from the constitutional point of view that I have just mentioned but because it affects the the way in which the whole of the Government machinery and our nationalised industries work.
All Members of this House will know that we vote the money to the Government for one year only. This results in incredible distortion and a great deal of waste of public money because of the rigidities which the Treasury in turn imposes upon the budgets and upon the expenditure of Government Departments and nationalised industries. It produces some absurd results which, unless we begin to change the procedure of this House, the Treasury cannot avoid. Therefore, of course, we have to consider a way in which we can carry over money voted in one year to another. I hope that the Committee will consider that matter. But it should not lead to
802
a diminution in the control over expenditure of any of the bodies involved.
I am, quite frankly, shocked by the lack of financial control which is displayed by the many documents which come before this House in relation to the Government's expenditure. They would not be tolerated, I suggest, in any other forum. The figures cannot be related one to the other. We cannot take the Budget and say "This is what the Department intends to spend and this is what it intends to spend it on" and compare it with what is actually spent. There is no way of doing that, as far as I can determine.
At the end of the Session there is introduced a Bill called the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill to make up for all those expenditures which were at first not estimated. We know that by tradition we pass the Bill without even a cursory examination, yet it contains a major part of the total Government expenditure of the year. This is, of course. the way in which the Civil Service and the Executive get round any kind of control that we might have in this House over the finances and the supply of money to the Government. This is an utter sham and a really disgraceful way in which to run the nation's affairs.
It is therefore marvellous that we have got to the position where it seems that there is now a coincidence of interest between the Executive and the House. in that both see that an incoming Government has been unable to control the Civil Service expenditure. It should now join with this House in asking the House to take back its power—which everybody in this country expects it to have and to exercise—and to begin to control the expenditure within this House, with the help and co-operation of the Ministers and the civil servants involved. That must be the high objective of setting up the new Committee, and I sincerely hope that it will result in a procedure of which we can be proud and which will enable us to do our duty.
8.27 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: It is a little ironic that a debate on procedure covers such a wide range of topics, with no commonality and no coherence. One of the great strengths of the procedure of the House is that

803
we proceed by motion. question, debate and decision, each a separate process, and usually on one question at a time. For convenience, we often group matters together, and the Chair will allow debate notionally on the first question when there are other matters arising on the other questions, but it does so only when it is a matter of coherence and commonality of topic. That is not true of the topics before us tonight. There are 34 recommendations and 10 separate motions, to which there are eight amendments. The previous debate was largely about setting up specialist Select Committees.
I am not suggesting that the procedure that we are adopting is wrong, but sometimes a balance is required when we depart from the fundamental procedure of taking one question at a time. I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not here. He will probably be remembered for these procedural innovations. I do not know what the Government will be remembered for. That remains to be seen. However, the right hon. Gentleman's leadership of the House will be remembered as a result of the innovations introduced in the previous procedure debate, and in this debate. There is a major gap in relation to statutory instruments, which the right hon. Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) has already mentioned. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has reminded us of that gap by tabling amendment (a). It represents a notable exception, because the existing procedure on statutory instruments is indefensible. It does not require improvement—it is indefensible.
Parliamentary democracy is under a certain amount of strain. It is often placed under such strain because some of the procedures in this House appear as irrelevant and archaic to those outside the House. I can often convince them, after some explanation, that they are neither irrelevant nor archaic. However, if I am ever challenged on the question of statutory instruments I shall have no defence. I shall tell them, as I shall tell the Leader of the House, that, as we have no proper procedures, there will probably be some action. That action may involve taking a leaf out of the book of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South
804
and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who is an expert in such affairs. That action will show that Back Benchers, both old and new, will not put up with the procedure on statutory instruments being left as it is.
If the position remains as it is, the public can rightly ask, "If you cannot deal with statutory instruments, what can you deal with? The House will be open to a wide attack. As time is pressing, I shall not go into depth on the sad procedural history of the past 20 years and the decline of statutory instrument procedure.
I read a textbook written by Sir Ivor Jennings. In the 1930s he remarked in this House that an hon. Member had once threatened to put down a prayer and that that had resulted in the Government's business managers removing the instrument from the Order Paper. Report No. 538 of the Procedure Committee, dated 1970–71, states:
"Your Committee accordingly recommend that non-contentious Prayers and non-contentious affirmative resolutions should be referred to a special standing committee."
One must note the word "non-contentious." That is how the door was opened. Once debate has taken place upstairs there is no proper procedure for dealing with the subject on the Floor of the House. The motion moved upstairs is irrelevant. The motion in this Chamber is automatically exempted. Perhaps the House will do something about that tonight.
Motion 7 deals with Standing Order No. 73A, which will be modified as a result of the comprehensive new procedure in relation to the EEC. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and I have tabled amendment (a) to the motion. It is a simple amendment. It would oblige all votes on statutory instruments which have been discussed upstairs to be dealt with at the commencement of public business. At present, we all know that, irrespective of the stupid "consider" motion upstairs, a statutory instrument is presented for the approval of the House. Because it is automatically exempted, it is put at the end of the Order Paper, possibly after discursive and uncontentious business. It is considered immediately prior to the Adjournment debate.

805
I could prove that such events were not the intention of the Committee that made the recommendation. Tonight, the House can remedy the situation by making it necessary for motions taken after consideration upstairs to be taken at the commencement of public business. I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not present, because he might have wanted to intervene on that point. It seems a relatively easy way for the House to tighten up on these defective procedures.
I turn now to the motions relating to EEC procedure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has already dealt with the three amendments selected to motion 5. I shall not go over that ground, except to emphasise to both Front Benches that there has been a virtually universal request that amendment (d) relating to an oral statement by a Minister should be accepted. It is clear that the loophole that has been given to Ministers to take decisions and to report them to the House at the earliest possible moment has been abused. Often it has not been at the earliest possible moment. It has sometimes been two or three weeks before the appearance of a written answer to the effect that approval has been given to a motion in Brussels before debate in the House. I put it to the Leader of the House that the mere fact that this procedure has been abused suggests that he should accept the amendment without equivocation.
I hope that the Leader of the House will also accept amendment (b) about the motion being related to the proposal. It is no use the House having a debate on the Adjournment about a matter in Brussels. It has been said that so far we have managed to stop that practice, but we have already had a few such debates. Standing Orders make it possible for any Government to do that, and the previous Labour Government were responsible for putting matters down on the Adjournment. Along with the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, I suggest that that loophole should be stopped. If we are to have a debate, let it be on documents which can be amended so that the House of Commons can come to a definable view. If it is purely on the Adjournment, the Minister can go to Brussels and make what he will of the debate.
806
Motion 4, which concerns the new procedure relating to Community documents, has, I think, received universal approval by the House because no one has criticised it. That motion has been recommended by the Procedure Committee. I understand why the Government have been unable to accept all the recommendations. We wanted the Committee upstairs to be able to sit on a second day. The Government have not put that in. There may be good reasons for that. On the whole, these would be great improvements, because they would not only allow the Committee upstairs to debate a matter on an amendable motion, but such an amendment could come from any member of the Committee.
Again, there is a loophole in this new Standing Order. It is the same as that which exists in Standing Order No. 73A on statutory instruments; that is, that the substantive decision of the House is automatically exempted and can be taken at any hour. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled amendment (a), line 24, after "House", insert:
"on a day other than a Friday either at the commencement of public business or on the interruption of business at Ten o'clock".
That again was the recommendation of the Procedure Committee. The Procedure Committee recommended that that be one of the conditions. I hope that that gives the Government a choice: forthwith either at 3.30 pm—we already get many motions at 3.30 pm—or at 10 o'clock, when there may be a vote on another matter, or immediately afterwards when there would be no additional difficulties regarding time. If the amendment is not accepted, there will be grave disquiet about the fact that EEC business, if it goes to Committee, is finally approved by the House late at night, and we would be criticised by the people outside.
I turn to the last motion, which concerns EEC business, No. 10. It proposes to amend Standing Order No. 3 which relates to automatic exemption of certain categories of business. We know that EEC business is often taken at 10 pm. It is automatically exempted—there need be no business motion down—and we get one and a half hours. It is one and a half hours purely because when the order was first devised people thought that these EEC motions were the same

807
as domestic statutory instruments. At one time they were called "secondary". We have got rid of that; but the one and a half hours remains, under the 1953 rule relating to domestic statutory instruments.
I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will recall, as will many hon. Members present, the many rows in this Chamber about having to debate in one and a half hours sometimes very complex documents. We may get them on the Floor yet if they do not go to Committee. However, my hon. Friends and I have suggested that when we get them on the Floor, one and a half hours will be rather constricting, and we are suggesting an amendment to Standing Order No. 3 to permit EEC documents to be debated for up to two hours before the Question is automatically put. That would allow another five Back Benchers to make five-minute speeches and would allow winding-up speeches to be just that bit longer. It is only half an hour more. It is not asking for a great deal. It would be a considerable improvement, perhaps enabling matters to be thrashed out just a little more to give the Minister going to Brussels a better indication of the feeling of the House and to allow matters to be clarified when they are now sometimes rushed.
I hope, therefore, that the Leader of the House will agree to amendment (a) to motion 10.
Amendment (b) to motion 10 is of a rather different character. This is where, for the first time, perhaps, I do not entirely take the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman), who is Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee. This motion concerns two matters relating to the category of documents. Some of the documents that we have had before the Scrutiny Committee have originated not from the Commission, and I believe that that is right. If matters which come from the EEC might be or are legislative, the Scrutiny Committee has to spread its net wide and we have to have a look at them. That is perfectly right. However, exempting that business on the Floor of the House is a different matter.
The new Standing Orders are to include documents of the EEC other than of the Commission, and to include documents going to "the European Council."
808
It is quite right that the Scrutiny Committee should have terms of reference which include those documents, but whether we should exempt from the 10 o'clock rule documents of that sort on the Floor of the House is another matter.
What is this European Council? The Standing Order, as amended, would read
"to the Council of Ministers or the European Council."
That is the effect of motion 10. The European Council does not exist in the Treaty of Rome. It is a slang term for the Heads of Government meeting. That meeting started as a gleam in the eye of President Pompidou, and as an informal gathering. But according to the report of the three wise men it is a candidate for a super Council of Ministers. If we read that report, we shall find that there are moves afoot to create a super Council of Ministers, which although perhaps being a Heads of Government meeting will, in the twinkling of an eye, turn itself into a legal Council of Ministers under the treaty and agree what is in effect legislation. I agree that such documents going to such a council must be considered by the Scrutiny Committee and that its terms of reference should be wide enough to encompass such documents. However, I doubt very much whether we should exempt the documents when we come to debate them on the Floor of the House. The Council has no legislative prerogative under the Treaty of Rome or any other treaty. It is an entirely unofficial body, yet we know that in practice it is gathering to itself legislative power.
The Leader of the House may say that he wants to consider these matters further, that there may be a valid argument but that he wants to line up the Scrutiny Committee with the House. He may say that, but the House had better watch out or else the European Council, so called, will take more power from it.
Unless we consider the minutiae and practicalities of our procedures, people outside who do not believe that parliamentary democracy can work will pick at our procedures and show where we have fallen down. In that event, we shall be, quite rightly, targets of criticism. I hope that the Leader of the House and other colleagues will take note of that and that the improving amendments will be passed.
8.47 pm
Mr. Marcus Kimball: I take up briefly the remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) on recommendation (3), Special Standing Committees. I fail to understand what we shall achieve by implementing the recommendation. Legislation that comes before the House is often a delicate balance of compromise agreed between interested parties during the consultative processes that all Governments go through. Many points are accepted and the Government are trusted because those who are involved in the negotiations and in the legislation know that at the end of the day the Government will get the agreed compromise through because the Government usually get their business.
What shall we achieve over and above the circulation of the consultative documents, the Green Papers and finally the White Papers that accompany most legislation by having this rather odd breed of Special Standing Committee? Everyone who has been receiving the consultative documents will feel that it is his right to attend or to write to the chairman to say that he has to give evidence to the Special Standing Committee. Organisations that have been involved in the negotiations on legislation will feel left out if they have not made the final gesture of wanting to appear to give evidence to the Committee.
What will be the Minister's position when the various bodies appear before the Committee? Will he be able to ask questions? If the House decides as one of the experiments to send a Private Member's Bill to the Special Standing Committee, what will be the position of the Sponsor? Surely he should be allowed to ask questions of those who wish to give evidence to the Committee.
When the proper processes of consultation are available to the Government prior to bringing forward legislation, I do not think that there is a need for a Special Standing Committee. However, a limited case can be made out for the use of the procedure in so far as it may affect Private Members' Bills. Private Members who wish to sponsor and produce a Bill do not have consultation facilities. They do not have the facilities for getting all the interested parties together. Although I do not sup-
810
port the recommendation for the Government's legislation, I believe that there may be a case for its limited use for Private Members' legislation.
If we pass this motion—and I shall certainly vote against it—we shall add another legislative process to the hurdles which a Bill must already surmount. A large number of organisations outside Parliament use parlaimentary activity and the chance to influence Parliament as a way of justifying the subscriptions from their members. I dread to think of the annual reports of some of these fringe organisations outside Parliament, listing the number of Special Standing Committees to which they have made representations.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) congratulated the Leader of the House on the setting up of specialist departmentally related Committees. I am very proud of the fact that I voted against them. They have added enormously to the expenses of the House of Commons in the past year. They are a particularly expensive item, and yet we heard the hon. Member for Norwich, South actually asking that they should be given more staff.
I hope that whatever meeting the Leader of the House may have attended this morning, he accepted some very strict cash limits for House of Commons expenditure. In looking at the expenditure and expenses of the House of Commons for which he is responsible, what estimate has he made of the increase in expenditure which would be brought about by the setting of the Special Standing Committees?
I believe that in all these debates on procedure the House has an obligation to look carefully at the way in which parliamentary expenditure is getting out of hand. Consider, for example, the expense of parliamentary questions and the abuse of the Order Paper that we see every day. Hon. Members put down questions, the answers to which can generally be obtained from the Library. We should look very carefully at the waste of public money that is now incurred by a large number of our parliamentary activities. I hope that when he winds up my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will give us an estimate of

811
the increase in expenditure which goes with many of these resolutions.
8.52 pm
Mr. Frank Hooky: Some time during the summer the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster assured me that we would have another debate on procedure and I am very grateful for the fact that he has honoured that assurance. Despite the difficulties that occurred in August and again this week, he has given the House an opportunity to debate this extremely important matter of procedure and to come to a conclusion in the form of clear and definite resolutions on many important matters.
I was rather startled by the suggestion earlier in the debate by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that Select Committees should conduct their proceedings in private. Of course they have the power to do so and often they deliberate in private but I would have thought that it was completely contrary to the idea of enchancing the power of parliamentary investigation that these Committees should not deliberate in public. Part of the object of their exercise is not merely to inform the House but to contribute to the general public debate on the matter that they are currently discussing.
I wish to speak primarily about items 2 and 3 on the question of Special Standing Committees and Supply. I believe that the suggestion for special Standing Committees is a good one. It is a valuable experiment and I hope that the House will adopt it. One of the curiosities of our way of dealing with legislation in Committee is that we call these bodies "Standing Committees" when they are nothing of the sort. Select Committees can be regarded in a sense as Standing Committees because they are appointed for the whole parliamentary Session, but Standing Committees are nothing of the kind. They are simply ad hoc groups of Members thrown together, sometimes because the individual Members have a special interest in the matter under discussion and sometimes because Members are brought in to make up the numbers. But they are not in any sense Standing Committees coming together to discuss a particular area of public business over a period of years and months.
812
Consequently such Committees are starting from scratch. They have no common knowledge or experience, except by accident, of the matter under discussion. They are starting afresh with a complicated and often unintelligible document. I am appalled by my experience on the Finance Committee. We purport to pass legislation in which it is impossible for an average, intelligent person to understand the purport of substantial paragraphs, and yet that legislation will determine our lives and behaviour. An ad hoc group is put together to consider a complicated document. Its members usually have no previous experience of working together. They are often expected to deal with a complex subject about which many of them have no knowledge.
Forming a quasi-Select Committee at least for a short will give right hon. and lion. Members the opportunity to gain a better grasp of the issues. Although the Bill will have been discussed on Second Reading, that is no substitute for serious discussion in Committee. The proposal has a great deal to commend it.
It has been suggested that, as we possess a system of departmental Select Committees, the predigestion of legislation could be dealt with there. There are two objections to that. First, Select Committees already have a heavy responsibility. This additional requirement would overburden them. Secondly, and more importantly, the point of the exercise is that the same group of hon. Members who will scrutinise the Bill, clause by clause and sentence by sentence, should together first have the opportunity of a general study of the issues, exchanging views with the Minister present, so that they can form a better idea of the general drift of the Bill and the problems that may be thrown up in discussing its provisions.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that Select Committees should be responsible for scrutinising Bills coming from this Chamber. If implemented, would not that suggestion prevent them from pursuing their primary function of scrutinising the workings of specific Departments?
Mr. Hooley: That is what I was saying. Those who suggest that Select Committees should take over that role are overlooking the fact that they already have wide-ranging responsibilities. If they took on

813
that additional duty, they would be overburdened.
Before a Committee of 20 hon. Members settles down to deal with the wording of a Bill it would be helpful for them to have discussions among themselves and to take evidence. The Leader of the House is saying, in effect, that the experiment should run for only six months. He referred to a Session, but we know that the experiment will not start much before January and will run until about July. That is a very short period. The right hon. Gentleman has also said that the experiment will be confined to about three Bills. That would be a serious limitation on our ability to assess the value of the exercise.
The Leader of the House suggested that the Bills concerned should not be controversial. I should have thought that there might be a case for choosing a Bill—say the nationality Bill—that was highly controversial and would benefit from the fact that the members of the Committee had been given an opportunity to take specialist advice, call witnesses and find snags, difficulties or consequences arising out of the Bill that might not be immediately obvious.
Bills can be highly controversial without being controversial in the party political sense. There are plenty of controversial matters that cut across party lines and there could be a case for including in the experiment at least one Bill on a matter of acute public, if not party, controversy.
I accept that there must be a time limit on the scrutiny process. We could not allow a Committee to sit for six months before studying the text of a Bill, but I am not sure why its work should be confined to four sittings. It would be reasonable for us to say that a Committee must not take more than 21 days, but can sit as often as it wishes during that time. The Leader of the House is suggesting that not only should the Committees be restricted to a 28-day period, which is fair, but that they should be able to sit only four times during that period. The Committees might find it more convenient to sit five or six times and I do not see why they should not have that slightly greater freedom within the 28 days.
The right hon. Member for Down, South was agitated by the provisions in paragraph (4) of motion 3. I find them
814
a little curious. Paragraph (4) (a) is reasonable in providing that a quasi Report stage should be held to consider amendments arising from undertakings given by Ministers during the sittings of the Committee. That would save a good deal of time on the Floor of the House. However, I do not understand paragraph (4) (b) which refers to amendments that:
"are consequent upon previous decisions of the committee".
The only way that a Committee can make decisions is to approve, reject or amend the clauses of the Bill. I am not clear how it can go back on such decisions at a quasi Report stage. The Committee will already have expressed its opinion on those issues.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's conundrum is that these would be what we normally term consequential amendments, which become necessary because of previous amendments that have been inserted.
Mr. Hooley: I should have thought that if amendments were drafted properly, consequential amendments would have been incorporated in the original drafting.
I am not sure what is meant by the reference in paragraph (4)(c) to amendments that:
"have been shown to be necessary during the committee's proceedings."
If amendments were necessary during the Committee proceedings, that fact would presumably have been expressed in amendments that the Committee would have debated and decided on. If the amendments are merely consequential, perhaps the word "consequential" should have been included in the motion. I find that proposition curious, although it is an interesting variation on our existing procedures. The suggestion of a system of general scrutiny of the Bill before the actual text is considered is attractive and useful. I hope that the House will adopt it.
I shall not say anything about the European Community legislation. That has been adequately dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I shall fully support the amendments to which my name is attached. If they are not acceptable to the Government, I shall vote for them.

815
I want to make some remarks about the question of Supply. I agree with many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate that this is a fundamental and basic weakness of the procedures of the House. We do not control expenditure. We do not control the Government's demands for expenditure nor do we scrutinise it effectively. The Government under Mr. Attlee from 1945 to 1951 was rightly famous for a great many things and will go down in history as a great Government. However, one of the matters for which it was notorious was the fact that it was able to manufacture an atomic bomb without the House of Commons being given any clue that the matter was under way and, presumably, having nothing to say about the appropriation of the necessary funds for carrying out this policy.
Defence in general and nuclear weapons in particular are becoming a matter of nation-wide controversy. I have no intention of going into that controversy except to say that it will turn, in the end, to a considerable extent, on the financial capacity of the nation to pay for the manufacture and installation and so forth of these weapons.
It would be absurd if the House of Commons was unable, through its existing procedures, not merely to debate the general policy issues of defence and nuclear weapons, which, obviously, it can, but to deal with the more detailed appropriation of the enormous sums—£5 billion for one weapon and £5 billion for another—involved in these defence decisions. This is more important because when we look back we know very well that weapons like Blue Streak and TSR2 were not eventually abandoned on some high grounds of policy but primarily because the Government of the day decided that they could not afford them.
I believe that the House could reach decisions on some of these weapon systems after considering whether it is reasonable that taxes that our constituents pay should be expended on his form of weaponry or whether equal sums should not be expended on some different type of equipment that may be regarded as necessary to the defence of the country.
The setting up of this Committee to study the whole question of Supply, control of expenditure and appropriations, is
816
extremely important. I hope that it will get on with its business although I would not suggest the rush, proposed by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who wanted a report within six months. That would be undesirable. One would certainly expect something to emerge in 12 or 18 months. It is a complicated matter and one of fundamental importance.
I echo the protest of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South about the inclusion of the European Council as a body in motion 10 of the proposed Standing Orders. The European Council has no constitutional standing in the Treaty of Rome. We should not take cognisance of it in terms of our Standing Orders and our business arrangements. We might have to debate the subjects that it discusses from time to time but we should not purport to acknowledge its existence in this fashion.
I admire the Chancellor of the Duchy's persistence in these procedural matters. He did a fine job on the special departmental Select Committees. He has done a good job again in pursuing the matter and bringing forward many more procedural matters which the House should debate and upon which it should make decisions.
9.11 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I have only a limited number of comments which I want to make on the wide spectrum of matters before us today. The first refers to the substantive amendment to the first procedural motion. Here, slipped into a long amendment covering two and a half pages and side-titled
"Instruments subject to the affirmative procedure"
is paragraph (8) which is not to do with instruments but with Church of England matters.
These are matters of a distinctly different kind. It would have been more fortunate if attention had been drawn to this, first on the Notice Paper and then on the Order Paper, by a side heading pointing out that the instruments subject to the affirmative procedure are really terminated with paragraph (7) and that paragraph (8) deals with something entirely different.
With great respect to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English),

817
in whose name this worthy amendment stands, the arguments for using the same procedure for a Church of England matter are entirely different from the arguments for using this projected procedure for statutory instruments, whether of the affirmative or negative resolution kind.
Hon. Members who have been present regularly at debates in the House on Church of England matters will know as a fact that generally the same hon. Members are not members of the Statutory Instruments Committee. This I give not as an opinion but as an ascertainable fact. Anybody who cares to read through Hansard debates on Church of England matters and to compare them with reports of the Statutory Instruments Committee, will find that those hon. Members who wish to participate and vote on Church of England matters do not correspond with the membership of the relevant Committee.
Unfortunately, under paragraph (8) of the very long, and I think admirable, amendment to my right hon. Friend's first procedural motion, the decision whether to send a measure to a Statutory Instruments Committee will be taken by the House forthwith without debate. I should have been much happier if the chair had been able to agree to have a separate vote on paragraph (8) of this proposed new standing order—because it is of a completely different genre from the half of the amendment which precedes it and the half which comes after it—instead of having to take two different types of legislative functions and treating them as if they were the same.
May I remark in parenthesis that a few years ago I wrote to the then very distinguished Clerk of the House, Sir Richard Barlas, and asked him whether in his opinion the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Committee were proceedings in Parliament. He wrote back to me giving me his considered opinion that they were not but added that the distinguished Counsel to Mr. Speaker, Sir Robert Speed, took the opposite view, that they were proceedings in Parliament.
I may be misreporting both of them. It may have been that Sir Richard took the view that they were, and Sir Robert took the view that they were not. I should not wish to be guilty of misattribution. My point is that there was a disagreement
818
between an extremely distinguished Clerk of the House and an extremely distinguished Counsel to Mr. Speaker as to whether the proceedings on Church of England measures in the Ecclesiastical Committee—to which the House has always attached great weight when they come on to the Floor—were proceedings in Parliament. Hon. Members will realise that there are implications for privilege and the law of defamation that are relevant to that.
Mr. Paul Dean: I have been following my hon. Friend's arguments with great interest. Will he help us by saying whether the views that he had from certain distinguished people were before the new Church of England synodical government arrangements? I think that that is relevant to his argument and might help to guide the House.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I wish that I could answer that question with certainty, but I cannot. It was three or four years ago. I doubt that the new arrangements have altered the status because they are still based on the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919. My guess is that the status is not affected by the new arrangements for the constitution of the Church Assembly. I was referring not to the Church Assembly but to the Ecclesiastical Committee.
I turn to the new and rather quaintly named special Standing Committees. There is one potential conundrum that I wish to put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, namely: can a member of the Committee give evidence to the Committee? Apparently, the Committee would contain a Minister in the same way as normal Standing Committees. Yet many of the questions to which the Committee will want answers presumably would appropriately come from the Minister in charge of the Bill. I apologise for being absent for one and a half hours from the debate, because the point may have been raised already.
Mr. George Cunningham: It is in the report.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is not a question of being in the report. We have a motion, and the question is what would be the implication of that motion on this specific point.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. Friend clearly wants an ex cathedra statement, and I shall give it to him when I reply.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. When we read the Select Committee report and the very scholarly contribution by the last Clerk of the House on the History of the right to question Members, we discover that the apparently ex cathedra statement in "Erskine May" that Select Committees cannot require Members to attend and give evidence is not well based. It is typical of some of the statements that appear in "Erskine May" to which a spurious authority is attributed.
A member of the Committee can be invited by the Committee to give evidence if he is already a member of the Committee. But if he is not a member of the Committee I cannot help but note that this resolution does not empower the Committee, as it could have done, to send for Members. The established tradition is that the power to send for persons and papers does not entitle a Committee to send for a Member of either House. Returning to my conundrum, if the Member that a Committee wishes to summon is already a member of the Committee, can it require him to give evidence? I think that that conundrum needs sorting out.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: Does my hon. Friend recollect that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in any Government is a member of the Public Accounts Committee? He can sit as a full Member of the Select Committee both to inquire into evidence before the Committee and to give evidence to it. On occasion he fulfils both roles. When he gives evidence the other members can question him. Therefore, what is proposed is by no means novel. There is well-established practice for it already in the PAC.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful for that advice. I think it would be better, however, if, when we are drawing up the new Standing Order for the so-called Special Standing Committee we should explicitly give it the power to send for Members of this House if we intend that it should have that power rather than that it should rely on anecdotal similarities to the Public Accounts Committee. Let us, in so far as we can, in drawing up new Standing Orders make
820
explicit those things that need to be explicit rather than making them implicit and subject to disagreement and misunderstanding.
This might mean, if my right hon. Friend agrees with me, that as well as telling us that Ministers and any other Member of this House can be summoned by such a Committee to give evidence, he might feel on a subsequent day—obviously am amendment could not be put forward at this stage—that we should amend the Standing Order on a procedural motion to make the power absolutely explicit.
9.22 pm
Mr. George Cunningham: The House has once again today enjoyed a sort of love-in with the Leader of the House on this second tranche of procedural reform initiated by the Procedure Committee. I join in the congratulations that have been extended to him by others for having this second bite at the cherry. When we have finished this second bite we shall have dealt with motions in which the right hon. Gentleman has already sown the seeds of the third major bite. I know that we have done a few other things in between. The seeds of the third main tranche are being sown by the setting up of a new Procedure Committee to deal with the question of Supply.
Apart from the detailed procedural matters that have formed the main part of the discussions today, references have been made by several hon. Members—notably by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean)—to the relationship between the attitudes of Members—their willingness to vote a certain way—and procedural habits. He suggested that it was the function of the Government to take decisions and the function of the House of Commons to scrutinise those decisions. That is infinitely too modest a way of putting it for my liking. The function of the House of Commons is to receive proposals from the Government, to consider those proposals, and, where the House disagrees with them, to substitute its own judgment for that of the Government. That should apply to legislation, to expenditure matters and to all other matters that come before the House.
Mr. Paul Dean: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what I am suggesting may

821
be modest but that it might be rather better than what we have achieved in practice over the past 10 or 20 years?
Mr. Cunningham: Yes, I made the remark I did because I think that the hon. Gentleman and also the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) were, in some of their remarks, looking for procedural solutions to problems which are not procedural in nature.
Where Members wish to exercise power against the Government they have their weapon—the vote. It is the only thing that the electorate gives them—the power to vote in this House—and the only thing that they need. Procedural changes are important, but they are essentially secondary. It is important that Members should exercise their judgment and be prepared to permit their vote to follow that judgment. Over the last decade there has been a significant change in the habits of the House in that respect, and it is always the party in power that has to exercise that responsibility particularly. Many Labour Members have been, and will be, looking with great care to Conservative Back Benchers during this Parliament to see whether they are prepared to carry on the traditions that have been established, first by the Conservatives in the beginning of the 1970s and then by the Labour Back Benchers during 1974–79.
I regard the most important proposal as that on the new Special Standing Committees, and I shall deal with it last. With regard to the EEC document changes that are proposed, there has been intense dissatisfaction for a long time with the method in which EEC documents are considered in this House. Basically it has been felt that the merits should be debated and then motions passed relating explicitly to the merits. Motions should be amendable, and enough time should be available for a proper discussion of these matters with time available on the Floor of the House, if necessary, to follow them up. I have no doubt that any hon. Members feel that the proposals before use do not go far enough in achieving those objectives, but they go much further than the present position and they should be strongly welcomed.
I turn now to the proposal on the declaratory resolution about the behaviour of Ministers in the Council of Ministers in the Community before any debate
822
has taken place in this House. Again, there is much back history on the matter which has been rehearsed today. The wish of the House is clear. Except in extremely rare conditions, if then, no Minister should commit himself in the Council of Ministers until a matter that has been recommended by the Scrutiny Committee to be debated has been debated on the Floor of the House.
We can all envisage circumstances in which there is a need for a loophole. But if that loophole were to be used frequently it would be highly undesirable. A loophole that perhaps has to be used every two or three years may be bearable if the reasons are adequate. But any escape from this provision more frequent than that would be extremely undesirable.
I now turn to the proposals about statutory instruments which are not before us—at least not in the name of the Government. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page), with all his experience of statutory instruments, said how unsatisfactory he believes the present arrangements for scrutiny are. The House may like to consider that the arrangements for keeping an eye on subordinate legislation that does not even take the form of a statutory instrument are even worse. Frequently we permit a Minister to make a scheme of arrangement in a Bill or to issue directions which do not need to be discussed again by the House in any form, and the text of which is impossible to find in any series of documents. Subordinate legislation of that kind is looked after worst by the House.
With regard to the statutory instruments, it is perhaps a pity, certainly in the eyes of many hon. Members, that the recommendation of the Procedure Committee that the procedure now recommended for EEC documents should be applied more or less as that for statutory instruments. I believe, and other hon. Members believe, that the Leader of the House would have been willing to adopt the recommendations of the Procedure Committee on this matter and that others were unwilling to do so. If the House tonight exercises its judgment and decides to adopt the proposals contained in the Procedure Committee report, I do not think that any great disaster will occur, whether for the

823
House or for the running of the Government's business in the House.
As I said, the Leader of the House has sown the seeds of another important advance in the running of the affairs of the House by tabling the motion to set up a new Procedure Committee to deal exclusively with the matter of Supply. There is great dissatisfaction in the House—there has been for a long time, but it has been expressed more in the last year or two—over the fact that we vote millions, nay billions. of pounds on the nod. However, the scrutiny of that expenditure which does not take place on the Floor of the House does not take place in Committee upstairs either. Supply Days are rightly used for a purpose which does not now much relate to Supply. The Expenditure Committee, when it existed, did not do very much of a job on the scrutiny of proposals for expenditure. I am hopeful that the new Select Committees will not only produce studies on individual subjects but will also rigorously scrutinise the activities of Government Departments and the expenditure implied in those activities.
If they are to do so, they will probably have to run on twin tracks, spending one day a week doing their general studies and another day addressing themselves to expenditure control. I very much hope that members of the new family of Select Committees will try to do both jobs. If the new Select Committees do not do the expenditure job, we shall have to recreate something like the old Expenditure Committee, with all the disadvantages which that arrangement had. I share the groans expressed at that possibility, but someone must do the detailed work on the Estimates, and preferably it is up to the new Select Committees to do it. If they do not, we shall have to have a different method of doing so.
Mr. English: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, one of our problems is not even related to the Procedure Committee. At present, work is going on to try to make the Estimates comprehensible in the manner referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). That is necessary, because I do not think that any hon. Member, even professionally qualified accountants, actually understands the Estimates that are put before the House.
Mr. Cunningham: I agree with that, and no doubt the new Committee will address itself to that matter. In the meantime, during the two years that the new Committee will be producing its report, it is important that the new family of Select Committees address themselves to this question.
Another point raised was whether, in addition to this new Committee, we need a normal Sessional Procedure Committee. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) recommended that we should do so. My own preference is that we should permit the new Committee also to take care of small procedural matters that arise from time to time. At Question Time, hon. Members frequently raise some grouse or other, and it will be said—sometimes from the Chair—that this is a matter which should be looked at by the Procedure Committee. If we have a Procedure Committee, even one that is engaged on a long-term and important study, I think that it is able to squeeze in. in the occasional days—without interrupting its general work—consideration of minor matters. Whether by that device or by the creation of a separate Procedure Committee, we need to have some means of clearing away these occasional procedural problems that arise so that we do not get a whole backlog of matters that need looking at, as we have sometimes done in the past.
I turn to what the report calls the Public Bill Committee procedure. I entirely agree with those who have said that the proposal we made for a second run in Standing Committees, to take care of undertakings given by Ministers and to take care of consequential amendments previously adopted, is an experiment that does not only apply—and should not be made only to apply—to the new Special Standing Committees. The Government are only suggesting that the new Special Standing Committees should deal with only a handful of Bills, so they are not a sufficient base for a proper experiment on this other devise. In the Procedure Committee report, we did not at all suggest that this second run-over should apply only to the new kind of Standing Committee. We suggested that it should apply to Public Bill Committees, as we called them, and to other Standing Committees.

825
We come, finally, to the most important recommendation before us, namely, that for the Special Standing Committees. This is, I think, the second tranche of what will be looked back upon as the reforms of this House of the years 1979–80. I do not share the misgivings which many Members have expressed about this new system. I take a particular interest in it.
I remember putting forward this idea to the then normal Procedure Committee in 1971, when it fell like a pebble in a tar barrel and was never heard of again. When we were first taking evidence in the Procedure Committee in 1976, I put the idea to the witnesses who came before us and was amazed to find that it was looked upon very favourably, and the bandwagon for this ran. Now, to my great surprise, we have the proposal before us, and there has been a very favourable response to the idea. [Interruption.] I say that there has been a very favourable response. I do not say that everyone is in favour of it.
We all know the difficulties of the present Standing Committee procedure. I do not share the criticisms of the Standing Committee as an instrument which have been expressed by some Members. I think that the Standing Committee combines the formality of proposing precise amendments, of an argument for and against, with the enormous advantage of being able to make more than one speech on the question. It combines that with the slightly greater willingness of Members to address themselves to the issue, and to stay in the debate long enough to hear the issue debated, which characterises Standing Committee as against the Floor of the House. That is the good thing about Standing Committees.
The bad thing we have all experienced. It is that in that room there is an electrical force, which is the hunger for information of the members of the Committee. In the corner of the room there is another electrical force, the Whitehall officials, with I will not say all the information but an awful lot of information. Between these two forces there is the narrow filament of the Minister's mind, and that inevitably results in a fuse. What we are suggesting is that there should be some direct communication between those two corners, as it were, of the room.
826
May I remind Members that we also recommended—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooky) should remember this—that the new Special Standing Committees—and, indeed, I think we said all Committees—should include among their members for any Bill on a certain subject one or two members of the Select Committee covering that subject area. That does not do as much as my hon. Friend is asking for in referring legislation to Select Committees, but we were trying to make some bridge between the continuity and expertise which should exist in the subject Committees and the retention of ad hoc Committees for the consideration of Bills.
This will, I think, be a new and valuable facility for Members to use or abuse—and no doubt by some Members and on some Bills it will be abused. But the procedure is valuable in itself and we must just trust that Members will use it properly rather than abuse it. As some have said, it will be a channel for organisations outside the House to present their views to the House. It will be experimental, and if it is to be a successful and meaningful experiment, sufficient Bills and a sufficient variety of Bills must be referred to the system. It can then be properly tested.
I hope that the Leader of the House will say something more about the chairmanship of the new Standing Committees. I am not sure that his earlier answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was clear. Are we to understand that the Chairman will be, as the Committee recommended, a neutral chairman, who has been drawn from the panel of chairmen? Are we to understand that this same person—subject to illness and so on—will chair the evidence-taking sessions, and clause by clause consideration of the Bill?
The hon. Member for Grantham complained that we were being far too restrictive in limiting to three sittings the number of days that the Committee could devote to the taking of evidence. In my mind as a member of the Procedure Committee, and in the minds of many others, the governing principle was that we should spread the thin end of a lot of wedges about the place. This is the thin end of the second wedge. We all know this House. If you feed too much into its mouth, it will spit it out. We wanted

827
to get the thing adopted and so we have put it before the House in a modest way. Once it has been accepted we shall never get rid of it. That is one of the principles that caused us to restrict the number of sittings.
The proposals will form an extremely valuable addition to the armoury of hon. Members if they use them properly. Once again, I congratulate the Leader of the House on bringing forward proposals that will be unpopular with some of his colleagues, and with some of mine.
9.41 pm
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I thank the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) for his most generous tribute and for his courage in making that tribute in the presence of his colleagues. At least I have disposed of mine. I am grateful for the various tributes that right hon. and hon. Members have paid. I understand that there was one dissentient voice, but I was out of the Chamber and I did not hear it. There is always a dissentient voice. There was even a dissentient voice at the Conservative Party conference. It is part of the cast.
I turn to some of the technical points that have been raised and that are all important. There are many motions and amendments, and I shall have to deal with them as briefly as possible. I am glad to have the opportunity of expanding on what I said to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) about the chairmanship of the Committee. It is intended that there should be two Chairmen. The first Chairman of the Committee, when it is sitting as a Select Committee, will be appointed by Mr. Speaker. It will be possible to appoint any hon. Member, apart from a Minister. I imagine that, normally, the Chairman of the Committee that is sitting in Select Committee form will come either from the Chairmen's Panel, or from among the Select Committee Chairmen. It will be possible to appoint any hon. Member. The important distinction is that that Chairman at that stage will be different from the Chairman of the Standing Committee at that stage.
That suggestion came from the Chairmen's Panel, which was naturally concerned that the impartiality of the Chair-
828
man of the Standing Committee should be protected. The Chairman of the Committee in its Select Committee form would carry out more of an inquisitorial than a balancing role. That was the reason why that was put forward. It can be argued that it is not necessary, but that is the factual situation and the reasoning behind it.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South asked what constituted a controversial Bill and wanted a criterion. I cannot give him such a criterion. What is meant is not that the Bill should be completely anodyne, but that it should not be controversial in the party political sense. If it is the subject of cross-party warfare, it will not be suitable at any rate, for this experimental stage. That would not rule out a controversial Bill. For example, the nationality Bill may prove controversial in certain aspects, but it would be controversial within the parties rather than across the Floor of the House. I cannot give a further definition than that. It is the old problem of being able to recognise an elephant when one sees it but not being able to define it.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) tabled a number of amendments, most of which have been selected, and I should deal with them. I turn first to motion No. 4, amendment (a), in line 24, after "House", insert
"on a day other than a Friday either at the commencement of public business or on the interruption of business at Ten o'clock".
The purpose of the changes that we have proposed to the Standing Orders has been to improve scrutiny in the Standing Committee by giving more time and taking debates on motions which can be amended by any Member, not only an appointed Member of the Committee. The amendment would not aid such scrutiny, and I see no reason to depart from the established procedure at this stage.
Turning to motion No. 5, amendment (a) was not selected, so I need not answer that point. The effect of amendment (b) would be that all debates on Community documents would have to take place on the basis of a "take note" motion and motions for the Adjournment could not be used.
Mr. Beith: It does not have to be a "take note" motion.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Very well. I cannot recommend acceptance of that amendment, which goes further than the Procedure Committee recommendation that debates should normally take place on a substantive motion. it is our practice for debates on Community documents to take place on expanded "take note" motions which are amendable. All documents which are given further consideration by the House are debated on the basis of such a motion, except possibly where the Scrutiny Committee suggests that a document might be listed as relevant to a general debate.
Mr. Jay rose——
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I really cannot give way. I have many points to get through. But I should be happy to correspond with the right hon. Gentleman on further points.
Amendment (c) to motion No. 5, proposed by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North and others, would bind the Government to an unrealistic commitment. Wherever possible the House should have the opportunity to debate a document recommended to it by the Scrutiny Committee. But, of course, no Government can foresee sudden events which in the national interest require instant decision. Such occasions should, however, be rare. I do not see that there is any danger of that being abused. Therefore, I recommend that that amendment, too, be rejected.
I take the same attitude to amendment (d) to motion 5.
Mr. Spearing: Was the right hon. Gentleman here for the debate?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, I was. I have been in the House throughout except for three-quarters of an hour, when I went out for—I shall not go into that. In that very brief absence, a very full note was taken of what was said.
I note the wish expressed in the proposed amendment by the Members who have supported it. The occasions when oral statements are required are very rare. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. But when such occasions occur, oral statements are generally made. I believe that the amendment is unnecessarily restrictive.
830
With regard to the different circumstances from the circumstances envisiged by this amendment, I have made it clear to the various Ministers concerned that in general one would wish statements to be made orally. But I cannot force
Ministers to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "The House can."] The House can do so. Good. The House, then, must force the Minister. I do my best, but in the end I can only try to persuade Ministers. If the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who has quite a vigourous character, cannot get a Minister here when a Minister should be here, I shall be very surprised.
Mr. Jay: If the right hon. Gentlman is so keen, as he is often protesting, to to give this House more control over legislation, why is he averse to the House deciding that a Minister must at least make an oral statement when one is necessary?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am not averse to that. I think that it is the Scottish verdict of not proven. I do not think that the case for compulsion has yet been established. Clearly, if Ministers will not co-operate with the House, the House has its remedies. Ultimately, the House always enforces its will. But I have yet to see this case made out. Meanwhile, fait compulsion, we can rely on the activities of the hon. Member for Newham, South.
The right hon. Member for Down, South raised a number of important points. He was anxious about the role that the Select Committees are playing. I do not have control over them and their terms of reference. They decide what to do, whether they investigate individual items—which was suggested by another hon. Member to be undesirable—or whether they look at the whole scope of a Department. In a literal sense, they are Frankenstein monsters and have a life of their own. They cannot be controlled in that sense by me. But we must see how they develop.
The right hon. Member for Down, South made his second point when referring to recommendation (10) of the Procedure Committee, to the effect that a similar procedure to that for Scotland should be applied to Northern Ireland.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman must let me finish. Recommendation (10) states:
"The proposals of the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation relating to an expedited procedure for bills to re-enact for Scotland only the provisions of United Kingdom Acts should be implemented; a similar procedure should be applied in respect of Northern Ireland."
Mr. Powell indicated assent.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Thank you. I am afraid that I cannot be very helpful towards the right hon. Gentleman on that subject. We still have the matter under review, but in the Government's judgment the case for a new procedure has not so far been established. I am aware of the two Committees.
Perhaps I may deal with the point about the extra Sessional Committee. I have noted that point and I shall consider it carefully. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and disagree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury about extending the terms of reference of the Committee. I want the Committee to concentrate on vital work and not to be distracted by other matters. My remarks about the additional Sessional Committee apply to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker).
I find it difficult to answer the arguments of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on a theoretical level. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my opening remarks about delegated legislation. We must not impose too much work on hon. Members. If it were merely an exercise in abstraction, I do not think that his argument could be answered, or the argument that has been adduced by other hon. Members.
I take it that the first three matters raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) support what I said about the amendments of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North. I shall consider the fourth point further but I cannot accede to it.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) spoke about single issues and the general work of a Department. Again, that is a matter for the Select Committees. I confirm, for my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page), that the term "European legis-
832
lation" contained in motion 5 covers all European Community instruments with legislative effect, whether direct or indirect.
My reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is the same as my reply to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I have sympathy with the principle which lies behind his amendment, but for practical reasons I cannot accept it. However, if the House decides that it should be accepted, that will be a matter for the House. If that happens, we shall do what we can to implement the amendment.
We shall be debating recommendation (47) tomorrow. I put the item on the Order Paper specially to placate the hon. Member for Nottingham, West. I hope that it will be possible for us to dispose of recommendations (47) and (48) tomorrow with the usually happily given co-operation of the hon. Gentleman. Recommendation (48) seeks to compel Select Committees to publish proceedings in sub-committees. I do not think that we should take the power to compel them to do so. I understand that they have the power already. There may be arguments about that. That is an issue that we can consider again if it transpires that they do not have that power.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) for his kind remarks. We have three Sessions because that is precisely the recommendation of the Procedure Committee. In fact, there are four Sessions, the first Session being formal. There are three effective Sessions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) asked about a breakdown of costs. We do not have such a breakdown. A general answer is that we get good value for money in the general running of Parliament. We keep a constant check on expenditure. It is much cheaper to run the House of Commons than to run most Government Departments. We are keeping a close eye on any additional expense.
I turn to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I shall not follow him into the purlieus of the Church of England, but I can give him a reply. He asked whether a member of the Committee could give evidence to a Committee.

