Sitting of 8 April 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Unemployed Persons
    Mr. Norman Hoggasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons under 18 years of age were registered as unemployed in Scotland at 3 May 1979 and 24 March 1981.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): The age analysis of the unemployment register is carried out quarterly, in January, April, July and October. On 5 April 1979, 14,745 people under 18 years of age were registered as unemployed in Scotland. On 15 January 1981, the latest date for which information is available, the number was 30,623. These figures are not seasonally adjusted, and the January figures are normally higher because of the December school-leaving date.
    Mr. Hogg: Does not that reply expose the Government's disgraceful employment record? Does the Minister realise that the Government's economic policy has collapsed and that he is destroying the hopes and ambitions of young people? Will he admit to his failures and argue for a change of strategy?
    Mr. Fletcher: The Government's strategy is on target. We are tackling the problems that we set out to solve in the correct order of priority. Since before the election, inflation has been top of the list.
    Mr. Sproat: As regards youth unemployment, does my hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need to restructure the apprenticeship system? Does he accept that the apprenticeship system operates too often against young people and against industry, because it is too rigid and concentrates more on the length of time served than standards and achievements?
    Mr. Fletcher: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is busy studying such problems. My hon. Friend will know that the youth opportunities programme gives young people an opportunity to enhance their job prospects. Surveys show that 70 per cent. of participants in the programme are employed five months after leaving it.
    Mr. O'Neill: Given the unemployment figures that the Minister has announced, how does he hope to motivate
    936
    those who are in full-time education? Will he seriously consider introducing a mandatory grant system for those who are in full-time school education and who have no prospect of finding jobs when they leave school?
    Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman is being over-pessimistic. As I said, 70 per cent. of those who have been on a youth opportunities programme scheme find employment after five months. Most of those who left school in December will find jobs within the next few months.
    Mr. Myles: Is my hon. Friend aware that many small firms are inhibited from employing young people, because they have to comply with so many regulations?
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is correct. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) pointed out, the apprenticeship system does not increase the number of trainees and tends to restrict entry into the trades. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is re viewing the system.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his assessment of the rate of growth of manufacturing industry in Scotland in the year 1981–82.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): Budget forecasts suggest that United Kingdom manufacturing output might be 6 per cent. lower in 1981 than in 1980, but also that some recovery in the second half of this year is likely. On the basis of recent trends, I would expect activity in Scottish manufacturing industry to move broadly in line with that in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Douglas: Is the Secretary of State suggesting that the recession is bottoming out in Scotland? How much investment will be made in manufacturing industry in 1981–82? Other nations are investing at the bottom of the recession. We want to be stronger than them rather than weaker, as is likely to be the case under this Government.
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. It seems to be the general view—and it is our advice—that the recession will bottom out some time during the year. The evidence suggests that Scotland's performance is at least no worse than that of the United Kingdom. It is hoped that Scotland will emerge more strongly from this recession than from any previous recession.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Secretary of State not accept that one of the problems facing the Scottish economy is lack of indigenous financial control? Therefore, will he make representations immediately to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade about the intended takeover of the Royal Bank of Scotland, because extreme damage would be done to Scotland if the bank were to fall into the hands of financial barracudas from overseas?
    Mr. Younger: I have been concerned at the events of recent days. I have seen the chairman of the bank on a number of occasions, and I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend, who must decide whether this matter should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
    Mr. Peter Fraser: Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider the analysis of the Chemical Industry Association of capital investment intentions in Scotland over the next three years, which shows that, while there will be a decline in the United Kingdom as a whole, there will be a 27 per cent. increase in capital investment in Scotland? Does he agree that an emphasis on that style of confidence in the Scottish economy would generally help us much more than the constant carping which we hear from the Opposition?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I entirely agree with what he says. That analysis not only shows that there are signs of an investment revival in Scotland, but also that it is directly associated with North Sea oil development, which takes a great deal of Government money in various ways.
    Mr. Millan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread concern about the Royal Bank takeover, particularly following the second bid? It would be completely unforgiveable if that major Scottish institution went out of Scottish control without a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and without those bids being stopped by both the commission and the Minister. What is the right hon. Gentleman's own view on this? Is he pressing for a reference?
    Mr. Younger: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not customary for a Minister to reveal his representations to other members of the same Government. However, as I have made clear, I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend, who must make the decision.

    Job Creation (Linwood)
    Mr. Adamsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in creating new job opportunities following the impending closure of the Talbot Linwood factory.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: My right hon. Friend welcomes the undertaking given by trade union representatives, following the decision of the work force at Linwood to accept the closure, to help in the difficult task of generating new industrial development and employment. He has asked the SDA to study urgently the potential of the plant for use by one or by several companies. He looks to the local organisations represented on the ad hoc committee chaired by convener Charles O'Halloran to lend their support to these efforts.
    Mr. Adams: That is not really an answer to anything. How many real jobs have been created in Strathclyde in the past month, and how many jobs have been lost? If the Minister cannot give the figures today, will he undertake to furnish the House with them as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Fletcher: If that was the urgent matter which the hon. Gentleman wished to raise, I do not know why he did not table a question to that effect. I shall certainly furnish the information. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed reports in today's press that new jobs are coming to the Strathclyde area in considerable numbers.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Scottish Development Agency was asked to undertake this study on 13 February—eight weeks ago? What has it done in the last eight weeks?
    Mr. Fletcher: The SDA is working in collaboration with the company, which is still producing cars at Linwood. It will report as soon as it has been able to survey the premises and decide what further use should be made of them—for example, whether they should be divided into several units or be retained as a large manufacturing plant.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have a later question on the Order Paper about the Nissan-Datsun company? There is a feeling in Scotland that the Scottish Office has let the Scottish people down and that is has not shown any fight to bring this industry to Scotland. Is he aware that the Scottish Office has been accused of hanging on to the coat-tails of England and Wales? Will he now say categorically what the Scottish Office is doing for Scotland?
    Mr. Fletcher: As usual, Labour Members are ill-informed. That is not the opinion which prevails in Scotland. For many months now, long before the news of this potential project hit the headlines, the Government were deeply involved with the Japanese company in considering this project. Any hon. Member who considered in detail the specification put forward by Nissan for a possible site in the United Kingdom must have known that Scotland stood only a slight chance of success. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend, the Scottish Economic Planning Department and I have worked extremely hard to try to persuade Nissan to come to Scotland.
    Mr. Millan: If there was only a slight chance of success, why did the Secretary of State try to put off the trade union delegation, which he met the other day to discuss alternative jobs for Linwood, by mentioning that project as one of the possibilities?
    Mr. Fletcher: Because it was one of the possibilities.

    Council House Sales (Dundee)
    Mr. Peter Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in view of the failure of Dundee district council to comply with the sale of council house provisions in the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.
    Mr. Younger: After considering the report of the public inquiry which I caused to be held on 23 February, I issued a default order on 23 March requiring the district council to instruct its officials to implement part I of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act. As the hon. Member will be aware, the council gave the required instruction on 30 March. I have consistently made it clear that this Government will not allow any local authority to deprive its tenants of their statutuory rights, and our determination on this point has been clearly demonstrated in Dundee.
    Mr. Fraser: I welcome the fact that the district council has quailed before the prospect of this question coming before my right hon. Friend. Does he not agree that the council's action has only caused misery and confusion to those tenants who wanted to buy their houses, and quite unnecessary expense to the ratepayers of Dundee who already face an enormous rates increase of over 150 per cent?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. The least attractive aspect of this whole business has been the

    939
    absolute contempt which the Dundee district council appears to have for its electors and those who wish to buy council houses.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the circumstances surrounding the inquiry? How many individuals or groups of tenants came forward during the inquiry in support of his determination to sell council houses?