833
The answer is "Yes", but the Committee canot compel him to do so. That is an ex cathedra statement or an ex scatola statement as it is backed up by official advice.
May I conclude——
It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to order this day, to put forthwith the Question on the motion relating to Procedure (No. 1)
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of recommendations (4) to (30) and (66) to (70) of the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in Session 1977–78.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded pursuant to order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the remaining motions relating to procedure, and the motions relating to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of
834
Bills), Special Standing Committees, Standing Committee on European Community Documents, European Community Legislation, Procedure (Supply). Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.), Standing Order No. 62 (Nomination of Standing Committees), Standing Order No. 60 (Constitution of Standing Committees), and Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

STANDING OR DER No. 40 (COMMITTAL OF BILLS)
Ordered,
That, until the end of the next session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of bills) shall have effect as if there were inserted, in line 9, after the word 'committee', the words, 'or to a special standing committtee', and in line 12, after the word Member, the words, 'or in the case of a motion to commit a bill to a special standing committee by a Minister of the Crown.'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

SPECIAL STANDING COMMITTEES
Motion made, and Question put.
That—
(1) A special standing committee to which a bill has been committed under the provisions of Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of bills) shall have power during a period not exceeding 28 days, excluding periods when the House is adjourned for more than two days, from the committal of the bill, to send for persons, papers and records and to hold up to four morning sittings of not more than two and a half hours each. The first such sitting shall be in private and the remainder, which shall be for the purpose of hearing oral evidence, shall be in public. The oral evidence shall be printed in the Official Report together with such written evidence as the committee may order to be so printed.
(2) For the sittings referred to in paragraph (1) of this Order, and notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61(1) (Chairmen of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 65(1) (Procedure in standing committees)—

(i) Mr. Speaker shall appoint any Member other than a Minister of the Crown as chairman of a special standing committee;

(ii) The chairman shall be included in calculating the quorum of the committee.

(3) When a special standing committee has completed consideration of a Bill, the chairman shall put the question, That I do report the Bill to the House unless a Minister of the Crown shall move 'That the Committee do
now adjourn'. It such a motion is made, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 64 (Meetings of standing committees), may be decided after One o'clock.
(4) If the question is agreed to, the committee shall meet again on the day and at the hour named by the chairman to consider any amendments which may be moved by a Minister of the Crown which

(a) arise from undertakings given by Ministers of the Crown during previous sittings of the committee;

(b) are consequent upon previous decisions of the committee;

(c) have been shown to be necessary during the committee's proceedings.

(5) If the proceedings have not been concluded before the end of two and a half hours the Chairman shall interrupt them and put the question 'That I do report the Bill to the House', unless on a motion made by a Minister of the Crown, on which the question shall be put forthwith, the Committee agree that further consideration of the Bill be adjourned, or that the debate be adjourned.
(6) The day and hour of any further sitting shall be named by the chairman, and the provisions of paragraph (5) shall apply thereto.
(7) Except as provided in the foregoing paragraphs, the Standing Orders relating to standing committees shall apply to any special standing committee.
That this be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the next session of Parliament.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]
The House divided Ayes 141, Noes 11.

Division No. 482

AYES

[10.00 p.m.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Eyre, Reginald

Lamont, Norman

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Faith, Mrs Shelia

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Beith, A. J.

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Loveridge, John

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Luce, Richard

Best, Keith

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Lyell, Nicholas

Blackburn, John

Forman, Nigel

Macfarlane, Neil

Blaker, Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fox, Marcus

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Brinton, Tim

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mather, Carol

Brittan, Leon

Goodhart, Philip

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Brooke, Hon Peter

Gow, Ian

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Browne, John (Winchester)

Gray, Hamish

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hampson, Dr Keith

Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Haselhurst, Alan

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hayhoe, Barney

Monro, Hector

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Haynes, Frank

Moore, John

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Heddle, John

Morgan, Geraint

Colvin, Michael

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)

Cope, John

Hooley, Frank

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Neale, Gerrard

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Needham, Richard

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

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Nelson, Anthony

Deakins, Eric

Howells, Geraint

Neubert, Michael

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Nott, Rt Hon John

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Hurd, Hon Douglas

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Palmer, Arthur

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Parris, Matthew

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Kershaw, Anthony

Penhaligon, David

Durant, Tony

King, Rt Hon Tom

Percival, Sir Ian

English, Michael

Knight, Mrs Jill

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Speed, Keith

Watson, John

Raison, Timothy

Speller, Tony

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

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Whitney, Raymond

Rhodes James, Robert

Stevens, Martin

Wickenden, Keith

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Wiggin, Jerry

Rifkind, Malcolm

Stradling Thomas, J.

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Tebbit, Norman

Woolmer, Kenneth

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Townend, John (Bridlington)

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

Waddington, David

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

Sims, Roger

Wakeham, John

Mr. Antony Berry

Spearing, Nigel

NOES

Body, Richard

Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)

Winterton, Nicholas

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

George, Bruce

Proctor, K Harvey

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Molyneaux, James

Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

Mr. Marcus Kimball and

Murphy, Christopher

Wheeler, John

Mr. David Crouch

Question accordingly agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—
(1) There shall be one or more standing committees, to be called standing committees on European Community documents, for the consideration of European Community documents (as defined in Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) referred to them.
(2) Any Member, not being a member of such a standing committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.
(3) Where notice has been given of a motion relating to a European Community document, a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that the said document be referred to such a committee, and the question thereupon shall be put forthwith; and if, on the question being put, not less than twenty Members rise in their places and signify their objections thereto, Mr. Speaker shall declare that the noes have it.
(4) Each committee shall consider each such document referred to it on a motion made by a Minister of the Crown to which amendments may be moved, and the chairman shall interrupt proceedings, if not previously concluded, when the committee shall have sat for two and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings. Thereafter, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 64 (2) (Meetings of Standing Committees), he shall forthwith put successively—

(a) the question on any amendment already proposed from the Chair;

(b) the question on any other amendments selected by the Chair which may be moved;

(c) the main question (or the main question, as amended).

The committee shall thereupon report the document to the House, together with any resolution to which they have come, without any further question being put.
838
(5) If any motion is made in the House in relation to any document reported to the House in accordance with paragraph (4) of this order, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put successively—

(a) the question on any amendment selected by him which may be moved;

(b) the main question (or the main question, as amended);

and proceedings in pursuance of this paragraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.
That this be a Standing Order of the House.—
[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Does the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) wish to move his amendment?
Mr. Jay: No, Sir.
Question put and agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, in the opinion of this House, no Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council of Ministers to any proposal for European legislation which has been recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation, &c., for consideration by the House before the House has given it that consideration unless—

(a) that Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld, or

(b) the Minister concerned decides that for special reasons agreement should not be withheld;

and in the latter case the Minister should, at the first opportunity thereafter, explain the reasons for his decision to the House.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]
Mr. Jay: I beg to move amendment (b), after second 'consideration', insert
'on a motion relating to that proposal.'

Division No. 483]

AYES

[10.13 p.m.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Howells, Geraint

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

Beith, A. J.

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Silverman, Julius

Body, Richard

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Spearing, Nigel

Brinton, Tim

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

Marlow, Tony

Steel, Rt Hon David

Browne, John (Winchester)

Flaxton, John

Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Molyneaux, James

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Colvin, Michael

Morgan, Geraint

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)

Watson, John

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

Murphy, Christopher

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

Deakins, Eric

Neale, Gerrard

Wheeler, John

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Needham, Richard

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)

Winterton, Nicholas

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Parris, Matthew

English, Michael

Penhaligon, David

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

George, Bruce

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Mr. Frank Hooley and

Hawksley, Warren

Proctor, K Harvey

Mr. Frank Haynes

NOES

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Haselhurst, Alan

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Hayhoe, Barney

Percival, Sir Ian

Blackburn, John

Heddle, John

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Blaker, Peter

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Raison, Timothy

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Rhodes James, Robert

Britian, Leon

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Brooke, Hon Peter

Hurd, Hon Douglas

Rifkind, Malcolm

Bryan, Sir Paul

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Kershaw, Anthony

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Kimball, Marcus

Sims, Roger

Cope, John

King, Rt Hon Tom

Speed, Keith

Crouch, David

Knight, Mrs Jill

Speller, Tony

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Lamont, Norman

Stevens, Martin

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Durant, Tony

Luce, Richard

Tebbit, Norman

Eyre, Reginald

Macfarlane, Nell

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Fairgrieve, Russell

Mather, Carol

Waddington, David

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Wakeham, John

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Warren, Kenneth

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Forman, Nigel

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Whitney, Raymond

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Wickenden, Keith

Fox, Marcus

Monro, Vector

Wiggin, Jerry

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Moore, John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Goodhart, Philip

Nelson, Anthony

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gow, Ian

Neubert, Michael

Mr Spencer Le Marchant and

Gray, Hamish

Nott, Rt Hon John

Mr. Anthony Berry

Hampson, Dr Keith

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Douglas Jay: I beg to move amendment (c), in subparagraph (a), leave out from 'withheld' to end of motion.
Question put, That the amendment he made:—
The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 99.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 117.

Farris, Matthew

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

Powell, Et Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

Proctor, K Harvey

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

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

Mr. Frank Hooley and

Spearing, Nigel

Wheeler, John

Mr. Frank Haynes

NOES

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Haselhurst, Alan

Neubert, Michael

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Nott, Rt Hon John

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Hayhoe, Barney

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Beith, A. J.

Heddle, John

Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Penhargon, David

Best, Keith

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Percival, Sir Ian

Blackburn, John

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Pyre, Rt Hon Francis

Blaker, Peter

Howells, Geraint

Raison, Timothy

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Hurd, Hon Douglas

Rhodes James, Robert

Brittan, Leon

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Bryan, Sir Paul

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rifkind, Malcolm

Carlisle, Flt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Kershaw, Anthony

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Kimball, Marcus

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

King, Rt Hon Tom

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Colvin, Michael

Knight, Mrs Jill

Sims, Roger

Cope, John

Lamont, Norman

Speed, Keith

Crouch, David

Le Marchant, Spencer

Speller, Tony

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Stevens, Martin

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Loveridge, John

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Luce, Richard

Stradling Thomas, J.

Durant, Tony

Lyell, Nicholas

Tebbit, Norman

Eyre, Reginald

Macfarlane, Neil

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Mather, Carol

Wakeham, John

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Warren, Kenneth

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Whitney, Raymond

Forman, Nigel

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Wickenden, Keith

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Wiggin, Jerry

Fox, Marcus

Monro, Hector

Winterton, Nicholas

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Moore, John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Morgan, Geraint

Goodhart, Philip

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gow, Ian

Needham, Richard

Mr. David Waddington and

Gray, Hamish

Nelson, Anthony

Mr. Peter Brooke

Hampson, Dr Keith

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Jay: I beg to move amendment (d), at end add 'by an oral statement'.

Division No. 485]

AYES

[10.35 p.m.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Hawksley, Warren

Parris, Matthew

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Haynes, Frank

Fenhaligon, David

Beith, A. J.

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Powell, Rt Hon

Enoch (S Down)

Best, Keith

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Proctor, K Harvey

Blackburn, John

Hooley, Frank

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

Body, Richard

Howells, Geraint

Silverman, Julius

Brinton, Tim

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Stanbrook, Ivor

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Browne, John (Winchester)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stevens, Martin

Colvin, Michael

Loveridge, John

Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Lyell, Nicholas

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Crouch, David

McKay, Allen (Pentstone)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Marlow, Tony

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

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

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Wheeler, John

Deakins, Eric

Molyneaux, James

Winterton, Nicholas

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Morgan, Geraint

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Murphy, Christopher

Mr. Nigel Spearing and

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Needham, Richard

Mr. John Maxton

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Fage, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)

NOES

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Britian, Leon

Cope, John

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Blaker, Peter

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Durant, Tony

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 93.

English, Michael

King, Rt Hon Tom

Rhodes James, Robert

Eyre, Reginald

Knight, Mrs Jill

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lamont, Norman

Rifkind, Malcolm

Fairgrieve, Russell

Le Marchant, Spencer

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Luce, Richard

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Forman, Nigel

Macfarlane, Neil

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Sims, Roger

Fox, Marcus

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Speed, Keith

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mather, Carol

Speller, Tony

Goodhart, Philip

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Gow, Ian

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stradling Thomas, J.

Gray, Hamish

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Tebbit, Norman

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Haselhurst, Alan

Monro, Hector

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Moore, John

Waddington, David

Hayhoe, Barney

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Warren, Kenneth

Heddle, John

Nelson, Anthony

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Neubert, Michael

Whitney, Raymond

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Nott, Rt Hon John

Wickenden, Keith

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Wiggin, Jerry

Hurd, Hon Douglas

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Percival, Sir Ian

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Raison, Timothy

Mr. John Wakeham and

Kershaw, Anthony

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Mr. Peter Brooke

Kimball, Marcus

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, no Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council of Ministers to any proposal for European legislation which has been recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation, &c., for consideration by the House before the House has given it that consideration unless

(a) that Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld, or

(b) the Minister concerned decides that for special reasons agreement should not be withheld;

That Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.) be amended as follows:

Line 5, leave out from 'instruments' to 'referred' in line 7.

Line 26, leave out from 'approved' to end of line 28.

Line 32, leave out 'or commission document'.

Line 40, leave out 'or commission document'.

Line 43, leave out '(or commission document)'.

Line 53, leave out 'or commission document'.

Line 57, leave out '3(ii) or 3(iii)' and insert 'or 3(ii)'.

Line 59, leave out 'or commission document'.

Line 62, leave out from 'thereon' to end of line 65.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) wish to move his amendment?
Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment (a), in line 8, at end insert—

Division No. 486]

AYES

[10.45 p.m.

Body, Richard

Haynes, Frank

Molyneaux, James

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Morgan, Geraint

Browne, John (Winchester)

Howells, Geraint

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)

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

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Murphy, Christopher

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Kershaw, Anthony

Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)

English, Michael

Loveridge, John

Parris, Matthew

and in the latter case the Minister should, at the first opportunity thereafter, explain the reasons for his decision to the House.
Resolved,
That a Select Committee should be appointed at the beginning of the next Session of Parliament to examine the House's present procedure for considering and voting on the Government's requests for Supply, and to make recommendations.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

STANDING ORDER No. 73A (STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
'Line 56, after "made", insert "at the commencement of public business".
Leave out lines 66 to 68.'.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 96.

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Winterton, Nicholas

Proctor, K Harvey

Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Deiek

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Spearing, Nigel

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

Mr. Frank Hooter and

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wheeler, John

Mr. A. J. Beith

NOES

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Speithorne)

Gray, Hamish

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Haselhurst, Alan

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Percival, Sir Ian

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hayhoe, Barney

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Best, Keith

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Raison, Timothy

Blackburn, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Blaker, Peter

Hurd, Hon Douglas

Rhodes James, Robert

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rifkind, Malcolm

Brittan, Leon

Kimball, Marcus

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Bryan, Sir Paul

King, Rt Hon Tom

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Knight, Mrs Jill

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Lamont, Norman

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Le Marchant, Spencer

Sims, Roger

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Speller, Tony

Colvin, Michael

Luce, Richard

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Cope, John

Lyell, Nicholas

Stradting Thomas, J.

Crouch, David

Macfarlane, Neil

Tebbit, Norman

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Mather, Carol

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Durant, Tony

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Waddington, David

Eyre, Reginald

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Warren, Kenneth

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Fairgrieve, Russell

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Whitney, Raymond

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Monro, Hector

Wickenden, Keith

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Moore, John

Wiggin, Jerry

Forman, Nigel

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Needham, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Fox, Marcus

Nelson, Anthony

Mr. John Wakeham and

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Neubert, Michael

Mr. Peter Brooke

Goodhart, Philip

Nott, Rt Hon John

Mr. Peter Brooke

Gow, Ian

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.) be amended as follows:
Line 5, leave out from 'instruments' to 'referred' in line 7.
Line 26, leave out from 'approved' to end of line 28.
Line 32, leave out 'or commission document'.
Line 40, leave out 'or commission document'.
Line 43, leave out '(or commission document)'.
Line 53, leave out 'or commission document'.
Line 57, leave out '3(ii) or 3(iii)' and insert or 3(ii)'.
Line 59, leave out 'or commission document'.
846
Line 62, leave out from 'thereon' to end of line 65.

STANDING ORDER No. 62 (NOMINATION OF STANDING COMMITTEES)
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 62 (Nomination of standing committees) be amended as follows:
Line 12, leave out 'commission' and insert European Community'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

STANDING ORDER NO. 60 (CONSTITUTION OF STANDING COMMITTEES)
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 60 (Constitution of standing committees) be amended as follows: Line 8, leave out 'commission' and insert European Community'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.)

STANDING ORDER NO. 3 (EXEMPTED BUSINESS)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) be Emended as follows:
Line 18, leave out 'commission' and insert European Community' .
Line 49, leave out from 'No' to 'documents' in line 50 and insert (Standing Committee on European Community documents) "European Community'.
Line 52, leave out Economic Community and insert 'Communities'.
Line 53, leave out 'secondary'.
Line 54, leave out by the Commission'.
Line 55, at end insert or to the European Council whether or not such documents originate from the Commission'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) wish to move amendment (a)?
Mr. Spearing: Not moved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to move amendment (b)?
Mr. Spearing: Not moved.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Under the Order of the House, we now move to the second group of motions, the first of which is motion 11. The Question is as on the Order Paper——
Mr. English rose ——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it is for the convenience of the House to take motions 11 to 18 together.
Mr. English: No.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that motions 11 to 18 are to be debated together.
Mr. English: I was hoping that the Leader of the House would wish to explain the motions.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would it be for the convenience of the House if we took them separately? They do not have all that much in common.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am the servant of the House. If it is the wish of the House to take them separately, so be it.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am the only common factor.

SUPPLY
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 18 (Business of supply) be amended, as follows:
Line 68, leave out 'and the Expenditure Committee'.
Line 162, leave out paragraph (12).
This is a technical amendment that is linked with the proposed amendment of Standing Order No. 32. Its purpose is to enable the special provisions for putting the Question on amendments to Opposition substantive motions on Supply days to be gathered together in one place. The new provisions were agreed to by the House on 31 October 1979. They follow recommendations made in the third report from the Select Committee on Procedure, the Sessional Committee, Session 1976 to 1977. The deletion of "and the Expenditure Committee" is purely a drafting amendment as the Expenditure Committee is no longer with us.
Question put and agreed to.

QUESTIONS ON AMENDMENTS
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on Amendments) be amended, as follows:
Line 11, after 'supply)' insert '(a)'.
Line 14, after 'insert', insert '(or add)'.
Line 18, after 'there', insert 'inserted (or
Line 18, at end add—
'(b) if such amendment involves leaving out all the effective words of the motion Mr. Speaker shall, after the amendment has been disposed of forthwith declare the main question (as amended or not as the case may be) to be agreed to.'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Standing Order No. 41 (Notices of amendments, &c., to bills) be amended, as follows:
Line 8, leave out 'or Sunday' and insert 'Sunday or bank holiday'—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]
11 pm
Mr. St. John-Stevas: At present, Standing Order No. 41 implies that amendments can be handed in to the Public Bill Office on any bank holiday—for example, the May Day bank holiday—other than a Saturday or a Sunday, which immediately precedes the day on which the House resumes after an Adjournment of more than one day. However, House staff, including printing staff, like hon. Members, are not expected to work on bank holidays. The amendment recognises that and precludes the handing in of amendments on a bank holiday.
Question put and agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR MR. SPEAKER
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Standing Order No. 105 (Deputy Speaker) be amended, as follows:
Line, 7 after 'absence' insert 'or the absence by leave of the House',
Line 26, after 'absence', insert 'or the absence by leave of the House'.
Line 32, after 'absence', insert 'or the absence by leave of the House'.—[Mr. St. John Stevas.]
Mr. St. John Stevas: This amendment arises out of an early-day motion which was tabled last March by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). We have had correspondence on the matter.
At present, Standing Order No. 105 only provides for the House to be informed by the Clerk at the Table of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means or the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. The amendment would provide for leave of absence to be granted by resolution of the House. It would seem appropriate that, where necessary, such a motion should be moved by a Minister.
Mr. Speaker has kindly indicated that he is content with the proposed change.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am much obliged to the Leader of the House for having taken this point and put it into the form of an amendment to the Standing Order.
Hitherto, the House was in the embarrassing position that when Mr. Speaker had leave of absence the Clerk nevertheless had to stand at the Table and inform the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, which threw many of us into alarm that he might be ill and gave others a sense of insincerity that his absence was, indeed, avoidable, though an absence which the House had desired. The amendment will make for a greater decency in our proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.

NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEES
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That no motion shall be made for the nomination of members of Select Committees related to Government departments and of the Select Committees on Scottish and Welsh Affairs, or for their discharge, unless:

(a) notice of the motion has been given at least two sitting days previously, and

(b) the motion is made on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the Chairman or by another member of that Committee.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]
11.2 pm
Mr. George Cunningham: I rise merely to draw the attention of hon. Members to a change that I believe we have effected unintentionally and certainly contrary to the intention of the Procedure Committee. The effect of the motion, which only repeats and consolidates what we did a few months ago, is to remove from hon. Members the right to use Standing Order No. 13 in respect of the nomination of hon. Members to a Select Committee.
Although it is not generally realised to be so, Standing Order No. 13 is available to hon. Members not only to introduce a Ten-Minute Bill but also to propose changes to the composition of Select Committees. However, when we brought the Committee of Selection into the process of nominating people or suggesting names for the new family of Committees—that is, the new departmentally related Committees and the Scottish and Welsh

851
Committees—we cut out Standing Order No. 13 facilities. The Procedure Committee report anticipated that possibility and clearly stated that we should not entirely remove the right of an hon. Member to use Standing Order No. 13 to propose changes to a Select Committee.
I particularly want to point this out to hon. Members tonight, and especially to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who at an earlier stage in our proceedings today was complaining of his non-nomination to a Committee. In the normal way of things, one could have told him that he had a right under Standing Order No. 13. Unfortunately, we removed it a few months ago. We are confirming the removal of that right by the motion.
It is a matter to which hon. Members should give their minds at some time in the future, so that that right under Standing Order No. 13 is restored. It is an important right, although I believe that it has been used only once by a private Member. It is something that we should look at again. If the Leader of the House were good enough to recommend that we should set up a Sessional Procedure Committee next Session, I hope that this little, but important, matter is one which it will pick up.
11.5 pm
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He has mentioned a small point, but it is not unimportant and I shall certainly consider his suggestion sympathetically.
11.6 pm
Mr. English: I hope that the Leader of the House will consider the big point that was agreed by both Front Benches as a change in the Procedure Committee's recommendations. The Committee proposed this procedure through the Committee of Selection for all Select Committees. By a somewhat nefarious compromise with the Leader of the House, the two Chief Whips rescued their power of patronage over existing Committees, so that all the Committes that existed before the new Select Committees were set up are still subject to motions put to the House in the name of the Government's Deputy Chief Whip. That is not what the Procedure Com-
852
mittee proposed, and that needs to be made plain.
We proposed that the Committee of Selection should have some say in the selection of all members of Select Committees. The matter becomes peculiarly important on the Committees dealing with the Ombudsman and public accounts. There is already considerable criticism from the Expenditure Committee, the Procedure Committee, the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and the Public Accounts Committee of our archaic system of audit which is almost totally under the control of the Treasury, which is supposed to be audited. Few people in the United Kingdom have the power to chase off their auditor, but section 3(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921 provides that the Treasury's decision is final in any dispute between it and the Comptroller and Auditor General.
In the same way, the Treasury, through its Whips, determines the composition of the PAC. That must be wrong. Our audit is bad enough without jurisdiction over it being subjected entirely to Treasury control. I hope that the Leader of the House, whom I do not blame for changing the resolution, will consider the original recommendations of the Procedure Committee in all respects when he is considering the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South. and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham).
The way that the Committee of Selection has so far exercised its powers also needs consideration. The official position of the Government Chief Whip is that he had no say in the composition of the majority side of Select Committees and one must accept his word, but, by a mysterious process of osmosis, all PPSs have been kept off Select Committees—not only, in the normal traditions of the House, kept off those relating to the Department in which they are PPSs, but kept off all the Committees. All officers of the Conservative Back-Bench groups have been kept off Select Committees. It is not for me to point out that that rather weakens the Government's case on Select Committees or weakens the calibre of those

853
applying to be officers of the Conservatives' Back-Bench groups.
Those are not matters for me in a party sense, but in a House of Commons sense we must protest that by some process, whatever it may be, there has been a deliberate reduction in the calibre of Conservative Members on Select Committees. It is extremely unfortunate.
There is scope for the review of the original recommendations of the Procedure Committee, both because they have not been carried out and because their implementation seems to have defects.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall add that matter to my reflections.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That no motion shall be made for the nomination of members of Select Committees related to Government departments and of the Select Committees on Scottish and Welsh Affairs, or for their discharge, unless:

(a) notice of the motion has been given at least two sitting days previously, and

(b) the motion is made on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the Chairman or by another member of that Committee.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

COMMITTAL OF BILLS
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 33 (Selection of amendments) be amended, as follows:
Line 21, after 'to', insert 'commit or'.
This amendment will enable Mr. Speaker to select or, if he does not wish to, not to select motions to commit Bills as if they were amendments under paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 33. As at present drafted, Mr. Speaker's power of selection is limited to motions to recommit Bills.
Question put and agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
11.12 pm
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 86A (Select Committes related to government departments) be amended; as follows:
Line 17, leave out 'and'.
Line 18, after 'Wales', insert 'and of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for Northern Ireland'.
Since the repeal of the Northern Ireland Assembly Act in 1974, the annual reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for Northern Ireland have been laid before this House. But they have not been subject to scrutiny by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. After taking evidence from the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner, with the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Select Committee recommended in its report last Session that its orders of reference should be extended to allow it to examine the reports of the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner.
The proposed amendment is designed to give effect to the Select Committee's recommendation. It seems right that so long as there is no elected body in Northern Ireland before which reports of the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner might be laid, and so long as these reports continue to be laid before Parliament, they should receive the fullest parliamentary attention and scrutiny without diminishing their separate Northern Ireland status. This will end the unreasonable arrangement whereby the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is the only Westminster Select Committee that is precluded from covering Northern Ireland issues. I therefore commend the motion to the House.
11.14 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My hon. Friends and I are grateful to all who have collaborated to bring about this very real rationalisation. The suggestion was first made by us and accepted in principle by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) in the last Parliament but was not able to be put into effect until the

855
present Parliament. We are grateful to see it embodied in a Standing Order of the House.
There is a further stage in rationalisation. That happened to occur briefly a few months ago when, temporarily, the Great Britain Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration discharged the functions of the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. My hon. Friends and I, considering that there should be the same standards of administration applied in all parts of the United Kingdom, regarded this as a satisfactory arrangement and were sorry that it was the—one hopes, temporary—decision of the Government again to-separate the two offices. Pending there being one Parliamentary Commissioner for all parts of the United Kingdom, applying the same methods and the same standards to his investigations, we are glad that the Northern Ireland reports are laid before this House, which is responsible for the administration of Northern Ireland, and that, being so laid, they will now come under the scrutiny of the Select Committee.
It is a reform that was necessary. We are grateful for it.
Question put and agreed to.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
11.15 pm
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 87A (Consolidation, &c., bills) be amended, as follows:
Line 29, at end insert—
(f) any Order in Council laid or laid in draft before the House where an affirmative resolution is required before it is made, or is a condition of its continuance in operation, and which but for the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 would, in the opinion of the Committee, have been enacted by a Consolidation Bill, whether public or private, or by a Statute Law Revision Bill.
The effect of this amendment is to enable Northern Ireland consolidation orders to come within the remit of the Joint Committee on consolidation and statute law revision. As hon. Members will know, most primary legislation for Northern Ireland dealing with matters within the competence of the former Northern Ireland Assembly is effected by
856
Orders in Council during direct rule. The consolidation of legislation of such matters is also promulgated by Orders in Council.
Unlike consolidation Bills, Northern Ireland consolidation orders are not subject to any special scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. They are, of course, subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses and, therefore, they undergo a measure of parliamentary scrutiny. In practice, there is usually little or no debate. The often complex and technical nature of consolidation legislation makes it difficult for hon. Members to give it proper consideration. That is why consolidation Bills go to the Joint Committee on which are experienced legal experts who can scrutinise them in detail and provide Parliament with an expert report.
Since Northern Ireland consolidation Orders in Council do not go to the Joint Committee, hon. Members are obliged to some extent to take on trust that a particular Order in Council, which purports to consolidate the law, actually fulfils that task and does no more and no less. It seems clear that it would be most valuable were Northern Ireland consolidation Orders in Council to be referred to the Joint Committee, which can give such legislative proposals the expert scrutiny which they do not have at present. It will close a small but not wholly insignificant gap in the parliamentary scrutiny given to consolidation legislation.
I understand that the Committee willingly is prepared to take on the extra burden. I am sure that the House will be grateful for that. I express my gratitude to the noble Lord who chairs the Committee. The Committee is unable to take on the task until its terms of reference under Standing Orders are changed. The necessary amendments to Standing Orders in the Lords have already been approved. The motion completes the process.
11.17 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My hon. Friends and I and, I am sure, if only they were aware of it, the other representatives of Northern Ireland constituencies, are obliged both to the Joint Committee and to the Leader of the House for an act of

857
justice as well as common sense in extending the remit of the Joint Committee in this way.
Ever since Orders in Council under the 1974 temporary provisions Act have come before the House, the occupants of the Chair have invariably applied to those Orders in Council which are of a consolidating character the same rules of procedure as apply to consolidation Bills. We have not been permitted, and, indeed, have not sought, to carry debate beyond the question whether they were truly consolidating and whether the consolidation was correct.
However, there has been a loophole in the armoury, namely, that whereas hon. Members, when dealing with other consolidation measures, had behind them the assurance of the scrutiny of the Joint Committee, no such scrutiny was being given in our case: we were taking the reality of the consolidation upon the word of the Executive. That was not as it should be, and this amendment to the Standing Order will put it right.
I should not like to leave the motion without reminding the House that there still continues the anomaly whereby the citizens of a part of the United Kingdom have some of their law made for them by a process which would not be acceptable in the rest of the kingdom—namely, by
858
Order in Council. Measures of this kind can and do alleviate the impropriety of that discrimination against one part of the United Kingdom, but sooner or later the discrimination itself will have to be removed. The fact that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom will have to be recognised in the proper way and in the proper place—in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House confirm that the membership of the Joint Committee will be strengthened by the inclusion of hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly consider that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 87A (Consolidation, &c., bills) be amended, as follows:
Line 29, at end insert—
(f) any Order in Council laid or laid in draft before the House where an affirmative resolution is required before it is made, or is a condition of its continuance in operation, and which but for the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 would, in the opinion of the Committee, have been enacted by a Consolidation Bill, whether public or private, or by a Statute Law Revision Bill.

ORDERS OF THE DAY OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
11.20 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is a consolidation of a considerable body of law relating to the terms and conditions on which aid and assistance may be granted to overseas territories. It will replace 17 complete Acts of Parliament and parts of 12 others that will be repealed by the Bill. It will make a useful contribution to the tidying up of the statute book. We have the advantage here of having the assistance of the Joint Committee, which has certified in the usual way. Unless the House wishes me to deal with the Bill in any more detail, I shall content myself by commending it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
Committee tomorrow.

LIMITATION BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
11.22 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill consolidates the law relating to the limitation of actions in our courts of law. It was last consolidated in 1939, since when we have had four important amending statutes, the latest of which was in 1980. The Bill is pure consolidation. It has been considered by the Joint Committee, to which we are always so much indebted. It is satisfied that the Bill represents the existing law and that there is no point to which the attention of the House should be drawn. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.
11.23 pm
Mr. Peter Archer: If I say a word of welcome to the Bill, I hope that it will not be thought to imply any disrespect either to the previous Bill or to the next Bill. It means only that I think that once is enough at this time in the evening.
This is an especially welcome consolidation measure. The law on the limitation of actions has grown piecemeal since 1939 as various sorts of hardship have revealed themselves over the years. The provisions in the Bill are found in the Limitation Acts of 1939, 1963 and 1975, the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 and the Limitation Amendment Act 1980. It is high time that we were able to find all the provisions on that subject in one place.
I rose especially because an interesting feature of the Bill is the courage with which the draftsman has departed from the language of previous statutes where that seemed appropriate and has said the same thing in a different way. We are sometimes afraid of using different terminology in case we inadvertently change the law. But the language of the law is not enshrined in holy writ, and on occasion there is something to be said for changing either the order in which something is said or the actual terminology used for saying it.
But the draftsman has not fallen into the converse trap of thinking that technical legal terminology can be changed

861
into the language of the market place That is not always possible because, understandably, legal concepts sometimes require familiarity with the history and background. Speaking personally, I should hesitate to attempt to pilot a space rocket with the help of a do-it-yourself manual which attempted to turn the equations of nuclear physics into monosyllables.
I echo what was said in the Joint Committee, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson). It is important that the meaning of words should be known to those who have to apply them. For that reason, I think that the drafting techniques that appeal to the House should be commended by us so as to encourage draftsmen to adopt them on future occasions. If we have to wait for action on the recommendations of the Renton committee, perhaps at least we can encourage draftsmen in well-doing.
There may be provisions in the Bill that will require amendment in the light of future experience—for example, the provisions relating to latent damage—but we cannot delay consolidation until the law is perfect for the next decade. Sufficient unto the day is the complication thereof. As I said on a previous occasion, the Opposition will do all we can to facilitate proper measures of law reform or consolidation when the Government find the time for them.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Berry.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported without amendment.
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, without amendment.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
11.27 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I propose to say a litle more about this Bill than about the previous two Bills, because it raises a number of questions that I know to be of interest to right hon. and lion. Members whose constituencies are in the Province. They have been good enough to indicate what those questions are, and I should like to say a word about each, albeit briefly, because I do not think that any of them requires long explanations.
It is important that the House should realise that this Bill is different from the previous two. It is a conventional statute law revision Bill making a number of detailed repeals in the statute law of Northern Ireland. It is important, too, to realise the difference between this and a statute law repeal Bill, which can contain repeals of provisions that are still effective but are considered to be of no further practical utility. In other words, such a Bill necessitates value judgments, whereas a statute law revision Bill deals solely with the repeal of statutory provisions that are clearly demonstrated to be
"obsolete, spent, unnecessary or superseded"—
to quote the long title. It is with the latter kind of Bill that we are now concerned.
The Bill has been considered by the Joint Committee on the consolidation and statute law revision Bills. I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—in connection with a motion that was before the House just a little time ago—express the satisfaction that we all feel with this as a method of scrutiny. That Committee found that all the repeals effected by the Bill fell within the long title.
The Government are most grateful to all the members of the Joint Committee, and in particular to their noble and learned Chairman, Lord Keith of Kinkel, for the truly marvellous work that they do on Bills such as this. One has only to look at the notes on the Bill, which extend to 103 pages, to realise the labours

863
that the Members of this House have been saved. If it were not that the Committee had gone through this, item by item, and had assured us now that every part of the matters referred to are obsolete, spent and so on, that is a task which would fall on the House. We owe an immense debt to the Committee for taking that burden off the shoulders of the House.
The Bill effects a considerable number of detailed repeals, and I do not think that the House would wish me to mention more than a few. I shall give some idea of the sort of thing that is dealt with. All the specific items repealed are set out in the schedule, which consists of a large number of different parts. Part II is entitled "Appeals" and lists 13 different Acts in which repeals are being made. The provisions being proposed for repeal allow persons to appeal against certain convictions and orders of magistrates' courts.
When those Acts were passed in the nineteenth century and the early part of this century, it was necessary to include such provisions as there was no general enactment which had the same effect. However, sections 140 and 143 of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 now authorise appeals against sentence or conviction and from other orders made by magistrates' courts in Northern Ireland. The earlier provisions, having been superseded by sections 140 and 143, are no longer needed.
Part XIV of the schedule effects repeals in a miscellany of Acts. It was referred to in the minutes of evidence as being open to the description of a ragbag of different and assorted statutes. One entry which is repealed is the residue of the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1900. All the substantive provisions of that Act have already been repealed by earlier legislation. The only provisions in it which are still alive consist of the short and long titles. Obviously, those provisions are no longer necessary in view of the earlier repeals.
Might I say a word about one aspect which I know is of importance to the right hon Member for Down, South? I have spoken about the differences between statute law revision and statute law repeal. It is important to remember that the differences are of two kinds. One relates to the content of the two
864
different kinds of Bill and the other relates to the procedures to which the two different kinds of Bill are subject. I need say no more about the difference in the content. The important thing is that, while the one does not entail any kind of value judgment, the other does, because statute law repeal Bills are repealing provisions which have some effect in law but which it has been decided have no practical utility. That is the difference.
I can now limit myself as to the difference in procedure. There may he some misunderstanding here. With the statute law repeal Bill there are two possibilities. I am speaking now of Northern Ireland. These possibilities were referred to by the draftsmen in giving evidence to the Joint Committee when it was considering the Bill. Where it was desired to repeal a provision which would be the subject of a statute law repeal Bill rather than a statute law revision Bill, there were the two choices. Either the draftsmen could seek to persuade the Law Commission to include it in a Bill being put forward by the Law Commission or it could be done by Order in Council. I believe that to be right, although it means that the position is slightly different in that respect in Northern Ireland. It does, however. mean that there are the two possibilities. As far as I know, there is nothing lost by having these alternatives. If the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues feel that there is, I shall be glad to discuss that with them.
As to English statute law revision Bills, there has not been one since the Law Commission was established. The last one was in the 1965–66 Session. I have looked it up. There have been two statute law revision Bills since then. but they were both Northern Ireland matters.
The right hon. Gentleman is aware of how a statute law revision Bill is dealt with. There have been two previous statute law revision Bills in the 1970s. In each case, what has happened is that the draftsman has had, so to speak, a free run up to the Joint Committee stage or up to the Second Reading in the other place. Then the Joint Committee has received the Bill together with very comprehensive notes on the Bill, as in this case, and the very valuable process

865
of scrutiny by that Committee has taken place. There has not been a statute law revision Bill since the 1965–66 Session and, therefore, no procedure has been established as to how the Law Commission would deal with it.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is a task to which a good deal of parliamentary draftsmen's time must be allotted. When a parliamentary draftsman is asked to produce a statute law revision Bill, he has to go backwards and forwards through the statutes seeing what he can include in it. As the right hon. Gentleman also knows, there are parliamentary counsel seconded to the Law Commission, and it would be a very obvious task for them to undertake. We do not know exactly how it would be done, because it has not arisen yet. What we do know is that, however the Bill is initiated and promoted, it would still be subject to the vital procedure, which is scrutiny by the Joint Committee about which we have been speaking. I think that those are the differences and that on examination they will be seen to be probably differences of form rather than of substance.
Perhaps the most important feature and purpose of the Bill is that it will pave the way for a second edition of "Statutes Revised" in Northern Ireland. That is its purpose. If we get all these statutes out of the way, the revised edition will be that much shorter and that much less cumbersome and that much easier for the practitioner to use. The purpose of the work of the draftsmen in the two previous Bills and now in this one, if the House approves it, is to have a revised edition of the statutes without all this surplusage. It is for that reason that I commend the Bill to the House and express the hope that it will have a speedy passage.
11.39 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am very grateful indeed to the learned Solicitor-General for having propounded the Bill in a much less than perfunctory manner and, indeed, for having at an earlier stage, through correspondence, sought to remove some of the anxieties which my hon. Friends and I felt on being confronted with this legislation and attempting to understand its character
866
and purport and the extent to which we might ourselves be required by our duty to give it close scrutiny.
The statute law of Northern Ireland is of a much more multifarious origin than the statute law of this part of the kingdom. A glance at some of the parts of the schedule to the Bill reminds us of the various components of that statute law. I notice that many of the statutes cited in those parts go back not only to the Parliament of Ireland but to the Parliament of Ireland before that of 1782, known as Grattan's Parliament, which, though short-lived, was the Parliament eventually absorbed into this Parliament in the year 1800.
So there is the legislation of the Parliament of Ireland both before and after 1782; there is the legislation of this Parliament, specifically relating to Northern Ireland, while this Parliament was the only legislature for Northern Ireland up to 1922; there is, after 1922 and up to 1972, the legislation both of this Parliament in respect of Northern Ireland and of the Northern Ireland Parliament; finally, there is the legislation of that short, ill-fated experiment of the Northern Ireland Assembly, though I do not expect that any of its deeds have got around yet to requiring revision. That being so, the convenience and desirability of an edition of the "Statutes Revised" is self-evident; and, as the Solicitor-General said, the essential case for this Bill is that it makes possible a better edition of the "Statutes Revised"—I understand there is anxiety to bring one out now as soon as possible—than would otherwise have been available.
Though it was originally proposed to treat this as a consolidation measure, and although the Leader of the House twice before the Summer Recess erroneously referred to it in reply to the business question as a consolidation measure, the Bill is not consolidation, as the Solicitor-General made clear. The fact that it goes to the Joint Select Committee may, perhaps, have given rise to the error of the Leader of the House; but the title of that Committee is Joint Committee on Consolidation &c. Bills, and it is under the "&c." that this Bill received the very valuable attention, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, of the Committee.