    Mr. Younger: It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman back from his travels. The inquiry was not about that matter, but about whether Dundee council was or was not taking steps to implement its statutory obligations. It was on that basis that the matter was clearly resolved.
    Mr. Ancram: Does my right hon. Friend not think that the Dundee district council would be better occupied fulfilling the wishes of the people of Dundee to own their own council houses rather than shaming the whole of Scotland with its anti-semitic rantings and behaviour that we have seen over the last few weeks?
    Mr. Younger rose——
    Mr. Ernie Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. Gentleman very much mind waiting until the end of Question Time? He can raise his point of order now if he wishes, but it will delay other questions.
    Mr. Ross: Is it not a breach of the Rules of the House for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) to suggest the democratically-elected Dundee district council is anti-semitic, when it made strenuous efforts to ensure——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot answer the argument now. What was said was not out of order.
    Mr. Younger rose——
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Very well. I shall take the point of order now and delay subsequent questions. I apologise to other hon. Members.
    Mr. Hughes: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that it is in order, on a question relating to council house sales, for an hon. Member to refer to alleged anti-semitism. I am sure that that is an abuse of the House.
    Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members on both sides of the House refer to matters which are totally outside the question on the Order Paper. If I try to ensure—as I shall try to do for the rest of the afternoon—that nothing other than what is in a question is referred to, we shall get through many more questions.
    Mr. Younger: I am not surprised that Labour Members appear to want to waste time to avoid reaching some of their later questions. Apart from the political issues involved, I doubt whether anyone of any persuasion would dream of denying that the Dundee council has not done itself much good in publicity terms in the last few weeks.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is not Dundee district council which has shown contempt for the electorate, but rather he himself in insisting on
    940
    going ahead with his ill-advised policy of council house sales? Given the Government's weak electoral base in Scotland, will he listen to the genuine voice of public opinion in Scotland rather than to the handful of tenants who wish to buy their council houses? The vast majority of Scottish tenants do not want to buy and are rightly angry about the divisive results of a sales policy which flogs off on the cheap the best council housing in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: The absolute nonsense of that question is demonstrated by the fact that over 10,000 ordinary citizens in Scotland have already chosen to buy their houses and that there are a further 15,000 applications in the pipeline at the moment. That is an eloquent answer to the hon. Gentleman's nonsense.

    Building Regulations
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to simplify or otherwise change the building regulations in force in Scotland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): We shall publish a consolidated edition of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations later this year which will include amendments and presentational improvements. It will provide a base for simplification of the regulations in the course of a review of the building control system in Scotland.
    Mr. Chapman: I welcome and appreciate any attempt to consolidate the building procedure regulations and all the amendments, and the building standards regulations and all the amendments made under them, into one—albeit very thick—volume, but will my hon. Friend be a little more forthcoming? Will he perhaps give it as his opinion that the building regulations in Scotland could be considerably simplified without detriment to safety or health factors? Will he also meet the other relevant Ministers to see whether those regulations could be unified throughout the whole of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Rifkind: We are continually looking for ways of simplifying the regulations, consistent with the public interest. I would not say that there is an argument for uniformity for its own sake, but where there are no significant differences it is obviously sensible to have similar regulations in different parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Am I being unduly suspicious or does this question really relate to Barratt's? In the circumstances, will the Minister assure me that there will be consultations with the clients' and consumers' interests before there is any reduction in building standards?
    Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking not only at the application from Barratt's but also at the representations which have been received from local authorities and other legitimate interests. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, contrary views have been put forward as to the desirability or otherwise of reducing the present minimum space regulations in Scotland.
    Sir Albert Costain: Will the Minister appreciate that, as a person who set up a factory in Scotland, giving employment in Scotland, I found it difficult to develop that factory because of the absence of standard building regulations? If the Minister wants to have more

    941
    employment in Scotland in the making of building materials, he ought to standardise the building regulations in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Rifkind: Sometimes standardisation can lead to the sort of improvement to which my hon. Friend referred, but one has to take into account the fact that some of the different regulations that currently exist in Scotland are different for very good reasons. It would not necessarily follow that it would be in the interests of the people of Scotland that the regulatons should be made uniform with the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that Costain's built a big hospital in Glasgow, at considerable public expense, and that it fell down? Will he give a categoric assurance that Barratt's will not be allowed to build houses in Dunfermline or anywhere in Fife that will be a fire hazard?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that houses built in accordance with the building standards regulations will not normally fall down. The hon. Gentleman will have to await the outcome of the consideration that we are giving at the moment to the application from Barratt's.

    Test Bore (Loch Doon)
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now able to make a statement on the report of the inquiry into the refusal by Kyle and Carrick district council to allow the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to test bore at Mullwharcher near Loch Doon.
    Mr. Rifkind: The report is under consideration, and a decision on the appeal will be announced as soon as possible.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister explain the delay in making this announcement, as the Secretary of State has had the report for over three months, and as the overwhelming evidence was against the explorations taking place? Does the Minister appreciate that there is a huge pent-up feeling against these explorations, which could burst out into civil unrest if the Secretary of State overrules the decision of the democratically elected district council and the overwhelming views of the people in that area?
    Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend will not take into account the foolish rantings to which the hon. Gentleman has just subjected the House. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, these are important matters which are the subject of the appeal. It is right and proper that my right hon. Friend should give the fullest consideration to a complex matter. As soon as he can reach a decision on the matter, he will announce it in the usual way.
    Mr. John MacKay: Will my hon. Friend agree that it is about time the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) came clean on his attitude to nuclear power? The long-term storage of nuclear waste cannot be separated from nuclear generation. Does my hon. Friend wonder, as I do, whether the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has told his constituents and people in the neighbouring constituencies in Ayrshire that his policy would close down Hunterston, with a loss of over 1,000 jobs in that plant?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct in suggesting that some of those who have made comments op this subject sometimes appear to find it difficult to reconcile two different points of view. The appeal that is at present before my right hon. Friend dealt not with the general question of nuclear power but with the specific question whether test borings should be made and certain buildings erected, which was the basis of the application made to the local authority.
    Mr. Millan: When we are talking about equivocal or hyprocritical attitudes, should we not remember that the Secretary of State, as a Back Bencher, came out publicly against the borings when the previous Labour Government were in office?
    Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend will consider a planning application according to the normal rules of planning law. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) would be the first to accept that that is the normal, proper and acceptable thing to do.

    Confederation of British Industry
    Mr. George Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Scottish Confederation of British Industry to discuss unemployment.
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend and I have met representatives of the CBI Scotland on several occasions and have made it clear that we are prepared to meet them whenever this would be useful. Our most recent meeting was on 18 March.
    Mr. Robertson: When the Secretary of State next meets the CBI, what sort of comfort will he be able to give its member companies and its thousands of employees in Scotland? With the number of bankruptcies now reaching an all-time historic high level, and with all of us in Scotland becoming inured to a daily catalogue of redundancies, closures and lay-offs, when will he realise that he cannot continue to ignore the advice from the employers and the unions? When will he realise that the policy of the Government is disastrously wrong for the people of Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his information. When the chairman of the CBI Scotland saw me on 18 March he made it clear that the CBI was totally in support of the Government strategy but only wished that a little more money could be found with which to help industry. I pointed out to him in return that if we had found more money it would have put up the minimum lending rate, which was the opposite of what the CBI wanted.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend next meets the CBI Scotland, will he discuss the image that various places have and how a wrong image can deter investment? Is he aware that the anti-Jewish activities in Dundee, which are the direct result of the flying of the PLO flag, are reminiscent of the early days of Hitler, and that this acts as a deterrent to investment?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have heard rather a lot about that this afternoon. The question relates to the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: I always wish that all parts of Scotland would bear in mind that what is done in support of various causes should help to attract new jobs rather than repel them. That is a very important point.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: How can the Secretary of State still believe that the CBI Scotland is in favour of Government strategy, when it is making it clear that its comments about being broadly in favour of the strategy are only a peg on which to hang its argument that it wants the Government to change course, in view of the disastrous reality of the collapse of industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: The CBI has made it clear to me repeatedly that it does not wish the Government to change course. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Grimond: Did the CBI produce to the Secretary of State any evidence to support his statement that the depression is bottoming out and that things are getting better? Is investment going up? Is restocking taking place? Is there specifically Scottish evidence that things are getting better?