867
It is legislation to deal—I am sure that this is not a legal expression, but I found it helpful—with objective obsolescence. A repeal Bill might be required to deal with subjective obsolescence; but in so far as this Bill removes what is obsolete, it removes what is objectively obsolete, or at any rate is intended to do so. A study of the notes on the Bill prepared by the Office of the Legislative Draftsman at Stormont should satisfy any inquirer upon the nature of the revision contained in the Bill, of which two particularly drastic examples were given by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I cannot say—his speech has rendered this admission much easier for me—that I have worked my way through all the items in the schedule with the assistance of the notes on the Bill; but I can say that I have compared sufficient of the two to grasp the nature of the revision process and to join the Solicitor-General in expressing the appreciation of my colleagues and myself for the work done for us by the Joint Select Committee.
I think it is a pity, though probably there is no way of remedying it, that the public, and probably even the legal public, in Northern Ireland do not realise that in work of this kind the Parliament of the Union is working for Northern Ireland as it works for the rest of the kingdom. Maybe that understanding would be of more value and reassurance to the public in Northern Ireland than many other sorts of statement which, unfortunately, receive more publicity.
The Solicitor-General distinguished this type of Bill from a repeals Bill; but he gave no indication as to whether there might be, in preparation or on its way, a Northern Ireland statute law repeals Bill. I see the faint trace of a negative upon the countenance of the Solicitor-General; but that may be an expression of mere nescience rather than a direct negative.
What the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech left open, and what remains for study between now and that indefinite date, is what will prove to be the best procedure when that task has to be tackled; for we do not have a separate Law Commission for Northern Ireland, and the use of the Law Commission at one stage in producing a Bill rather than procedure by Order in Council would
868
clearly be preferable from the point of view of Northern Ireland.
I hope, therefore, that there may continue on this subject the helpful contact which has been established in the context of this Bill between the Law Officers and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. I again express my appreciation to the Solicitor-General for the great care that he has devoted to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr Waddington.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
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, without amendment.

EMPLOYMENT (GLASGOW)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Waddington.]
11.49 pm
Mr. Jim Craigen: I deliberately used the title "Employment in the Glasgow area" for this debate because I want Scottish Office Ministers to concern themselves much more with the city's shrinking economic and employment base, especially at a time when 58,000 people are out of work in Glasgow and more than 74,000 are out of work within the Glasgow travel-to-work area.
I want to warn the Minister of the accumulated effects of the Government's economic and expenditure policies on the city's industrial prospects. Glasgow now has one-quarter of Scotland's total jobless, although only one-sixth of her population.
The signs are of a further deterioration in the employment pattern within the city and a growing disparity between the position in Glasgow and the overall Scottish position. As the Minister knows, redundancies have been increased in West Scotland at an alarming rate recently, and I know that this has been giving concern

869
to the Manpower Services Commission in Scotland.
Next month, another clothing firm in my constituency will be closing. Eighty-five jobs are involved. This is a firm that two years ago was seeking my assistance because it had trouble over skilled labour shortage. The company gives the recession, foreign competition and falling local authority orders as being the main reason for the closure.
I should like to ask the Minister whether, in the Government support for the promotion of small firms, attention is being paid to the central Government procurement procedures. For example, has there been any change in the purchasing procedure, even within the Scottish Office in the way in which it makes purchases, or is it simply that there has been an overall drop in the amount of central Government and certain local government procurement?
As the Minister will be aware, Glasgow is no longer basically a manufacturing centre. We have had a continuous decline in our basic industries and in many of our low-technology metal engineering concerns, and nowadays less than 30 per cent. of the work force is engaged in manufacturing. It is the service sector which now provides 70 per cent. of Glasgow's jobs, and these occupations are becoming highly vulnerable to the decline in consumer spending.
This is a pattern which is reflected throughout the country, but I suggest that there are certain aspects of the position in Glasgow that will worsen the consumer spending pattern even further. Retailers, for example, are expecting their poorest trading results ever in 1980. There may be some pick-up at the time of the Christmas period, but even food sales are being affected at the minute.
As the Minister will appreciate, this has a knock-on effect, with a rippling impact on other industries and concerns. In his capacity as Minister for home affairs and the environment, he cannot escape the fact that the policies over the Scottish Special Housing Association and support for local authorities will result in redundancies in the construction industry at a time when that industry is already reeling under the effects of changes in the pattern of public expenditure. Indeed, several modernisation schemes within my own constituency
870
will be affected, quite apart from new-build projects in various parts of Scotland.
At a meeting that I attended last week in Glasgow, the convener of housing made clear that the city would require £72 million in housing support grant for 1980–81 just to maintain existing maintenance and repair work and the other housing services within Glasgow.
In looking at the employment or unemployment background of those in the Strathclyde region, one finds that last June about half of the total male unemployed were classified as general labourers available for unskilled or semi-skilled work, and about a quarter of the female total of unemployed were in the same category. This position is even more pronounced within the Glasgow area, and I need hardly tell the Minister that the opportunities for unskilled and semiskilled work have been shrinking over the years.
Glasgow has now been caught up in the consequences of overall Government mismanagement. I do not expect the Minister to deal with the exchange rate, interest rates, the level of inflation or public expenditure cuts. The Government are pursuing their own course on the basis that they want to reduce public expenditure, but to a great extent they are shifting the nature of public expenditure so that we shall be paying more to support people out of work.
Against the background of what is happening nationally, I should like the Minister to consider a number of measures which would do a little to ameliorate the position of special development areas, such as Glasgow, where, as I have pointed out, the purchasing power will be reduced.
With poor prospects facing school leavers in the Glasgow conurbation, I should like the Scottish Office to consider a centrally funded scheme of educational bursaries to assist 16 to 18-year olds to remain at school. I know that a discretionary bursary is operating. I understand that in Glasgow about 612 category A discretionary bursaries are currently being applied. But that has an impact on the local authority's expenditure.
Glasgow has a higher percentage of young jobless than the average for the country. Therefore, I should like the

871
Government to reintroduce the youth subsidy to small firms in special development areas. Our experience with the youth subsidy was helpful in the recruitment of school leavers. Moreover, the availability of a large number of well-qualified youngsters was one of the main arguments advanced by Glasgow in its campaign for Civil Service jobs.
What is the position regarding the Ministry of Defence dispersal jobs to the St. Enoch's site in Glasgow? One reads that the first tranche of jobs for the Overseas Development Administration to East Kilbride will be next February. But are we right in assuming that the suggested transfer of the Crown Agents pensions department will substitute the second tranche of dispersal for the Overseas Development Administration? Will the Minister indicate how many jobs in the Civil Service will be lost in the Glasgow area as a result of the Prime Minister's statement last May about future levels of national Civil Service staffing?
The last thing that many small business men in Glasgow want is the implementation of the Government's Green Paper on income during initial sickness. Seeking to transfer more of the cost of sickness to the employer will make the disincentive to recruit additional labour even greater. The Government ought to he reducing the employer's national insurance contributions in special development areas so as to ease labour recruitment. Moreover, I suggest that there is a good argument for abolishing the employer's national insurance surcharge in special development areas for those up to the age of 18. That would help considerably in the recruitment of youngsters.
I understand that the other Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), has another ministerial commitment. It is fortuitous that the Minister present, with his responsibility for home affairs and the environment, plays a particular part in the handling of the rate support grant and the housing support grant settlements. I want him to bear in mind that nationally the local authorities and public bodies are responsible for about a quarter of all the places under the youth opportunities programme. I hope that he will remember
872
th0at when it comes to the settlements, because many local authorities will be under pressures concerning staffing.
The youth opportunities programme has provided a useful safety valve in easing unemployment among young people, but there is a limit to the pressure it can take in terms of numbers. It is now coping with many youngsters who are really of craft and technician potential and who were not thought of in terms of the original job creation programme. In the case of work experience in employers' premises, it stands to reason that if there is a continual reduction in the number of opportunities within private companies there will be fewer opportunities for youngsters to gain this kind of work experience.
I turn to the question of the enterprise zone which has been earmarked for the Greater Glasgow conurbation. The designated area is more or less next door to my constituency. It would be helpful to Glasgow's industrial prospects if the Government, having conceded rates relief in terms of an enterprise zone, were to extend that helpfulness to industry generally in Glasgow.
I should be interested to know tonight how the Government hope to prevent moonlighting by companies. I am concerned that some firms will see it as a house-moving opportunity and that it may not result in extra employment opportunities overall. Is there the danger that the enterprise zone could have a preponderance of warehousing jobs rather than manufacturing capacity?
I turn briefly to the excellent work which the Scottish Development Agency has been doing in recent years. I am not so much in contact with its work in the eastern Glasgow renewal area, although I have welcomed the work that it has been able to do, particularly environmentally and industrially so far, in the Maryhill corridor. Indeed, I have benefited to some extent through the fact that the Sighthill Park was one of its major commitments in creating a new public park in Glasgow.
I hope that the Government will sustain the efforts of the SDA in land renewal, because it is vital that the city should be as attractive as possible to incoming industrial concerns.

873
The Minister might comment briefly on the work in connection with the location of a Scottish exhibition centre. The SDA has been considering suitable sites. I think that rightly West Scotland, with its credentials in terms of motorway, airport and rail connections, is a suitable location. If a new site is chosen in Glasgow, I wonder whether it will kill off the Kelvin Hall.
Finally, the Government must do all that they can to encourage the efforts being made by the SDA over the promotion of a science park within West Scotland. I should like to see a science park located in Glasgow. The two universities must be fully involved in the exercise if we are to give the city a future and provide Glaswegians with the opportunity for more high-technology work in future.
Perhaps I can bend the Minister's ear over the Dawsholm site. The disused gas works are presently in the ownership of British Gas, which for some considerable time has been haggling with the Scottish Development Agency over the district valuer's price. It has refused to go to arbitration. It has put the site on the open market but seemingly has found no one who is interested in coming forward.
The district of Glasgow wants to develop the site for industrial purposes, but the land still lies sterilised. The Prime Minister has said that she is not for turning. I hope that the Minister will realise the significance of what I am saying. Unless Scottish Office Ministers interest themselves in Scotland's largest urban area, Glasgow will reach the point of no return industrially.
12.6 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkhid): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Craigen) on raising this subject for debate. As a Member representing a Glasgow constituency, he has a natural interest in both his constituency and the remainder of Glasgow. I assure him that the problem that he has raised has a much wider significance. I am sure that he will agree that Glasgow is one of the United Kingdom's great cities and that the economic health and prosperity of Glasgow can always be said to be a marker
874
and indication of Scotland's economic prosperity. The subject that he has raised is of considerable importance. I can assure him that Scottish Office Ministers of this Government, as of previous Governments, have recognised that by their words and their deeds and that they will continue to do so.
The problem of unemployment in the Glasgow area is serious and the Government share the hon. Gentleman's undoubted concern from not only a statistical point of view. We recognise the anguish that unemployment causes those who suffer it and the sense of frustration and waste inherent in any level of unemployment. We are as concerned as the hon. Gentleman to find a remedy to the problem.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate—I think that it is undeniably the case—that regrettably the problems of unemployment in the Glasgow area, as elsewhere, are not a new phenomenon. Over recent years we have seen a remorseless rise in the level of unemployment. In 1974 there were 27,892 unemployed. Five years later, in 1979, the figure had doubled to 53,801. We now have a figure of almost 75,000. These are serious figures.
I mention that historical background to illustrate two fundamentally important aspects of the problem and not to make a party point. First, I must emphasise that the problem of unemployment did not begin 18 months ago as is sometimes suggested. The fact that unemployment doubled while the previous Labour Government were in office, despite a policy of increased public expenditure, should bring home to the House and the public that demands for increases in public expenditure are not an answer to Glasgow's problems or to the unemployment problem of the United Kingdom. During that period we saw increases in expenditure and a remorseless increase in the level of unemployment.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government believe that the longterm solution to the problem is the conquest of inflation. Tonight is not the occasion to go into the reasons for that. These have been well ventilated, not least in yesterday's debate. There are a number of specific measures that the Government have taken and are taking that we

875
believe will make an important contribution to Glasgow's problems. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a number of them.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that Glasgow continues to have special development area status. The Government's decision to reduce substantially the proportion of Scotland that has such development area status has as one consequence considerable benefits for Glasgow and the west of Scotland. Instead of the whole of Scotland having a similar attraction to industry, the concentration of development area status in Glasgow and the adjoining areas has conveyed a relative advantage. That is an important consideration.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Government's decision to set up an enterprise zone in Clydebank, which is in the Glasgow working area. That is an important innovation and one that has already led to a considerable attraction of interest to develop the Clydebank zone. I entirely agree that it would be undesirable if the only consequence of establishing Clydebank as an enterprise was to encourage industries that already exist in the Glasgow area to move from other areas to Clydebank. That is not the purpose of an enterprise zone. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that the purpose of such a zone should be to attract new industry and jobs. We hope that the zone will come into practical effect by about 1 April. It will be a considerable contribution towards helping to deal with the economic problems.
The hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute to the achievements of the Scottish Development Agency in the Glasgow area. It has made an important contribution. Since 1975, ½ million sq ft of factory accommodation has been made available. A further ½ million is under construction, which will make an important contribution to attracting employment and industry to the Glasgow area. Earlier this year the Scottish Development Agency unveiled its plans for a £40 million complex at St. Enoch's which it is believed will have a potential for 15,000 jobs. That, too, is an optimistic and encouraging note in the attraction of industry.
The hon. Gentleman indicated his view that the reduction in the resources of the
876
Scottish Special Housing Association would have an effect on the construction industry in Glasgow and elsewhere. However, one priority that it has been given by the Government is to continue the work that it is doing in the GEAR—Glasgow east area renewal—area of Glasgow. Concentrating its resources in the GEAR area and the other priority areas that the Government have indicated will make a major contribution to solving the problems that the hon. Member indicates. Since the GEAR project began, the association has completed a large number of housing units, which has been a major contribution to the construction industry. That trend is continuing, notwithstanding the reduced resources available to the Scottish Special Housing Association. Since the project began, 75 small factory units and six larger advanced units in the East End have been completed and almost all are occupied, thereby showing the potential for further development of this kind.
The hon. Gentleman expressed his concern that the local authorities may not find it possible to respond to the increased youth opportunities programme that the Government are providing. I understand his concern. However, the Manpower Services Commission has initiated a press and television campaign to try to encourage private industries to respond to an even greater extent in order to provide places for youngsters who wish to benefit from the programme. That will help to deal with any problem that the hon. Gentleman may envisage and provide a better prospect of long-term employment for the youngsters. A firm that benefits from the programme may be in a better position to offer the youngsters a permanent job.
The hon. Gentleman considered that the small firms employment subsidy should be reintroduced and not discontinued. The Government decided to discontinue the subsidy because it was seen to be the least cost-effective of the special employment measures and surveys had shown that a large proportion of the jobs supported by the subsidy would have arisen in any event. Clearly, at any time, though particularly when resources are limited, it would be unwise to use resources to appear to be providing jobs when all the evidence

877
indicates that the jobs would be provided anyway. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree, on reflection, that that would not be the best use of the resources.
The hon. Gentleman asked about dispersal. The Ministry of Defence has selected the units of London-based work expected to be moved and the task of establishing their accommodation requirements and planning for the building to house them is proceeding. On present plans, St. Enoch's will be ready for occupation in 1986. That time scale for completion is necessary in a development of this magnitude, costing about £15 million. Consideration is also being given to the feasibility of providing temporary accommodation to permit an advance move of posts and we hope to make a statement in the near future on the conclusion of those deliberations.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was any prospect of the pensions department of the Crown Agents being involved in any move. I understand that discussions are being held with the Crown Agents to see whether that is a possibility.
The hon. Gentleman commented on the question of an exhibition centre, and he will be aware that the SDA is undertaking a study of that possibility. The Government will obviously look with interest at the conclusions to see whether such a development would be appropriate.
878
The hon. Gentleman has put forward some interesting proposals which I will commend to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responsible for education and industry at the Scottish Office, because some of them relate specifically to his responsibilities.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government share his anxiety about the need to improve employment prospects for his constituents and the citizens of Glasgow as a whole. We recognise that Scotland's economy cannot be said to be prosperous or successful until that of Glasgow can be seen to be in that category. The Government have shown by their policies that they recognise the special needs of Glasgow and that its problems are more serious and considerable than those of many other parts of Glasgow. We have shown that not only in action on development area status but in the other ways that I have indicated.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising the issue. I know that it will not be the last time that the subject is debated, nor should it be, but I hope that I have given him some assurance that the Government share his concern and are determined to do all in their power to try to help to rectify the situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  St. Lucia
  St. Lucia
TRADE
  Petrol Prices
  Petrol Prices
  European Community-Israel Trade Agreement
  European Community-Israel Trade Agreement
  Manchester Airport
  Manchester Airport
  Dan Air Boeing 727 (Accident)
  Dan Air Boeing 727 (Accident)
  Trawlers (Radio Officers)
  Trawlers (Radio Officers)
  European Community (Balance of Trade)
  European Community (Balance of Trade)
  Energy Costs (Subsidisation)
  Energy Costs (Subsidisation)
  European Community Funds
  European Community Funds
  Petrol
  Petrol
  Air Services
  Air Services
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Official Report
  Official Report
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
  Staff (Late Night Payments)
  Staff (Late Night Payments)
LIVERPOOL
  LIVERPOOL
  LIVERPOOL
WALES
  Further Education
  Further Education
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Wandsworth
  Wandsworth
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Temporary Short Time Working Compensation Scheme
  Temporary Short Time Working Compensation Scheme
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
  Disablement Resettlement Officers
  Disablement Resettlement Officers
PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
CHIPPING BARNET
  CHIPPING BARNET
  CHIPPING BARNET
HARROW
  HARROW
  HARROW
SAVINGS STAMPS
  SAVINGS STAMPS
  SAVINGS STAMPS
ST. FERGUS
  ST. FERGUS
  ST. FERGUS
WAGE SETTLEMENTS
  WAGE SETTLEMENTS
  WAGE SETTLEMENTS
TUC
  TUC
  TUC
DISABLED TENANTS (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  DISABLED TENANTS (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  DISABLED TENANTS (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
SCOTLAND
  Departmental Statistics
  Departmental Statistics
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Primary Schooling (Dundee)
  Primary Schooling (Dundee)
  Gaelic
  Gaelic
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Local Authority Functions (Referendums)
  Local Authority Functions (Referendums)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Departmental Statistics
  Departmental Statistics
SHOPLIFTING
  SHOPLIFTING
  SHOPLIFTING
ENERGY
  Industrial Gas Pricing
  Industrial Gas Pricing
  Uranium
  Uranium
  Wave Energy
  Wave Energy
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Disarmament
  Disarmament
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mr. Mustafa Mehmet (Member's Correspondence)
  Mr. Mustafa Mehmet (Member's Correspondence)
  Coloured Persons (London)
  Coloured Persons (London)
  Prisoners (Mail)
  Prisoners (Mail)
  Strangeways Prison
  Strangeways Prison
  Shops Act 1950
  Shops Act 1950
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Welsh Television Channel
  Welsh Television Channel
  European Community Funds
  European Community Funds
INDUSTRY
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Papermaking Industry
  Papermaking Industry
  European Community Funds
  European Community Funds
  Small Businesses (Loans)
  Small Businesses (Loans)
  West Midlands and Black Country
  West Midlands and Black Country
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Technical Change Centre
  Technical Change Centre
  Departmental Statistics
  Departmental Statistics
  European Community Funds
  European Community Funds
ENVIRONMENT
  Departmental Statistics
  Departmental Statistics
  Salary and Wage Increases (Palace of Westminster)
  Salary and Wage Increases (Palace of Westminster)
  "The Right to Buy"
  "The Right to Buy"
  Disabled Persons (Housing)
  Disabled Persons (Housing)
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  European Community Funds
  European Community Funds
  Walsall Council
  Walsall Council
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Leaflet Mil/January 1980
  Leaflet Mil/January 1980
  Unemployment Benefits (Merseyside)
  Unemployment Benefits (Merseyside)
  Depo Provera
  Depo Provera
  Rampton Hospital
  Rampton Hospital
  London Advisory Group
  London Advisory Group
  Chiropody Teaching Staff (Salaries)
  Chiropody Teaching Staff (Salaries)
  Prescribed Disease No. 39
  Prescribed Disease No. 39
  Disabled Tenants
  Disabled Tenants
  European Community Funds
  European Community Funds
TRANSPORT
  Departmental Statistics
  Departmental Statistics
  Schoolchildren and Elderly and Disabled Persons (Drivers' Hours)
  Schoolchildren and Elderly and Disabled Persons (Drivers' Hours)
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Port of Liverpool
  Port of Liverpool
  Departmental Houses
  Departmental Houses
DEFENCE
  Private James Darkin
  Private James Darkin
NATO
  Countries (Defence Expenditure)
  Countries (Defence Expenditure)
  Aircrew Reserve
  Aircrew Reserve
  Classified Information
  Classified Information
  Security
  Security
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  National Debt
  National Debt
  European Community (Cash Flows)
  European Community (Cash Flows)
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  Clearing Banks (Interest Charges)
  Clearing Banks (Interest Charges)
  Farmers (Taxation Treatment)
  Farmers (Taxation Treatment)
  Tax Avoidance
  Tax Avoidance
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Amble Harbour
  Amble Harbour
  Milk
  Milk
  Glasshouse Industry
  Glasshouse Industry
  Poultry Farmers
  Poultry Farmers
  Farms (Hereditary Tenancies)
  Farms (Hereditary Tenancies)
  Rabbits
  Rabbits
  Butter
  Butter
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Badgers
  Badgers
  European Community (Food Surpluses)
  European Community (Food Surpluses)
  Meat Inspectors
  Meat Inspectors
  Cauliflowers
  Cauliflowers
  New Zealand Butter
  New Zealand Butter
  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
  Fishing Licences
  Fishing Licences
  European Community Funds
  European Community Funds
  Lamb Exporters
  Lamb Exporters
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  School Milk
  School Milk
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Prison Officers (Industrial Dispute)
  Prison Officers (Industrial Dispute)
  Departmental Statistics
  Departmental Statistics
  Agriculture
  Agriculture
  Ballycastle and Rathlin Harbours
  Ballycastle and Rathlin Harbours
  Belfast (European Community Development Assistance)
  Belfast (European Community Development Assistance)
  Less Favoured Areas
  Less Favoured Areas
  Milk Producers
  Milk Producers
  Butter
  Butter
  Beef Industry
  Beef Industry
  Gas Industry
  Gas Industry

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

COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY: REPORT
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what response they have made to the criticisms and proposals made by the Commission for Racial Equality in their annual report.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the annual report of the Commission for Racial Equality covers a great deal of ground. It is not practicable to deal with all the criticisms and proposals in it, some of which are in very general terms, within the scope of an oral reply. But my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has carefully noted the contents of the report, and the Government are in close and regular contact with the commission.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, would the Minister agree that it is very rare for a Government to have been so criticised by a Government-appointed commission, and is it not more distasteful to Her Majesty's Government that the chairman should have been a distinguished Conservative Member of Parliament? May I ask the noble Lord two specific questions? First, what is the Government's reply to the charge that they have taken no steps to implement an effective policy in respect of Government contracts? Secondly, what is the Government's reply to the charge that, by changing immigration rules, in particular with regard to fiancés, they have caused a setback to race relations in this country?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I do not accept the first supplementary question of the noble Lord: indeed, I do not accept
538
his first two supplementary questions. So far as Government contracts are concerned, the matter of employment policies of Government contractors is to be discussed, at the request of the Commission for Racial Equality, by the Department of Employment's Race Relations Employment Advisory Group when it next meets, probably in December.
I shall not conceal from the House the fact that the Government have no plans to pursue the proposal that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has in mind of requiring contractors to comply with provisions of the current race relations legislation, and having this matter monitored into the bargain. That proposal would be incompatible with the stated policy of not imposing additional burdens upon industry. With regard to the noble Lord's last supplementary question, the current immigration rules lead, I believe, to firm immigration control, which is a prerequisite of good race relations in this country.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, will the Government respond to the commission's call
"for more leadership from the top",
and for the Government
"to take a clear and unequivocal stand"
to meet
"the frustration and disappointment of the last year"?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, in parenthesis my answer is, yes.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, in view of the Minister's previous answer to my noble friend to the effect that the Government are assisting race relations through their immigration policy, may I ask whether he equates policy on immigration into this country with coloured immigration, or is he speaking of immigration of all people, irrespective of their skin colour?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, immigration as covered by the immigration rules—
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: How is that assisting race relations, my Lords?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, it is assisting race relations due to the fact that we are a very small island with only a limited amount of capacity.

THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: MUTTON AND LAMB RÉGIME
3.10 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will summarise the recently agreed European Community proposals for the production, import and export of mutton and lamb; what are their implications for the farmer, the taxpayer and the consumer; and to what extent they meet the serious anxieties previously expressed by Australia and New Zealand.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Community régime for mutton and lamb came into effect on 20th October 1980. The support provisions consist of measures to guarantee producers' incomes through annual premiums on ewes, together with the option of operating either intervention or a variable premium, which is in effect a weekly deficiency payment and is on similar lines to our previous Fat Sheep Guarantee. Member states who operate the variable premium must recover an amount equivalent to the premium on sheep or carcases which they export.
Trade with the major third country suppliers is covered by voluntary restraint agreements. Under these, third countries will restrict their exports to the Community to a level slightly above that which prevailed recently. In return for this restriction, they will enjoy a halving of the import duty on the consignments which they send.
The régime will increase the returns of United Kingdom farmers whilst fully protecting the interests of consumers. The support arrangements are fully financed by the Community. The voluntary restraint agreements will safeguard
540
the position of Australia and New Zealand on terms which were acceptable to their Governments.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am most grateful for that summary of a very complicated agreement, in regard to which I feel the Government deserve much praise for the skill and patience that they have shown in negotiating it. May I put two brief supplementary questions to my noble friend? First, does he agree with me that had a Socialist Britain not been a member of the Community, New Zealand's and Australia's traditional export markets would have been at risk from dumping of subsidised frozen lamb and butter from the intervention stockpiles, and that therefore it is just as well that we are members of the Community?
Secondly, may I ask my noble friend whether he will say a word about the very serious problems which have faced farmers in the last week or two with regard to their exports (particularly, I think, to West Germany and Holland) resulting from the clawback of subsidies which is required when lamb is exported? I think I am right in saying that we hope to continue to export some 20 per cent. of our lamb production.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that it is because we are members of the Community that we have been able to protect the interests of Australia and New Zealand in the way I have described.
My noble friend is perfectly right in saying that there have been problems over the export of lamb to Belgium and Germany, particularly, since these proposals came into operation. The reason is the combination of the fact that exporters have to pay what is rather unpleasantly described as the "clawback" and, of course, the transport charges, which has made the resultant price of English lamb in those countries temporarily relatively uncompetitive. But I would say this to my noble friend: the new scheme has been in operation only since 20th October. It will take time to settle down, and I would hope that these initial problems will be overcome. But I can tell my noble friend that the Commission have given a firm undertaking that they will keep the clawback arrangements

541
under review, and they have confirmed that it is not the intention to hinder the development of the export trade.

CONSERVATIVE PARTY CONFERENCE INCIDENT
3.14 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: 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 their attention has been drawn to a report in The Times of 11th October of proceedings at the Conservative Party Conference in Brighton on 10th October and in particular to that part which reads "one young man near me was being dragged from the hall unconscious after a pounding on the floor of the centre aisle by security men in plain clothes and some Conservatives, including women"; whether they have called for a report from the chief constable of Sussex on this incident; and whether proceedings are contemplated to uphold the rule of law.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I understand that on two separate occasions on the afternoon of 10th October the proceedings at the Conservative Party Conference in Brighton were interrupted by a protester. In each case the man concerned was first approached by the conference stewards and was then escorted from the hall by plain clothes police. Both men were released later that day, and no complaint of assault has been made by either of them.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: But, my Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Mr. Fred Emery, who was the reporter in this case—a most reputable reporter on the staff of The Times—was sitting only a few yards away from where the particular incident took place and that there is no reason to doubt the veracity of this report? Is he further aware that the young man concerned, a Mr. Michael Carver, who is 5 feet 6 inches high and of only slight build, was carried from the hall unconscious, awoke in a police cell
542
and was arrested without any charge being preferred against him? Is the noble Lord further aware that Mr. Carver was detained in the Royal Sussex Hospital overnight in order that his condition could be checked?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, all I can say is that the information which the noble Lord has is not the same information as I have. I understand that neither of the protesters was unconscious when escorted from the hall and neither has complained of an assault.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, if I were to table a Question to my noble friend embodying press reports of the proceedings at the Labour Party Conference, would my noble friend institute the necessary proceedings under the Mental Health Act?
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Mr. Fred Emery is the political editor of The Times and he has submitted this statement of what he saw—a quite appalling statement and one that it would be impossible for Mr. Emery to make unless he had seen the things he says he observed? Is the noble Lord now saying, apart from making jokes about the Labour Party Conference, that they have made no attempt to find out who gave the order for this man's arrest? Were the police to whom the noble Lord referred in his original Answer in fact official police officers? Because another reporter has said that they were hired security agents.
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord HALE: My Lords, this is a very serious matter, and it should be treated seriously.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames): My Lords, I really do ask the noble Lord to get on and ask his question, please.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I will not get on and ask the question.
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord HALE: As it is the Leader of the House, yes; but I will also raise the matter in debate in those circumstances. That is my question.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me—
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, if I may reply to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hale, the answer is that we have been in contact with the Sussex police about these incidents and it was on the results of that contact that my replies to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, were based.
Lord HALE: There was no investigation at The Times?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the obvious thing to do on being asked a Question of this kind was to get in touch with the people who escorted the two young men from the hall. They were the Sussex police, and it is upon that contact that my replies this afternoon have been based.

USE OF FLAMMABLE MATERIALS IN AIRCRAFT
3.19 p.m.
Lord SMITH: 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 use their influence to persuade the major airlines to prohibit the use in the cabins of aircraft of materials which are highly inflammable or which give off lethal gases if ignited.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the responsibility for such matters lies with the Civil Aviation Authority. Furnishing materials already used in British passenger-carrying aircraft are required to satisfy the flame resistance specifications laid down in the British civil airworthiness requirements. Only materials which are not readily flammable and will not of themselves sustain low-level burning can meet these specifications. The question of toxic gases is another matter and is more difficult to resolve, as all organic materials can produce toxic fumes when burned.
Lord SMITH: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that helpful and
544
in many ways, in part, at least, reassuring Answer. I should like to press him a little on the latter part of my Question and to ask several supplementary questions. I apologise for the number of them, but they all bear on the same point so that perhaps he may answer them together. Would he not agree that there is something singularly horrible about an aeroplane with a cabin fire landing without damage and, before those inside can be taken out, every single one of more than 300 is dead? I am referring to the disaster at Riyadh. I know there has been no official report of this but it is conceded that the mode of death of these unfortunate people was precisely that which you would expect from the release of large toxic quantities of something in a confined space. May I ask whether, although it may be difficult but not impossible to control the use of materials which release gases as opposed to controlling flammability, it is agreed that this is becoming a more important subject with the chemical development of modern plastics? Thirdly, is the Minister aware that some of these plastics will release cyanide gas which will kill within seconds? Adding these together, will the noble Lord agree that it is not just flammability standards which require control but the release of dangerous chemicals?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, if I may answer the first point put by the noble Lord about the Saudi accident at Riyadh, I would suggest to him that it is a mistake to jump to conclusions about the causes of that accident. The authorities there are currently conducting an inquiry and I hope that in due course their report will be made available. As for the specific points that the noble Lord put subsequently, I can assure him that there is a considerable amount of research going on into this matter. We hope that the present position, which is not too unsatisfactory, can be improved in the near future.
Lord WHADDON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the aircraft in question appears to have landed safely but that a few seconds later, by the time the runway had been cleared, everybody was dead? Pending the result of the inquiry, will he advise all British pilots who might be involved in similar circumstances to be

545
sure to evacuate the aircraft as soon as it stops rolling and not bother to clear the runway?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am sure that British pilots do not need that sort of advice. I can tell the noble Lord that in fact the passengers were alive in the aircraft for some considerable number of minutes.

PRISON SERVICES IN NORTHERN IRELAND
3.23 p.m.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given private notice.
The Question was as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the recent developments in Northern Ireland, they will ask the Northern Ireland Labour Relations Agency to activate its services with a view to resolving the problems of the prison services in Northern Ireland arising from the implications of the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980."
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Elton): My Lords, no. The dispute which is giving rise to the current industrial action in Northern Ireland is not a local one. The present action by Northern Ireland prison officers is not in furtherance of any Northern Ireland claim but in support of action being taken by their colleagues in England and Wales over a meal break allowance dispute here. There is therefore no case to refer to the Northern Ireland Labour Relations Agency.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the Privy Council met last evening and in an Order-in-Council put into operation certain implications arising from the action taken by prison officers in Northern Ireland? Whatever terms may be used to describe it, is it not a fact that the grievance or dispute (call it sympathetic action or whatever) that is there at the moment is
546
causing considerable concern? Would the Minister not agree that for the very reasons he has given, since there is a separate body of industrial relations legislation procedures in Northern Ireland which is distinct from that in England and Wales, the Northern Ireland Labour Relations Agency, which is an independent body, could usefully undertake a third-party conciliatory role in this delicate matter at this time?
Lord ELTON: My Lords, an Order-in-Council was brought into operation last night in response to this developing situation: it was not because of it. It provides that remand hearings may be undertaken in the prisoner's absence. However, a court may at any time direct that a prisoner should be brought before it. That was in response to the situation: it did not give rise to it. The action in Northern Ireland is taken in sympathy with conditions in England and Wales, conditions which are not the same as those in Northern Ireland. Therefore, although there are separate procedures available in the Province, the dispute is not subject to them and is not relevant to them. I do not think it would be useful to involve the agency in this process.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, the Ulster prison officers, who are much respected for the courage they show in fulfilling their arduous and often dangerous duties, work a different shift system and are paid differently from their colleagues in England and Wales. Should not a further appeal be made to convince them that they would not breach solidarity by continuing to perform their duties as usual and that their first loyalty should be to the community? There might otherwise be a much greater risk in Ulster than on the mainland through the present tensions and the fact that a much greater proportion of prisoners in Northern Ireland are committed for serious crimes.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Agreement was reached in Northern Ireland with the Prison Officers' Association on 17th November 1978, and the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland branch of the Prison Officers' Association were commended by the May Committee for resolving the question; so the situation is

547
different. I am sure that the prison officers in the Province are aware both of the high regard in which their services are held by the public and of the special conditions which make a high standard of conduct there extremely desirable.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the Bill that we adopted yesterday applies only to England and Wales? What are the Government going to do if prison officers in Northern Ireland take similar action to that which has been taken in this country?
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the noble Lord is right about the Bill, which is now an Act. But the noble Lord will recall that I have just said that there is an Order-in-Council, which was passed under the emergency procedure last night, to cope with the situation which the noble Lord foresees.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether the Order-in-Council is debateable in this House?
Lord ELTON: Yes, my Lords, within 40 days.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, may I plead with the Minister again? May I ask him to consider the "fire" from the prevention point of view rather than from the salvage point of view? Would it not be ironic if, as is possible, this dispute was to be resolved in England and Wales and for its side effects to continue in Northern Ireland for want of having some third-party communications and involvement?
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the "fire", as the noble Lord termed it, is burning in England and Wales. The action taken in the Province is by those in sympathy with the situation in England and Wales. The situation in Northern Ireland is not the same as here. Terms of service have been reached on the date that I mentioned, 17th November 1978. They are not concerned for themselves to obtain a continuous duty credit, which is what the dispute is about in England and Wales. Therefore, there is not a case in existence to which the machinery to which the noble Lord referred can be applied. I can undertake to carry to those of my
548
colleagues who have responsibility for the service in the Province the anxiety which the noble Lord feels on this matter; but I fear that the answer will be the same.

BUSINESS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available tonight at the usual time.
The Report stage of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 o'clock for about 40 minutes, and the Third Reading of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill will be taken during this adjournment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING and LAND (No. 2) BILL
3.30 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Schedule 22 [Land: miscellaneous amendments]:
The Earl of AVON The Earl of AVON moved Amendment No. 148ZB:
Page 227, line 40, leave out from ("3(1)(b)") to end of page 228, line 2, and insert ("omit the words from "except" to "case";

(b) in paragraph 3(1) omit head (c) and the proviso;

(c) in paragraph 7A omit "the confirming authority and to" and "or affixing of notices"; and

(d) in paragraph 19(4)—

(i) for "having jurisdiction to confirm or" substitute "or authority having jurisdiction to"; and

(ii) add the following proviso at the end:—

"Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not have effect in relation to an owner, lessee or occupier being a local authority or statutory undertakers or the National Trust."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment makes some simple technical alterations to give proper effect to the intention behind the changes set out in paragraph 1. These changes remove the need for acquiring authorities to obtain the consent of the Minister (the confirming authority) to dispense with the service of

549
notices of the making of a compulsory purchase order, where it is impracticable to ascertain the name of the owner of the land. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of AVON The Earl of AVON moved Amendment No. 148ZC:
Page 228, leave out lines 29 to 31 and insert ("the words following paragraph (ii)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with this amendment, with permission, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 148ZD. When this schedule was considered in Committee in another place, the Minister agreed to retain the need for ministerial consent where local authorities wish to appropriate or dispose of land held for use as allotments. This and the following amendment provide the necessary drafting changes to give effect to that undertaking. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of AVON The Earl of AVON moved Amendment No. 148ZD:
Page 229, leave out lines 3 to 5 and insert ("and
(b) in subsection (5) the words following paragraph (ii)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with the preceding Amendment No. 148ZC. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of AVON The Earl of AVON moved Amendment No. 148ZE:
Page 229, leave out lines 16 to 35 and insert—
("10. The following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (2) and (3) of section 122 of that Act (appropriation of land for planning purposes):—
"(2) The consent of the Secretary of State shall be requisite to any appropriation under this section of land which, immediately before the appropriation, is land which consists or forms part of a common, or formerly consisted or formed part of a common, and is held or managed by a local authority in accordance with a local Act.
(2A) Any such consent may be given either in respect of a particular appropriation or in respect of appropriations of any class, and may be given either subject to or free from any conditions or limitations.
(2B) Before appropriating under this section any land which consists of or forms part of an open space, a local authority—

(a) shall publish a notice of their intention to do so for at least two consecutive
550
weeks in a newspaper circulating in their area; and

(b) shall consider any objections to the proposed appropriation which may be made to them".

11. The following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (2) to (6) of section 123 of that Act (disposal of land held for planning purposes):—
"(2) The consent of the Secretary of State shall be requisite to any disposal under this section—

(a) of land which, immediately before the disposal, is land which consists or forms part of a common, or formerly consisted or formed part of a common, and is held or managed by a local authority in accordance with a local Act; or

(b) where the disposal is to be for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained and is not—

(i) the grant of a term of seven years or less; or

(ii) the assignment of a term of years of which seven years or less are unexpired at the date of the assignment.

(2A) Before disposing under this section of any land which consists of or forms part of an open space, a local authority

(a) shall publish a notice of their intention to do so for at least two consecutive weeks in a newspaper circulating in their area; and

(b) shall consider any objections to the proposed disposal which may be made to them."".

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this extraordinary and formidable looking amendment introduces a simple but important safeguard. It provides that where a local authority proposes to appropriate or dispose of open space land under the powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the proposal must first be advertised for two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper and any objections considered. Schedule 22 already makes similar provision in respect of appropriations and disposals under the Town and Country Planning Act 1959 and the Local Government Act 1972. This amendment gives effect to an undertaking given during consideration of the schedule in Committee. In drafting it, the opportunity has also been taken to integrate the new advertising requirement with the other amendments to Sections 122 and 123 of the 1971 Act so that the changes are presented in a more intelligible form. I beg to move.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, is it sufficient that after the advertisement in the local newspaper the local authority itself is left to consider the objections to something it wants to do?
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, yes, I think so. It is what we have been trying to do. I will look into the point that the noble Lord has raised.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of AVON The Earl of AVON moved Amendment No. 148ZE:
Page 229, leave out lines 38 to 40 and insert—
("12.—(1) In section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972 (appropriation of land by principal councils) the words in subsection (2) following paragraph (b) shall cease to have effect.
(2) The following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection:—").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with this amendment, with permission, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 148ZG. They are both consequential amendments. One of the effects of Part VI of Schedule 22 is to remove the need for local authorities to obtain ministerial consent to the appropriation of open space and to substitute a requirement that proposals must first be advertised and objections considered. As a consequence of this change, open space will not come within the ambit of Section 122(2) of the 1972 Act in the case of principal councils, or of Section 126(4) in the case of parish councils, so that the provision freeing the land from any public trusts is no longer applicable. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of AVON The Earl of AVON moved Amendment No. 148ZG:
Page 231, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert—
("17.—(1) "In section 126 of that Act (appropriation of land by parish and community councils and by parish meetings) the words in subsection (4) following paragraph (b) shall cease to have effect.
(2) The following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection:—").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with the preceding Amendment No. 148ZE.
I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin) moved Amendment No. 148A:
Page 108, line 3, leave out from ("Commission") to end of line 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to reverse one carried in Committee against the advice of the Government. The voting was very close and I hope that a fuller explanation of our original intentions with this clause will convince the House that the Government are right. The amendment which I am moving is a critical point in the strategy for new towns and indeed in the Government's overall strategy. Massive amounts of public money are tied up in the new towns and we need to be able to redeploy them to the best advantage for the new town, and indeed for the country as a whole.
The new towns have been, and are, an important part of the way in which this country has developed since the war. They have given many hundreds of thousands of people a new start in life. They have provided an excellent new environment for many families. They have created, and are still creating, conditions in which industrial growth can take place. Many of your Lordships are better qualified than I to speak in detail of these achievements, but I should not want to leave the impression that the Government do not recognise the excellent work that has been done, and is still being done, by the new town development corporations and the Commission for the New Towns.
These achievements are enormous. The cost of achieving them has, equally, also been enormous. The new towns in Britain represent an investment by the taxpayer of over £3,250 million. This represents one of the biggest groups of loans outstanding from the National Loans Fund. It is only surpassed by the electricity industry and the Post Office. It is a continuing investment programme. Although the new towns programme is gradually being completed, investment is still proceeding in practically all the towns. The rate of public investment in the third generation towns, in particular, is probably now at its peak.
It needs little imagination to appreciate that all this adds up to a very substantial call on the Exchequer for finance. In the English towns alone, capital investment in housing, sewerage, roads, industrial and commercial development, and civic amenities amounted in the past financial year to £336 million. In the current

553
financial year the capital investment in these fields will be over £350 million. To this must be added the substantial investments of a similar nature being made in Wales and Scotland and the very considerable investment which other public authorities, such as water authorities, local education authorities, and health authorities, must make.
The massive share of this investment provided by the new town corporations has been raised by central Government: that is, by the taxpayers. Our view has consistently been that if the nation as a whole is providing the resources, then the nation as a whole—acting through central Government—should have the final say in the future of these assets. In particular, central Government should be able to say whether the assets should be redeployed.
I must stress again that it is about the redeployment of assets that we are talking. I have explained that the new town investment programme is continuing. Over the two years 1979–80 and 1980–81 alone there will be capital investment of over £700 million. All this investment must be financed. The traditional way in which this has been done is for the money to be borrowed through the National Loans Fund, thus increasing the public sector borrowing requirements. Even the last Government could not view with equanimity the financing of a programme of this vast scale wholly from new borrowings. They encouraged the new towns to get significant parts of the industrial and commercial development done through private finance. Likewise they introduced the idea of the rolling over of assets. Under this, towns were free to sell assets and to use the proceeds to increase the limited investment allocations which could be made to them for new investment financed by borrowing.
One of the limitations on this system of rolling-over assets was that it applied only to each town separately. For example, Bracknell Development Corporation could sell assets only to reinvest the proceeds in Bracknell. There is, however, a mismatch between the availability of assets suitable for sale and the need for investment. Obviously those towns which have substantially completed their development will have the biggest supply of assets suitable for rolling over and those towns which are in the full flood of development will
554
have the greatest need for investment resources. Therefore, if we are to make full use of the concept of roll-over we need to have a mechanism whereby assets may be realised in one town with the intention of reinvesting the proceeds elsewhere. This is what the clause as originally drafted is intended to cover; as I have explained, in the two financial years we are talking of, some £700 million.
It is against this that we have to view the disposals programmes. As noble Lords opposite have several times remarked, we have asked the new towns to raise by the disposal of assets some £330 million. On its own this sounds an enormous figure. But when viewed against the £700 million being invested in the new towns in just the two-year period to which I have referred it falls into its true perspective. I suggest that this puts in perspective allegations of asset stripping and other such red herrings, if I may so describe them, which have been made by noble Lords opposite during the Committee stage. It is a strange sort of asset stripping that continues to plough back in new town programmes as a whole public resources on the scale that is currently taking place.
Noble Lords opposite may question whether this reinvestment will continue. Resources raised by the disposal of new town assets are public resources and what is done with them is part of the Government's collective decision on public expenditure. Of course, I cannot anticipate what future decisions will be, but the development of the new towns is a fact and I can assure the House that we are well aware of the importance of continuing support for them.
It is against this background that I turn briefly to the detail of the amendment that I am now proposing. As the House will see, its purpose is simply to reverse the amendment carried against our advice during Committee stage. I do not want to decry in any way the underlying purpose of this amendment. To anyone working in the real world, it is obvious that the planned development of the towns and the principles of sound financial management are bound to be matters that any Secretary of State will take into account before making his decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested that there was something improper in the

555
way the powers were drafted. He asked for precedents. My noble friend Lord Sandys referred him to powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in the way in which new town corporations behave, and to direct them to pay him money. No doubt the noble Lord will claim that the drafting here goes beyond this in that it does not explicitly set a limit to the sums which may be demanded. But legislation has to be read as part of the whole system of which it forms part. I cannot imagine the Public Accounts Committee of another place treating lightly either a Secretary of State, or his Accounting Officer, who did anything of the kind the noble Lord was suggesting.
I have taken time to be explicit about this. I will go further if requested to do so, but I hope that I have said sufficient to be able to sum up by saying that we see the words that I am now asking the House to delete as a fetter on an expanded programme of roll-over which could enable partial local interest to prevail over the national interest and which, ironically, could thus seriously hamper the growth of the third-generation towns, which I am sure is not what was intended. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, our concern now, as at Committee stage, is that the payments demanded by the Secretary of State from the sales of assets should be devoted to completing the mark 2 and the mark 3 new towns and not go into Exchequer funds for other purposes; that before any instruction is given to development corporations to sell any of their assets the Secretary of State ought to be satisfied that such sales are in the interests of the new towns, specifically and generally; and that they will not interfere with the programme of planned development and will also be consistent with good financial management. This is why we put down the amendment which the Committee accepted a week ago.
Answering a question from one of my honourable friends in the other place as to the purpose for which the assets were to be sold, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that the sale of new town assets within the global sum of receipts would be taken into account to reduce the public sector borrowing rate. Again
556
we come up against this manifestation of the obsession with the public sector borrowing rate. The new town development corporations do not want to see their assets sold as demanded or on demand, and they will have the support of the local people in their area. The New Towns Act says that the sales may be undertaken by development corporations,
"for securing the development of the new town in accordance with proposals approved by the Minister".
Selling off to reduce the public sector borrowing rate hardly seems to be in accordance with that. At the Committee stage I said that the proposed policy was liable to present individual development corporations with very grave difficulties, in that the rental income which they at present obtain from these assets which the Secretary of State can order them to sell is vital to the new town finances to enable them to pay off the debt that they have incurred as a consequence of their original development. Disposal may even mean that some development corporations may find themselves unable to complete the development of the new town, a responsibility with which they were specifically charged under the New Towns Act, and some of them may even get near to facing insolvency.
A method of increasing income by liquidating the assets could have disastrous consequences unless the Secretary of State looks at the current value and the cash flow that those assets will generate in future. Has there been any meaningful discussion or consultation about this with either the district councils or with the new town development corporations? The Town and Country Planning Institute are on record that the Government's policy at this time is in total contradiction with the concept of new towns; that it is liable to destroy the basis of sound planning and the management of the new towns; and that it is liable to prejudice the future ownership of new town assets. If this subsection is amended back to the original, then we are witnessing the grand closing down sale of new town assets—£120 million this year, £200 million next year. Since I believe the total value of the disposal assets is reckoned at something over £600 million, it means that half of those assets are to be sold off during this year and next. I think we have a right to know what ceiling the

557
Secretary of State would put on the sale of assets and over what period he will be conducting his bargain sales.
These clauses are an attack on the whole principle and basis of new towns. The proposals alter the whole relationship between the Department of the Environment, the new town corporations and the Commission for New Towns. Until now that has been an extremely good relationship; it has been a productive relationship; it has been a constructive relationship. It was a Conservative Government which in 1969 passed the New Towns Act, which provided for the transfer of assets in mature new towns to a central body, the Commission for New Towns. But this body was specifically charged by the Act to maintain and enhance the value of the land and to have regard to the purpose for which the new town was developed, and to the convenience and welfare of the persons residing, working or carrying on a business in the new towns. The Labour Government in 1976 in their New Towns Act allowed for the handing over of the housing and the related assets to the local council in the older new towns, while retaining the profitable commercial and industrial assets for the time being in the hands of the commission for the new town. What is now proposed is a total deviation from both Acts.
Noble Lords who were not in the Committee when this clause was discussed should not vote to reverse that decision today unless they have read and considered the speech by my noble friend Lady Denington, who is abroad and cannot be with us today. She told the Committee about the diktat issued to the new towns chairmen in July last year and that there was no discussion with the Minister: he just demanded £100 million by March 1980 or there would be a moratorium on the letting of all contracts until that sum was realised.
The noble Baroness also made the point that if the Government really find it necessary to have these sales in order to raise money, then as much as possible should be saved for the nation. The clear way to do that, looking to the future, would be to sell leasehold and not freehold; but that does not appear in the Bill at all. From a quick perusal of this clause and the other clauses you might, if you tried
558
very hard and were very persuasive, manage to get a lease for a bit longer than 99 years, but the instruction issued to new town corporations on 1st July 1980 was as follows:
"Ministers wish to see disposals take place on a basis which as far as possible frees development corporations from all further involvement in the property and which does not involve any form of retention of a share in equity. Disposals should therefore be on a freehold basis".
How do these proposals make it either possible or certain that the receipts of assets from mature new towns will be made available to complete the second and third generation new towns? The new towns now, with the approval of the Secretary of State, are free to sell and re-invest, to operate the roll-over principle. Why, also, that principle? Why not extend it in this Act so that as mature properties in an established new town are sold the proceeds can be used to help to finance another younger or newer new town?
There is a difference between the powers of the Commission for New Towns to dispose of assets as they think fit and for the Secretary of State to order disposals as he thinks fit. Now the Commission can at least dedicate the funds at its disposal to other new towns within its remit. This Bill carries no guarantee that the Secretary of State will do the same. If we could be certain that the funds resulting from the sales would be devoted to the developmental needs of other new towns, I think we could go along with it; but we cannot support these funds being diverted to reducing the public sector borrowing rate, or any other scheme devised by the Government. There is disquiet that among the Quangos likely to be wound up by the Secretary of State may be the Commission for New Towns. Who will then manage the commercial and industrial assets transferred to them by Corby, Stevenage, Harlow, Runcorn, Bracknell and so on? Or will the Secretary of State sell them all off because there will be no organisation to manage them?
Incidentally, who will look after and manage what is left—the parks, the gardens, the social amenities, even the sewage works and the refuse disposal plants—in those towns when the Commission is wound up? Also, if that is to happen, when is the legislation winding

559
up the Commission to be presented? Will they also be winding up some of the other development corporations?—because if that is to be soon then it is wrong to present legislation at this time specifically naming the Commission for New Towns.
What happens in areas of high unemployment and little demand for sales of houses, as in Runcorn, where the district council has refused to take over the housing? The transition from the development corporations to the councils must be made easy. The Commission has an income of around £6 million a year from rents, and that can be ploughed back into new towns development. But if those assets are all sold to reduce the public sector borrowing rate, that income goes, because you can only sell once.
The noble Lord referred to the considerable investment in new towns. He reminded us that it was £336 million last year and something like £350 million this year. What have we got from it? The population of our new towns is now over 2 million. There are some 400,000 new dwellings and over 700 new schools. There are 17 million square feet of office space and, above all, there have been 1 million new jobs. What is needed is a clearer commitment by the Government to use the capital raised by sales to bring all the new towns, especially the third generation ones, to full completion. The assets must be conserved in the second and third generation towns and allowed to mature, because once the third generation towns are completed there will be a very useful property portfolio in existence which would then be available for other purposes. I have no confidence in this clause, as the noble Lord proposes to amend it. The amendment does not really cover the intention which he says, that is, of the Government to retain money to maintain, develop and expand the new towns; and I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Lord ROBERTHALL: My Lords, I spoke and voted against the Government on this amendment. My point was a much more general one. I took it that since the Bill has to give these powers to the Secretary of State, the relationship between him and the new commissions is
560
not entirely between the creator and the creature. It seems to me that the form of words in Clause 122(1) is unfortunate, because it gives the Secretary of State power to lay down a sum which he can think up for himself. It is an unlimited power and it seems to me most unfortunate that the House is going to put this power on to the statute book. The addition of the words, which it is now proposed to take out again, had at least the merit that it put some limit to these otherwise unfettered powers of the Secretary of State.
The Minister has said that the Secretary of State proposes to put this money to the best possible use. He could not say it was all going to other new towns; but it seems to me most unfortunate that a Minister should be given these powers without any indication whatever in the clause that there is some limitation—unless it can be demonstrated that this is a case quite unlike any other case. For example, I would ask your Lordships just to imagine a clause like this in a Finance Act.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I wonder whether I might follow, as concisely as he did, the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, and try to limit myself in a submission to the House that it would indeed be an irresponsible body of legislators that could possibly allow this amendment so that the Bill stood in the same way as it did before it was amended in Committee, after a very full discussion and after a Division.
My point is going to be a very narrow one and I ask your Lordships to be good enough to look at the actual wording of the clause we are now discussing. I utter a prayer, and I hope that Providence will answer it. It is that only those who listened to this argument will think it proper to vote upon it and that we shall not be faced in the Division Lobby with a number of people who will be voting, whichever way it may be, without having heard a word of the debate on this very vital clause. I am perfectly sure that any Whip present on the Government Bench will see that my prayer is duly heeded and observed.
May I refer to the wording of the clause that we are now dealing with, under the heading of New Towns? There is no

561
preceding clause at all to which this one would have become subject. There is the bald wording that this House is asked to sanction at Report stage:
"The Secretary of State may direct a development corporation or the Commission to pay to him, on the date specified in the direction, such sum as is so specified".
So far, there is a touching faith in the Secretary of State having—and I hope that I do not say this in any mocking sense—great capabilities in regard to deciding what will be the limit of the sum which he is given such unqualified privilege to demand from new towns.
The only qualification put upon it, if qualification it be, as to amount, circumstances, date and whether it exceeds the assets of the new towns or does not exceed them, is in the following subsection, which, if the Minister's amendment is accepted, will merely state that before making what may be an impossible demand to fulfil, quite apart from its being unreasonable, there is a necessity to consult with the Commission or the corporation. All of us know what the word "consult" means. It means that you listen. If you want to, you hear; and, if you want to be, you are affected by what you have heard. But, having listened, you have completed your duty to consult.
At Committee stage, and prior to this Division, I limited myself to this narrow point. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, who was dealing with the matter at that time—and dealing with it with his usual capability—three questions. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, was on the Front Bench, I ventured to ask whether he would kindly deal with the last two of my questions. He resisted the invitation. But the first question that I put was: is there any precedent to put before the House, so that the House can know whether such unlimited powers have been given to any Minister before, to make a direction that statutory body should pay a sum left entirely to his discretion and without any qualification at all?
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys—I thought with some ingenuity—first dismissed my question as being rhetorical. I have never uttered a less rhetorical question in my life. It was so direct that I asked for an answer and I said—I hope with
562
fairness—that I understood that the noble Lord might want to receive some advice on the matter. I hoped that the advice could be given with some alacrity but, in order to allow him to get that advice, I would not press the question. In the end, it was decided that, so far as that question was concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, would very properly have an opportunity to write to me and to tell me what the precedent was. I must say this in sheer fairness. It took seven days for his department to find a precedent and I am now going to—
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think it is only fair to say that, of course, there were other matters concerning the department at the same time.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I can well understand that. I did not think that the department would be employed solely in answering my question. If that had been so, it would not have been a useful way for the department to employ itself. But there was some urgency about this. I must tell your Lordships that I should have thought, before any power such as this was written into a Bill, that the brief would already have been given to the Minister, saying: "This has had a precedent". I should have thought it would have been set out very clearly, so that I could have had an answer within 24 hours. But it does not matter. I only emphasise the fact that the department and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, had every opportunity of looking up every precedent that there might be.
Your Lordships will be as mystified as I am when I tell you what is quoted as a precedent for this unqualified power of the Minister to direct a statutory corporation to pay up whatever sum the Minister decides to direct. This is the precedent which is quoted. With some pleasure, I believe, the department said that it had another analogy, because it arose from the new towns legislation and, indeed, the Act of 1965. Slowly do I read the precedent, but it is almost an insult to your Lordships' intelligence that I do so, because even if I read it at great speed anyone who thought that it was a precedent would, I think, be an extraordinary Member of your Lordships' House.

563
It reads:
"Where it appears to the Minister "—
it is Section 45 of the 1965 Act—
"after consultation with the Treasury and the Commission, that the Commission have a surplus whether on capital or on revenue account after making allowance by way of transfer to reserve or otherwise for their future requirements (including any contributions that may be required to be made in any of their towns under section 36(3)(b) of this Act), the Commission shall, if the Minister after such consultation as aforesaid so directs, pay to the Minister such sum not exceeding the amount of that surplus as may be specified in the direction; and any sum received by the Minister under this subsection shall be paid into the Exchequer".
What a mockery to give that as a precedent, and what an offence to the intelligence of this House, let alone this humble Member of the House, to give such a reply in answer to the question: please, state what the precedent is for this unlimited, unqualified power of a Minister to direct a corporation to pay any sum that he specifies!
It is with some temerity that I now remind such of your Lordships as were here in Committee of the next two questions that I put. To those questions there has been no answer at all. The first was: what individual, let alone what lawyer or accountant, would ever advise anybody who had been put under some duty—forget whether or not it is a statutory duty—to agree to have imposed upon him such an unlimited requirement or liability? The third question which flowed from that was: what individual, what intelligent layman—forget whether he be lawyer or accountant—would ever advise any friend of his, let alone any relation, to become a responsible member of the board of any such statutory authority when there is a liability, without any limit or qualification, imposed in this way, so that, for all that person knew, he became a member of a corporation that was insolvent? I am not interested in any technical arguments as to whether new towns, because of some other statutory provisions, could ever land up, in their winding-up provisions, in the same way as a company could.
I said during the Committee stage that the arguments advanced by the Government in support of this clause, if there be no such qualification—and it is a very minor one that my noble friend Lady
564
Stedman is suggesting which was passed by this House on a Division—would be laughable if they were not so tragic. They are tragic because, unless we are careful—I appeal to all parts of the House when I say this—this House of Lords, which has the duty imposed upon it of being a revising Chamber and not just the political agent of any political party, will be failing in its duty if it puts on to the statute book a power of this unlimited, unqualified nature, such as the Government now seek. I believe that whatever political party or no political party any Member of this House may belong to, we should not be a party to giving such dictatorial powers, vesting them in a Secretary of State and venting them upon public spirited people who are looking after our new towns.
4.12 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I am happy to think that I am apparently the answer to the prayer of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Some time ago, if he will not mind my reminding the House, he began by indicating that it was his prayer that no one should vote for the Government on this amendment without having heard the debate. I have heard the debate so far, and unless somebody shakes my view I shall, if this matter is pressed to a Division, vote unhesitatingly with the Government.
I enjoyed as much as did anybody—I always do—the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He has the power of taking what is a quite simple, straightforward issue and building it up with great artistry and skill into a tremendous case—into, if he is opposing it, outrage upon the working of this House, upon the whole system of government, or, if he is arguing it the other way, playing it down into something of insignificance. I am sure that we always enjoy it, but perhaps we might come back to what is in essence an extraordinarily simple issue.
It is whether, in the event of a dispute between central Government and the corporations or the commission over a demand for the repayment of money, all of which of course began from public funds, the Minister should have a direct, unqualified power to order that recovery, or whether the statutory limitations upon his power so to do, contained in the

565
clause as it now stands in the Bill, should prevail. It is as simple a question as that, and it is the very same question as those of your Lordships who have seen and enjoyed Mr. George Bernard Shaw's play "The Apple Cart" will remember is posed beautifully, where it is said, "When two men ride a horse, one must ride behind". In this case it is a question whether the Secretary of State or the new towns corporation should ride behind. I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, who was a very distinguished financial and economic adviser to Her Majesty's Government and his services as such are remembered most gratefully by very many of us, would have had little doubt that central Government, with the responsibility that they have for the handling of the British economy, must secure that in a case like this and in the handling of what is, I repeat, in origin public money, they have the last word.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, brushed aside the public sector borrowing requirement. Many of us feel that it is crucial at this moment that the public sector borrowing requirement should be brought under control, and that if one is faced, as one may be, with having to take a hard decision between the happy and orderly completion of a new town's programme of development or the getting under control of the public sector borrowing requirement, in the circumstances of the day it is the latter which should prevail. For that reason, without hesitation on this amendment, although as my noble friend Lord Bellwin knows there has not even been hesitation to vote the other way on some of his clauses, I shall be with him in the Lobby unless the noble Baroness, with her habitual wisdom, decides at the end of the day to withdraw it.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I remind him that we are not suggesting that the Secretary of State still does not have the last word. What was agreed to during the Committee stage was that the Secretary of State should satisfy himself that such payment does not undermine the programme of planned development of the town and is consistent with the principles of sound financial management. If he satisfies himself of that and
566
then still says that he wants some money, part of our case goes.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I fully understand that. I am capable of understanding the words of the section. They are, as the noble Baroness says, perfectly clear. But what I think she has failed to apprehend is that if the facts are not such as to enable the Secretary of State so to satisfy himself he would be liable to be stopped in the courts, presumably by the procedure of injunction, and prevented from proceeding. The words which are sought to be taken out of the clause compel him, where the facts are such that the orderly development of the new town may be hampered, to be deprived of the power, and if he sought to exercise it he would be restrained by the courts.
Lord HOWIE of TROON: My Lords, it really would not be the end of the world if the Secretary of State were to be obliged to satisfy the courts or, in other words, public opinion at its best. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was perfectly correct when he described this as a very simple issue, and a very simple issue it is. However, I do not think it is the simple issue which he described. The noble Lord described an extremely interesting simple issue but not quite the one we are dealing with here. The one we are dealing with here is what Clause 122(2) says. My noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Mishcon, went into that at great length. I shall go into it at much shorter length, as befits a Back-Bencher on the extreme Back-Bench here.
It seems to me that the subsection as it stands has three characteristics. The first is that the Secretary of State shall consult. That is perfectly proper. The other two characteristics are that he shall consult within two limits. The first of these limits, although it is the second in the clause, is that whatever he consults about shall be consistent with the principles of sound financial management. I cannot see how the Government Front Bench can object to that being in the clause. They must regard that as desirable.
The second limit is that the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that any payments made do not undermine the programme of planned development of the town. It is quite inconceivable that

567
the Government Front Bench would wish the Secretary of State to undermine the programme of planned development of a new town. What they are objecting to, therefore, are two principles which limit the consultation, and they are two principles with which they must in fact agree. They cannot possibly object to them in any way. They cannot object to the Secretary of State satisfying himself that the programme is consistent with the principles of sound management, nor can they disagree that the Secretary of State should not undermine the planned development. So I think the amendment as proposed by the Minister is unnecessary. The characteristics at which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, shakes his head and to which he drew attention are contained in and embraced by the process of consultation, but the additional words in the Bill give the public some extra protection, and an extra protection to which they are certainly entitled.
There is no need for me to go on at any great length. My two noble friends on the Front Bench have gone into the detail of this, but, stripped down to the bare essentials, the argument is much as I have stated it. I think the only sensible thing for the Minister of State to do—and he is a man who has shown great sympathy towards the Opposition in the course of this extremely lengthy Bill—is to withdraw his amendment and to agree to the objections which have been placed before us.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, perhaps I may try to pick up some of the points which have been made. First, I should like to say a sincere thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for his support in this matter. He is always highly respected in your Lordships' House and even more highly appreciated, I may say, by this—not Minister of State, regrettably, but Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
Lord HOWIE of TROON: The noble Lord ought to be!
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I make no comment on that. I shall begin the wrong way round perhaps, but I know
568
your Lordships will forgive me if I take the points as I wrote them down. First, there were points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, is always so eloquent, so persuasive and so superb in his speeches. As for the content, however, I would ask for a much closer look at that. He made very much of the matter of precedents. "Where is the precedent", he asked, "that would give us the confidence to follow the Government's line?" I would ask him where is the precedent for investing £3,250 million in any one section of the community? I myself gave the precedents for that when I spoke about electricity and the Post Office. They were precedents. That is really what we are talking about and it is the thrust of the whole argument, which I shall come to in a moment when I have tried to cover some of the individual points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.
The noble Baroness asked what guarantee there was that this money would go back to the new towns. I thought that in my introduction to this amendment I had made clear—obviously I failed—the fact that the Government in the year just ended and in the year in which we are now working made a commitment of £700 million. I think that is an enormous commitment, and the very fact that we are now doing this and that we have said time and again that we have a commitment to the continuance of the new town movement and want to see the new generation of new towns becoming as successful as, if not more successful than, the present generation of new towns, is our guarantee. If the noble Baroness had been able to come along and say: "You are reducing the investment in the new towns", she would have a much stronger case; but I made no commitments and I was at pains not to do so in that sense because no one can say what money will be available, but we believe in the new generation of new towns and everything we are doing shows that belief.
As my noble friend LordBoyd-Carpenter said, this whole debate is about the right and whether the Government have the right to look at public money which has been invested and to say: "We need to reshuffle that around", or, as the Labour

569
Government proposed, to roll it over. Do we have a right, as a Government, to say that certain parts of the new towns are requiring so much more and certain of older generation are requiring so much less, or is it wrong that we should shuffle this around or even that it should go into a central kitty and that the options should be there for the Government?
I believe that this is fundamental. I believe it is not wrong and I believe in it as deeply as anything else that we are doing. Will your Lordships believe that I have spoken at this Dispatch Box in the last 15 or 16 months over 1,000 times and I have moved many amendments. It has to be said, my Lords, that for some of them one has a greater "feel" than for others, if I may put it that way, but I believe sincerely that not one case I have argued has been stronger than this one. We are asking at the end, "What are we talking about?" We believe in the new towns, we are ploughing in massive sums of money and, if it is any help, I will repeat now that we believe in the future of the new towns which are coming on stream and we shall have to plough funds into those. The extent of that no one can expect me to say, but we believe it is right that the central Government which in the first place has ploughed in the £3,250 million should have some say in the redeployment of it. That is what this debate is about and, when we speak about consulting and such things, with respect, my Lords, they are all possible sources of delay and frustration. They sound so innocent on their own, they sound so logical and fair, but, when we look carefully at the implications of them all and what they can lead to, we see why any Government which need the freedom to function (and my goodness! we need it today more than ever), have to say that all these things by themselves may be right but in the context of what we need to achieve they do not stand up. That is why we feel very strongly that we must have this amendment, and I hope your Lordships will support it.
Lord HOWIE of TROON: My Lords, before the noble Lord whom I promoted in error, but deservedly, sits down, would he explain to me as an open-minded, rebellious Back-Bencher how it comes about that he actually needs the words which he proposes to leave out, when in
570
fact they are contained quite clearly within the word "consult" which he wishes to leave in? How will he be worse off if he takes these words out?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I thought that that was the last point that I touched upon. In practice there is always talk; that is ongoing. Anyone who has been involved in Government knows that there are always discussions and commissions. There are the new town corporations and it is an ongoing process. One does not suddenly say: "Stop! Shall we now go and see this new town?" There is consultation all the time with the regional officers, and so on. But if we write on the face of the Bill a requirement like this, it opens up a whole series of opportunities for those who may not be as anxious as is the noble Lord, or even in agreement with the philosophy expressed. It gives many opportunities for delays and frustrations, for going to the courts, and so on; and that we cannot have.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether, with his great courtesy, he could tell the House whether he now agrees, whatever be the amount invested in new towns, that there is no precedent known to his department for this unlimited, unqualified power? My second question is this: does he also admit that, much though it be his wish that the monies should be ploughed back into new towns, there is not a word in the Bill to say that that has to take place?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I thought I had covered the point of precedent. When we look at the enormity—
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, that is no answer.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, it is an answer which I think is a fair one. I am sorry if I did not sound fair to the noble Lord—I think I often do but perhaps on this occasion I did not. Will the noble Lord perhaps repeat his other point?
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I can well understand that the noble Lord did not take on board my second point. Does he admit that, much though it be his desire and the present intention of his

571
Government to plough the money back into new towns, there is not a word in this Bill which makes it necessary for the Government so to do?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, that, indeed, was also the point touched on by the noble Baroness when she said, "What guarantee do we have?" Of course the noble Lord is right; on the face of the Bill there is nothing; but the guarantee is the commitment of the Government to the future of new towns. On the face of the Bill, no; but I believe the Government must have the opportunity and must be able to function in this way, which even the Labour Government were seeking to do originally in their roll-over proposals.
Lord ROBERTHALL: My Lords, may I—
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken already on this amendment. He has not chosen to use the device, "Before the noble Lord sits down". Therefore, I regret to say he is out of order.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word on this. Having listened to all the arguments on both sides, it seems to me that in general the Government must have the right to decide what should be done in the way of demanding money and so forth from whatever the source. But I think they go too far in not giving any kind of guidance on what will be the form of consultation. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, to say, "For the next two years it is all right. You must believe in us". Of course, these are things we are bound to take into account. But that is all an act of faith. I feel, on the other hand, that the amendment brought in at the Committee stage goes too far in that it binds the Government in a way which would be very awkward, if for one reason or another they wanted to do certain things and were then challenged in the courts by the new town which felt it had a right to go on with its programme regardless. You can always argue these things in the courts.
I wonder whether it would not be possible at Third Reading for the noble
572
Lord, Lord Bellwin, to introduce some words which would indicate the sort of matters that the Secretary of State would take into account in his consultation, without binding him absolutely to act. I think this amendment goes too far because in the end there is, or could be, a recourse to the court. If, on the other hand, the noble Lord could give us some sort of idea of the policy that would be taken into account in consultation, I think it would help. At this moment we see nothing; all we are depending upon is the good faith of the Secretary of State to ensure that these things will not upset the new town or the commission. It would be better if there were some sort of wording which would indicate what form the consultation would take.
While in this particular instance I think it would perhaps be unwise to resist the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has moved, at the same time it would be very much easier for a lot of us to support him if we knew that at Third Reading some sentence would be introduced to show what form the consultation would take.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, if I may intervene for just a very few minutes—
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, if I may say so, my noble friend the Minister has summed up on a Motion, because we are now on Report. If I may quote the Companion to Standing Orders, page 87, it says this:
"It is considered undesirable for Lords to continue the debate on a Motion or an Unstarred Question after the Government's reply has been given save for questions to the Minister before he sits down".
My noble friend has been extremely tolerant over this, and I think we should reach a conclusion.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, may I make a comment about that? It seems to me extraordinary, because if that is right, then the Minister, if he likes to do so, can stand up when the debate has proceeded only a little while and thereby effectively terminate the debate. What is happening here today, in my submission, is a pretty shabby business altogether. I was present on the previous occasion when we discussed this question in Committee. We had then a very full debate, a much fuller

573
debate than we have had here this afternoon; we had a debate before a much fuller House than we have here this afternoon—a fuller Committee or assembly. On that occasion, with clear deliberation, on a vote, one of the biggest votes which we have had in this House or in Committee for a long time, the Government were defeated.
What is at issue here is not only the merits or otherwise of this amendment but, in my submission, what are the proper duties of this House as a revising Chamber? If, after due consideration in a Committee of the Whole House, an amendment is carried against the Government, is it right that the Government should come back at Report stage and try to reverse that decision, and, as we must assume, bring in, to carry the Division in their favour, people who have not heard the debate on this occasion or have not heard the debate on the previous occasion? I question whether the Government are well advised to play ducks and drakes with this House as they are doing this afternoon.
4.35 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, on a point of correction, may I simply say this. In the first place, I did not seek to stand up in the middle of the debate and end it; I waited for over an hour listening to many people speak. Secondly, it is not my way to seek to take advantage procedurally in any way. I do not think anyone in your Lordships' House would say that of me; I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Foot, would say that. Thirdly, as to his point of whether it is right for the Government to bring something back, we have had in this Report stage I do not know how many—certainly it is in double figures—occasions on which issues, which were defeated by the Government at Committee stage, have been brought back in the identical form and discussed again, without the right of people here now to know what went on at that time. The Government have made no comment as to that. My noble friend made an observation, but the Government made no comment and no objection at all. Nor do I; I see nothing wrong there.
May I remind the noble Lord of this. It is true there was a substantial vote;
574
there was a majority of three. All the other decisions which noble Lords opposite are seeking to reverse, to which I did not and do not object, were decided by far more than that. With respect, I think we have had two very good runs at this; we have been going for perhaps an hour and a half. The last thing I want to do is to object to anyone speaking, but goodness me, we are going to be here until a very late hour; we have so much business. The Front Benches and everyone have had their chances. I think my noble friend Lord Sandys is right.
Lord FOOT: My Lords—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord FOOT: My Lords, that was an interruption of what I was saying. Before the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, got up just now in order to bring this debate to an end, my noble friend Lord Simon had made two or three attempts to speak. There has not been any intervention in this particular debate from these Benches. Although my noble friend Lord Simon attempted to get up to speak on our behalf, he was interrupted and prevented from doing so by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. I only say this in conclusion. I am not discussing the merits of this matter one way or another. But I will say this. If, after full debate in Committee in this House, when all the arguments have been deployed the Government is defeated, I would have thought that the proper and sensible thing for them to do, if they are so embarrassed by the amendment which has been carried, would be to take the matter up in the other place when it goes back there, and not bring it up again in this House. That is all I want to say about that matter. I suggest that it is improper that there should not be a full debate, especially upon a matter on which the verdict went against the Government on the earlier occasion.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, perhaps I may break in at this interval. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, is, of course, raising two separate points and he is quite entitled to do so because they are, so to speak, two points of order. The first of them is about his noble friend, who, of course, nobody in your Lordships' House would wish to prevent from speak-

575
ing on these matters. But, it is generally accepted that, except during Committee stage, any noble Lord who wishes to speak on a Motion such as this should do so before the Minister replies and not afterwards, save, for example, asking a question or making a point before the noble Lord sits down. Otherwise, it makes the Minister—whichever party happens to be in power—get up again and again and again. It is the generally accepted practice of the House—and my noble friend Lord Sandys has read out the relevant part of the Companion to Standing Orders—that the debate should take place; any noble Lord who wishes to speak should do so, and then the Minister should reply. Of course, the proposer of the amendment then has the right of reply, but that should be the end of the matter.
As regards reversing at Report stage an opinion of the House at Committee stage, I am advised that it is perfectly within the rules of order of the House, if the House so wishes. Of course, there is another matter as regards whether the clause shall stand part on which the Companion to Standing Orders has something separate to say. However, as regards an amendment, it is not against the rules or traditions of the House if the House should decide to do it.
Lord HOWIE of TROON: My Lords, I hesitate to lengthen this particular part of the discussion, but I should like, first, to acquit the Minister of any discourtesy to the House at all. I think that he has shown the greatest willingness to take part in the debates as regards this measure and any others with which he has been concerned in the period in which I have known him. I do not think that there is any question of the situation being otherwise.
But, I have spent some while as a Whip in the other place and I should like to say just a word of advice to the Whip. The Whip should be applied with the lightest and gentlest touch possible—something that I did not realise when I started life as a Whip, but which I learnt during my years in that role. I would be rather inclined to say that, if there were the slightest appearance of a situation in which one of the Opposition Front Bench speakers—albeit from a minor, though
576
not unimportant party—wishes to contribute to a debate, even in the circumstances which we have today, he should be allowed to do so.
Although there are difficulties about the Minister speaking over and over again, looking at the Front Bench today there is no shortage of Ministers present and every one of them is able. There is no reason why one of them should not stand up at the end and reply after the noble Viscount on the Liberal Front Bench has spoken. I think that the best way of proceeding—if I may give the advice of an old and gnarled Whip—is to let the Liberals have their say, let someone else reply and then we can get on with the business and the Government and all of us will be well satisfied.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sure that from this side of the House we accept the ruling of the Government Chief Whip, but other speakers have been quite correct — the noble Viscount tried to get in several times. He was unlucky, but I think that the House might be satisfied if the noble Viscount were allowed to make his points.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, of course, if the noble Viscountwished to speak before my noble friend got up to give his reply and was unable to do so, then that is a different matter. I think that all of my noble friends in this Government—and the same applied to noble Lords opposite when they occupied this side of the House—try to look round before they make their reply, to see whether any noble Lord wishes to speak; but sometimes it is not possible. So if the noble Viscount was, in fact, trying to get up before my noble friend started, then perhaps the House would wish to hear him.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I should like to raise a question that has been going through my mind ever since I heard the opening speech of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill—namely, if, as he says, the Government are completely committed to the interests of the new towns, why does he object to the words which he wants to remove? It seems to me that he has said, almost in other

577
words, that these are the considerations that the Secretary of State would bear in mind. So what is the objection to leaving them there?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, if I may speak by leave of the House yet again, I think that I have covered this point very carefully. I tried to do so when I responded before by saying that the objections are that they throw up so many possibilities
—I think even beyond what noble Lords intended when they moved the amendment previously—by way of delays, frustrations and so on. I just do not think that they should be in the Bill.
4.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 148A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 82.

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Ferrers, E.

Netherthorpe, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ferrier, L.

Newall, L.

Alport, L.

Forester, L.

Norfolk, D.

Avon, E.

Fortescue, E.

Northchurch, B.

Bellwin, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Belstead, L.

Freyberg, L.

Onslow, E.

Berkeley, B.

Gage, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gainford, L.

Perth, E.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Gisborough, L.

Redmayne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Renton, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Gormanston, V.

Rochdale, V.

Caithness, E.

Gowrie, E.

Romney, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cathcart, E.

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

St. Davids, V.

Clwyd, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cockfield, L.

Halsbury, E.

Seebohm, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Henley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigavon, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Inglewood, L.

Slim, V.

Craigton, L.

Keyes, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Crathorne, L.

Kimberley, E.

Somers, L.

Croft, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Knutsford, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Davidson, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

De Freyne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathspey, L.

De La Warr, E.

Long, V.

Swinfen, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Tranmire, L.

Digby, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Dormer, L.

McFadzean, L.

Trenchard, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trumpington, B.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mansfield, E.

Vickers, B.

Ebbisham, L.

Marley, L.

Vivian, L.

Eccles, V.

Morris, L.

Westbury, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Moyne, L.

Wolverton, L.

Elton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Young, B.

Falkland, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Amherst, E.

Brockway, L.

Foot, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ardwick, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Galpern, L.

Avebury, L.

Collison, L.

Gardiner, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Balogh, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Beswick, L.

David, B.

Gosford, E.

Birk, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Blease, L.

Diamond, L.

Gregson, L.

Blyton, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Grey, E.

Boothby, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Hale, L.

Hampton, L.

Meston, L.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Mishcon, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hayter, L.

Oram, L.

Stone, L.

Henderson, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Peart, L.

Strauss, L.

Jacques, L.

Phillips, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kaldor, L.

Plant, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wall, L.

Leatherland, L.

Roberthall, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Listowel, E.

Rochester, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

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

Ross of Marnock, L.

Whaddon, L.

Rugby, L.

White, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Simon, V.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Longford, E.