    Mr. Younger: There has been a good deal of Scottish evidence that firms are now getting orders in a much better way than they were. There are, for instance, the very interesting orders achieved by Redpath de Groot and UIE, recently, of the new developments in East Kilbride with Gray Tools, new orders obtained by John Brown Engineering, by Barr and Stroud, and by Caledonian Airmotive, to mention only a few. There are many indications.
    Mr. Henderson: In discussing unemployment with the CBI Scotland, has my right hon. Friend stressed the importance of building upon our considerable successes in the electronics industry and particularly the opportunities that will flow to that industry from the passing of the British Telecommunications Bill through Parliament?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. He is right in saying that the electronics industry in Scotland is one of the strongest features of our economy, even at this difficult time. Expansion in the electronics industry, producing many new jobs in the pipeline, can be found all across Scotland.

    Talbot (Linwood)
    Mr. David Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the substantial public investment in Talbot Linwood, he will take steps to ensure that the equipment and plant in Linwood be protected against destruction or removal by the company and that it be kept available for possible future manufacturing purposes in Linwood.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: While acknowledging that the disposal of the plant and equipment at Linwood is primarily a matter for its owners, Talbot Motors, my right hon. Friend has asked the chairman of Talbot Motors to do what he can to ensure that the major facilities of the toolroom, die-casting foundry and press shop are retained.
    Mr. Marshall: Does not the Minister realise that almost £170 million of public money has been invested in Talbot UK? The company paid virtually nothing for the Linwood plant and has put nothing into it. Does not he consider that it is a national disgrace that this French
    944
    company should be allowed to strip the assets of Linwood? Does not he agree that the Scottish Development Agency should take over the plant in its entirety at no additional cost?
    Mr. Fletcher: I have already told the House that the SDA is surveying the plant to see how it can be best adapted to bring more jobs to the area in the future. On the amount of public financial support, I hope that all hon. Members will agree that, whatever the reason for the plant's failure, it was not due to shortage of Government financial support.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his statement about those areas of the plant which the trade unions have identified as possessing possible alternative uses outside the motor car industry? Will not he agree that concern on this issue underlines the necessity for the SDA study to be completed sooner rather than later?
    Mr. Fletcher: Yes, Sir I agree that the SDA should complete its study urgently and quickly, as we have asked. I have every confidence that this will be achieved, although we must plan the action that we shall take before trying to bring many people together and, perhaps, working on the basis of opinions that would not stand up to proper examination. The important question of the die-casting foundry, the press shop and the toolroom was raised with my right hon. Friend by Mr. Livingstone, convener of the shop stewards. My right hon. Friend immediately took action with the company along the lines that I have already set out.
    Mr. Millan: While we are glad to hear that the Secretary of State is in touch with the company about these facilities, may I ask whether it is likely that if, at the end of the day, they are to be retained at Linwood, there will have to be some kind of public money involved? Will that be made available?
    Mr. Fletcher: We have to decide who should own the plant in the future, whether it should be the SDA, as happened in the case of the Singer plant, or whether there should be some alternative arrangement. Once my right hon. Friend has received reports from the SDA and other parties, he will make a decision on that important matter and the others.

    Unemployed Persons
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest Scottish unemployment figures.