Stamp, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.55 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 108, line 24, leave out subsection (7) and Insert—
("(7) This section shall not apply to Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 149 I should like to take Amendments Nos. 150, 151, 153, 154 and 155, because the effect of Amendment No. 149 is to leave Scotland out of Clause 122, and the effect of the other amendments is to leave Scotland out of this whole part of the Bill. Why do I suggest that Scotland should be left out? First, the Scottish new towns are different. They are in a different part of the world, a part of the world that is pretty hard to hit at present by unemployment, and the last thing we want to do is to stifle the work that these new towns are doing. They have been a considerable success and a considerable hope in difficult areas.
There are five new towns, four of which are in the Central belt, and three of those four are in West Central Scotland, which is probably hardest hit by unemployment at the present time. The other is, of course, Glenrothes, which was built to absorb a considerable number of those displaced in the mining industry. When one looks at the progress of these new towns one sees that one cannot compare them with the English new towns. Some of them are relatively young. There is only one that is anywhere near a surplus, which I think is East Kilbride, which is the oldest. These are draconian powers, so much so that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did not want any qualifications that might be challenged in court. With
580
no qualifications they become even more draconian—full, unfettered powers given not only to the Secretary of State for the Environment but also to the Secretary of State for Scotland. He can direct them to pay any sum he wants, and he will tell them when to pay. What has been mentioned by no one so far is that, if they do not pay it, it becomes a debt, chargeable at a certain rate of interest. Indeed, he also takes a further power to tell them how they can dispose of the land, and when.
We have heard important sums of money mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary—I believe that is what he said he was, although I shall direct my attention to a Minister of State. The sum of £320 million was mentioned. What is the sum at stake in Scotland? It may be suggested that this is a necessarily heavy hammer to direct that the disposal of assets should raise £320 million in the new towns in England and Wales; but in Scotland the sum at stake is £5 million. This was the sum laid down to be raised in 1979–80. One can recollect that when that announcement was made and when discussions took place with the new towns they were given six months and it was thought that a reasonable sum was £5 million. Of course, they did not get £5 million; I think they got £1·5 million. So there was another meeting. What is it that is laid down for the Scottish new towns at present?—not that they have to find the £5 million in the next year. Oh, no; they are being encouraged to do the best they can and they have to complete the disposals to reach the £5 million in 1980–81. Therefore, what was to take six months, according to the reasonableness of the Government, is now being spread over about two and a half years.
Is it necessary to take these powers in relation to the Scottish new towns in order to raise that sum of money? This is really a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is not that the Secretary of State has not got any powers at the present time; he has. He has powers directly within the Bill, and he has the influence that he bears as the creator of the new towns. He creates the authority; he appoints the chairman. Indeed, chairmen are usually very careful in respect of how they behave towards those who are their masters.
I asked a question about the Scottish new towns, and I am glad to say that I got a very good and full answer from the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. He was not speaking as a Whip then but I presume as a Government Minister when he wrote to me, although I dare say that he discussed the matter fully with the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of State and all the other Under-Secretaries. Here is what I found out. From Scotland, it is not a sum from each individual development corporation, it is a collective sum. So they all meet together cosily, probably in St. Andrew's House. The first time of course they were told £5 million.
"When the disposals programme was first introduced, discussions were held with the General Managers and Chairmen … about the collective contribution they could make. Taking account of the stage of development of the towns and of the depressed state of the market in Scotland",—
It has not become any less depressed since they had these discussions—
"it was decided that no more than £5 million worth of assets should be placed on the market in 1979–80.
"A total of £1·5 million was raised in 1979/80 with the remainder of the £5 million to be found as soon as possible. However, it is now evident that to expect the new towns "—
that is, in Scotland—
"to raise the balance this year could possibly impair their programmes of industrial and commercial development. A flexible attitude is therefore being taken, but the new towns are being encouraged to contribute as much as possible towards the £5 million total this year and definitely to achieve it in 1981/82".
This was supposed to be a reassurance to me that the Government were not being dictatorial. Of course they are not being so in this. Using the powers as they are, they are being reasonable. They are meeting them. But does it not make a nonsense of the suggestion that we must take these powers? In Scotland
582
they are evidently not going to use them., and here once again there is this tidying-up process, applying something to Scotland which is quite unnecessary. I see a former Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on the Benches there. I plagued his life on one occasion on a Town and Country Planning Bill when they did the same silly thing that they are doing here. They mixed Scotland up with England, and when all the other debates continued about England another Member, Mr. George Willis, and I got up and carried on a separate debate on Scotland. I remember his telling us at that time that the circumstances for Scotland were purely academic. They were not purely academic by the time the Bill was on the statute book and affected the property markets and prices in Scotland.
I think he will agree with me that it is not the wisest thing to get Scotland mixed up in an English Bill. We have a whole corpus of legislation on Scottish local government entirely different from that in England. The same is true of land. The same is true of town and country planning. But here we have it spattered through these clauses. I do not know whether noble Lords appreciate this. I took just a quick note as I sat here that in the 40 clauses from about No. 64 to No. 104 only three or four apply to Scotland. In this particular section on new towns I think there are seven clauses and only two of them apply to Scotland.
Would it not be tidier to take Scotland out, and if we need legislation let us have Scottish legislation? That has always been the hope of every other Secretary of State for Scotland. If any of us slipped up, then that former Secretary of State, or the Leader of the Scottish Opposition, was up and pleading the case of the Law Society and everybody else and saying that it was monstrous. It is really monstrous here because it is not needed for Scotland. But the danger is that if it is there it will be used.
Suppose it had been used in this first instance of the £5 million. It would have required to be found. If it had not been found it would have been construed as a debt, and interest paid by the Scottish new towns. This is utter nonsense. In the present economic situation in respect of the whole country this clause is

583
bad enough, but in respect of Scotland it does not make any sense at all. The fact that it has not been used and the Government are not going to use it suggests to me, "Let us be tidy about it. Let us take Scotland out of all the other clauses in this Part XV."
I hope that the Government are prepared to listen to reason. It is not going to destroy their Bill. It is just taking another two clauses that apply to Scotland at the moment, and that need not apply to Scotland, and adding them to the over 100 other clauses of this Bill which do not apply to Scotland. It is not justified by the circumstances of the new towns or their development. It is not justified by the economy of Scotland. It is not justified by the figures which have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. May I thank him very much for the reply, because I think it makes my case?
No doubt the Minister of State will get up and say that this shows how flexible the Government are. Flexible? "You cannae take the breeks offa Highland man." In other words, the £5 million was not there. It did not make any sense to try to get it. But if they are going to take this clause and apply it, it is not the breeks they are going to take off the Highland man, it is the kilt. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, as one who sat for a Scottish constituency for 34 years, I should just like to add one sentence to what the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has said. I agree with every word he said. I have seldom heard more sense talked in this House in so short a time. There is absolutely no reason for putting Scotland into this Bill and many reasons for keeping it out. I shall take a lot of convincing to the contrary.
Lord HOWIE of TROON: My Lords, I shall be very brief indeed. I should like to support my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock in this respect, and to remind the Government of one word only—and that word is "tact". It is the only word that matters here. Over a number of years we had differences of opinion between England and Scotland over the method of devolution. Some at least
584
of the underlying causes of that dispute were concerned with this lack of tact; the idea that Scottish matters should be dealt with merely by tacking on a Scottish provision to what was essentially an English and Welsh Bill. It is a handy and convenient way of doing things no doubt for this House and for another place, but it is not necessarily a sensible and tactful way of dealing with the United Kingdom.
My noble friend Lord Ross is quite right when he says that the correct way to go about this kind of business is to produce a Scottish Bill which deals with the peculiarities and the particularities of Scotland and deals with them separately. My noble friend lives in Scotland and he has a close association with the Scottish people. I have lived in England for a long time, but neither he nor I have any animus against the English. We merely remind you that many of the Scots are irked by this kind of tactlessness. Especially when it is a tactlessness which can be readily and easily avoided. It ought to be avoided. I think that the House would be well advised to take my noble friend's advice, and the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, with his unrivalled experience of United Kingdom and Scottish affairs, and leave this out. If the precise provisions must be dealt with, let us deal with them later in a Scottish Bill, gathering together all the minor and extraneous bits and pieces of this vast measure which deal particularly with Scotland. Let us leave England to the English, Wales to the Welsh, and Scotland to the Scots.
5.10 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, the compass of this debate is considerably narrower than most of the subjects we have discussed across the Dispatch Box so far as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and I are concerned. This is a United Kingdom Bill, we are all citizens of the United Kingdom and we are debating this matter in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. These provisions give effect to the general policy of the Government which is, for new towns, exactly the same for Scotland as it is for England. There are two objects of the exercise, first to ensure that it is open to the Secretary of State to direct the

585
development corporations to realise assets which can be made available to the Exchequer for new town or other purposes, and secondly to ensure that the development corporations have clear-cut powers to dispose of land for that purpose. Those are the objects of these clauses, no more and no less.
Two points have emerged in this debate. The first is whether this power to the Secretary of State should be put in a United Kingdom Bill as opposed to forming the subject of separate legislation applying only to Scotland. I hope from what I have said that both the noble Lords, Lord Boothby and Lord Howie of Troon, may perhaps conclude that merely to extend to Scotland what is part of the general policy of the United Kingdom does not need separate legislation to achieve its purpose. Parliament is short of time. The legislative programme, whichever party is in power, is always appallingly congested and your Lordships, with great assiduity, remain true to their task night after night, particularly after the summer holidays, to get the legislative programme of the Government of the day through to completion. I cannot believe that we have to burden Parliament with a Scottish Bill to say precisely the same in effect as is said in a United Kingdom Bill because we wish, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, to show tact to the Scots. I wonder if, on reflection, he really means that?
Lord HOWIE of TROON: I do indeed, my Lords.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Secondly, my Lords, leaving aside the question of where the legislation takes place—in the sense whether it is in the same Bill or in two different Bills—is there any reason that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, adduced why Scottish new towns should be exempted from the legislation which will affect the English? The noble Lord read out details of a letter which my noble friend Lord Sandys had sent him, and as he himself remarked, it shows that the Government are exhibiting a thoroughly flexible attitude in the matter.
It is right that that should happen because the Scottish new towns are slightly different in that they are not so advanced in their stages of development compared with the English new towns in
586
the South-East, which are putting up most of the money. That is why the Scottish new towns have been asked to provide only £5 million; I say "only" not in a pejorative sense but merely by comparison. In 1979–80 they realised £1½, million, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said, and they are expected to raise the balance as soon as possible. In fact, only East Kilbride has so far reached a surplus on its general revenue account, but all five Scottish new towns are expected to contribute to relieve the burden presently falling on the Exchequer. The sums realised are not recovered but are offset against the borrowing requirements of the individual towns.
The policy of the Government may be disagreeable to noble Lords opposite, and I should be the last to deny them their perfectly genuinely held point of view, but no reason has emerged in this debate from the obviously deeply held convictions of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, why the Scottish new towns in some say should be exempted from the burden which is falling on all the other new towns that are the subject of the Bill. In the circumstances, I can only ask the noble Lord to reflect and possibly to withdraw the amendment.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I welcome the tone of the Minister's speech but I cannot agree with it. Everything that has happened in relation to getting the £5 million from the Scottish new towns shows that this power is unnecessary, even from the attitude of the Scottish Office and of the new towns. I do not know where the new towns are in England and Wales, but I know there is not a new town in Scotland further away than two hours' drive from the Scottish Office. In fact, if they want to meet in Glasgow they can all he there within an hour, which is indeed what happens. The Secretary of State know the people concerned because he appoints them. Scotland is a convenient administrative unit and, in respect of these new towns, there has been no trouble over getting agreement.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said there might be trouble with some of the English new towns, so the Government would have their way and must therefore have this power. I see the noble Lord questioning that, but I assure him he said it;

587
I am very good at making notes when people are speaking. There is no such trouble, there is no such fear and there is no new town in the centre of Dundee which will cause nightmares for the Minister of State. He must admit that there has been agreement and come-and-go all along the line, so this power will not be used. Indeed, it is an insult to Parliament to put in a power which will not be used.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, talked about United Kingdom legislation. I do not know for how long he has been concerned with Scottish legislation as part of United Kingdom legislation; certain things are done and others are not. But suppose it were right to include certain things in respect of Scotland in this "mogre" of a Bill. I assure him that to save the time of Parliament this should not have been included. Bills should be as short as possible, and this Bill would have been that much shorter and the valuable speeches we have heard today would not have been delivered if this power had not been included; therefore,
we should have saved this amount of parliamentary time, which is what the noble Earl wants. Legislation should not contain unnecessary provisions, and this one is unnecessary. It will never be used, so why put it in?
I see on the Benches opposite another former Secretary of State. I am sure he will agree with me. There is plenty of time to say "No" to certain people, and to say, "We are not going to do it in Scotland". It is time the Scottish Office got up on their hind legs and said "No" to unnecessary legislation. As my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon said, it is quite offensive at times to the people of Scotland to be dragged along in this kind of thing just for the sake of national tidiness. I am afraid that I have to insist on this one, because what the Government propose really is quite unnecessary.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 149) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 119.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Galpern, L.

Peart, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, B.

Balogh, L.

Gosford, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Blease, L.

Gregson, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Blyton, L.

Hale, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Boothby, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Henderson, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Brockway, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stone, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L.

Strauss, L.

Collison, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kaldor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Underhill, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wall, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

Mishcon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

White, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Oram, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gaitskell, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Airedale, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Craigton, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Burton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Alport, L.

Caccia, L.

Croft, L.

Ampthill, L.

Caithness, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Avon, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Davidson, V.

Bellwin, L.

Cathcart, E.

De Freyne, L.

Belstead, L.

Cockfield, L.

De La Warr, E.

Berkeley, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

De L'Isle, V.

Bessborough, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Boyd of Merton, V.

Craigavon, V.

Digby, L.

Dormer, L.

Kimberley, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Pender, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Knutsford, V.

Redmayne, L.

Dundonald, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Renton, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Rochdale, V.

Eccles, V.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Rochester, L.

Ellenborough, L.

London, Bp.

Romney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Long, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Falkland, V.

Lyell, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Ferrier, L.

McFadzean, L.

Simon, V.

Forester, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mancroft, L.

Stamp, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mansfield, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Freyberg, L.

Marley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gisborough, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Meston, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gormanston, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gowrie, E.

Morris, L.

Tranmire, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

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

Moyne, L.

Trenchard, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Halsbury, E.

Netherthorpe, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hanworth, V.

Newall, L.

Vickers, B.

Henley, L.

Norfolk, D.

Vivian, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Northchurch, B.

Westbury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wolverton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Onslow, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 123 [Power to dispose of land]:
[Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 not moved.]
5.29 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 152:
Leave out Clause 123.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am seeking to leave out Clause 123, which relates to the power to dispose of land. We on this side of the House are opposed to enforced sales and to orders from the Secretary of State, partly because we dislike the bullying and directing of responsible people, people who are doing a good job and who, incidentally, are appointed by the Minister, and partly—and even more importantly—because we think that enforced sales will not be in the public interest.
Town centre developments in particular take a long time to come into profit, as do other enterprises. But town centres are a very good example of assets maturing and developing for the benefit of the community over a considerable period of time. We do not object—and I want to emphasise this—to sales to help further
590
developments in the new towns; nor, indeed, do we object to sales to owners of small businesses or owners of small industries. We do not object to a mix of private and public ownership, but we do want to see sales for a good reason and not just to raise immediate money to go to the Treasury. That, in fact, was certainly said by Ministers in another place, that the reason for sales was to reduce the PSBR.
To sell freehold—and my noble friend Lady Stedman read from the instruction sent in July to new town corporations—is in most cases to sell assets which are improving in value all the time, and it seems just bad and stupid business, and not at all in the public interest. The values of assets in new towns, and particularly in new towns which are still developing and are not yet completed, are growing all the time. It seems absurd to sell prematurely. Why should the nation, the taxpayer, put money in and be deprived of the benefit of the profits when they eventually appear? It seems to me a shortsighted and, indeed, myopic policy. Why interfere with what is a successful public enterprise? It seems that the general policy of this Government is to get rid of the profitable and successful public enterprises and to hang on to the others.
Do the Government not see their obligation to retain an interest in the land by

591
not selling the freehold, and in its redevelopment at a future date, perhaps a date really some long way ahead, so that they can be ready at that time to respond to the changing needs of commerce and industry? Our inner urban areas show the need for this adaptability, and it may be that they would not have got into the troubles that they are in if that policy had been followed before. Have the Government nothing to learn from a previous Tory Government which in 1962 passed a Bill to prevent Letchworth's property being dissipated and fragmented?
Of course, the New Town Act does not promise that the surpluses accruing to the new town corporations or the commission after all their loan debt has been repaid would be devoted to the benefit of the new town inhabitants; but neither does it afford any justification for treating these bodies as if they had no obligations beyond creating financial assets for the Government, either to serve the nation's benefit or to plunder as improvidently as they please. The policy being pursued is liable to prejudice and pre-empt the issue of the future ownership of the new town assets, which needs to be determined in a broader and much more far-sighted way.
The Minister did not answer my noble friend Lady Stedman when she spoke on a previous clause and asked what was to be the future of the commission. The future of the assets and of the land belonging to the new towns depends very much, of course, upon what it is decided should be done with the commission, so I hope that in answering my amendment we shall hear something of that. I beg to move.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady David, has said in moving this amendment, but I feel some difficulty about this and it may be that, when she comes to wind up, she will be able to help me. It seems to me that as the Government have succeeded in carrying Amendment No. 148A it is very difficult to remove the power of the new towns to sell property if it is necessary for them to do so in order to meet a demand which, regrettably, Parliament has now placed upon them.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I wish
592
to support my noble friend in this amendment. On the point which has just been raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, so far the House has decided only on the question of raising money. We are now dealing with the question of how to raise the money, which is the diktat of the Secretary of State—and I use the word diktat because one must recall what the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, said at the Committee stage, that in fact what we are doing here is legalising an action already taken by the Secretary of State; because the noble Baroness made it quite clear that the Secretary of State has already demanded sums of money from the corporations and some have paid already.
We are now dealing with the clause which deals with the situation where, to realise the sum of money, the disposal of land is required, and it is a question of how it shall be done. If a lot of land comes on the market all at once, there is obviously going to be, I would think, some effect upon the value and the receipts that will be accruing. Also, surely, the disposal of an abundance of land is going to have some effect upon the future revenues of new town corporations, because you can only sell land once and income accruing from rents, and so on, will not be secured in the future.
Also, under this clause considerable power is given to the Secretary of State as to the direction he will give to a corporation or the commission as to how they shall dispose of the land; that is made quite clear in subsection (5). Therefore, it could be not only how it shall be done and when it shall be done, but at what value it shall be done; and even in relation to particular pieces of land the full authority is there without any criteria or conditions whatever. It is provided in the clause that the Secretary of State shall consult the corporation before giving a direction, but, as we have seen in the case of other clauses in this Bill, it does not say what will happen if the corporation does not wish to comply with the direction. It is merely a question of consultation, and the Secretary of State can apparently just brush on one side any representations that the corporation may make. In other words, is it just a formality?
Then we find, also in this clause, that the Secretary of State need not have con-

593
sultations with the corporation if he feels that the urgency makes it impracticable. I shoud like to ask the Minister: In what circumstances is it envisaged that there could be such an emergency in the matter of the disposal of land that the Secretary of State could not find it possible to consult with a corporation? It seems an unnecessary provision and another unnecessary power to give to the Secretary of State.
We are dealing now also with the question of land, and the disposal of it. The debate we had on the other amendment dealt with the instruction to pay certain sums. I must draw attention to the provisions that we have in Clause 95 regarding the disposal of land held by public bodies, because there we find that the Secretary of State has to be thoroughly satisfied that land will not be disposed of unless it can be done
"without serious detriment to the performance of their functions or the carrying on of their undertaking".
Yet, when my noble friend endeavoured to put almost a similar condition on the demand for money to be paid, we met resistance and the position was reversed by our earlier vote this afternoon. But that ought to be kept in mind when we are dealing with Clause 123, and I hope the House will support this amendment.
5.39 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady David, who has spoken to this clause, we believe that Clause 123 is a necessary consequence of Clause 122. In fact, it is a corollary of it, as it expands the power of the development corporations and the commission for the new towns to dispose of land. The present powers, contained in the 1965 and 1968 Acts, restrict each town's disposals to those necessary to secure the development of a particular town. This clause gives clear-cut powers for the new towns to dispose of land in order to comply with the Secretary of State's directions under Clause 122.
This wider power of disposal is an essential part of the policy of enabling assets in completed towns to be realised for deployment elsewhere. I think that the noble Baroness in her remarks agreed that this was a very worthy policy; and it is the policy of Her Majesty's Govern-
594
ment. Without it, the massive resources invested in the new towns remain tied up—effectively neutralised for all the good they can do in promoting the develoment of new industry, and generally helping to solve the problems of the present day. Hence we consider that the wider power of disposal is an essential part of our approach to the new towns. Various points have been made about the detail of the powers of disposal. The features of the clause to which objection has been taken are all results of our intention to make the power of disposal under this clause subject to exactly the same rules as the existing powers of disposal of the new towns; that is, arrangements which have not been questioned by noble Lords opposite. We want to ensure that the arrangements are as precisely parallel as possible.
Perhaps I may take the points in sequence. Firstly, subsection (3) forbids disposals by way of mortgage. This repeats the ban in Section 18(3) of the 1965 New Towns Act. Secondly, subsection (4) requires the Secretary of State's consent to disposals of the freehold or on leases of more than 99 years. This repeats what is in Section 18(1) in the 1965 Act. Thirdly, subsection (5) gives the Secretary of State power to give direction on the exercise of the power of disposal. This repeats the general power in Section 4(2) of the 1965 Act. This applies to all the powers of the development corporations under that Act, including their existing powers of disposal; and fourthly, subsection (6) requires consultation with corporations before directions are given, unless urgency makes this impracticable. This parallels the qualification to which directions under Section 4(2) are subject. And I should point out that the exemption from consultation in case of urgency exists in the 1965 Act.
Doubt was cast on the matter of the legality of the Secretary of State's action by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Perhaps I may refer to Standing Committee D, and I may also refer to Lord Mishcon's prayer and, from this side of the House, offer another prayer; that it may be a matter of consideration that the discussion in Standing Committee on this particular matter perhaps sometimes could be the subject of a little

595
more concern because I think my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for the department, Mr. Marcus Fox, put it clearly when he said (at col. 591 on 29th April, which was the 29th sitting of the Committee):
"With respect to the points raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), his fears about a regular appearance in court by the Secretary of State or any particular new town development corporation, or whoever it may be, will not be borne out, because the development corporations have been prepared to sell. What has concerned them has been the doubts about the legality of selling, and that is what we are seeking to ensure here to remove these doubts. There is nothing new in this where recovery has to take place. The Housing Act 1974 made the same provision for repayments of grants that had been given in regard to the housing corporations.
The rolling-over of assets of these corporations which occurred under the previous Government was allowed".
I hope that that may help the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to see the position as it stands at the moment.
I think there are other matters to which I should refer, points of clarification which I thought my honourable friend Mr. King at the department also made extremely clear in his concluding remarks. He is the Minister for Local Government. In regard to the question of debt (and I think it is an important matter to which my noble friend has already referred) he said, in col. 614:
"When one considers that the investment of the accumulated debt of the new towns is now some £3,200 million—"
and my noble friend quoted £3,250 million, as it has risen since April—
"I gave that figure in another context a little earlier—one sees that there is much to be said for any efforts that will help to reduce it".
I think that both my noble friend today and my honourable friend Mr. King made clear what is the Government policy. I am sure it is acknowledged by noble Lords opposite. There is such a very substantial debt at the present moment. My noble friend has already pointed out, I think with some passion, our belief in the reinvestment programme. I think it was made clear (and I will not quote in detail) in col. 613 in Standing Committee "D" by Mr. King. He quoted specific details of the investment programme. We believe this clause is an essential part of the Bill and I regret that we must resist this amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that one of the things which troubles us is not the careful way he has explained the clause and the subsections today, implying that nothing is different from what goes on in new towns today; but that that has been altered by the circular which went out in July 1980, where the Minister said that where disposals were being made, they should be on a freehold basis. At the present time, it is always difficult for the development corporations to get agreement from the Department of the Environment that they should sell a freehold. Most of them are leaseholds for 99 years. We are concerned that it is the freeholder who benefits in the end from the appreciating value of the land or building. We think that it is imperative that the Government maintain and control the activities of the development corporations so that in due course the increasing value of the land or property accrues to the community and not to the freeholder. It is the question of unrestricted freehold selling that worries us.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, may I reply on this, to say that if we are talking about leaseholds and freeholds, as the noble Baroness knows, when leaseholds are sold in these circumstances usually one is talking about long leases of 99 years or 125 years or whatever. The long-term intention of the new towns was always that at the end of the day, they would go back to the local authorities where they were situated. It is now, 30 years on, that we see the first ones are going back. I should have thought that as far as new towns development corporations themselves are concerned the issue of leasehold or freehold, in terms of long leases, would not be an issue to them.
You could say, going beyond that, if you were talking about the general philosophy of selling a freehold or a leasehold, that the noble Baroness's argument on its own is understood. But it is an argument that I had time and time again in another incarnation. We felt, if the principle was right, that we did not want, as a local authority then, to own land just for the sake of owning it. We did not mind as long as the price we got for it was good. What mattered most was what we did with the money we got. The fact that the land itself was then in private ownership or

597
whatever was secondary to the use we put to the money; in other words, the way we had converted the assets from fixed to liquid. It was what happened to the money that we got. That was the object. The same would apply to Government thinking on this matter.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I cannot say that I am altogether satisfied with the answer that I have had. We wished to move the deletion of the clause because we do not approve of the policy of hasty sales and probably future regrets. Particularly, we feel there is foolishness in the disposing of land which will tie hands in the future. I appreciate the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, made. There has still been no answer to the question about what is intended to be the future of the commission. I will not press that now at this hour, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nov. 153 to 155 not moved.]
Clause 130 [Urban development areas]:
5.51 p.m.
Lord ELWYN-JONES Lord ELWYN-JONES moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 113, line 4, leave out ("Subject to subsection (2) below").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if we take Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 together it will give the House, first, the opportunity of re-examining the designation of London docklands and Merseyside as urban development areas and, secondly, of considering in further detail the issue of hybridity to which, I submit, the clause gives rise. We debated the proposals in Committee on 14th October. I do not propose to do so again in any detail as they were adumbrated in a notable speech by my noble friend Lord Underhill, and also in speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, and myself.
The effect of what is proposed for the dockland areas of London and Liverpool will certainly, so far as London is concerned, be to disrupt and delay the implementation of the docklands strategic
598
plan which was approved in July 1976. I have in my hand a copy of the plan with all its glossy beauty for all who are here to see. That strategic plan was approved by the five boroughs concerned, the Greater London Council with independent members, including Government nominees, and after extensive public consultation. A great deal of progress has been made with the implementation of the strategic plan and at the very least the effect of the Government's proposals in the Bill is to create uncertainty as to how far the principles embodied in the plan will be adopted by the development corporation.
Not only is there in existence the strategic plan, but also a detailed operational programme for 1979 to 1983 which has been in the course of implementation for several years. Some of my noble friends and I had the pleasure of touring the dockland area concerned to see the extensive progress that has already taken place to give effect to the operational programme. I assume that the noble Lord has seen this document. If he has not, I will be glad to let him have a copy. At the back of the document there is a detailed account of the money spent and the work already done in the implementation of the operational programme. Does the noble Lord think that any parts of it should go ahead? If so, which parts? Does he think that some of the proposals in the operational plan will be cancelled? The authorities concerned would like to know, because this is a continuing process in which of course they are very greatly concerned.
The claimed purpose of setting up the UDCs is to regenerate the areas which clearly need regeneration. However, we submit that that regeneration is already taking place in the areas. The case of the Government has rested to a substantial degree on the analogy of the new town corporations. But we are not dealing here with new towns; we are considering well established, indeed historic, local authorities and extensive existing built up areas—the very reverse of the new town set up.
I should have thought that in this situation the crucial problem—certainly the crucial need—will be to secure the co-operation of the local authorities in the regeneration proposals and actions. I ask rhetorically: Is co-operation likely to happen when what is proposed by the

599
Government is that the local authorities concerned should be robbed of their existing powers, which I say are already being exercised energetically, and that those powers and a good deal of their land should be placed at the disposal of an autocratic body under the instructions of and only answerable to the Secretary of State? What co-operation can be expected from those circumstances? My great fear is that the revolutionary change of direction and change of control that is now proposed, away from responsible local authorities, so far from speeding up the existing pace of regeneration—which is the argument put forward in support of the proposals—would, on the contrary, slow it down.
The other point of substance that the Minister insisted upon was the expectation that the corporations would attract more private capital. It is interesting to reflect: Why should that be so? Is it because the development corporation would have powers of land acquisition, particularly of land at present owned by statutory undertakers?—and there is a lot of that in the area concerned. Those powers have been denied, and are denied, to existing local authorities and the Docklands Joint Committee. Is it also because planning permission, with the attendant possibilities of capital gains from development of land in the centre of London next to the City of London and with reasonable communication with the West End, will not be in the hands of the local authorities, which are democratically accountable, but would be in the hands of this autocratic super-quango that the Government propose to set up?
These considerations have become increasingly relevant in the light of the memorandum dated 27th October which was sent out by the Department of the Environment to the local authorities concerned, and which indicates significant proposed changes in the area of land that is to be designated. All this has happened while we have been considering the Bill in this House without knowledge of these developments. While land in the Greenwich and Lewisham areas has been taken out of the proposals, land on the South Bank, on the South side of the Pool of London as far as London Bridge, has been added to the proposed take-over area.
If the Bill is passed, and orders are made, that land will be transferred to the London Docklands Development Corporation. It is one of the most important and environmentally sensitive areas of land in London. Do these changes mean that the development corporation will be able to escape the usual planning inquiries, acquire the land under a compulsory purchase order but under different conditions and at a lower cost than would apply to the existing local authorities? There are rich pickings here and public answerability is of great importance. So much for the general considerations relating to the proposals in this Part of the Bill.
The next matter of substance to which I should like to refer is the issue of hybridity, which the Minister in another place described as somewhat arcane. It is not without its difficulties, but, arcane though it may be, when the party of noble Lords opposite were in power, my goodness, what use they made of it! They harried us, they harassed us in and out on the shiprepairing Bill, and therefore it cannot be said that it is argument to which they are strangers. I raised this question at the Committee stage. As the House will know, when this Bill was first presented subsection (2) was not included. Care was taken not to designate any particular area of land at that stage. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said at column 1192 of the Official Report that the intention was to avoid the hybridity point, which of course he still claims the clause as amended does achieve. My submission is that it does not and that, certainly prima facie, Subsection (2) of the clause is hybrid.
It is true that there are 36 metropolitan districts, 12 relevant Inner London boroughs and 20 Outer London boroughs whose land would be capable of coming within the provisions of the Bill as it would be if the new subsection were included. But the reality that we are dealing with—and the reality which is admitted and, indeed, has been widely publicised—is that there are only two areas of land which are to be designated; and they have been defined and identified—namely, land in London Docklands and in Merseyside. The reality of the matter is that we are not dealing with the wide classes of metropolitan districts and the

601
large number of London boroughs; we are dealing with two limited specified areas of land belonging to the few authorities owning that land.
In my submission these are provisions which will specially affect particular local authorities and particular individuals living in or having business in the area of the land concerned. They are persons and authorities who will be singled out for adverse treatment, to use the language of Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster in defining a hybrid Bill. I quoted the reference when we discussed the matter in Committee. He said:
"An individual singled out by a public Bill for adverse treatment should be allowed to plead his cause to a Select Committee on a petition against the Bill or against those provisions of the Bill that will affect him. The doctrine was designed to give the minority some defence against the Legislature, and that in modern times means defence against the Crown. Unless it is that, it is nothing".
The reality of what is proposed here, and known to be proposed and admitted to be proposed, is to single out these two areas of land in the domain of five or six local authorities. In my submission we are not dealing here with a classification, a class, a category, but with singled-out and identifiable or individual authorities. The question of hybridity was discussed in another place on 1st May this year when it was raised by my honourable friend Mr. Nigel Spearing, who, incidentally, succeeded me as Member of Parliament for Newham South; the lucky man! Mr. King, the Minister in another place, denied that the clause was hybrid and said, at column 740 of the Official Report of Standing Committee D of 1st May, that:
"the actual areas for the UDCs are not specified in the legislation. The legislation covers the general concept of urban development corporations".
Of course, on 1st May that was perfectly true; we had only the general language, the general concept, at that time. But since then the situation has changed. A large number of authorities protested, fearful of having the privilege of UDCs being bestowed upon them, and subsection (2) was introduced in the clause to reassure the worried and the frightened largely Conservative authorities. I submit that that appeasement of the authorities concerned must be paid for by the price of hybridity and what follows from it.
But one thing the Minister, Mr. King, did make clear in another place was that at any rate the designation orders which have to be made to set up the development corporations would be hybrid. That was said by him at column 741 of the Hansard report. He said:
"The point is that designation orders have to be made to set up urban development corporations. They are made by the Secretary of State under Clause 108, which is the designation of an urban development area; under Clause 109, the establishment of a UDC; under Clause 114, the vesting of the land; under Clause 122, the transfer of the housing functions. They would be subject to the hybrid affirmative procedure".
That is a very positive and very clear commitment.
Then, however, the question of hybridity was raised again in another place on 6th May, at column 799 of the Official Report. On that occasion the Minister was certainly far less categorical than he had been on May Day. It was true, he said, that the Bill was not hybrid (of course, that has always been the contention of the Government) but a designation order made under the Bill—then there is a delightful piece of circumlocution:
"would clearly be likely to excite the attentions of the Hybrid Instruments Committee in the House of Lords".
Then he added:
"… I considered that it would be for the Hybrid Instruments Committee to decide on locus standi "
Then, again, a nice piece of circumlocution:
"It would be difficult, I believe, for it not to be considered that a local authority in the area definitely did have locus standi and that its views would need to be considered".
Difficult, indeed, if it could be contested that the local authority whose powers were to be taken over had no locus standi in the situation. I submit that that would be a somewhat grotesque suggestion. However, there it was.
In our debate on the clause on 14th October the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, nowhere indicated whether or not orders under this clause would be hybrid. The only mention of orders was made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who helpfully intervened during my speech and said, in column 1193 of the Official Report:
"The orders designating the areas and establishing the corporations will of course be hybrid, and that is where the point comes in".

603
It is my case that the point came in on the consideration of the clause itself, which I submit is tainted with hybridity now. However, on the limited but important question of the hybridity of the proposed orders, what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was neither confirmed nor denied, or indeed commented on by the noble Minister.
I submit that this is a matter which needs to be cleared up unless the Government could properly be accused of securing the passage of this clause through both Houses on the understanding that orders made under it would be hybrid or were most likely to be hybrid. It would put the matter beyond doubt and put the Government out of their difficulty, of course, if they were to accept my amendment, because the whole question would then fall. At any rate, we certainly need clarification about the hybridity of the orders. But, apart from that, I submit that the factors to which I have called the attention of the House indicate that we are now clearly in the presence, prima facie at any rate, of hybridity. I beg to move.
6.12 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may be permitted to add just a few words to the submission of my noble and learned friend in connection with the hybridity issue. It is not often that muses manage to intervene in this House and give us any inspiration to poetry; but I must admit that, while listening to my noble and learned friend directing his remarks on hybridity to the Minister, I could not help but think of these lines:
"No peer would connect Beliwin with the slightest frigidity
But, by Heavens! this House charges him with hybridity".
And so, having introduced the matter on a poetic basis, may I now consider with your Lordships the question of the legal issues involved, as I see them?
Obviously I adopt everything that my noble and learned friend has already said and I rise purely to add somewhat, if he will permit me, to what he said. At the Committee stage we particularised the invasion of private rights that there might be. They are clearly set out in Clause 132 and I will not weary the House with a
604
repetition of them. It is interesting to look at Erskine May, that invaluable guide to what should be the procedure of Parliament. At page 862 of that eternal book, this is to be found in regard to the question of hybrid Bills:
"There are two reasons why bills affecting private rights … are properly introduced as hybrid bills—first that, although in part they may be of a private nature, their main object is a public one;"—
and, if I may pause there, that is obviously so with this Bill, in my submission—
"and secondly, that there may be no parties able and willing to present a petition".
That is exactly the situation, I would submit, of the Bill as it now stands with subsection (2) in it.
There is another difficulty, unless it can be clarified by the Minister or by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, and it is this: if the answer to the question be that there is no need for this to be ruled as a hybrid Bill but that any order which designates an area and sets up an urban development corporation would be a hybrid order and therefore be subjected to the hybrid procedure, I then find myself looking at Clause 135.
I wonder whether your Lordships will give me the courtesy of looking at that clause. It deals with the allocation or transfer of functions, and your Lordships will, I hope, see in subsection (1), together with subsection (2), how relevant is the point I am making. It says:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State, in the case of an urban development area, that there are exceptional circumstances which render it expedient that the functions of an urban development corporation under this Part of this Act should be performed by the urban development corporation established for the purposes of any other area instead of by a separate corporation established for the purpose, he may, instead of establishing such a separate corporation, by order, direct that those functions shall be performed by the urban development corporation established for the other area".
If I can put it in simple language, it means that if you make an order and at that stage you have decided that the urban development corporation set up by that order is going to deal with a specific area and not impinge on any other area, and the hybrid procedure is gone through, you may subsequently find that the Secretary of State may make an order allowing that urban development corporation in that one area to carry out certain functions in an entirely different area. Where, in

605
that different area, will be the right of the private interests involved to object, unless it is also said that an order made under Clause 135 would also be a hybrid order?
If your Lordships will look at subsection (2), you will see that it says:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that there are exceptional circumstances which render it expedient that the functions of an urban development corporation established for one area should be transferred to the urban development corporation established for the purposes of another area, or to a new urban development corporation to be established for the first-mentioned area, he may, by order, provide for the dissolution of the first-mentioned corporation, and for the transfer of its functions, property, rights and liabilities to the urban development corporation established for the purposes of the other area or (as the case may be) to a new corporation established for the purposes of the first-mentioned area by the order".
That, in simple language, means this. Having got the first case, where there is no urban development corporation area, for the other area that has been considered, you now have two urban development corporations set up in two different areas with a hybrid procedure gone through, if that be the order of the day. Then you have the ability of the Secretary of State to transfer the functions of one urban development area to another and to dissolve one, if he thinks that that is a suitable thing to do, with the result that you get completely different private interests involved.
I find myself in an absolute maze in this question of hybridity, and I ask whether in fact the maze is not escaped from—if that is not too ugly a phrase—by saying that this Bill must, because of its complexity, be a hybrid Bill. Or is the answer to it that, quite apart from the question of the original order which is to be made by the Secretary of State being a hybrid order, does it not also mean that every order made under Clause 135 will have to set up an entirely new hybrid procedure if any such order is made?—making, if I may say so, a mockery of the first hybrid procedure which was gone through when the first urban development corporation was set up, now that its powers and functions are in some way altered. I hope that I have not put this with too much complexity, but it is indeed a complicated matter and I trust that, somehow or other, we shall manage this evening to get some clarity into a very important issue.
6.20 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, the amendment raises two important and quite distinct issues, and I wonder whether I may begin by referring to the general policy question. I must reiterate the fact that we moved an amendment at Committee stage to restrict the type of area in which X UDCs could be set up, as a positive response to suggestions made by many people, both at Second Reading in this House and elsewhere. Given that the legislation affords the Secretary of State general and wide powers as to the areas that he can designate, the argument was forcefully put to us that the powers of designation should be restricted. We accepted that.
It seemed to us then, and it certainly seems to me now, to be fair and right that we should take account of this and, accordingly, restrict the areas where urban development corporations can be set up to the major conurbations—the ones which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, mentioned when he made his observations. But if we are talking in the generality of the philosophy of urban development corporations, which was the thrust of the first part of what the noble and learned Lord said on this whole matter, I have to say that what I said in Committee covered all the points.
It is true that work has been done by the Docklands Joint Committee, and the document to which the noble and learned Lord referred is known to me, though perhaps not as well as it is known to him. But the fact is that in that designated area there are some 6,000 acres, and it is arguably one of the most exciting areas of land, in the sense of opportunity, in the whole of Europe. Yes, my Lords, the Docklands Joint Committee and the local authorities have done good things over the years and are still doing them. In Committee, I paid tribute to what they are doing, and I do so again now. But we cannot wait for the time that it will take.
Surely it cannot be wrong to want to tackle these areas in a radical way, to bring about the kind of regeneration that we believe can come about from urban development corporations. Of course, it will involve a much greater commitment by Government than there may ever have

607
been in the past, but the fact is that the prize, in terms of upgrading these areas, is a great one. As regards the pace at which it can be done, by involvement of the private sector, which we may or may not want to discuss again now—I suggest that we do not, but will do so if pressed—the fact is that this is a tremendous opportunity. We know from what has been said to us that there are people who are waiting to come in to do these exciting things, and to us it seems only right that we should take these two areas and show exactly what can be done.
Of course, the Bill goes beyond that. In its scope, it takes in the other areas that have been mentioned. But, in general terms, rather than go into a lot of detail, I have to stand on the philosophical point which I have just mentioned that, while paying due tribute, we really believe that this is a tremendous opportunity. The fact that it has been greeted with so much enthusiasm by so many people, not only supporters on this side of the House but all over, gives credence to that opportunity.
On the point of hybridity, I immediately realise that I am on very difficult ground in the presence of so many distinguished noble and learned Lords. But I wonder whether I may make one or two observations as they appear to me. We have discussed this matter very closely. We recognise the great importance and significance of what the noble and learned Lord said. Therefore, he would have expected not only that we consider this in another place, but, in that he has raised the matter now because of this amendment, that we should do so again. I assure him that we have done that and I wonder whether I may speak as follows.
In achieving this desirable effect which I have just mentioned, as regards the totality of what we want to do with these UDCs, we faced this criticism of having introduced hybridity by what this amendment says. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, brought out his concern very clearly and forcefully in Committee. I told your Lordships in Committee how concerned we had been about it earlier. But in the light of the comments made since then by the noble and learned Lord, we have again taken special care to seek further advice.
608
It is that Clause 130(2) does not make the Bill hybrid. That is because, in the case of England, all that subsection (2) does is to limit the ability of the Secretary of State to designate an urban development area to certain classes of area. For England as a whole, it is limited to metropolitan districts. For London, it is limited to inner London boroughs and to boroughs which have a common boundary with an inner London borough, as the noble and learned Lord said.
It can clearly be seen from this that, in the view of my noble and learned friend and others who have spoken to me on this matter, all this provision in the Bill does is to limit areas suitable for designation to certain classes of authority. It does not, therefore, impinge on particular persons or agencies, and on this test it does not make the Bill hybrid. Even so, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said, his concern may well become relevant at a later stage.
An order setting up an individual UDC will fall to be considered by the Chairman of Committees to report to this House whether, apart from the provisions of the Act authorising it to be made, it would require to be enacted by a private or hybrid Bill. If he reports that it would, the order and any petitions relating to it would be referred to the Hybrid Instruments Committee. This committee, after considering representations, will decide whether any petitioner has a locus standi and, if so, whether the petition discloses substantial grounds and whether there ought to be a further inquiry by a Select Committee.
If the Hybrid Instruments Committee reports to the House that there ought to be a further inquiry, the House may refer the order and any petitions against it to a Select Committee of this House. This is the procedure which is enshrined in Standing Order No. 216 relating to Private Bills and so on. It is a procedure which allows the House to give particularly careful and detailed scrutiny to the orders which will be laid, and enables the whole question of hybridity to be throughly examined against the background of the facts. That is all I have to say on the hybridity matter and I hope that it will, at least, partly assuage the fears of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have an uncanny feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, got in before I proposed the Question, so perhaps I had better propose it now. The Question is, That Amendment No. 152 be agreed to?
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, The House may be assured that I do not propose to reopen the whole issue, in the light of the claimed omission on the part of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. But to say that I am satisfied with the answer given by the Minister would surprise all my noble friends and, indeed, would be a considerable lapse on my part. It was a disappointing answer.
I shall not reopen the general argument which the noble Lord described as philosophical. I did not detect any philosophy in it, but never mind about the word. All I can say is that, apart from there being no enthusiasm for this proposal among these most affected, it has been totally and strongly opposed in the dock-lands by the authorities concerned and, so far as I have been able to gather, by the people in the area. So if there is support for it, it does not come from those who would be most affected by the development, which is a very serious matter.
But there it is. I have put the argument upon it and I am disappointed that
this area is going to be subjected to further delay, further confusion, further uncertainty. I had the honour of representing the place for 29 years, and I know what they have been through. This is going to cause frustration and disappointment, in my view, whatever the hopes and the aspirations of the Minister may be.
On the hybridity issue, naturally I did not expect the noble Lord to agree with my main argument as to whether the Bill as it stands is hybrid. I put the argument and I do not propose to repeat it. I confess I am disappointed that the noble Lord did not feel able to go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, did, and as far as the Minister in another place did in his initial examination of this matter, when he said in terms that in his view the orders would be hybrid. No doubt further consideration was given to the matter and he engaged in what I have ventured to describe as a notable piece of circumlocution to qualify his previous total commitment. I am disappointed with the answer, and in the circumstances I think it is right that the House should divide upon the matter.
6.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 156) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 105.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Beswick, L.

Gregson, L.

Segal, L.

Blease, L.

Hale, L.

Shinwell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stamp, L.

Brockway, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stedman, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Collison, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stone, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

David, B.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Underhill, L.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wall, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Oram, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Peart, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Galpern, L.

Phillips, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gardiner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Young of Dartington, L.

Gosford, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Belstead, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Bessborough, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Avon, E.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Burton, L.

Bellwin, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Caithness, E.

Cathcart, E.

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

Netherthorpe, L.

Cockfield, L.

Northchurch, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Haisbury, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hanworth, V.

Onslow, E.

Craigavon, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Pender, L.

Craigton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Redesdale, L.

Croft, L.

Killearn, L.

Redmayne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rochdale, V.

Davidson, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Romney, E.

de Clifford, L.

Knutsford, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

De Freyne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Davids, V.

De La Warr, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Salisbury, M.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Digby, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Dormer, L.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Slim, V.

Eccles, V.

McFadzean, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Ellenborough, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mancroft, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Elton, L.

Mansfield, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Falkland, V.

Marley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Ferrers, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tranmire, L.

Ferrier, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Monson, L.

Trenchard, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Trumpington, B.

Freyberg, L.

Morris, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Gormanston, V.

Mottistone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Gowrie, E.

Mountevans, L.

Vickers, B.

Greenway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Westbury, L.

Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 157 not moved.]
6.40 p.m.
Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 157A:
Page 113, leave out lines 10 to 14, and insert ("it comprises land held for or formerly held for docks or harbour purposes within the meaning of the Harbours Act 1964 and is located in a metropolitan district or in London").
The noble Viscount said: In the regretted absence of my noble friend Lord Evans of Claughton, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 157A. As your Lordships will see, this is really almost the exact opposite of Amendment No. 156 which we were recently discussing and since the Government rejected that amendment it may be that they would feel inclined to support this amendment, which is to limit the scope within which urban development corporations can be set up to that formerly held for docks or harbour purposes within the meaning of the Harbours Act of 1964 and located
612
either in the metropolitan district or in London.
The reason why my noble friend tabled this amendment is that we all know (although it is not in the Bill) that the Government's intention at this stage is to develop two urban development corporations which would indeed be covered by this amendment. We are not so enthusiastic about urban development corporations as some people seem to be, and we wonder whether these two corporations which they are proposing to set up would not be good trial areas in which we can see how the principle of urban development corporation works before we go ahead with any others.
My only difficulty at this moment is that, having listened to the very learned argument about hybridity, I recognise that by including specifically in this amendment the reference to London we may be putting our heads completely in the jaws of the monster. I see the Minister is nodding his head and, in those circumstances, and as we have a long evening before us I do not propose to move this amendment.
Clause 131 [Urban development corporations]:
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 113, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) An urban development corporation shall within fourteen days after the date of its establishment in accordance with subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this section have a registered office to which all communications and notices may be sent and notification of the situation of the registered office or of any subsequent change thereof shall be made as soon as maybe to the Secretary of State.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after the long discussion that has taken place about the role of the urban development corporations, in which a very great enthusiasm has been expressed for the functions which they are going to perform, and indeed described in the most glowing terms, I am afraid this amendment is somewhat of an anti-climax. The urban development corporation is going to have very considerable powers; its objectives are extremely extensive and indeed are set down, as your Lordships will notice, at Clause 132 of the Bill. They can
"acquire, hold, manage, reclaim and dispose of land".
They can
carry out building and other operations; and seek to ensure the provision of water, electricity, gas, sewerage and other services; carry on any business or undertaking for the purposes of the object;"
and then reminding one almost of the concluding sentence of any memorandum of an ordinary limited company, they can of course
"do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of the object or for purposes incidental to those purposes".
To put my amendment briefly, all I am saying is that in order to do all these things they should have a registered office. It seems to me to be a very small point and I do not think there is anything particularly contentious about it. I am conscious of the fact that the words which I have used in my amendment are lifted without acknowledgment from the Companies' Act 1976, suitably adapted, and I have no doubt that at a later stage the noble Lord can probably find more suitable wording for it.
We do not know how many urban development corporations there will be,
614
but they are clearly going to be corporate bodies with a right to conclude contracts. Within the existing Bill, they are corporate bodies that can be sued; they can enter not only into contracts but into all kinds of business arrangements. Bearing in mind the fact that under Clause 132 (3)(d) they can "carry on any business or undertaking", I think the need for the urban development corporation to have a registered office is indeed self-evident. I must apologise for the triviality of the nature of this amendment. It is purely a practical business consideration and I sincerely trust that even though the wording I use may not be suitable, the Minister may take it on board. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I entirely understand why the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, brings this amendment forward, but I would suggest to him that to have a statutory requirement for a registered office is not appropriate to a body like a UDC which will be appointed by the Secretary of State and will be answerable to him. As the noble Lord so rightly said, companies are required to have registered offices by the Companies' Acts so that documents can be served on them, particularly in legal proceedings, and evasion of service is rendered impossible. This is not appropriate for UDCs whose whereabouts of course will be public knowledge and whose status will be guaranteed by the supervision of the Secretary of State. For this reason I am confident that the noble Lord will feel able not to press this particular amendment. In practical terms, I think he will find that it will not be necessary because it does not have the problems that face the procedures required by private companies.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I am still a little troubled. I think there should be some means whereby the corporation itself ought to have—if not a registered address, certainly a designated one. It is all very well to say that everybody knows where it is. I have been one of those engaged in investigatory activities in my professional life and I can assure the noble Lord that the ascertainment of addresses and their location even of some of the larger bodies, is not always a matter of the greatest ease.

615
Therefore, I do not think it would do any harm for the Secretary of State, when he complies with the provisions of Clause 131(4), where it says:
"An urban development corporation shall be a body corporate by such name as may be prescribed by the order establishing it."
I think it might possibly be wise to prescribe the address also and that would get over the difficulty, but so long as the noble Lord is seized of the point I am making which is a practical, non-controversial point, I am quite satisfied and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.49 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 159:
After Schedule 25, insert the following new schedule:

SCHEDULE
  VESTING OF LAND IN URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS;
    PART I

      MODIFICATION OF ENACTMENTS: ENGLAND AND WALES
      1. Paragraphs 6 to 14 and 16 of Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 shall have effect, in relation to orders under section 136 above, subject to the modifications specified in paragraphs 2 to 4 below.
      2. Any reference to a general vesting declaration shall be treated as a reference to an order under that section.
      3. The references in paragraphs 6 and 7 to the end of the period specified in a general vesting declaration shall be treated as references to the date on which such an order comes into force and the reference in paragraph 10 to the acquiring authority having made a general vesting declaration shall be treated as a reference to such an order having come into force.
      4. In paragraph 6—

      (a) the reference to every person on whom, under section 5 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, the acquiring authority could have served a notice to treat, shall be treated as a reference to every person whose interest in the land to which such an order relates is vested by the order in the urban development corporation; and

      (b) paragraph (a) shall be omitted.

      5. Schedule 3A to that Act shall have effect, in relation to orders under section 136 above subject to the modifications specified in paragraphs 6 to 8 below.
      6. Any reference to a general vesting declaration shall be treated as a reference to an order under that section.
      7. The reference in paragraph 4(2) to the date on which the notice required by paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 is served on any person shall be treated as a reference to the date on which such an order comes into force.
      8. In paragraph 12—

      (a) sub-paragraph (1)(a) shall be omitted; and

      (b) the reference in sub-paragraph (1)(b) to the date on which a person first had knowledge of the execution of the general vesting declaration shall be treated as a reference to the date on which an order under section 136 above came into force.

      9. The Land Compensation Act 1961 shall have effect in relation to orders under section 136 above subject to the modifications specified in paragraphs 10 to 14 below.
      10. References to the date of service of a notice to treat shall be treated as references to the date on which an order under that section comes into force.
      11. Section 17(2) shall be treated as if for the words "the authority proposing to acquire it have served a notice to treat in respect thereof, or an agreement has been made for the sale thereof to that authority" there were substituted the words "an order section 136 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 vesting the land in which the interest subsists in an urban development corporation has come into force, or an agreement has been made for the sale of the interest to such a corporation".
      12. In section 22—
      (a) subsection (2) shall be treated as if at the end of paragraph (c) there were added the words
      "or
      (d) where an order has been made under section 136 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 vesting the land in which the interest subsists in an urban development corporation."; and
      (b) subsection (3) shall be treated as if in paragraph (a) the words "or (d)" were inserted after the words "paragraph (b)"
      13. Any reference to a notice to treat in section 39(2) shall be treated as a reference to an order under section 136 above.
      14. In Schedule 2, paragraph 2(2)(a) shall be treated as if the words "or the coming into force of an order under section 136 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 for the vesting of the land in an urban development corporation" were inserted after the word "land".

    PART II

      MODIFICATION OF ENACTMENTS: SCOTLAND
      15. Paragraphs 6 to 13 and 16 to 39 of Schedule 24 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 shall have effect, in relation to orders under section 136 above, subject to the modifications specified in paragraphs 16 to 20 below.
      16. Any reference to a general vesting declaration shall be treated as a reference to an order under that section.
      17. The references in paragraphs 6 and 7 to the end of the period specified in a general vesting declaration shall be treated as references to the date on which such an order comes into force and the reference in paragraph 9 to the acquiring authority having made a general vesting declaration shall be treated as a reference to such an order having come into force.
      18. In paragraph 6—

      (a) the reference to every person on whom, under section 17 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845, the acquiring authority could have served a notice to treat, shall be treated as a reference to every person whose interest in the land to which such an order relates is vested by the order in the urban development corporation: and

      (b) paragraph (a) shall be omitted.

      19. The reference in paragraph 20(2) to the date on which the notice required by paragraph 4 is served on any person shall be treated as a reference to the date on which such an order comes into force.
      20. In paragraph 29—

      (a) sub-paragraph (1)(a) shall be omitted; and

      (b) the reference in sub-paragraph (1)(b) to the date on which a person first had knowledge of the execution of the general vesting declaration shall be treated as a reference to the date on which an order under section 136 above came into force.

      21. The Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 shall have effect in relation to orders under section 136 above subject to the modifications specified in paragraphs 22 to 26 below.
      22. References to the date of service of a notice to treat shall be treated as references to the date on which an order under that section comes into force.
      23. Section 25(2) shall be treated as if for the words "the authority proposing to acquire it have served a notice to treat in respect thereof, or an agreement has been made for the sale thereof to that authority" there were substituted the words "an order section 136 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 vesting the land in which the interest subsists in an urban development corporation has come into force, or an agreement has been made for the sale of the interest to such a corporation."
      24. In section 30—
      (a) subsection (2) shall be treated as if at the end of paragraph (c) there were added the words
      "or
      (d) where an order has been made under section 136 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 vesting the land in which the interest subsists in an urban development corporation."; and
      (b) subsection (3) shall be treated as if in paragraph (a) the words "or (2)(d)" were inserted after the words "subsection (2)(b)".
      25. Any reference to a notice to treat in section 45(2) shall be treated as a reference to an order under section 136 above.
      26. In Schedule 2, paragraph 1(2)(a) shall be treated as if the words "or the coming into force of an order under section 136 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 for the vesting of the land in an urban development corporation" were inserted after the word "land".").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new schedule is needed because of the amendment we have tabled to Clause 136 (Amendment No. 164), which we shall
      618
      come to shortly. As drafted we believe that Clause 136 lacks sufficient detail to make the vesting of land provision workable. We therefore consider it essential to use on the more complex provisions on vesting declarations which already exist in other statutes.
      Amendment No. 164 will insert new subsections (4) and (4A) into Clause 136. New subsection (4) will provide that a vesting order made under Clause 136 shall have the same effect as a vesting declaration under Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968. The new schedule proposed by this amendment will make the necessary technical modifications to Schedule 3 and 3A of the 1968 Act so that Section 30 can have effect in relation to vesting orders made under Clause 136. Amendment No. 164 and this new schedule do not extend the scope of Clause 136. They simply ensure that the existing statutes on land compensation and vesting declaration apply smoothly and without any confusion to land vested under this clause. With this assurance I commend this amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
      Clause 133 [Exclusion of functions]:
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 161:
      Page 115, line 6, leave out ("are exercisable by urban development corporations") and insert ("may be exercisable by an urban development corporation").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I would also speak to Amendment No. 162. This amendment is needed in order to make it clear that the power to specify the functions of individual UDCs could be exercised without having to make a fresh constitution order under Clause 131. It has always been our intention that it should be possible to modify the functions of a UDC from time to time in light of the prevailing conditions in the urban development area and in the country generally. Without this amendment there would be doubt whether it would be possible to do this except by constituting the UDC afresh each time. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that this is a sensible amendment. I should stress that the amendment does not

      619
      remove the requirement for affirmative approval by each House before the UDCs functions can be modified. That safeguard would remain unchanged. I beg to move.
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 162:
      Page 115, line 11, at end insert—
      ("(2) An order under section 131 above may amend any provision of a previous order under that section which was included in that order by virtue of subsection (1) above.
      (3) Nothing in subsection (2) above shall prejudice the operation of section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (power to amend orders etc.)".).
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 163:
      After Clause 135, insert the following new clause:
      ("Consultation with local authorities
      —(1) An urban development corporation shall prepare a code of practice as to consultation of the relevant local authorities about the exercise of its powers.
      (2) In this section "the relevant local authorities" means local authorities the whole or any part of whose area is included in the urban development area.
      (3) Preparation of the code shall be completed not later than the expiration of the period of 12 months from the date of the establishment of the corporation.
      (4) A corporation may from time to time revise the whole or any part of its code.
      (5) A corporation shall prepare and revise its code in consultation with the relevant local authorities.".).
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am confident that this new clause and the associated amendment to Schedule 29 will be welcomed. These amendments honour commitments which Ministers have given about the lacunae in the Bill on the question of consultation between UDCs and local authorities in the area. We regard a good working relationship between UDCs and local authorities as crucial to the success of this initiative, and we hope the same degree of good cooperation can be achieved in UDAs as has been experienced in many of the new towns. These amendments write into the Bill a requirement for UDCs to devise a code of consultation with the local authorities in the area. UDCs will then be required to report annually on how the consultation arrangement has been
      620
      operated during the year. Your Lordships will see from our amendment to Schedule 29 that we shall require the UDCs to report such consultation annually, and this is, therefore, an important provision. I beg to move.
      Viscount SIMON: My Lords, may I ask whether there is a mistake in the second line of subsection (1) which refers to a code of practice as to consultation of the relevant local authorities". Should it not be "with"?
      Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I should think that is right. May I thank the noble Viscount for that? If that should not be so, of course, I will come back, but it sounds absolutely right, and I am grateful to the noble Viscount.
      The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Jacques): My Lords, the Question is that this amendment, with that qualification, be agreed to.
      Clause 136 [Vesting by order in corporation]:
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 164:
      Page 117, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 19, and insert—
      ("(4) An order under this section shall have the same effect as a declaration under section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 or, in Scotland section 278 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (both of which relate to general vesting declarations) except that, in relation to such orders, the enactments mentioned in Schedule [Vesting of land in urban development corporations] shall have effect subject to the modifications specified in that Schedule.
      (4A) Compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1961 or, in Scotland, the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, as applied by subsection (4) above and Schedule [Vesting of land in urban development corporations] to this Act.").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already discussed the new schedule provided for by Amendment No. 159, which is associated with this amendment. As I explained, these are technical amendments which apply the provisions of existing statutes on land compensation and general vesting declarations to vesting orders made under Clause 136. We believe that these amendments will remove

      621
      uncertainties about the effects of vesting orders which, if the clause were left in its present form, could cause difficulties.
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 164XA:
      After Clause 139, insert the following new clause:
      ("Land compensation
      .—(1) The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation Act 1961 (descriptions of actual or prospective development of which account is not to be taken in assessing compensation or the effect of which is to reduce compensation payable in respect of adjacent land in the same ownership which has benefited by the development) and after paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 (which makes similar provision for Scotland):—

      "4A. Where any of the relevant land forms part of an area designated as an urban development area by an order under section 122 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

      Development of any land other than the relevant land, in the course of the development or re-development of that area or as an urban development area."

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

    PART III

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

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

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

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

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

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

      11. Paragraph 10 of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to any increase or diminution in value to be left out of account by virtue of any rule of law relating to the assessment of
      622
      compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition as it has effect in relation to any increase or diminution in value to be left out of account by virtue of section 6 of this Act.".
      (3) In section 6 of the Land Compensation Act 1961—

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

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

      (4) At the end of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 there shall be added:—

    PART III

      SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREAS
      6. For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared—

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

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

      merely because it is attributable—

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

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

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

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

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

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

      The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a highly technical amendment. It is needed in order to adapt to the circumstances of urban development areas the well-established principle in land compensation law that the value effect of development which is part of the scheme underlying the compulsory acquisition of a piece of land, which would not have been

      623
      likely to be carried out in the absence of the scheme, is disregarded in assessing the compensation payable. It sounds complicated, but an example may make it clear. Where a public authority has constructed a road to service a proposed new housing estate, in acquiring the land for the housing estate the compensation payable by the authority will probably exclude that part of the land value attributable to the road. Not unreasonably, the law does not require public authorities to compensate landowners for that part of the land value derived from the public works which are part of the scheme underlying the acquisition.
      The question of exactly what the scheme underlying the acquisition consists of in individual cases is an operation of fact for valuers, the lands tribunals and ultimately the courts to decide. Schedule 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 lays down guidance in specific cases, notably in the case of an area designated as a new town. The purpose of this clause is, first, to add a new case to Schedule 1 for urban development areas along the lines of existing cases which apply to the new towns. Unless noble Lords would like me to do so, I will not elaborate any more on what the amendment sets out to do. This, like many of the other amendments in this Part, seeks to give clarification and remove uncertainty. I beg to move.
      Clause 143 [Corporation as planning authority]:
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 164YA:
      Page 123, line 16, at end insert—
      ("(4A) In relation to an urban development corporation which is the local planning authority by virtue of an order under subsection (1) above, section 270 of the 1971 Act (application to local planning authorities of provisions as to planning control and enforcement) shall have effect for the purposes of Part III of the 1971 Act prescribed by that order, and in relation to the kinds of development so prescribed, as if—

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

      (b) in subsection (2)—

      (i) in paragraph (a) the words "the
      624
      corporation" were substituted for the words "such an authority" and the word "corporation" were substituted for the words "local planning authority"; and

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

      The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment clears up an anomaly in the Bill whereby an urban development corporation cannot under the present provisions have recourse to the power under Section 270 of the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act available to a local authority acting as local planning authority. The amendment will enable the UDC similarly to obtain deemed planning permission for the development of land in respect of which it is made local planning authority by order under Clause 143(1). We are not by any means proposing to give a UDC powers to obtain planning permission for land for which it is the local planning authority which are not also available to local authorities. UDCs will have to follow the same procedures as do local authorities under the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1976. I beg to move.
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 164YB:
      Page 124, line 10, at end insert—
      ("(8A) In relation to an urban development corporation which is the planning authority by virtue of an order under subsection (5) above, section 256 of the 1972 Act (application to planning authorities of provisions as to planning control and enforcement) shall have effect for the purposes of Part III of the 1972 Act prescribed by that order, and in relation to the kinds of development so prescribed, as if—

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

      (b) in subsection (2)—

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

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

      The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides the equivalent for Scotland of Amendment No. 164YA for

      625
      England and Wales. It will enable a UDC in Scotland to obtain deemed planning permission for the development of land for which it is made the planning authority under Clause 143(5). I beg to move.
      Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think that this might be a suitable moment to adjourn and reassemble at 7.45 p.m., to give further consideration on Report to this Bill. Therefore, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

      TENANTS' RIGHTS, ETC. (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
      7 p.m.
      Bill read 3a: an amendment (privilege) made.
      The Earl of MANSFELD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. We have examined this small Bill, which essentially contains but one provision of substance, with considerable thoroughness in the course of some five hours of discussion at Committee and Report stages. It has emerged from this close scrutiny unchanged apart from a narrower specification of what is meant by the term "elderly" in connection with amenity housing. However, I think that the debates which we have had have been beneficial perhaps in demonstrating the fundamental difference of view between the Government and the Opposition which needs to be understood as the background to Clause 1 of the Bill.
      Noble Lords opposite would have wished to see excluded from the right to buy all houses which are used to house elderly people regardless of whether those houses were different from general needs housing. They believe that old people should not be allowed to buy their homes because the house might not always be used by an old person in future. I have acknowledged the sincerity of their views in the course of our discussions, and I do so again. Nevertheless, I believe that their approach is the wrong one because it pays insufficient regard to the wishes
      626
      of old people themselves. The Government believe very strongly that individual tenants should have the right to choose whether they wish to own their homes or continue renting, and we believe that elderly people deserve that right as much as anybody else. After all, more than 30 per cent. of public sector tenants in Scotland are over pensionable age and it would be a mockery of the right to buy to withhold it from so large a group, many of whom entered the public sector when there was no genuine choice of housing tenure and never have had and never will have a realistic chance of enjoying the benefits of home ownership except through the right to buy. We must remember that any extension of this Bill would have had the effect of stopping elderly people who wish to buy their homes from doing so. The Government are not attacking elderly people; they are giving them equal rights with other public sector tenants.
      That is not to say that there are not circumstances in which concern for the individual tenant's rights must be subordinated to some extent to recognition of the community's interest in the availability of houses for the elderly which are different from the general run of houses and which are in short supply. The Government have always taken account of this and there are existing provisions for that purpose in the Tenants' Rights Act, which are extended by this Bill. However, we do not accept that the community has a sufficiently strong need to retain houses which are not genuinely different from ordinary houses to justify overriding the rights of tenants. That is the basis upon which the Bill is drafted and upon which I have defended its drafting. The Bill doubles the number of specially adapted houses for the elderly which can be excluded from the right to buy, without taking away the choice of selling the houses with a right of pre-emption which the Act already provides, and the Government believe that this is both right for Scotland and consistent with what has been done in England and Wales, where the number of possible exclusions was also doubled by a similar change to the Housing Act. In the particular circumstances which I have outlined I beg to move.
      Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
      7.5 p.m.
      Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I have no intention of addressing any further remarks on this Bill. I think that I have let the House know exactly how I feel about it and how it has been handled over this past week or 10 days. However, I cannot but respond to the noble Earl the Minister. He said that 30 per cent. of local authority houses in Scotland are occupied by elderly people, by pensioners. That is true, and most of them are in receipt of rate rebates, rent rebates and supplementary benefits; and if he thinks for a minute that they are all racing to buy their houses, then he is quite out of touch with the public in Scotland.
      This Government did not introduce this Bill out of the goodness of their hearts and their desire to help the local authorities in fulfilling their obligations to old people. It was forced upon them by what happened in another place and, indeed, by what happened in this place in respect of the English Bill. Promises were made publicly in another place by the Leader of the House and by the Secretary of State for the Environment, but the Secretary of State for Scotland was silent, although at the time when the questions were put and were answered there was a Scottish Minister sitting silent on the Bench. Now the Bill will go to another place where the main actors in that performance will be present. It is their good faith, their words, that will be on trial. Moreover, the people who took part in the negotiations that led to the promises being given will also be there. So in that gladiatorial arena shall the battle continue.
      The fact that in Scotland there are so many old people in local authority houses means that an even greater responsibility falls upon local authorities there to provide the right kind of house for old people than is the case in England and Wales, and it means that the more we erode that stock—and it will be the best houses that will go—the less will the local authorities be able to meet their obligations. I admit that one must balance the rights of the individual against the responsibilities of the community through its local council. But when it comes to that, I know quite well where the balance
      628
      should fall: it should retain the right number of the right kind of houses for letting to old people in Scotland. When we look at the figures—and they have been quoted—we find that over 400,000 such houses for old people have been exempt from sale in England; the number in Scotland is under 12,000. I repeat, it is under 12,000. Where the need is greater the proportion is not nearly so high in respect of numbers of houses.
      When the Minister of State talks about categories of housing he fails to appreciate the whole development history of Scottish housing and what led to that particular position. It is important for him to realise that it is essential to have not only amenity housing in local authority stock, but what he called—and he has proved himself in more than one Bill to be the master of the infelicitous phrase—the little houses. Those little houses are important and they should be available for older people. They may well be occupying very much larger houses elsewhere in housing schemes at present, but they are waiting to get into this type of house that has been built for them and to be let to them. If they are sold off, of course they are lost, lost to the category and lost to the local authority. I have said all this before. Let the battle be carried on elsewhere. However, I regret that once again the Government have failed to be tactful in respect of their relationship between Scotland and England. They need not be surprised if they raise the hackles of people who say, "Just look at it; just look at the different treatment for Scotland as compared with England! "I am seriously concerned about this matter. It is the second time that I have raised the point today.
      Why is it that in Scotland, where they have no mandate, they are less generous in respect of leaving old people's houses to the local authorities to let than they are in England, where they have a mandate and certainly a comfortable electoral majority, and where they are more generous to the local authorities? It is a sad reflection upon the reading of the needs of Scotland and the balance of importance of the individual as against the greater number of individuals who are represented by the activities of the local authority.
      7.12 p.m.
      The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, perhaps I should respond shortly to the noble Lord, Lord Ross. I am sorry that there is no one sitting on the Liberal Benches, because the Liberals have played a part in the examination of this little Bill, as indeed has the noble Lord, Lord Ross. I am grateful to all of them to the extent that it certainly brought home to us the cleavage of opinion that exists as between noble Lords on this side of the House and noble Lords on the other. We were certainly forced, if that is the word, or at any rate constrained and made to look at the provisions of the Bill in order to ensure that the drafting was right and that the intentions of the Bill were what we intended them to be. I shall not go over the old ground again, as, in fact, the noble Lord did not.
      I am bound to say that the noble Lord tries to have the best of both worlds. In the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill he castigates me and, indeed, divides the House because on a matter of United Kingdom policy he says that we ought to have a different Bill for Scotland, although the policies are exactly the same and the language to be employed can quite easily and neatly fit into the same Bill. Of this Bill, which is a Scottish Bill, drafted by Scotsmen for Scotsmen and designed to fit in with the law of heritable property as it applies to Scotland, he again says, "No, we cannot have this; we should harmonise the English and Scottish law and adopt the phraseology of the English and Scottish law and adopt the phraseology of the English Act"; although, as I have tried to point out to him on so many occasions, it is thoroughly infelicitous—and that is being kind to it—and would not fit in with Scottish conditions.
      Therefore, I am reinforced in the opinion that I have held throughout, that this is a Scottish Bill, designed by Scots for Scots. I think that we have done the right thing by drafting it in the way we have and bringing it forward in the way we have, totally distinct from the English Act. I have paid tribute to noble Lords, and it is genuine—that is my expression of gratitude. I am equally grateful that the Bill now leaves your Lordships to go on its journey down the corridor to another place.
      On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
      Lord LYELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.45 p.m.
      [The Sitting was suspended from 7.14 to 7.45 p.m.]

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL
      Consideration on Report resumed.
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 164ZA:
      After clause 143, insert the following new clause:
      ("Planning: Corporation and local highway authority.
      (".—(1) The reference to the local planning authority in paragraph 17 of Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972 (duty to include in a development order under section 24 of the 1971 Act provision enabling a local authority to impose restrictions on the grant by the local planning authority of planning permission for certain descriptions of development) shall not be construed as including a reference to an urban development corporation who are the local planning authority by virtue of an order under section 143 above, and no provision of a development order which is included in it by virtue of that paragraph is to be construed as applying to such a corporation.
      (2) The Secretary of State may include in a development order under section 24 of the 1971 Act provision enabling a local highway authority to impose restrictions on the grant by an urban development corporation who are the local planning authority of planning permission under the 1971 Act for such descriptions of development as may be specified in the order.")
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause enables the Secretary of State to limit the powers of restriction by the local highway authority over an urban development corporation acting as local planning authority, to those kinds of development that are specified in a development order. In commending this amendment I must make it plain that the Government accept that highway safeguards are important in urban development areas. However, the central position of the UDC, and the process of renewal that it will be carrying forward, mean that the local highway authority's powers should

      631
      be tailored more precisely to the circumstances of UDAs. This amendment streamlines the process by which a UDC is able to grant planning permission to a proposal. I beg to move.
      Clause 144 [Building control]:
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 164ZB:
      Page 124, line 28, at end insert ("boroughs").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I also speak to Amendments Nos. 164ZC, ZD, ZE and ZF, and say that these are technical, tidying-up amendments to this clause. They do not make substantive changes to the clause, and clarify the terminology used elsewhere in the clause. On this basis, I beg to move.
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 164ZC:
      Page 124, line 32, after ("London") insert ("boroughs").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 164ZD:
      Page 124, line 41, leave out ("(including a local Act)").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 164ZE:
      Page 125, line 5, leave out ("regulations or enactments") and insert ("legislation").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 164ZE:
      Page 125, line 19, at end insert—
      (" "building legislation" means—

      (a) the London building legislation;

      632

      (b) any other enactments under which the corporation is to exercise building control functions; and

      (c) building regulations.").

      The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
      Clause 150 [Highways]:
      Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 164A:
      Page 128, line 30, after ("may") insert ("provided it has consulted with the street works authority prior to the execution of such street works)").
      The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Evans of Claughton, I rise to move Amendment No. 164A. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I spoke also to Amendment No. 164B, as they run together. These amendments were put forward by my noble friend at the Committee stage. It was very late at night, and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, who gave the reply, which did not seem to take us very much further. My noble friend withdrew the amendments on the understanding that he could bring them forward again, which is what I am now doing on his behalf.
      This is a fairly simple question. It relates to Clause 150 which provides:
      "When any street works have been executed in a private street … in an urban development area, the urban development corporation may serve a notice on the street works authority requiring it to declare the street (or part) to be a highway"
      and to take on the responsibility for maintaining it.
      My noble friend's first amendment suggests that they can ask to have the street taken over only provided the street authority has been consulted before the execution of the works, which seems a sensible way of doing it. The clause provides that if the street works authority think the work is not up to the standard they need, they can apply to the court for an order. That seems an unnecessarily complicated way of doing it and that it would be better for the UDA to discuss with the street works authority before they do the work, so limiting the amount of discussion afterwards and the necessity to refer to the court.
      The second amendment is an extension of what is at present in the clause. The clause provides that the street authority can object and take action through the court if the work done on the private street has not brought it up to the standard of the UDA. My noble friend is suggesting that it should be brought up to the standard of the area in which the street works authority operates, perhaps outside the area of the UDA, rather than just bringing it up to a standard which might be lower within the area of the UDA. I beg to move.
      Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, particularly in view of what was said earlier when we were discussing this whole area of UDCs, will accept that the Government attach considerable importance to consultation with local authorities which would be concerned with UDCs. That is why we tabled Amendment No. 163 and why we shall now have a requirement for a UDC to prepare a code of practice as to consultation with the relevant local authorities about the exercise of its power.
      The kind of issues referred to by the noble Viscount appear to be related to the exercise by UDCs of the powers under Clause 150. If that is so, I consider that they would be among the items which could be included in a code. In view of that, I do not see why we need a separate provision requiring consultation over street works. I recognise that a street works authority, where there is to be a UDA, might be anxious about any proposals for road adoption which a UDC might have, and that surely is where the code comes in. If we are successfully to regenerate the urban development areas, it is important that access is created and improved between the areas of the dock estate and the remainder of the UDA and locality. It is also important that such access is created in ways that are realistic and it therefore seems important that the standards by which such road schemes are judged relate to the UDA and not necessarily to the wider locality.
      Thus, it is through the consultation mechanism that a UDC and a street works authority will be able to settle on standards that are mutually acceptable. That is the hope and anticipation, and perhaps the noble Viscount will take the view that we
      634
      should see what happens and will not press the amendment. With everything we have said, especially in these really new areas—in the sense that we are moving into new fields—that will be the test at the end of the day.
      Viscount SIMON: I shall be happy to rely on the code of practice, my Lords. There was only one point on which I was not sure, being nothing like so well informed on these subjects as my noble friend Lord Evans of Claughton, and that was whether the street works authority was necessarily the local authority within the meaning of the consultation.
      Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am sorry to have to answer the noble Viscount by saying that it can but it may not necessarily be the same; it will depend on the kind of area it is. We debated this point at length previously. If UDCs should ever go beyond the two into urban and metropolitan areas, then it will depend on the circumstances. The county authorities and metropolitan areas have certain functions as regards highways and streets, whereas the district authorities do not have that function. That makes it difficult for me to give a simple answer to the noble Viscount, much as I should like to do so, but I think he follows the gist of what I have said.
      Viscount SIMON: I do indeed, my Lords, and I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I think it can be assumed that the code of practice will cover relationships not only with local authorities but with other authorities, possibly even with public utilities and the like. I am sure the code of practice could be extended to cover this case, and as my noble friend would no doubt be happy with that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      [Amendment No. 164B not moved.]
      Clause 156 [Supply of goods, etc. by local authorities]:
      7.56 p.m.
      Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 164C:
      Page 134, line 21, at end insert—
      ("(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section and without prejudice to the generality

      635
      of section 132(3)(b) and 132(3)(c) of this Act, a local authority may enter into agency arrangements with any urban development corporation for the purpose of achieving the object of that section.").
      The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am almost out of my depth on this one, which I move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Evans of Claughton, who raised this point in Committee when he was not entirely happy with the reply he received. He wants to be quite sure that the UDC can act as an agent for the local authority and, equally, that the local authority can act as an agent for the UDC for the purpose of achieving the objects of this provision. My noble friend thought reluctantly he might have to return to the matter because those who had been advising him on it, Merseyside County Council, were not entirely satisfied with the reply given by the Minister. I beg to move.
      Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, as Clause 156 provides for local authorites to supply goods and services to a UDC, we have enabled local authorities to be paid for a wider range of goods and services that a UDC might require. What, however, we do not wish to do is to provide for local authorities to become agents of a UDC for the central purpose of achieving the object of the UDC under Clause 132. We should not have taken steps to set up UDCs in the first place if we thought there was a likelihood that the main function would be contacted out in the manner suggested in the amendment. That is the problem and I recall that when we discussed this in Committee there was not a great deal between the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, and myself over this. He just wanted to see whether he should take it further, which obviously he has done, but my answer is the one I have given; namely, that the amendment would go further than we believe is necessary in practice.
      Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I am obliged for what the Minister said. Obviously, it would be rather ridiculous if a local authority had a number of professional services at its disposal just across the way and a UDC should then have to set up professional services of its own to deal with such matters as drainage, inspection or anything of that kind.
      636
      Judging from what the noble Lord said, I think that the point is covered, that the UDC can employ the professional services of the adjacent local authority.
      Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that at the end of the day it will very much be a matter of what makes good sense. As the noble Viscount rightly said, if the situation is obvious and logical it would be silly of those who are running UDCs not to take advantage of what is available; I should certainly hope that they would. But there is a great difference between that and spelling out obligations, and it is probably there that we would slightly part company.
      Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Schedule 29 [Urban Development Corporations: Finance etc.]:
      8.1 p.m.
      Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 165:
      Page 271, leave out from beginning of line 36 to end of line 12 on page 272 and insert—
      ("10.—(1) A corporation shall cause accounting records to be kept in accordance with the provisions of this section.
      (2) The accounting records shall be sufficient to show and explain the corporation's transactions.
      (3) The accounting records shall be such as to

      (a) disclose with reasonable accuracy, at any time, the financial position of the corporation at that time; and

      (b) enable the members of the corporation to ensure that any balance sheet prepared by them shows a true and fair view of the corporation's state of affairs at the end of the financial year to which it relates and that any revenue account prepared by them shows a true and fair view of the financial result of its activities in the financial year to which it relates.

      (4) The accounting records shall in particular contain—

      (a) entries from day to day of all sums received and expended by the corporation and the matters in respect of which the receipts and expenditure takes place; and

      (b) a record of the assets and liabilities of the corporation; and

      (c) where the corporation's activities involve carrying on any business or undertaking for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) of section 132 of this Act, the statements mentioned in subsection (5) below.

      637
      (5) The statements referred to in subsection (4)(c) above are—

      (a) statements of the stock held by each business or undertaking at the end of each financial year of the corporation;

      (b) all statements of stocktakings from which any such statement as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above has been prepared; and

      (c) except in the case of goods sold by way of ordinary retail trade, statements of all goods sold and purchased in sufficient detail to enable the goods and the buyers and sellers to be identified.

      (6) Subject to the provisions of sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act (Accounting Provisions applicable to every development body undertaking construction or maintenance work by any direct labour organisation established by it) a corporation shall:

      (a) in respect of its activities in each of the five categories set out at subsection 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of section 132 of this Act, prepare a revenue account showing a true and fair view of the financial result of the corporation having undertaken such activities in the financial year to which it relates;

      (b) in respect of activities as a whole, prepare a balance sheet showing a true and fair view of its affairs at the end of the financial year to which it relates.").

      The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now embark on discussion of that wildly exciting part of the Bill that is concerned with accounting matters! I am acutely sensible of the fact that particularly at this time of night such a subject does not exactly make for exciting conversation. I move this amendment for two reasons. The first is a political reason, with which I shall deal shortly, and the other is a purely technical reason. The urban development corporations are quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations—Quangos for short. I believe that at the moment two are envisaged, but there may be more. I am bound to say immediately that the sudden affection of Her Majesty's Government for the establishment of Quangos is something that we note with mild interest, though not necessarily with enthusiasm.
      It is when we come to the accounting aspect of the matter that we begin to understand the noble Lord's sense of relativity, or rather his Government's sense of political values. Your Lordships will remember that when we were discussing Part III of the Bill, which deals with, among other things, the accounts to be rendered to the Secretary of State by direct labour organisations, we found the matter laid out in very considerable detail in the
      638
      body of the Bill itself. If one turns to Part III, one will find a whole series of accounting provisions which are set out in very great detail but which, I say with the greatest possible respect, will have the practical effect of hamstringing most DLOs' accounting departments and which will give rise to a certain amount of confusion at the noble Lord's department's headquarters in Marsham Street. In fact when assessed in their totality these provisions, judged by orthodox standards of accounting, will amount to a load of nonsense. Be that as it may, they are there in detail in the Bail.
      It should be borne in mind that when your Lordships were discussing the accounts of a direct labour organisation under the control of a local authority you were considering an organisation which is subject to local democratic control. The direct labour organisation of a local authority is finally responsible to the local electorate. Yet in the Bill there is a terrific spiel of accounting provisions—and they are in the body of the Bill itself.
      Now we come to the Quango, to the urban development corporation. It, too, has considerable functions to perform. It has very considerable responsibilities, which are outlined in, I believe, Clause 132 of the Bill. The constitution of an urban development corporation is defined in Schedule 25. It is responsible to no one at all. The urban development corporation has no democratic responsibility to any local body of electors. There are no public checks affecting an urban development corporation in its locality. It is the Minister's creature. Indeed, when the party opposite were discussing Quangos in a somewhat less enthusiastic way they very often made that point themselves.
      When it comes to an urban development corporation keeping accounts and to the provisions that are laid down for those accounts what do we find?—that those provisions are not contained in the body of the Bill at all. They are merely referred to in Clause 157, where it says that Schedule 29 shall apply. So the accounting provisions relating to these new Quangos, the urban development corporations, are relegated to a schedule, to Schedule 29, Part III, to which I now turn.
      If your Lordships will examine Part III of Schedule 29, on pages 271 and 272 of

      639
      the Bill, you will see that these provisions are comparatively modest in content compared with the very comprehensive provisions laid down for direct labour organisations. It is stated in Part III at paragraph 10(1),
      "A corporation shall keep proper accounts and other records in relation to them".
      Well, magnificent! But that refers to a non-elected body. Why is it that the accounting provisions, adequate though they may be from the professional standpoint, should be couched in terms far more general and permissive than those relating to the DLOs?
      These new urban development corporations which, as we have learnt, will not have registered addresses, will be responsible for quite considerable financial operations. They will receive grants of all kinds. They will be able to obtain loans and to carry out a whole series of financial transactions. As we have seen from Clause 132, they will be able to conduct businesses. In fact they will be able to undertake a much more comprehensive range of work than will DLOs, yet without any tendering disciplines of the kind laid down in Part III of the Bill. Urban development corporations can engage in business, and in those businesses they are not governed by the same conditions as are DLOs; for example, they are not required to achieve a certain rate of return on capital employed based on the current cost accounting convention. No conditions at all are laid down for them. They can just go merrily ahead.
      In those circumstances, I come to the conclusion—and I trust that it will find favour with the Minister—that the minimum standard that we ought to insist upon for these new Quangos, these urban development corporations, should be the standard as laid down in the Companies Act 1976 for ordinary commercial enterprises. So your Lordships will find that in Amendment No. 165 I have endeavoured, perhaps in my own unskilled way, to reproduce for the urban development corporations, suitably adapted to meet the provisions of the Bill, the requirements with which an ordinary limited company must comply in keeping proper accounts. If the noble Lord examines Amendment No. 165, subject to what his parliamentary draftsmen and his illustrious
      640
      officials may say, I think he will find that that adaptation has been generally accomplished. Perhaps odd points need polishing up, but if that is so they can always be corrected at a later stage.
      My Lords, is there any reason why this non-elected body, with considerable finances at its disposal and with very wide activities taking it into many spheres of interest which noble Lords opposite might think would normally be the prerogative of private enterprise, should not be subject to the same accounting disciplines which apply to ordinary private enterprise firms? I could not be fairer than that. Your Lordships will see that I have been bending over backwards in the accounting provisions I have suggested to accommodate myself to the political philosophy of noble Lords opposite. This, therefore, should not be a cause for complaint. After all, it is all fair competition, and bears comparison. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will agree that these new organisations, which are not responsible democratically to anybody, should maintain the same accounting disciplines as ought to be maintained by those private limited liability companies and corporations in this country which are bound by the Companies Act 1976, from which provisions these amendments were in fact derived. I beg to move.
      Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, may I say at once that I by no means share the pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, on the likely outcome of the requirements called for under these parts of the Bill; and I wonder whether I need remind him—I am sure I do not—that we are here dealing with areas which are arguably among the most derelict and needy in the whole of the country. They require drastic action, and that is what these UDCs are all about. Therefore, when we talk of comparisons with other areas in other ways, I would respectfully submit that they really are very special, and that is why they are entitled, as we propose, to have his special treatment.
      I should also say on the point of accountability, which I think is arguably the most important point that the noble Lord made, that UDCs are of course responsible to the Secretary of State, who can give them directions, and, through him—and this is the important point—to Parliament. They

      641
      have to publish annual reports and lay their accounts before Parliament, and that is something which DLOs do not have to do. May I also say that they are subject to Exchequer audit. I do not know that either that requirement or the one for laying their accounts before Parliament is something that private enterprise firms have to do.
      Having said that, may I say that in our view the amendment contains some very useful and helpful material which in fact could have improved the drafting of paragrah 10. I have in mind particularly subparagraph (3)(b) of the amendment. Unfortunately, the amendment as drafted is technically deficient, in that it teems to delete by mistake paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the schedule. The amendment also contains a number of onerous requirements—for instance, subparagraph (3)(a)—with which it would be virtually impossible for the UDC to comply. However, I assume that for "line 42" we should read "line 12"—I am sure that is right—on the assumption that the noble Lord's amendment relates only to paragraph 10 of Schedule 29, the accounts provisions.
      Even so, I cannot accept the amendment, but I can assure the noble Lord that we accept entirely in principle that the statement of accounts should show a true and fair view of UDC affairs and its financial results at the end of the financial year. Fortunately, subparagraph (3) of the existing version of paragraph 10 as contained in the Bill is sufficiently wide to permit this to be done by the Secretary of State, who may impose requirements on the UDC in respect of the information, manner, methods and principle of preparing the statements. But, taken as a whole, the noble Lord's amendment goes further than we are prepared to go; for example, in the rigid way in which it imposes an accounting regime related to the methods by which UDCs can achieve their objectives through Clause 132(3). There would seem to be no way in which a UDC's accounts could be tied directly to these activities. Furthermore, the Government have no present intentions of allowing UDCs to run direct labour organisations of the kind referred to in the amendment.
      In view of my assurance that the present paragraph 10 provides sufficient
      642
      flexibility for the Secretary of State to prescribe the appropriate form, content and principles of accounts, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment. May I say that we will note very carefully what the noble Lord has said on this matter, because we recognise his great knowledge and special expertise in this field and we want the Bill to be the very best Bill we can get. Therefore, while I cannot accept the amendment for the reasons given, I certainly undertake that we will look very carefully at what the noble Lord has said to see what might be done to help when the whole procedures are taking effect.
      Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. It is not wholly satisfactory in the sense that if this part of the Bill had preceded Part HI, which deals with DLOs, I do not think the House, when it came to consider DLOs at that later stage in the Bill, after having dealt with this, would have accepted or regarded kindly the very detailed, pernickety measures which have been put in the text of the Bill relating to direct labour organisations. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has said that he will give very careful consideration to the matters which we on this side of the House have sought to raise. I have no desire to prolong your Lordships' proceedings any further on this point, and with your Lordships' permission I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      8.17 p.m.
      Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 166:
      Page 272, line 33, leave out ("As soon as possible after the end") and insert ("Not later than the 30th of September").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with paragraph 13 of Schedule 29, under the heading of "Reports". The existing paragraph 13 reads:
      "As soon as possible after the end of each financial year, a corporation shall make to the Secretary of State a report dealing generally with the corporation's operations during the year, and shall include in the report a copy of its audited statement of accounts for that year".
      My amendment seeks to limit that period