    Mr. Younger: On 12 March, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland stood at 264,600—11·7 per cent. While the continuing high levels of unemployment in Scotland are a cause for concern, I am encouraged by the slight fall in total unemployment in Scotland last month and by the fact that in recent months the underlying rate of increase in seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland has been slower than at the end of last year and less severe than in other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. MacKenzie: Is the Secretary of State aware that, while most hon. Members are very concerned about the number of people who are unemployed, we are becoming increasingly concerned about the length of time that people

    945
    are unemployed? What are we to tell constituents over 45 years of age who genuinely believe that under this Government and their policies they will never work again?
    Mr. Younger: I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the level of unemployment and the long-term nature of much of it. There are two points to be made in answer to his question. The first is to tell such people that there are considerable signs of new orders being gained by many industries in Scotland. This will undoubtedly mean that some skilled people will be called back to work—as many as possible, I hope. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman can tell them that, so far as long term unemployment is concerned, not only has the youth opportunities scheme been expanded by 75 per cent. but a new scheme for the older unemployed is coming into being.
    Mr. McQuarrie: While all hon. Members welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is endeavouring to help the unemployed in Scotland, will he agree that Mitsubishi intends to create 200 to 300 more jobs in the course of the next year? This is the kind of activity that is welcome to Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are many such cases. I am glad that Mitsubishi is one of them. Apart from those that I gave to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), there are numerous other examples of export orders won within the last six months by Volvo trucks, Rolls-Royce Aero-Engines, Anderson Strathclyde and, most recently, Babcock's, whose huge boiler order for a power station in Hong Kong will keep thousands of jobs going in the West of Scotland.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Secretary of State aware that the optimistic forecasts he has made are not shared by many people? Fraser of Allander, for instance, has forecast an unemployment rate of 320,000 by the end of the year. Is the Secretary of State saying that he disagrees entirely with this forecast? Can he give any estimate of new jobs that are likely to be created this year?
    Mr. Younger: If I spent my time looking at all the gloomy forecasts made by various economists—364 or any other number—I would never get my job done at all. I concentrate on the practical matter of trying to get the maximum number of jobs into Scotland. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in the past year no fewer than 14,500 new jobs were created by the efforts of the various agencies in Scotland. As recent items in the press have shown, we expect many thousands more in the near future.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed that were it not for the relative buoyancy of employment in East Kilbride, for which the Government can claim no credit, and if it were not for the oil industry—which is a fortuitous quirk of nature—Scotland would be the poorest country in Europe?
    Mr. Younger: Of all the people I expected to put questions on this subject today, the hon. Gentleman is the last. He must be the envy of every hon. Member, having received yesterday some splendid news about a new development in his constituency which I would have thought he would unreservedly welcome.
    Mr. Sproat: Will my right hon. Friend remind Opposition Members that, the present world recession
    946
    aside, the main reason for the tragically high levels of unemployment is the uncompetitive state of British industry in relation to its international rivals? Will not he agree that the main reason for that uncompetitiveness is the fact that the trade unions have been their own worst enemies in insisting on overmanning, disproportionate wage demands, refusing to use new technology and other restrictive practices?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right in saying that the tragedy of unemployment and job losses in Scotland follows many years of policies pursued by the Labour Party. The greater tragedy is that every remedy that the Opposition now announce is a repetition of the old measures that have failed on every occasion when they have been put into effect.
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many additional people have become unemployed in Scotland for each of the years 1977 to the present.
    Mr. Younger: There was an increase in seasonally adjusted unemployment of 15,000 between March 1977 and March 1978, a fall of 6,100 between 1978 and 1979, an increase of 14,500 between 1979 and 1980, and an increase of 79,600 between 1980 and 1981.
    Mr. Steel: Will the Secretary of State, in view of these escalating figures, undertake a review of development area policy? Is he aware that the Borders regional council has had to cancel a couple of projects because it cannot get the EEC funds which would have been available had it been a development area? This means a loss of employment in the Borders region.