      643
      to, "Not later than the 30th of September", which gives six months for this to be done. Once again I venture to draw your Lordships' attention to the position in regard to DLOs. They have to render their reports and accounts to the Secretary of State within six months, together with a return on the capital employed and a whole series of far more complicated provisions which Her Majesty's Government have inflicted on these unfortunate organisations by the provisions of Part III; and they have to do it all within six months.
      Once again there is a more leisurely attitude towards these "quango" urban development corporations. There, we do not find any particular time restriction at all: it says "As soon as possible". I would suggest that if these urban development corporations are going to be subject to the discipline, which I am quite sure the noble Lord's right honourable friend Mr. Heseltine would be only too pleased to apply to them, then we ought to incorporate it into the Bill. What is wrong with six months? In other words, why not put in the Bill something which puts a little bit of a bomb under any complacency that might conceivably exist or be encouraged by the words, "As soon as possible"? Why not insert, exactly in the same way as in the case of direct labour organisations, the words, "Not later than the 30th of September"? I beg to move.
      Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord would not keep referring to Quangos with such—I was about to say "opprobrium"; but perhaps if I were to put it in the way I should prefer, it might not hit just the right note at this time of night. The fact is that this Government have (if you like) set up Quangos; but they would have to run into hundreds to equal the number set up by the previous Adminstration. If you offset the hundreds that we are disbanding and have disbanded, I think that sets the record straight. But we have never said that there is no room for special bodies to do special work; we have said that there were so many of them, that they proliferate and grow like Topsy, and that one must be careful about them.
      644
      We would regard it as too onerous for there to be a statutory requirement for the UDC to produce its report by the end of September, particularly since the report is to include an audited statement of accounts. The draft code of practice which is under discussion with the local authorities on the publication of their reports will set only a target date for the end of September. To go further than this and embody a firm date as a statutory requirement would appear to be unnecessary. In setting down our requirements under Clause 3 of the Bill for the publication of UDC information we could include a target period similar to that for local authorities if this were seen to be the most appropriate way to proceed. Before leaving that point I would repeat that in my view the requirements for publishing annual reports and having them laid before Parliament are far more onerous than is called for by the imposition of anything that we have in mind, or that this Bill says, on direct labour organisations.
      Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I must explain the reason why I referred to Quangos in the way I did and in the terms to which the noble Lord referred. It was to ingratiate myself with the noble Lord; for I thought that the way in which I treated them would be more acceptable to his political philosophy and that, therefore, I should be more likely to get my amendment accepted. I agree that these organisations perform useful functions. I have never been a member of one myself, but I have every reason to suppose that they do a good job of work; but they are not responsible democratically.
      I am a little at a loss as to why the noble Lord should say that to fix the date by 30th September places an onerous burden on the UDCs. Let him look at Clause 11 of the Bill where he is talking about local authorities which are directly-elected bodies and which have to go through a series of far more complicated and stated manoeuvres than are put in the straight general terms of Schedule 29. Perhaps I may refresh the noble Lord's memory of Clause 11. It says:
      "Every local authority who in any financial year undertake construction or maintenance work, whether under works contracts or by way of functional work or both, and every development body who in any financial year undertake construction or maintenance work by way of func-

      645
      tional work, shall prepare the documents mentioned in subsection (2) below not later than 30th September in the financial year following that year".
      The noble Lord did not say that the fixing of 30th September was an onerous burden on the local authority which, thanks to the complex nature of the accounting provisions stated in the Bill, has far more exacting requirements than those in Schedule 29 affecting the UDCs. He argues that it places an undue burden on these bodies (whose accounting requirements are similar and less specific) if they have to put in audited accounts by 20th September; but in the case of the DLOs under Clause 11 he is imposing an obligation to have them in by 30th September. This does not altogether reflect that degree of fairness which I have come to expect from the noble Lord and which prolonged contact with him in the course of this Bill has given me hope that he might view favourably the amendment that I put before the House. I hope that on reflection he will agree that it is not unreasonable to insert the words "30th September" in the Bill itself.
      Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, gazing at Clause 11, I see no reference there to audited accounts. In subsection (2) (which is what is referred to in sub-section (1)) there is no reference to audited accounts or to a report dealing generally with corporation operations during the year such as there is in paragraph 13 of Schedule 29. The noble Lord is talking about different things. I suggest that we compare like with like.
      Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, with leave, the requirement is a statutory one in the case of the DLOs. If the noble Lord refers to Clause 11(3), he will see that
      "The balance sheet must show a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the local authority…".
      Therefore, the obligation to produce audited accounts is implicit in the clause. It is so required by law. As I explained in earlier discussions there is always the district audit service at the disposal of the noble Lord's right honourable friend. The service has 12 offices in the country and they employ a considerable staff under an auditor-in-chief in his own department.
      Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I do not think that there is much that I can add to what I have said. I am grateful to my noble friend. The point he made is valid. There is a great difference between accounts audited in the say we intend and in the way one would need them for laying before Parliament. I see no way in which we could agree that we could put a statutory requirement like this in the Bill.
      Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am anxious to remain on terms of utter amiability with the noble Lord; and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      8.27 p.m.
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 167:
      Page 272 line 37, at end insert—
      ("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1) above, a report under this paragraph shall deal with the operation during the year of the corporation's arrangements for consultation about the exercise of its powers with local authorities the whole or any part of whose area is included in the urban development area.").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment goes hand in hand with the new clause which we agreed earlier requiring UDCs to formulate a code of consultation with the local authorities. This amendment would add a requirement that the UDC would have to report in its annual report on the operation of the consultative arrangements during the course of the year. I am sure that this would be welcome to noble Lords opposite, and especially to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I beg to move.
      Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 168:
      Page 272, line 37, at end insert—
      ("( ) Any person may inspect a report of a corporation (including a copy of its audited statement of accounts for that year) under this section and shall be supplied with a copy of the report by the corporation on payment of such charge for a copy as it may reasonably require.
      ( ) A corporation shall publish in at least one newspaper circulating in its area notice of—

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

      647

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

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

      The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment which I hope to be able to move in the most dulcet tones, in the hope that I may seduce the noble Lord into accepting it with complete and utter alacrity. I feel that we have common course on this, as the noble Lord has made clear from the beginning that he wants the utmost public involvement in the affairs of the local authorities and every other body with which he or his department is associated. All that this amendment does is to ensure that:
      "Any person may inspect a report of a corporation (including a copy of its audited statement of accounts for that year) under this section and shall be supplied with a copy of the report by the corporation on payment of such charge for a copy as it may reasonably require".
      The next part of the amendment goes on:
      "A corporation shall publish in at least one newspaper circulating in its area notice of—

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

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

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

      The noble Lord will recall that the party opposite believe in open government. When it comes to direct labour organisations, your Lordships will recall that there are complete means and facilities for the public at any time to inspect these miserable accounting monstrosities that comply with Part III of the Bill relating to accounting. Nevertheless, in whatever form they turn up, the people will be able to inspect them and obtain copies. In the case of this non-elected body, the urban development corporation, when it prepares its accounts as soon as possible—since the noble Lord has not seen fit to accept my previous amendment—the public have access to them and the public are informed about their existence.
      What conceivable objection can there be to that? This is an amendment which should be accepted without any further demur at all. It will ensure that all the noble Lord's good works, and the works of the urban development corporations that are under his guidance, shall be made public, open and advertised, and the cost set out so that all the world may marvel at
      648
      the wonders which have been accomplished and upon which the noble Lord ventured in his enthusiasm to deal at a slightly earlier stage. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
      8.32 p.m.
      Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, there is no doubt that the noble Lord is tonight at his most persuasive. We do not object in principle to this amendment, but it seems to us that this is the sort of matter which would be far better left to directions given to the Secretary of State under Clause 3 of this Bill. The power to require UDCs to publish information is contained in Clause 3 alongside that for other public bodies such as the new town development corporations, water authorities and so on. The powers are exercisable by directions which may specify the manner, form and occasions on which such publication is made.
      In the light of this, we prefer to avoid a specific requirement being written into Part XVI of the main legislation when we already have a provision in the Bill which has the advantage of allowing greater flexibility and adaptation over time in the light of experience and changing circumstances.
      It is very hard simply to take the point the noble Lord is making and the comparison he draws with DLOs because the comparison is not an exact one. I would have to fall back—as I do in this whole range of discussions that we have been having—on the matter of accountability, because that is what we are talking about; openness, accountability and ensuring that not only things are done but one can see how they are done and that they are right.
      The noble Lord knows that I do not differ with him at all on that. In the provisions laid down we have an adequate safeguard for the reasons that I gave on the earlier amendments. The one about Parliament is an onerous one. We have a lot of flexibility in this for adaptation. If, for any reason, it proves to be for any reason that there is a shortcoming in any way in the amount of reporting that is coming forward, then there is flexibility for any Secretary of State to move to have it as it ought to be. I am quite sure when Parliament looks at the first reports it will

      649
      not hestitate to say what it thinks about them. I do not differ from the noble Lord on the principles. Why do we not give it a try and see what it looks like? There is the safeguard that I have mentioned, and I would have thought that that was the better way to proceed.
      Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: I am very sorry, my Lords, that the noble Lord cannot accept this simple amendment. He says that in general terms it is the intention to do this anyway. Then what harm is there in it being in the Bill? If the noble Lord gives me an undertaking that in the directions he gives under another clause in the Bill he will incorporate this specific provision, then I will willingly withdraw anything that I have said.
      It seems to me that this matter is crucial. It is a question of what has been termed "open government". Here we have a local body embarked upon an enterprise, which the noble Lord has discussed in glowing terms, covering very wide areas: acquisition of all kinds of assets, assistance to all kinds of businesses; covering the vast mass of objectives that have to be attempted when embarking on the enterprise as a whole.
      Accounts are going to be prepared and audited as soon as possible. What is unreasonable about the financial results showing exactly how the enterprises work being made available to the general public? What is objectionable about that? I cannot see any objection at all. Even a private limited liability company has an obligation to file accounts within a certain specified period at the end of its financial year so that people may look at them. A local authority's accounts are going to be subject to an ever-increasing supervision. Many of us may think that there is no objection to that. Why should these development corporations escape the statutory necessity of being able to make available their financial results and accounts, not only to local authorities but to interested parties in their locality? I would have thought that this is elementary. I am well aware that the noble Lord does not intend to give way. I have done my best to try and improve the Bill without disturbing the noble Lord's political objective because this I believe to be above all the responsibility of this House as a whole. Of course, if the noble Lord
      650
      will not take advantage of it, and not give it his further consideration, there is nothing left for me to do but to say that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 160 [Power to survey land etc.]:
      8.39 p.m.
      Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 168A:
      Page 137, line 11, leave out ("14") and insert ("28").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak to Amendment Nos. 168B to 169B. All these amendments relate to the power of an urban development corporation to survey land, et cetera. At present the clause qualifies the right of entry, but whereas the statutory undertakers are given specific protections, this is not given to local authorities. These amendments seek to give local authorities the same rights. Local authorities may well own land for various functions which could be disturbed or interfered with as a result of uncontrolled access. Moreover, such land may have physical dangers about which the representatives of the urban development corporation would need to be informed. Something more than advanced notification is necessary, however, for there also needs to be the right to object to the Minister if the proposal would be seriously detrimental to the local authority.
      Thus the police and the fire services are worried that security could be breached or severely prejudiced. There are many areas with extensive and uncharted mining operations and there is a risk of damage to cables, pipes, sewers and so on. At the moment districts have a statutory duty under Section 32 of the Public Health Act 1936 to keep a sewer map. I understand also that in the North-West there is a sludge problem which could lead to very difficult consequences if these amendments were not agreed to.
      The urban development corporations are a new creation and they will not necessarily have the detailed knowledge local authorities have. It is crucial that they should have not only the right of notification but also the right of refusal in certain circumstances. To put it

      651
      fairly briefly, I understand that the Government are prepared to accept, with certain minor amendments, most of the earlier amendments I have referred to and that they would like to see a redrafting of the later amendments. It would probably he for the convenience of the House if at this time I moved the first amendment only. Then as we come to the later amendments I will briefly inform the House of the amendments to the amendments, of which I have already notified the noble Lord on the Woolsack and also the Table. For the moment, I beg to move Amendment No. 168A.
      Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, yes, the noble Lord is correct; but I wonder whether I may be allowed to say just a few words to the whole range of the amendments—168A to 168H? I am pleased to accept Amendments Nos. 168A to 168H on the understanding that the noble Lord has changed the word "the" at the end of the first line of 168C to "their", and that the words "or used" in the second line of 168H are omitted. In accepting these amendments, the Government recognise the constructive approach exemplified by the amendments in extending to local authorities a similar kind of protection to that afforded under the clause to statutory undertakers. As I shall indicate in relation to Amendments Nos. 169A and 169B, the Government propose to table at Third Reading an amendment to incorporate the amendment consequential to 168A to 168H and which 169A and 169B seek to achieve; but in their present form they are defective.
      Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks and I beg to move Amendment No. 168A as printed.
      Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 168B:
      Page 137, line 21, after ("by") insert ("a local authority or").
      Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 168C:
      Page 137, line 25, at end insert ("performance of any of the functions or, as the case may be, the").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment with the alteration of the word "the" to "their" at the end of the first line of the amendment.
      Viscount SIMON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord which it is—"their" or "there"?
      Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: "Their", my Lords.
      Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendments Nos. 168D to 168G en bloc:
      Page 137, line 30, at end insert ("a local authority or").
      Page 137, line 33, after second ("the") insert ("authority or").
      Page 137, line 35, after ("the") insert ("authority or").
      Page 137, line 38, after ("the") insert ("performance of any of their functions or, as the case may be, the").
      Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 168H:
      Page 137, line 41, at end insert—
      ("(4A) In exercising the powers of this section to survey land held or used by a local authority or statutory undertakers a person to whom subsection (1) above applies shall comply with all reasonable conditions imposed by the authority or undertakers with regard to the entry on, surveying of, searching or boring on or in the land, or placing or leaving on, or removal of apparatus from the land").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment with the deletion in the second line of the words "or used".
      [Amendment No. 168J not moved.]
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 169:
      Page 139, line 18, at end insert—
      ("(12A) The reference to section 28 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 in subsection (12) above shall be construed after the commencement of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 as a reference to section 32 of that Act.").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides that the reference in this clause to Section 28 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 shall be construed as reference to Section 32 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 on the commencement of that Act. This necessary amendment has

      653
      the effect of bringing up to date the provisions on penalties in this clause. I beg to move.
      Clause l63 [Interpretation: statutory undertakers etc.]:
      [Amendments Nos. 169A and 169B not moved.]
      Clause 166 [Duty of local authorities to provide caravan sites for gipsies]:
      Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 170:
      Leave out Clause 166 and insert the following clause:
      ("Duty of local authorities to provide caravan sites for gipsies.
      166.—(1) Subsection (2) of section 6 of the Act of 1968 (power to exempt from duty to provide adequate accommodation for gipsies and limitation, in certain cases, of that duty) is hereby repealed.
      (2) In section 190 of the Local Government Act 1972 (gipsy camps)—

      (a) in subsection (1) (which in part amends section 6(2) of the Act of 1968), the words from "and in" to the end are hereby repealed, and

      (b) subsection (2) (certain exemptions from the duty mentioned in subsection (1) above to be continued in force) is hereby repealed.").

      The noble Baroness said: My Lords, unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is not able to be here, and, rather humbly, I have to move the amendments which are in his name and mine; his knowledge of the whole subject is very much greater than mine. In moving Amendment No. 170 I want to say that Sir John Cripps, in his report in April 1977, recommended that no inner borough should be asked to make provision for more than 15 gipsy caravans or to provide a transit site or stopping place, but that the 15-pitch limitation should be removed for outer London and the metropolitan counties. Sir John Cripps also recommended the removal of the power to grant exemption from the duty to provide sites and cancellation of all existing exemptions. At the Committee stage of the Bill we repealed the parts of Section 6 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 that dealt with the exemptions. However, in the debate on the new clause in Committee, at column 1398 of Hansard of 15th October, the noble Lord, Lord
      654
      Avebury, made a strong case for abolishing the duty of the metropolitan county councils and the London boroughs to provide for only 15 caravans. Some authorities have already exceeded 15, and the table which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, sent to both the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and me showed that this was indeed the case.
      My noble friend Lady Stedman, when moving the Second Reading of the Labour Caravan Sites Bill in 1979, also asked for this to be done, and it was in that Bill. I think it is because of the 1972 reorganisation of local government that the limit of 15 became out-of-date in a way. It would now apply to metropolitan counties, which are far bigger and richer in resources than the old county boroughs to which the original 15 applied. It would appear to be unfair to put such a small obligation on them to provide a mere 15 pitches, compared with the counties' obligation to provide sites and satisfy the demand for all the gipsies coming to their area.
      When speaking at Committee stage I mentioned the fact that gipsies, because of their scrap metal activities and other trades, are coming more to urban areas than they used to. This is another reason for repealing subsection (2) of the 1968 Act in its entirety. The link between designation and the site provision duty is a most important one. Under the present policy, even if a London borough provides places for 15 gipsy caravans, which is its total present duty, it does not necessarily get designation powers to move on surplus gipsies. If designation is, as is claimed, a carrot, where is the carrot for London boroughs not yet designated but with a gipsy population?
      As in the Labour Bill, we have chosen not to differentiate in this amendment between inner and outer London boroughs, as it seems preferable to have no statutory limitations, although doubtless in fact the 15-pitch limit would be recognised as a sensible one for he inner boroughs, with all their problems. I beg to move.
      The Earl of AVON: My Lords, this amendment was Clause 3 of the previous Goverment's Caravan Sites Bill, which was introduced into this House and then lost. That clause sought to implement recommendations contained in the Cripps Report,

      655
      except in so far as the report recommended the retention of the limitation in respect of inner London boroughs.
      I am afraid we do not feel able to accept the amendment, as it now goes further than the proposals contained in our original Local Government Bill. The amendment was contained in the Caravan Sites Bill and we recognise that it implements the recommendations of the Cripps Report. However, we are content now with the elimination of the anomalies arising from the exemptions, and this is covered by Clause 166 of the Bill. It appears to us that the 15-pitch limit on the duty to provide accommodation in London boroughs and metropolitan districts is reasonable, having regard to the difficulty of providing accommodation in those areas. Should the need be greater than that number in any borough or district, the appropriate local authority will have to consider the relative merits of making the limited provision or going further if they wish to qualify for designation under Section 12.
      I should add that we are trying to discuss this matter with the London Boroughs Association but they are rather waiting to see how far we go before they commit themselves. I believe that when the noble Baroness drafted this new clause, which we very much supported, we felt that it did, and does, go far enough. I hope, bearing that in mind, that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
      Baroness DAVID: My Lords, it seems that the consultation is not yet complete and so I think I should like to reserve my position and possibly come back on Third Reading in order to find out how much further the consultation has gone. At this point I should like to thank the noble Earl, who having sent a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, copied to me. In that letter he said:
      "I understand there has been considerable consultation with all interested parties over possible changes to the 1968 Act."
      The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, told me this evening that he thought it rather odd that although there had been considerable consultation "with all interested parties ", he was not one of them; and of course the 1968 Act was his creation.
      656
      I should very much like to reserve his position and my own on this, and possibly find out later what further consultations have gone on and what the result has been. I may well put down an amendment on Third Reading, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 167 [Removal of unlawfully parked caravans and their occupants]:
      8.55 p.m.
      Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 171:
      Page 144, line 4, at end insert—
      (" (11) In proceedings against any person for an offence under subsection (4) of this section it shall be a defence to prove that the accused person had reasonable grounds to believe that one or more of the caravans stationed on the land were so stationed in consequence of illness, mechanical breakdown or other immediate emergency.").
      The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this tries to put in a safeguard—the same safeguard which applies to people who are removing caravans from a site in a designated area, an unauthorised site. They can put up a defence of mechanical troubles in respect of their caravan or motor, or a defence of illness and so on. In Section 11 there is an offence of obstructing somebody trying to remove the caravan. This amendment would give the same defence to a member of the police or of the council who is trying to remove a caravan, on exactly the same grounds of illness, mechanical breakdown or other immediate emergency. I beg to move.
      The Earl of AVON: My Lords, the amendment would enable a person charged with obstruction under Section 11(4) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, as set out in Clause 167 of the Bill, to plead in his defence that he had reasonable grounds to believe that one or more caravans on the land were so stationed in consequence of illness, mechanical breakdown or other immediate emergency.
      The first point is that the amendment does not say that the land in question has to be land to which an order under Section 11 applies, though this is perhaps implicit. Secondly, the amendment would enable a person charged with obstruction to rely for his defence on the circumstances

      657
      pertaining to a caravan for which he was not responsible, and, indeed, with which he had no connection, other than that it was stationed on the land. Further, he would be able to rely on the presence of that caravan irrespective of the fact that the alleged offence did not involve a caravan. Even if the defence were confined to a caravan for which the person charged was responsible, it would be wrong that he should be able to rely on it where the alleged offence did not depend on a refusal to remove the caravan, but on simple physical obstruction—for example, lying down across a field entrance to prevent the bailiffs from coming on to the land.
      The fact is that the defences in question were designed as defences to a charge of unlawfully stationing a caravan on land, and they are not all applicable to every case of obstruction. It should be observed, however, that the offence in question is intentional obstruction. In such a case, it must surely be a defence for the person charged to establish that he was so ill that he could not comply with the order under Section 11, or, in the case of an offence involving a caravan, that the caravan could not be moved because of mechanical breakdown or some other immediate emergency.
      It is relevant to point out that the defences with which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is concerned—which are, of course, the defences under Section 10(3) of the 1968 Act—are already required to be taken into account in relation to an order under Section 11, since under Section 11(1) such an order can only require the removal of caravans which are stationed on the land in contravention of Section 10; and this in turn involves consideration of the defence under Section 10(3). I think it is better to let the law take its course and I would have to resist this amendment.
      Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I think that what the noble Earl has said misses one point: that somebody might be intentionally obstructing because someone was ill in the caravan they were seeking to remove. However, I shall read very carefully what he has said, as no doubt will the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Again I would reserve the right to come back, and
      658
      in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 168 [Designation of areas for purpose of making unauthorised camping unlawful]:
      9 p.m.
      Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 172:
      Page 144, line 24, leave out ("order") and insert ("area").
      The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Avebury, I move Amendment No. 172. This amendment and the one following are drafting amendments. I understand that my noble friend mentioned them both during the Committee stage, but did not put them down then and was advised to do so later. He was also under the impression that he had satisfied Ministers that these were appropriate amendments. That we must see.
      The first amendment which I move is:
      "Page 144, line 24, leave out "order" and insert "area".
      The subsection will then read:
      "The Minister shall not make an order under subsection (1) or (2) above in respect of any area unless it appears to him either that adequate provision is made in the area for the accommodation of gipsies residing in or resorting to the area, or that in all the circumstances it is not necessary or expedient to make any such provision."
      My Lords, I beg to move.
      The Earl of AVON: My Lords, the amendment makes it clear that in connection with designation adequate provision for the accommodation of gipsies has to be made in the area to which the application for designation relates, and not in the designation order. The amendment corrects an error in the Bill and I am happy to recommend its acceptance.
      Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 173:
      Page 144, line 34, after ("area") insert ("of the council").
      The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the second amendment and, if it is accepted, the subsection will read:

      659
      "Where an order under this section is made in respect of any area of the council it shall be the duty of the county council for that area or, as the case may be, the London borough council concerned to take such steps as are reasonably practicable",
      and so on. My Lords, I beg to move.
      The Earl of AVON: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall not be quite so accommodating on this one. I do not think that I led the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, astray, because I think it was the previous amendment that I said I agreed to. We find this amendment hard to accept because, at the moment, it is difficult enough to ensure that gipsies in designated areas are made aware of designation. Even if one could be sure of informing the right gipsies outside designated areas (that is, those who were thinking of moving into the designated area), it has to be borne in mind that, in so far as the designated area may consist of a district or districts, district boundaries are not indicated by road signs, and it will be difficult for gipsies coming from outside the area to know whether they are in it or not. Another consideration is that the boundary of the designated area may be wholly or partly contiguous with the county boundary, and the amendment does not seek to require that gipsies in the adjoining county should be informed.
      It is very difficult to get things over to gipsies and we feel that this would tend to confuse them. I should also add that, of course, the National Gipsy Council is normally informed. I submit that the only reasonable course is to concentrate resources on informing gipsies in designated areas. It is for that reason that the Government would like this amendment to be withdrawn.
      Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation. I shall, of course, report back to my noble friend Lord Avebury, who will also perhaps read it in Hansard. Then if he feels that he has to come back, he can do so on Third Reading. But I hope that he will be satisfied with what the noble Earl has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Schedule 30 [Enterprise zones]:
      Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 273XA:
      Page 273, leave out line 10.
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that this amendment should be numbered 173XA. It is misprinted in the Marshalled List. But in speaking to this amendment, I should also like to speak to the following one, No. 173YA. These amendments are similar to amendments which were moved at Committee stage, but they are moved in a slightly different form on this occasion, in that they are two separate amendments as opposed to a single amendment.
      At Committee stage, I spoke of the fact that I felt that this was watering-down the democratic process, in the sense that we were allowing non-elected bodies to apply for enterprise zone status, and there was then a short debate on the issue. I think that a clear distinction should be drawn between the rights of a new town corporation and of an urban development corporation to apply for enterprise zone status. By their very nature, new town corporations function in isolation from centres of population: whereas, again by their very nature, urban development corporations are set up in developed areas.
      The effect of this is that, with an urban development corporation, the establishment of an enterprise zone could have an adverse effect on the immediate surrounding area, in the sense that jobs and trades of various natures could be transferred from the immediately surrounding urban area into the area of the enterprise zone. In those circumstances, it seems that the local authority—be it the district council or the London borough council—should be the authority which applies for enterprise zone status, and that one should not have a situation where there is an application being made by a non-elected body in the middle of a district council or London borough council area.
      Therefore, my intention tonight is not to press the first of the two amendments, because, in a sense, I think that the noble Lord opposite has rejected the omnibus deletion of these two lines, but rather to try to persuade him that different arguments apply to urban development corporations seeking enterprise zone status, than apply to new town corporations.

      661
      I hope that, in that light, he will see that there is some logic behind the deletion. My Lords, I beg to move.
      Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I note the intention to move just this amendment, but, if I may, I, too, will speak to No. 273YA as well. This amendment seeks to prevent a new town development corporation from drawing up a scheme for an enterprise zone and subsequently being designated as the body responsible for the zone. Promoting development and creating the right conditions for industry and commerce to flourish are particular strengths of the development corporations. We felt that in some cases it might be desirable, in order to ensure rapid development of difficult run-down areas, to combine the expertise and single-mindedness of the development corporation with the incentive of enterprise zone status.
      A number of new town areas belie the popular image of a modern, successful town set among green fields, by including considerable areas of run-down urban development, industrial dereliction, and other problems more commonly associated with the inner cities. That was why we included new town development corporations alongside urban development corporations, and of course local authorities, as appropriate bodies to be responsible for an enterprise zone.
      Naturally we would not ask a development corporation to prepare an enterprise zone scheme without first consulting the relevant local authorities. In drawing up the scheme, the corporation will be required by the terms of the statutory invitation to consult the local authorities on the content of the scheme. They will be required by the provisions of this Bill to publish the scheme, and to consider any representations—including of course representations made by the local authorities. The consultation requirement in the statutory invitation, and the requirement to publish the scheme in draft and consider representations, provide a very sufficient safeguard for local interests.
      I have already explained the general policy reasons why we included new town and urban development corporations in this part of the Bill. In the case of urban development corporations, there can be no doubt that the areas in question suffer, as I said earlier today, from some of the
      662
      worst urban problems in the country, and it is just this sort of area where the traditional solutions have failed that a radical new approach is really needed. We felt that combining the attraction of an enterprise zone with the skills of a development corporation could in some cases provide the economic stimulus that was required, so in practice all but one of the enterprise zones we have announced so far will be the responsibility of the district or borough council for the area.
      The exception is the zone on the Isle of Dogs for which the proposed urban development corporation will be responsible. The urban development corporation's primary task will be the redevelopment of derelict areas in dockland. In our view, they should take the lead in establishing the enterprise zone which is designed to give a boost to one of the worst derelict areas.
      I should like to stress that we are not forcing an enterprise zone on to an unwilling local authority. Tower Hamlets Borough Council themselves made a submission to the Government asking for an enterprise zone on the Isle of Dogs. They are already fully involved in the discussions on the boundaries of the zone and the planning regime. I am quite sure that both Tower Hamlets and the UDC are doing their utmost to reach an agreement which will ensure that the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone contributes to the rapid redevelopment and the renewed prosperity of dockland. Having said that, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, will feel able not to press his amendment.
      9.11 p.m.
      Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Of course he is absolutely right: Tower Hamlets is very enthusiastic about the enterprise zone context. My point, though, is which authority will make the application? Will it be the urban development corporation or will it be Tower Hamlets? I should be very happy if the noble Lord could say that the urban development corporation—indeed, some of the amendments which we discussed earlier today would have that effect—would consult with the local authority if they had decided to make an

      663
      application for an urban development corporation.
      We are talking today about particular events which we have in mind, whereas in the course of time there may be other applications for urban development corporation designation. What we wish to ensure in the Bill is that the sort of good faith which we are talking about today will also occur in the future and that if in some area which none of us is thinking about at present there should be an application for an urban development corporation, that authority will also consult the local authority about the designation for an enterprise zone. If I can have the noble Lord's assurance that his intention is that the consultation processes should be written into the designation of an urban development corporation if there is the possibility of an enterprise zone being established within an urban development corporation, that would certainly satisfy me.
      Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am entirely ad idem with the noble Lord. That is exactly what we anticipate and fully expect would have to be the case. I am just hesitant about talking about things of that kind being written into the Bill when I am not sure about the precise procedures. But as to the principle, I am entirely in agreement. I would ask the noble Lord to consider not pressing his amendment or withdrawing it for the time being. I cannot give him any commitment about its being written in here, and I am sure that he knows I cannot do so. However, I am sympathetic. I just want to have a look at it.
      Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I will certainly withdraw the amendment at this stage. I have specifically in mind that when an urban development corporation is designated it should be written into the designation that they should consult if it is proposed that an enterprise zone should be established.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      [Amendment No. 273 YA, not moved.]
      Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 173ZA:
      664
      Page 273, line 29, at end insert—
      (" (c) shall specify the formation, laying out or alteration of any means of access to a classified road or to a proposed road the route of which has been adopted by resolution of the highway authority and notified as such to the local planning authority; and
      (d) shall specify any other operations or use of land which appear to the highway authority to be likely to result in a material increase in the volume of traffic entering or leaving such a classified road, to prejudice the improvement or construction of such a road or to result in a material change in the character of traffic entering, leaving or using such a road").
      The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Evans of Claughton on representations made to him by the Merseyside County Council. In its capacity as highway authority the council is concerned that it does not lose its power to issue directions under Article 12 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 restricting the grant of planning permission—that it does not lose this power after an order designating an enterprise zone has been made under Schedule 30. It would appear to the county council that an order designating an enterprise zone has the effect of granting planning permission for the development specified in the scheme or for the development of any class so specified. They are anxious to have some assurance from the Government that when the Secretary of State invites a body to prepare a scheme the invitation should specify that the body should reach agreement with the highway authority on the matters which are set out in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this amendment. I do not think it is much use my saying more than that because I am sure that the noble Lord knows a great deal more about the operation of highway authorities in relation to planning permission than I do. I beg to move.
      Lord BELLWIN: My, Lords, the first statutory step in setting up an enterprise zone is for the Secretary of State to send an invitation to the authority concerned asking them to prepare a scheme. The invitation will specify the boundary of the zone, and certain other matters—for instance, the bodies which must be consulted about the scheme. As I understand it, this amendment would repuire the Secretary of State to include in the

      665
      invitation various provisions about highways. He would have to specify the design of each access to a classified road, and also list any types of development which were likely to generate additional traffic. My Lords, this is not the sort of detail that belongs in the invitation. Detailed local information of this kind can only come from the local authorities. It belongs in the enterprise zone scheme, which will be published locally after an invitation has been issued. So I am afraid I cannot recommend your Lordships to accept this amendment.
      Nevertheless, I fully agree that the highway implications of an enterprise zone need to be considered in each case. The design of access to classified roads is important for road safety, and we have always said that we want to see safety standards maintained. So I expect to see the local authorities incorporate access standards agreed with the highway authorities in their enterprise zone schemes. Where people want to use a different design, that will be a reserved matter which the enterprise zone authority will decide after consulting the highway authority. I would also accept that it may be necessary to put a planning restriction on the use of some sites because the access is too restricted to take the traffic that will be generated. That too can be done in the enterprise zone scheme. To summarise, my Lords, I do not think that this amendment is the right way to deal with highway matters in enterprise zones. But they do need to be covered in the enterprise zone schemes that will be drawn up for each zone in consultation between the prospective enterprise zone authority and the highway authority. We have the power to deal with the matters which concern the noble Lord there. I hope he will accept this and withdraw his amendment.
      Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for that. I shall, of course, read carefully what he has said and bring it to the notice of my noble friend and the Merseyside County Council. If they feel that anything further should be done, we will try to do it at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 173ZB:
      Page 284, line 44, at end insert ("; or
      (d) it is an hereditament occupied by a major retail space user.").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to an amendment which I tabled at Committee stage. At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in replying to the amendment admitted that here was a problem. Indeed I had hoped that he might himself be coming forward with an amendment concerning this particular problem at Report stage. If I may remind the noble Lord he said:
      "I should have thought that this was arguably one of the most difficult aspects of the proposals—some would say the most difficult aspect",
      and he went on to say towards the end of his speech, in reply to the movement of my amendment:
      "We want to get the right answers and we are still having discussions about this".
      I feel that the discussions may still be going on in the absence of any amendment from the noble Lord dealing with this specific problem. I think that enterprise zones will be successful to the extent to which they manage to succeed in creating new jobs and new industry within their areas. If they merely transfer existing jobs from immediately outside the enterprise zone to inside the enterprise zone they will not really have made any contribution at all.
      This is specifically relevant with regard to the retail trade. In the retail trade there is necessarily only so much spending money to go round, and basically people tend to spend money in the retail trade within a fairly limited area from where they happen to live. Therefore the extent to which new retail outlets are created within an enterprise zone will mean that that amount of retail trade will tend to move from immediately outside the enterprise zone to inside it, and it will not in fact be creating extra jobs or extra industry and indeed could well have the effect of bankrupting small businesses immediately outside the enterprise zone. I hope that the noble Lord will have something helpful to say to your Lordships this evening about this particular problem. I beg to move.
      Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment proposed

      667
      by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. We feel very strongly that it would be fatal to the success of enterprise zones if they were used simply to transfer businesses from just outside. Apart from that, I echo what the noble Lord said about the damaging effect on small businesses which may be just outside the enterprise zone if, let us say, a large supermarket is then opened inside the enterprise zone, free of rates. It seems to us that this is a matter which should be dealt with. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that the consultations are going well.
      Lord BELLW1N: My Lords, I say immediatley that enterprise zones are an experiment in giving investors and entrepreneurs the freedom to develop unattractive and often derelict areas as they see best. We want to see if market forces can achieve results where other remedies have failed. That is why the measures in the enterprise zone package as far as possible apply equally to all types of business, whether industrial or commercial. In my view, it would be invidious to discriminate against retailing in the way the noble Lord suggests. After all, shops can make a major contribution to the local economy and to the appearance and overall attractiveness of an area. In many cases residents will welcome more and better shops in their areas.
      I do not agree that we should exclude retailing above a certain limit from the enterprise zone rates exemption across the board, regardless of local circumstances—I think those are the key words—because at the same time I know that a number of local authorities who wholeheartedly want an enterprise zone are seriously concerned about the possible impact of hypermarket development on existing shopping centres. So are a number of authorities concerned for adjacent areas, as noble Lords have said. We are still discussing with these authorities the particular problems in their areas, and I can and do assure both the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that we are prepared to take a flexible line on this subject.
      Where it is clear that some control is necessary on large-scale retailing developments, we can achieve that through planning restrictions. We can exclude such developments from the terms of the
      668
      enterprise zone scheme so that each proposal needs an individual planning permission in the normal way. Because of the amendments which the House accepted at Committee stage, we also have power to act quickly to alter the planning regime if we find that something unforeseen and damaging is happening. These are far more effective safeguards for local shopping centres, where they need protection, than excluding retailers from rates exemption.
      The Government accept that there is a problem here. There are strongly held views on both sides, and we are still exploring possible solutions with the bodies concerned. The solutions will differ from area to area, depending, among other things, on the pattern and strength of local shopping centres. As I say, we are prepared to take a flexible line which recognises these local differences. But I would not want to exclude medium to large-scale retailing units from the rating exemption across the board. That would suggest that we thought shops were in themselves bad for the local economy and for the community, and I am sure that that is not what noble Lords intend.
      I entirely take the points that have been made. We have been immersed in them for so long that, my goodness! if we do not know by now that they are a worry then we really are not on top of the job, and I like to think that we are on top of it because we think it is a fascinating experiment which, like many other experiments, has problems. So, while we certainly do not want to exempt such types of premises from rating in the way in which the amendment seeks to do, we must watch the situation very closely otherwise it could lead to the kind of effects that have been suggested, and that is very much the opposite of what we want to see.
      I hope that noble Lords will understand that we are not seeking to turn our backs on this—far from it. Frankly, I doubt that local authorities themselves would maintain their present enthusiasm if they felt that it could lead to the kind of problems that have been suggested.
      Viscount SIMON: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to point out that it seems to me that I have

      669
      not quite succeeded in getting my point across. The noble Lord spoke several times about local shopping centres but I am considering the local corner shop, which is a rather different matter. I am concerned with the small shopkeepers who are just over the border.
      Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression. We are cognisant of their problems as well. But if we are talking of a hypermarket or even a very large retailing unit we would have to look at each separate area. I do not know each of the areas where it has already been designated, subject to agreement, and I do not know each individual situation; but it would probably be right to say that there must be some areas where they would very much welcome the kind of retailing units about which we are talking. So we must do it in a very flexible way and be aware of the kind of problems that have been mentioned, and we are aware of them.
      Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am glad that the noble Lord is seized of the problem; indeed, he told us so during the Committee stage. One wonders whether the answer to the problem is that the local authority, with such powers as it has over the enterprise zone, would be very much concerned with what effects this could have, and perhaps something could be written into the proposals in that way. However, if the noble Lord has any further ideas perhaps we can come back to them on Third Reading.
      Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make one brief observation which may be helpful. Noble Lords might like to know that the possible solutions under discussion at present are about planning restrictions and not so much about changes to rating exemption, because our conclusion is that the rating exemption itself should stand. Therefore, I want to stress that we believe that there is much scope for protecting other traders through the planning regime. As regards corner shops, the chances are that they have a very local market and would be less likely to be affected, but that again will depend on the area and the individual situation. I think that we would have to wait and see the outcome of what we set up in each case.
      Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 174 [Precepts on local authorities for land drainage]:
      Lord DIGBY Lord DIGBY moved Amendment No. 273ZC:
      Leave out Clause 174.
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move what should be Amendment No. 173ZC. Clause 174 was added to the Bill in Committee and moved by my noble friend Lord Middleton. It was accepted very quickly by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in a commendably brief reply and with no other debate. The effect of this clause is to reduce the financial control of local authorities and to increase that of the Minister. It is hardly necessary for me to remind your Lordships that the resources of local government are under extreme pressure and that there is a widespread feeling among elected members that it is more difficult to control local expenditure in the absence of the democratic process.
      I appreciate that with no recent revaluation there may be a case for an increase in the maximum rate of 1·7p in the pound, but there has been no consultation with local authorities, which will actually have to pay. The method chosen is the usual, modern panacea of transferring the power to the Minister. I would remind your Lordships that this maximum is not a maximum as it can be exceeded provided a majority of the local authority members on the local land drainage committee agree. In these hard times, in my view that is a reasonable safeguard. It can be increased with local authority agreement, and that is a desirable state of affairs. I believe that this is the wrong way to deal with the problem and, in the absence of consultation with those who must pay, I think that we should delete this clause.
      Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend in this amendment, and although I am glad to be present to hear amendments by other noble friends being accepted with alacrity by the Government, in this particular case I am not so sure that I was so pleased. The fact of the matter is as my noble friend

      671
      Lord Digby has said. In the circumstances, I think that the proper thing to have done would have been to accept the intention behind the amendment of my noble friend Lord Middleton, to have promised discussions and consultations with the local authorities and, as far as possible, to have had those discussions and consultations between the Committee stage and the Report stage. Then we should be dealing with an amendment on which there had been consultations. I must add my protest to that of my noble friend Lord Digby at the lack of consultation and discussion in this particular case.
      Earl FERRERS: My Lords, if we have been guilty of lack of consultation, of course I would apologise to both my noble friends for the inconvenience which has been caused. They will, of course, both be aware of the volume and complexity of the amendments with which we have had to deal in this Bill and, of course, local authority associations could have made representations to us when they saw the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Middleton down on the Marshalled List for the Committee stage. But as far as I am aware they failed to do so. If that has upset my noble friends, of course I apologise to them.
      However, Section 46 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 specifies that the precept levied by water authorities on county councils in respect of expenditure on land drainage may not exceed 1·7p in the pound except with the consent of a majority of the local authority representatives on the land drainage committee of the authority. The limit was set in the Water Act 1973, and it represented the decimal version of the limit of four old pence, which was introduced in the River Boards Act 1948. Because of the effects of inflation on land drainage expenditure since 1973, combined with the almost static level of the penny rate product, the limit is beginning to bite in a number of areas. This places quite an obligation on the county council representatives.
      All that the amendment moved by my noble friend at the Committee stage sought to do was to permit the Secretary of State to increase the figure of 1·7p. My noble friend Lord Digby said that this reduced the control of the local authorities and
      672
      it increased the control of the Secretary of State. With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I think that that is a slight exaggeration because he knows that on land drainage committees there is always a majority of representatives of the county councils.
      Within the 1·7p limit the county councillors can always outvote the nominated members. If the land drainage committee wishes to go above the 1·7p limit, then it is only the county councillors themselves and not the nominated members who are permitted to vote. Therefore, the county councillors really have the authority in all cases, and all my noble friend's amendment sought to do was to increase the limit which was originally set in 1948. I do not believe that that is an excessive request, and I think it is really only in line with inflation. I repeat to my noble friends that in the end it is the county councillors who have the majority vote on the land drainage committees. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not see fit to press his amendment.
      Lord COLLISON: My Lords, may I briefly say a word about this amendment and express the hope that it will not be pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Digby, and if it is pressed that we shall not support it. I do this for a simple reason; again an agricultural reason. The Land Drainage Act 1976 gives the authorities that can carry out land drainage works, which include main river improvements, flood alleviation, and sea defence work. We all know what happens when the floods occur. We have seen it happening in the last few days, and it happens more or less every year. Land is damaged, sometimes permanently, cattle are lost, and I believe that it is important that enough money should be available to enable the necessary drainage work to be undertaken.
      Obviously, the cost of doing these works has increased with inflation like everything else, and therefore I firmly believe that it is perfectly right that the 1·7 limit should be moved up by the responsible Minister. With those few words, I just wish to express my view, which I hope will be supported by my noble friends, that this amendment should not be carried and that it should be opposed.
      Lord DIGBY: My Lords, the Minister is quite right that local authorities have a majority on these committees, but if you take only these local authority members, provided they agree it can be increased. I feel that this is a proper safeguard. However, I must admit that, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Collison, speaks with a lot of sense. I can see the objects behind this, and if the noble Earl the Minister would agree to make a suitable undertaking that the Government would consult with the local authorities before making any order I would be prepared to withdraw this amendment.
      Earl FERRERS: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House, may I say that of course I will see that the Government discuss the position with the local authorities before they make an order. If that satisfies my noble friend, I would be quite happy for them to do that.
      Lord DIGBY: My Lords, I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      9.39 p.m.
      Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 1 73A:
      After Clause 174, insert the following new clause:
      ("Rateable values.
      . Subsection (8) of section 65 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 (by virtue of which the rateable value of any land shall be construed, where that value differs from the net annual value, as referring to the net annual value) shall cease to have effect.").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a vague similarity between this amendment and the one we have just been discussing, although it does not involve ministerial orders. Section 65(8) of the Land Drainage Act 1976 perpetuates the practice of substituting the net annual value for the rateable value, where these differ, in determining the assessment of drainage rates. The practice goes back to the time when there was industrial derating in England and Wales. The purpose was to ensure that drainage rates were paid on the full value of industrial premises.
      Industrial derating was abolished in 1962 in England and Wales. Therefore, mineral hereditaments are now the only
      674
      type of property for which there are different net annual values and rateable values. The reason is that royalties paid to landowners represented part payment for a capital asset and, only in part, rent in the true sense.
      In 1971, following years of pressure by the CBI, the then Government agreed that this peculiar characteristic of mineral rents should be taken into account in England and Wales, and in Scotland also, for the purpose of calculating general rates—that is, that general rates should no longer be charged on the full net annual value—and effect was given to that decision in the Mines and Quarries (Valuation) Order 1971 and the Valuation (Mines and Quarries) (Scotland) Order 1971. It is suggested that in the interests of consistency and equity, the basis for drainage rates should also now be rateable value, and accordingly I beg to move.
      Earl FERRERS: My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that I may get stick from my noble friend Lord Digby for making a short speech in reply to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, all I would say is that the Government accept the point of view which my noble friend has put forward and are happy to accept the amendment.
      Lord MOTTISTONE: I am most grateful to my noble friend, my Lords.
      Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, may we be informed whether this amendment applies to Scotland?
      Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I think I am right in saying—and if I am not I will inform the noble Lord—that it does not.
      9.42 p.m.
      Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 174:
      After Clause 175, insert the following new clause:
      ("Amendment of s. 9 of Justices of the Peace Act 1979.
      . After section 19(2) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 there shall be inserted a new subsection (2)(a) as follows:—
      "(2)(a) For the purpose of subsection (2) above the districts of Brighton, Plymouth, Portsmouth and Stoke-on-Trent shall be deemed to be non-metropolitan counties.".").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, the towns specified in the amendment are large towns in non-metropolitan counties. Prior to local government reorganisation in 1974 they had two principal committees concerned with magistrates and magistrates' work. The first, the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee, was concerned with making recommendations to the Lord Chancellor on the appointment of magistrates. In addition, it reported annually to the Lord Chancellor on attendances and other matters on which the Lord Chancellor required annual information. The second, the Magistrates' Courts Committee, was concerned with the maintenance of buildings, the appointment and training of staff and the training of magistrates. Those are the two committees principally concerned with the work of magistrates and magistrates' courts.
      Following reorganisation in 1974, the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, decided that, in spite of changes in local government, there would continue to be Lord Chancellor's advisory committees in these large towns in non-metropolitan counties and that those advisory committees would continue to be directly responsible to him; and that is still the position today.
      The Home Office, on the other hand, decided that the magistrates' courts committees in these large towns should be abandoned and that the work should be taken over by the county committee. It did so in spite of the fact that these towns were larger than many of the districts in the metropolitan counties which had kept their magistrates' courts committees. That decision was illogical and in practice it has proved to be rather unsatisfactory: so unsatisfactory that in most of these towns the local magistrates have in fact maintained their magistrates' courts committee, either under that name or some other name. For example, in the case of Plymouth they have continued to elect their magistrates' courts committee and still have a magistrates' courts committee today. In the case of Portsmouth they continue to elect a committee, but give it another name. The only difference is that whereas before the local magistrates' courts committee had certain powers, nowadays it has no power at all. It has to
      676
      go to the county cap in hand before it can do anything.
      The circumstances in these large cities in non-metropolitan counties are entirely different from the circumstances in the rural divisions in those counties. For example, in the case of Portsmouth there are at present 130 magistrates, and according to the establishment set by the present Lord Chancellor within the next three years the figure will be increased to 180 magistrates. In that city there are seven courts daily. But the circumstances in the rural divisions are quite different. In some cases there are only 20 magistrates, or thereabouts; there is not even one court each day. Consequently, both the circumstances and the problems are quite different.
      Furthermore, because every division in the county must be represented on the county committee, the large cities are under-represented, in most cases grossly under-represented. For example, in the case of Hampshire, the small divisions have one representative for every 20 magistrates, but the cities have one representative for every 35 magistrates; they are grossly under-represented. There are certain consequences which flow from that under-representation. The staff gradings that are required to carry out the work of the city are quite different from the staff gradings that are required in the rural divisions, because of the different nature of the work, and there is a tendency by county committees to have an equalisation, to try to apply in the city the same gradings as they apply in the rural divisions. The consequence is that all these towns are having great difficulty in recruiting adequate staff of the right calibre. That problem is far greater than it used to be when the magistrates' courts committee of the city had control of its own affairs.
      Moreover, in the case of the city of Portsmouth a feasibility study has shown overwhelmingly that computerisation of the city records would be most cost effective, but the attitude of the county committee is that of "wait and see", because it is not a matter of urgency for the small districts in the county that have the weight on the county committee. The present system is wasteful of time, paper and money. May I give your Lordships two examples? Let us take

      677
      the city of Portsmouth. Before the reorganisation, if a small repair or, say, the redecoration of a room was required, all the magistrates' clerk had to do was to get in touch with the city council, often in the same building, or in an adjoining building, and make a request for the work to be done. The appropriate department of the city council sent across a representative, the job was surveyed, and arrangements were made for the work to be done.
      But what happens now? If a small repair or some redecoration is required, the clerk to the magistrates in Portsmouth has to get in touch with the clerk to the county magistrates' courts committee, who happens to be the clerk to the court in Totton, in the south-west of the county. He then has to get in touch with the clerk to the county council, who is in Winchester. The county council, in Winchester, uses the Portsmouth City Council as its agent for repairs. So the clerk to the Portsmouth City Council then gets in touch with Portsmouth, and we are back to square one. That actually happens today. Then, after all that waste of paper and all that waste of time, and after, sometimes, misinterpretation of what is required, the work commences, or is surveyed with a view to its being commenced. I submit that that is a complete and utter waste of time and is bureaucracy of the worst kind.
      This happens in all these cases, but let us take another example—the case of Plymouth. In the case of Plymouth, you have magistrates travelling up to Exeter—a round trip of 100 miles—eight or 10 times a year for work that could quite easily be done in Plymouth itself. That is a sheer waste of money. I should have thought that this Government, who want to save money, would have dived upon this and put it right long before now. This proposal will not involve any additional staff and it will not involve any additional cost.
      My Lords, at the Committee stage the Minister said there had been a lack of consultation. I have made inquiries, and I find that in each case there has been consultation between the magistrates in the city concerned and the magistrates' courts committee of the county. They are fully acquainted with this amendment; and in the case of Plymouth they were
      678
      acquainted with this amendment as far back as 1976, so they have had plenty of time to consider it. Do not let us say that there is any lack of consultation.
      It is not the function of the city magistrates to consult with the county council; their connection is the county magistrates' courts committee. They are the people they are consulting with; they are the people they have informed. In most cases the county committee has no comment. I believe that in the vast majority of cases there would be no serious disagreement with this amendment. But here I come to my final point. At the Committee stage the Minister said that this could be done only by agreement. My Lords, if we are going to wait until we get agreement between all the parties concerned before we do anything, we shall never do anything. In 1974, when these changes were made, there was no attempt to get agreement with anybody; the city magistrates were just told that this would be the position in future. Consequently, if it was not necessary to get agreement in 1974 it is not necessary to get agreement in 1980. I have pleasure in moving this amendment, and I hope it will have the support of the House.
      Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I support this amendment in principle, and I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for the excellent way in which he moved it. Unfortunately, Plymouth does not quite agree with everything he said and is not ready to give its support at the present time. I have received a copy of a resolution passed by the Plymouth City Council in 1979, on the following lines:
      "With regard to the request for this Council to seek powers to resume control for Magistrates' Courts in Plymouth, whilst this Council would wish to support the requests, it is of the opinion that the additional cost involved would be too prohibitive and would not be in the best interests of the ratepayers of the City."
      I have usually supported the City of Plymouth in all its requests, particularly in relation to the Act of 1974, but on this occasion, I think, I have to go by their wishes in this regard. Furthermore, I do not want to contradict the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, but they still say that there has not been sufficient consultation.
      I have therefore been asked to oppose this amendment on the ground that it is

      679
      an inappropriate provision to be made in this Bill (I think there may be something to be said for that, and perhaps my noble friend who is to reply will tell me, if this principle is approved, in what kind of Bill he considers this amendment might be made) and that it should more properly be contained in a Bill relating to the administration of justice. They finally add that no sufficient consultation has taken place. I end by repeating that I agree with the principle and I thank the noble Lord for raising this amendment, but I think that, with regard to Plymouth City Council, I must abide by their wishes at the present time.
      Lord JACQUES: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, would she agree that the additional cost that she mentioned is not added cost; that it is a transfer of cost from the county to the city? That is what the city is commenting upon. It is not more cost but merely a transfer from one authority to another.
      Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, that is what I was saying just now. That is what they are objecting to. They think it might be too hard on the ratepayers of Plymouth.
      Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I rise to support the plea of my noble friend Lord Jacques for a reconsideration of the existing arrangements for magistrates' courts committees. I think that he has put the case admirably. Before the 1972 Local Government Act, all was well. I wonder if it can be said hereafter that before the 1980 Local Government Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill all was well in all sorts of fields. The changes which occurred then and which affected these four particular magistrates' committees were purely the result of changes in the local government boundaries which it was hoped should result in a review also of the magistrates' court committee arrangements. What has been put strongly to my noble friend, to me and to the noble Baroness, I think, is that there is no logic in some town courts being self-governing and other of similar size not being so. The magistrates, at any rate in each of the four courts we are concerned with, are unanimous about the wish that they should have their own committee
      680
      and, as far as the other three are concerned, they support the views of the local bench. So do the local law societies. There would be no upheaval in what is proposed. Indeed, the information we have is that there would be considerable saving in staff and in expenditure; and the sort of illustration my noble friend has given of the whirlygig of letters going from one end of the county to the other and then back to square one happens in other places as well. In Brighton, I am told, a similar situation arises. There is a feeling on the benches of these four authorities that they are grossly unrepresented in the new county authority.
      On the point about the Lord Chancellor, I am happy to know, lest responsibility may pass on to my shoulders, that it was a true decision on the part of the noble and learned Lord who succeeded me that these four magistrates' courts should retain their advisory committees for the four towns we are concerned with—which is a measure of the thought that some independence of control over their own arrangements ought to be allowed. I hope therefore that if the Government do not feel disposed to accept this amendment tonight, we know that the Home Office has very little to do; and it may be that if, unhappily, we meet a negative, it w ill have been heard in this debate and we may possibly see reference to this in the Queen's speech—but I doubt it.
      Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I say nothing about the merits of this amendment. This saves me having to be so intrepid as to tangle with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, on such a matter. However, I doubt whether this is the appropriate Bill to which to move such an amendment; but I have absolutely no doubt that there has been no consultation on this matter and on those grounds alone I hope that my noble friend will resist it robustly.
      Lord DIGBY: My Lords, I can say that East Sussex certainly had no consultation and, as far as counties are concerned, I think the noble Lord may be misinformed as to how much consultation there has been. I will not repeat all the arguments we had in Committee but I would say that the savings, if any, are assured to be minimal. There will be

      681
      duplication of staff, even if the staff is there already, and the saving in travel will be offset by other costs.
      10 p.m.
      Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, may I say that I understand the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and his fellow Peers have moved this amendment both at Committee stage and this evening. My home has always been near a county borough and I genuinely understand the reaction of civic pride to some of the alterations that were made in the powers under the 1972 Local Government Act. But there was a logical thought which ran through the arrangements for the magistrates' courts committee under the 1972 Act. That was that the boundaries of the magistrates' courts committee should be related to the boundaries of the local authorities which financed them. So it was that the 1972 Act provided that there should be a separate magistrates' courts committee for the whole of each non-metropolitan county.
      The noble Lord referred in his speech to the fact that the advisory committees had continued. No one is more glad than I am—indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has commended this as being a sensible continuing arrangement. Those advisory committees have very different functions from the functions of the magistrates' courts committees.
      The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, also called in aid what I would have called a circular argument rather than a square one as he presented it to the House as to how arrangements seemed to go back and forth—or perhaps round and round—in the counties in order to be able to secure repairs to the courthouses of the various petty sessional districts of these counties.
      However one argues it, two facts are incontrovertible. The first is the one I have already submitted; that the boundaries of the magistrates courts' committees are coterminous and should continue to be coterminous with the areas which finance them. The second point was picked up by my noble friends: that there has not been real consultation on this matter. I do not think that I need quote any words; all I need do is to say that my noble friend Lady Vickers—whose heart obviously is with
      682
      this amendment—had none the less to include in her words a record of the fact that the city of Plymouth were on record as saying that on financial grounds they could not support an amendment of this kind.
      Therefore, I must say with regret that the Government cannot support an amendment of this kind. So far as the future is concerned—and I feel I owe noble Lords a reply on this point; and this was really the point that the noble and learned Lord put to me—I do not think I can give any undertaking for legislation so far as a piecemeal change is concerned. As I, on behalf of the Government, have had to say this evening as a matter of principle that I do not believe that this is the right way of proceeding, I am afraid therefore I must resist not only this amendment but any similar move in the foreseeable future.
      Lord JACQUES: My Lords, on the question of whether this is the appropriate Bill, I say that this Bill is such an omnibus that there is no harm in it having another passenger. I would point out to the Minister that the magistrates' courts are self-financing. The amount received in fines by the Home Office is the income, and the amount which is spent on the courts is the expenditure. They are very largely self-financing. So far as consultation is concerned, the magistrates' connection is with the county committee. As I have said, there has been consultation with the county magistrates' courts committee. They know that this amendment is before the House tonight and in general they have no comment to make.
      I am not asking the Minister to promise us legislation next week or the week after or even in the Queen's Speech, but I should like a promise that some consideration will be given to reinstituting the magistrates' courts committees in those towns where the Lord Chancellor has found it necessary to keep the advisory committees. He specified 12 towns in non-metropolitan counties which he thought were big enough and ought to have their own advisory committees. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the Home Office will look at that and see whether it cannot do the same thing so far as the magistrates' courts committees are concerned. Surely this is a matter

      683
      for consideration. Is the Minister willing to give an assurance that there will be consideration of that matter?
      Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, if the House will allow me, of course I am always ready to look at any matter which the noble Lord puts to me, but in what I said
      684
      I think I made it crystal clear that I give no commitment of any sort whatsoever.
      Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in the circumstances, while I feel so strongly that I could not withdraw the amendment, I will certainly not force a Division.
      On Question, amendment negatived.
      Clause 177 [Amendment of s. 94 of the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act 1907]:
      10.7 p.m.
      Viscount HANWORTH Viscount HANWORTH moved amendment No. 175:
      Page 148, line 33, at beginning insert—
      (" (1) For subsection (4) of section 94 of the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act 1907 there shall be substituted—
      " (4) Where a boat or vessel is duly licensed by or under any regulations of the Board of Trade, or such a boat or vessel and the person in charge thereof or navigating it is duly licensed—

      (a) for the purposes of this section by the local authority in whose area it is normally navigated; or

      (b) under any other enactment, by a harbour authority as defined in section 57(1) of the Harbours Act 1964 within whose limits of jurisdiction this section does not have effect;

      no further licence under this section shall be required for that boat or vessel, or for the person in charge of or navigating it.".")
      The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ameliorate a very unsatisfactory situation which ought to have been thought about when the clause was drafted. As things stand, the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act 1907 appears to require a hire boat to have a separate licence from every district council into whose area it sails. This, of course, applies to private owners who may let out their boats, even to friends, for short periods. So far as the law is concerned, this is a most ridiculous situation and I think the Government agree that something must be done. There are also other authorities who have analogous powers to the district councils for licensing pleasure craft on condition that their construction and equipment have been examined and passed as safe. Chichester and Crouch Harbour Conservancy Authorities are a case in point. This amendment would make it unnecessary to obtain a second licence.
      As I have said before, I understand that the Government agree that the situation is unsatisfactory and that some district councils' licensing schemes are insufficiently rigorous. They argue that if this amendment were accepted boat owners would tend to seek licences in those districts where they could be obtained most
      686
      easily, and so reduce the safety requirements. But my amendment specifically requires a boat to be licensed by the local authority in whose area it is normally navigated. I do not claim that this amendment is a final answer, but it is a solution to an existing problem until the Government can produce a better, more comprehensive solution. I fear that unless this amendment is passed pressure of business will mean indefinite delay by the Government. Can they guarantee to produce suitable legislation within a year? If not, I should have been tempted to take this to a Division so that, if I won, something would be done; but at this time of night there would be no point in doing so. I beg to move.
      Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I listened with interest to the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, because we had these amendments down in Committee and I think they were taken very late at night. Certainly I think this particular amendment, or something not unlike it, received rather scant debate. I certainly accept that circumstances can arise in which there is duplication of licensing controls and that this can be confusing and inconvenient to pleasure boat operators. I agree that it is unsatisfactory.
      There is certainly a case for doing what we can to remove unnecessary duplication. Indeed, we did this in Committee by writing in a new clause, which is now Clause 177. Provided we set about it in the right way, this should work to the advantage of all concerned—the licensing authorities, the pleasure boat operators and the boat-going public. However, so far as this amendment is concerned, there are problems of safety in respect of people in boats. My primary concern, and indeed that of the Government, has been to consider what the effects of the amendment could be on safety on the water.
      However desirable in itself the aim of removing duplication of controls may be, I am certain that we must not sacrifice safety in the realisation of that aim. I know that some local authorities take their responsibilities for water safety very seriously indeed. There are some local authorities who attach to licences rather less strict conditions, and I understand

      687
      there are other local authorities which operate really no licensing system at all.
      If that is the situation, then I really do not think this amendment will do. It will not do, I think, on an extension of that argument which the noble Viscount very fairly put and to which he also gave a reply; namely, the fear that some unscrupulous boat operators could get themselves licensed in one area and then use their boats in a different area.
      However, I leave that to one side. I do not think we need to cross swords about that this evening, but I should like to add to what I have said, that if one looks at the amendment, it is conceivable—and I really must say this in case the matter should go to a Division—that the amendment is not drafted correctly. As it reads at present, the exemption in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) would seem only to apply to craft which are already licensed by the Board of Trade. That is clearly anomalous and I am sure it is not the effect which the noble Viscount wants to achieve.
      Finally, as he very fairly mentioned, these are matters which are being considered at the moment by the Home Office. I cannot give him the undertaking he asks for—that the Government will bring forward legislation on this matter within a year—because a year is a very long time in politics and I cannot see that far ahead. But I do give the noble Viscount an assurance that we will do our best to bring our study of this matter to a conclusion and then try to do something about it.
      Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, of course the noble Lord must realise, by his own admission, that if some licensing authorities are less rigorous than others, a factor of safety already comes into the equation and I do not think that my own amendment, after what I have said, would increase this unsatisfactory situation from a safety point of view. I think really one can almost dismiss the Minister's argument on that subject.
      However, what I asked him was whether he will press forward on this, because clearly the situation is unsatisfactory.
      688
      Not only is it making the law look an ass and look ridiculous but, on the Minister's own admission, there is the safety aspect, which is unsatisfactory in some cases. Nevertheless, I accept the Government's good intentions to try to do something about this; I only hope that they really will do so. So I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      mendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      [Amendment No. 176 not moved.]
      10.15 p.m.
      Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 176A:
      After Clause 177, insert the following new clause:
      ("Amendment of s. 127 of Highways Act 1959
      . In section 127 of the Highways Act 1959 the words or a gipsy "shall be omitted.").
      The noble Baroness said: My Lords, if I may, I will speak to Amendments No. 176A and No. 188A at the same time. This new clause was accepted at Committee stage, but it was suggested that it should be put in a different place in the Bill, which is what this amendment does. Amendment No. 188A makes the necessary entry in Schedule 32 to repeal that part of Section 127 of the Highways Act 1959. My Lords, I beg to move.
      The Earl of AVON: My Lords, we have already spoken to this amendment from this side of the House. I am happy to accept the proposed amendment, together with the consequential Amendment No. 188A.
      [Amendment No. 177 not moved.]
      Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 178:
      After Clause 181, insert the following new clause:
      ("Equestrian Traffic
      .—(1) In the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967—
      (a) the following subsection shall be substituted for section 1(3A) (by virtue of which the provision which may be made by a traffic regulation order includes any provision prohibiting, restricting or regulating the use of a road or any part of the width thereof by foot passengers):—

      689
      "(3A) The provision which may be made by a traffic regulation order shall include any provision prohibiting, restricting or regulating the use of a road or any part of the width thereof by, or by any specified class—

      (a) of foot passengers; or

      (b) of persons driving, riding or leading horses or other animals of draught or burden,

      either generally or subject to exceptions specified in the order, and either at all times or at times, on days or during periods so specified.";
      (b) in section 12(1) and (2) (by virtue of which a highway authority may restrict or prohibit the use of a road or any part of a road by vehicles or by vehicles of any class or by foot passengers) after the words "or by foot passengers ", in both places where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "or by persons driving, riding or leading horses or other animals of draught or burden "; and
      (c) the following definition shall be inserted in section 104(1), after the definition of "street parking place" and "off-street parking place ":—
      "traffic" includes pedestrians and animals;
      (2) The following section shall be inserted after section 23 of the Road Traffic Act 1972:—

      "Equestrain traffic to comply with directions to stop.

      23A. Where a constable in uniform is for the time being engaged in the regulation of vehicular traffic in a road, a person driving, riding or leading a horse or other animal of draught or burden who proceeds across or along the carriageway in contravention of a direction to stop given by the constable, in the execution of his duty, either to persons on foot or to persons on foot and other traffic, shall be guilty of an offence.".

      (3) In Part I of Schedule 4 to that Act (prosecution and punishment) the following entry shall be inserted after that relating to section 23:—

      23A

      Person riding horse etc. proceeding in contravention of constable's direction.

      Summarily

      £50

      —

      —

      —

      (4) The following section shall be inserted after section 159 of that Act:—

      "Power of police to stop equestrian traffic.

      159A. A person driving, riding or leading a horse or other animal of draught or burden on a road shall stop the same on being so required by a constable in uniform, and if he fails to do so he shall be guilty of an offence.".

      (5) In Part I of Schedule 4 to that Act the following entry shall be inserted after that relating to section 159:—
      690

      159A Person riding horse etc. failing to stop when required by constable.

      Summarily

      £100

      —

      —

      Sections 181 and 183 apply."

      The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment reintroduces a Government clause which was contained in the No. 1 Bill, and it puts right an anomaly in the existing law, whereby traffic regulations orders cannot be applied to persons driving, riding or leading horses. This clause would help to regulate the commercial use of bridleways. There is an increasing problem of excessive use of bridleways—and, indeed, footpaths for that matter—for purposes for which bridleways were not originally intended; for instance, sponsored rides. It gives me very great pleasure to say that I understand that the Ramblers' Association support me in this amendment.
      It may be that the Government will say that they would prefer to put off the problem for the moment—perhaps until that long-awaited and, to me and to my noble friend Lord Bellwin, very much to be feared Wildlife and Countryside Bill. Of course, I shall understand if that is the case. My Lords, I beg to move.
      Lord BELLW1N: My Lords, because of the pressure of time we had intended to bring the road traffic measures forward, not in this Bill, but in a later one. However, at the instigation of my noble friend Lord Ridley, during the Committee stage of this Bill we accepted that the largely uncontroversial clauses from the No. 1 Bill, which relaxed ministerial controls over local authorities' road traffic functions, might be added to this Bill. However, this new clause does not relax a ministerial control. It is aimed at bringing a major new class of traffic—equestrian traffic—within the scope of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. This is not something that can be taken lightly, "on the nod" as it were. Indeed, there can be differences of view as to whether equestrians ought to be brought within the scope of traffic regulation at all. Although the Government are inclined to the view that they should, we would wish to hear counter arguments. We therefore feel that the matter deserves debate at greater length on another occasion.

      691
      Moreover although the new clause is reproduced from the No. I Bill, the amendment is, unfortunately, technically defective. Subsection (1)(c) contains a definition of traffic that is much too broad, embracing as it does every species of animal that you may care to think of; the definition therefore needs to be narrowed. Again, subsection (1)(5), in inserting an entry corresponding to Section 159A of the Road Traffic Act 1972 in Schedule 4 to that Act, stipulates that Sections 181 and 183 apply. This is mistaken, as a horse cannot by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as being a motor vehicle.
      For all these reasons, I hope that your Lordships will be able to accept that, although the Government are not disposed to accept this amendment on this particular occasion, its subject matter is nevertheless being given active consideration, and the Government have every intention of bringing forward an alternative clause at a suitable legislative opportunity.
      Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I must say that I feel I can never win. I thought that we had copied out the whole clause word for word from the No. 1 Bill. But, evidently, we did not do it correctly, because we have motor vehicles muddled up with horses. I thank my noble friend for saying that he will do something about the problem at some stage. Therefore I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 178ZA:
      After Clause 181, insert the following new clause:
      ("Compensation for loss of office.
      .—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for the payment by the Secretary of State or by such body as may be prescribed by or determined under the regulations of compensation to or in respect of persons who are, or who but for any such service by them as may be so prescribed would be, holders of any such office or employment as may be so prescribed and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to any provision of this Act or of any instrument made under this Act (other than a provision of Part XII of this Act or of any instrument made thereunder).
      (2) Regulations under this section may—
      692

      (a) include provision as to the manner in which and the person to whom any claim for compensation is to be made, and for the determination of all questions arising under the regulations,

      (b) make different provision for different classes of persons and for different circumstances and make or authorise the Secretary of State to make exceptions and conditions,

      (c) be framed so as to have effect from a date earlier than the making of the regulations,

      but so that regulations having effect from a date earlier than the date of their making shall not place any individual in a worse position than he would have been in if the regulations had been so framed as to have effect only from the date of their making.
      (3) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, and I should like to speak to the following amendment. These amendments are identical to two amendments which I moved at the Committee stage. In reply to my moving of those amendments the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that there is already a scheme for payment of compensation to local government staff who are made redundant or who lose their jobs in the interests of greater efficiency. The scheme to which he referred was never, so far as I am aware, intended to cover loss caused by statutory intervention and was never intended to be an alternative to or a replacement of the Crombie code in the event of statutory intervention. Indeed, since the departmental letter referred to by the noble Lord was issued in 1976, the Crombie code has been invoked on a number of occasions. For example, regulations containing the Crombie code were made in 1977 to provide compensation for officers who suffered loss as a result of the transfer of housing functions from new towns to local authorities. A set of Crombie regulations was made in 1980 to provide compensation for officers who suffered loss as a result of the transfer of housing from the Greater London Council to local boroughs and to some district councils.
      The scheme in the March 1976 departmental letter contains two elements, both discretionary. One of them allows some added years to be awarded for superannuation purposes to a person over 50 with at least five years service who retires

      693
      on the ground of redundancy or in the interests of the efficiency of the service. The number of added years cannot in any event exceed 10, and the maximum is considerably less in many cases, depending upon the officer's age and length of service. The second element in the scheme relates to the size of the redundancy payment which will normally be only the statutory redundancy payment as envisaged in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, formerly the Redundancy Payments Act 1965.
      Under the March 1976 letter, local authorities may, in calculating the redundancy payment, count all of an officer's continuous local government service instead of only the service with the last employer and may, if the officer's pay is more than £120 per week, use it as a base for the calculation of the actual week's pay instead of the statutory maximum of £120 per week. The Crombie code which officers expect to be applied in cases of statutory intervention is far more comprehensive and favourable than the terms of the 1976 letter. For example, it provides for a minimum lump sum payment of 13 weeks' pay, whereas the minimum redundancy payment after the same qualifying claim of employment for two years can be as little as one week's pay, depending on age, according to the terms of the letter. The code also provides long-term income support, subject to stringent provisions for review and abatement for officers with at least five years service who suffer loss of emoluments without any qualifying minimum age.
      Statutory intervention is a different circumstance from redundancies which arise from the ordinary management of local authorities' affairs. That obviously has been recognised by the use of the Crombie code and in connection with statutory reorganisations which have occurred since the last war. I am making this point in some detail because in reply to my earlier amendment the noble Lord specifically referred to the fact that the code he was referring to in the letter was a code used for greater efficiency and not the Crombie code which has been used in the past where statutory intervention is involved. I think that local authority employees have the right to expect that if they suffer loss because of legislation they will be properly compensated in that way. The Local
      694
      Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill is no different from previous legislation and it will certainly adversely affect the careers of some local government employees. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord can look again at this question. I beg to move.
      Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, as I made plain in Committee, it is the belief of the Government that there is adequate provision for any staff who may be affected by the Bill in the compensation terms already available for local government staff who are made redundant or lose their jobs in the interests of greater efficiency. These terms were agreed between both sides of local government and are available for the staff of new towns as well as those employed by local authorities. The scheme is in process of being converted into regulations which, it is hoped, can be made later this year.
      The Minister of State for the Civil Service Department set out the reasons which had led to the Government decision not to make use of the Crombie code for future statutory reorganisations in his letter of 10th September to the General Secretary of the TUC. The code is extremely complex. It provides for the discounting of compensation when there are prospects of alternative employment. It also calls for the review and adjustment of compensation for up to two years after the loss of employment. The code was introduced at a time when the availability of redundancy benefits was much less widespread. It is becoming increasingly difficult to justify the application of a different compensation code simply because a particular reorganisation results from a statutory change. It is for these reasons that the Government intend to rely in future on the compensation arrangements which have been negotiated for each service. My Lords, it seems to me to be eminently sensible and fair in the light of conditions as they are today.
      Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply which, unfortunately, I do not find very satisfactory. He does not appear to be seized of the particular problem that local government officers feel that they are being less fairly treated than were their predecessors when similar enactments affecting their job prospects were enacted

      695
      by Parliament. However, I shall study his reply again with interest, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Schedule 31 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 179:
      Page 290, line 4, leave out from (" acquisition ") to end of line 5 and insert (" by the Land Authority for Wales under section 100 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980;

      (k) an acquisition by means of an order under section 136 of that Act vesting land in an urban development corporation;

      (l) an acquisition by such a corporation under section 137 of that Act; ").

      The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technically necessary amendment to extend and clarify the technical modifications to the Land Compensation Act 1961. It deals with land acquisitions by the Land Authority for Wales under Clause 100 of the Bill and land vested in or acquired by urban development corporations under Clauses 136 and 137. I beg to move.
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 179A:
      Page 291, line 5, at end insert—
      (" (6) In Schedule 2 to the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 (acquisition of houses as being unfit for human habitation) at the end of paragraph 1(1) there shall be added or

      (h) an acquisition by means of an order under section 136 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 vesting land in an urban development corporation; or

      (i) an acquisition by such a corporation under section 137 of that Act.".")

      The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the Scottish equivalent to Amendment No. 179. It makes the necessary modifications to Schedule 2 to the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963. I beg to move.
      Schedule 32 [Repeals]:
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 181:
      Page 295, line 19, leave out from (" subsection ") to end of line 22 and insert (" (4), the word "also" ")
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. I beg to move.
      [Amendments Nos. 182 to 187 not moved.]
      10.30 p.m.
      Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 188:
      Page 301, line 24, after (" 12 ") insert—
      (" In subsection (1)(a) the words "to any relevant matter arising out of a survey carried out under section 6 or 11 of this Act and ".").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is to remedy a defect in a previous amendment, No. 317A, which I moved and then withdrew at Committee stage, after my noble friend Lord Bellwin indicated that it went further than the Government would wish to go. This new amendment merely seeks to dispense with the present requirement in Section 12(1)(a) of the Act for publicity to be afforded to matters arising out of a mere survey of an area where a local plan is being prepared, but would retain the requirement for adequate publicity to be given to matters included in the plan itself, to enable representations to be made in connection with such proposals.
      This is one of a batch of amendments in my name at this point and at an earlier point in the Bill which had been worked out by my noble friend's department and myself. This particular one, I understand, is acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, and I would hope between this stage and Third Reading the others, which we had thought to have got right but which proved not to be right, can be retabled either by myself or my noble friend. I beg to move.
      Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, this amendment is part of a series with all the Us and Vs and Ws. This is acceptable.
      The Earl of AVON moved Amendments Nos. 118UA to 188ZA en bloc:

      Page 303, line 35, at end insert—

      ("9 & 10 Geo. 6. c. 49.

      Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946.

      In Schedule 1, in paragraph 3(1), the words in head (b) from "except" to "case", head (c) and the proviso, and in paragraph 7A, the words "the confirming authority and to" and the words "or affixing of notices ".")

      column 3, leave out lines 39 to 43 and insert—

      (" In section 23(3), the words following paragraph (ii).")

      Page 303, line 45, column 3, leave out from ("(5)") to end of line 49 and insert ("the words following paragraph (ii).").
      Page 304, line 6, leave out from ("(b)") to ("(6)") in line 7 and insert ("(3) to").
      column 3, leave out line 8 and insert—

      ("In section 122, in subsection (2), the words "open space" in paragraph (a) and the words following paragraph (b), and subsections (3), (5) and (6).")

      Page 304, line 11, column 3, leave out ("Section 126(5)") and insert—

      ("In section 126, in subsection (4), the words "open space" in paragraph (a) and the words following paragraph (b), and subsections (5) and (7),").

      The noble Earl said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 188UA to 188ZA en bloc. They are all consequential on amendments I spoke to earlier today to Schedule 22. I beg to move.
      Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 188A:
      698

      Page 305, line 11, at end insert—

      ("7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 25.

      Highways Act 1959.

      In section 127(c) the words "or a gipsy,"").

      The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness, Lady David, spoke to this amendment earlier. I beg to move.
      The Earl of AVON The Earl of AVON moved Amendment No. 188B:
      Page 305, line 34, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 144(3)")
      The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment repeals Section 144(3) of the Local Government Act 1972. This repeal, together with the repeals of Section 73(2) and Section 8 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1978, is consequential on Clause 180 of the Bill, which removes the present restrictions upon local authorities advertising the commercial and industrial advantages of Greater London. I beg to move.
      The Earl of AVON The Earl of AVON moved Amendment No. 189:

      Page 305, line 37, at end insert—

      ("1973 c. 37.

      Water Act 1973.

      In Schedule 3, paragraph 11(2).")

      The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment repairs an omission in the Schedule of Repeals. Up till now water authorities have been entitled to pay allowances to their members by virtue of the provision in Schedule 3 to the Water Act. They will now be brought into line with a number of other bodies who may pay allowances under the Local Goverment Act 1972. The Water Act provision should, therefore, be repealed. To omit to do so would undoubtedly lead to confusion. I hope that the House will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
      Clause 185 [Scotland]:
      10.35 p.m.
      The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 190:
      Page 150, line 9, leave out ("Parts V, IX,") and insert ("Parts IV, V, IX, XII,")
      The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 190, and I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 191, 192 and 193. These are all technical amendments necessary to clarify the application of this Bill to Scotland. As was noted by my noble friend Lord Morris during the Committee stage, the convention in explaining the application of a Bill to Scotland is that where one is dealing with a United Kingdom statute and no express provision is made excluding Scotland, then it applies to Scotland. This clause, therefore, sets out those parts which either do not apply to Scotland or apply only in part.
      The first amendment, Amendment No. 190, adds two further Parts which have partial application to Scotland, namely, Parts IV and XII. Amendment No. 191 sets out the relevant sections which explain the partial application of each of these Parts. Amendment No. 192 simply deletes a Part which applies in part to Scotland. Amendment No. 193 is to rectify a drafting error: it adds a reference to Clause 177 which does not apply to Scotland. I beg to move.
      Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I think that we are grateful to the Minister of State for producing something with which we very nearly agree. I just wonder, though, whether his first amendment is really necessary—the amendment which refers to Part XII. After all, when we look at the part which is referred to it says that that part does not refer to Scotland and refers us to a reference in a schedule. So to my mind there was no real need for him to make that change. But I can understand that he was anxious to do something that appeared to indicate that they had read the Bill and fully covered it.
      As regards Amendment No. 191, is it intended—and this relates to Part IV—that they will put in the numbers rather than the rubric and the subject of the section? It is very unusual to depart from putting in numbers and then suddenly putting in:
      "Vice-chairmen of councils in Scotland and application of Part IV to Scotland".
      It would be very clumsy if we were to leave it in that way, but I think that probably when the Bill is reprinted and every-
      700
      thing is set out properly we will be able to put in the sections.
      I turn next to Amendment No. 193, which will now read: "In this Part of this Act …" What is "this Part of this Act"? Could we not just put in the part number or is there some difficulty as regards putting in the part number? What is the part number? I ask any noble Lord who holds the Bill to help me, because it bears the roman numeral, XVIX. I do not know what that is. Can anyone tell me?
      Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I drew the attention of the Public Bill Office to this point and they said that it was a printer's error.
      Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, Yes, indeed, but there is not just one printer's error; there are about seven or eight. At one point it becomes part of the page number of the Bill. If we had had an erratum at the right time it would have helped a lot. I was mystified by this. I looked for XTX and could not find it very well. I presumed that it was that.
      Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, if the noble Lord would allow me, we agreed that perhaps the printer had not learned Latin at school.
      Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, even those of us who learned Latin at school were a bit confused by this one. It goes right through the Bill. It is right at the beginning as well. Latin is the normal lunchtime language between civil servants and Ministers; they do not talk in any other language. We could have spotted this. Anyway, the amendments will be helpful.
      I was going to make a long speech about this because, honestly, this is not the way to deal with Scottish legislation. There is no reference to Part I. I presume that the whole of Part I applies to Scotland. When the Bill was first printed in the Explanatory Memorandum it said that part of Part I applied to Scotland. Anyone trying to read this Bill in Scotland may not realise that at the end of the clauses there is another 150 pages of schedules. We dealt with them as we went along, but I doubt whether any Scots lawyer reading that would know of the schedules or parts of

      701
      the schedules apply to Scotland. There is no similar guide.
      Therefore, if we are going to make a mess of this and spatter Scotland throughout what is virtually an English Bill, then let us do it properly. However, I accept the amendments. They are the best amendments that have been produced by the noble Lord in the past two days.
      Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, may I just say that I think this is an historic occasion. I have never known my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock mystified in the whole of my life until tonight.
      10.41 p.m.
      The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 191:
      Page 150 line 10 leave out ("sections 43, 88") and insert ("sections [Vice-chairmen of councils in Scotland and application of Part IV to Scotland 43, 88, 107").
      The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 192:
      Page 150, line 12, leave out ("X and XII") and insert ("and X").
      The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 193:
      Page 150, line 14, leave out ("173 to 176") and insert ("173, 174, 175, 176, 177").
      Clause 186 [Northern Ireland]:
      Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 194:
      Page 150, line 19, leave out from ("section") to ("19") in line 21 and insert ("119; in Schedule 16, so much of paragraph 5 as relates to section").
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, I come to the last of the amendments. I certainly must not rush this one. It is, in fact, a drafting amendment to correct a reference in Clause 186 which sets out the provisions in the Bill which apply to Northern Ireland. The amendment adds to the list Clause 119, which happens to be the only clause in the Bill which applies to Northern Ireland, and removes the reference to Clause 118. I beg to move.
      Lord DENHAM: My Lords, we have come to the end of what has been a very long and extremely interesting Report stage of a Bill, and I think that your Lordships have given it a great deal of worthy consideration. I see the noble Baroness the Opposition Chief Whip opposite me and I think that on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, 1 should thank your Lordships for the amount of consideration that you have given to this Bill. There have been times when we wished that the progress was a little more rapid. There are times when perhaps we wished that the consideration would have been a little less intense. But I thought I should mark the end of this stage by thanking your Lordships for what has been perhaps a severe ordeal, and I know that the noble Baroness will agree on this one point perhaps, that we are very glad to get to the end of the Report stage.
      Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think that is the only point throughout the course of this entire Bill on which I have agreed with the noble Lord the Chief Whip. Nevertheless, as always he treats us with courtesy and kindness. We deeply appreciate what he has said. We disagree with everything that he stands for and, I think, possibly everything he believes in, but we nevertheless very much appreciate his courtesy and his care for this House. We for our part could have gone on for very much longer. We think the Bill still needs an enormous amount of correction and a great deal more consideration. But, as a matter of fact, if I may be absolutely frank with the House, we just are too exhausted to go another minute further.

  NORTHERN IRELAND: APPLICATIONS TO EEC FUNDS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: APPLICATIONS TO EEC FUNDS
  PAROLE: PREDICTION SCORES
  PAROLE: PREDICTION SCORES
  PAROLE: WOMEN AND PREDICTION SCORES
  PAROLE: WOMEN AND PREDICTION SCORES
  THE POLICE: COMPLAINTS
  THE POLICE: COMPLAINTS