    Mr. Younger: I would like to see evidence of the instances that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. I appreciate the difficulties that the Borders has experienced. I have been to the area and talked to those concerned. In answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I do not think that I would be helping Strathclyde, which has a far higher level of unemployment than any part of the Borders, if I were to spread the aid that is available even wider. The highest priority must be given to those areas with the greatest difficulties.
    Mr. Myles: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, but for the satisfactory outcome of the EEC agriculture price review, many agriculture workers in Scotland would now be unemployed? Does he agree that, if there had been a nil increase, as advocated by Opposition Members, unemployment would certainly have resulted?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend did a magnificent job for the rural communities in Scotland in achieving the settlement on agriculture prices. I know that the NFU agrees with that.
    Mr. Craigen: Has the Secretary of State studied the rising trend in short-time working in Scotland? Can he give figures to show the level now reached in Scotland since there are nearly 1 million workers on short-time working in Britain?
    Mr. Younger: I shall give the hon. Gentleman the detailed figures, if he wants them. Short-time work is often one way of keeping a factory going during difficult times so that it is ready to take advantage of the upturn in the economy, when the time comes.

    Unemployment (Ayrshire)
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has given to the request by the Ayrshire standing conference on unemployment for a meeting to discuss ways in which the unemployment and industrial problems of Ayrshire might be tackled; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The Government very much share the concern of the standing conference on unemployment in Ayrshire and already accord the highest priority to measures to tackle the unemployment and industrial problems of the area. The greater part of Ayrshire already has special development area status, and special measures have been taken to assist the development of new industry in the Irvine travel-to-work area and in the Garnock Valley. My right hon. Friend has, however, informed the conference that while he sees little purpose in a meeting to discuss matters of which he is already well aware, if it has any further practical suggestions, he will, of course, be glad to consider them.
    Mr. Lambie: That is a disgraceful reply. How can the Secretary of State for Scotland, who represents an Ayrshire constituency, refuse to meet representatives of the Ayrshire district councils to discuss unemployment when the unemployment level there is already among the highest in Strathclyde and is 21 per cent. in my area of Cunninghame? Will the Secretary of State resign and give way to someone who is prepared to meet his own people in Ayrshire?
    Mr. Fletcher: There is no justificaton for saying that my right hon. Friend is not meeting "his own people in Ayrshire". As an Ayrshire Member he is regularly in that part of the world. My right hon. Friend helped to plan the new enterprise trust in Ayrshire. Indeed the hon. Gentleman was invited to meetings about the trust, but I believe that he was unable to attend. They were important meetings, and as a result of them a new initiative was taken.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that his right hon. Friend and others have worked constructively with organisations such as British Aerospace to safeguard jobs in that constituency?
    Mr. Fletcher: Yes, Sir, and—as my right hon. Friend said earlier—with considerable success.
    Mr. McKelvey: Will the Secretary of State consider further my request to him to come to Kilmarnock and speak to employers and unemployed people——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is Kilmarnock in Ayrshire? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am only a poor Welshman.
    Mr. McKelvey: Will the Secretary of State, who, like me, represents a constituency in Ayrshire, consider my earnest request asking him to meet not only employers but the people who are unemployed in the area and explain the reasons for unemployment in Scotland? I do not have much faith in the Government's policies, and find myself unable to explain them.
    Mr. Fletcher: I believe that the invitation was the one I replied to in the question that was tabled by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie).

    Public Transport
    Mr. Home Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will study the effects on the mobility of people in all parts of Scotland of proposed cuts in spending on public transport and increases in the price of road fuel.
    Mr. Rifkind: I think it unlikely that such a wide-ranging study would be of any real practical benefit.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister accept that the recent 20 per cent. increase in the tax on petrol will have a disastrous effect, particularly on people who live in rural Scotland? What representations on the matter has he brought to the attention of his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? How can he justify his recent intervention to prevent Lothian regional council from reducing bus fares in those parts of the area that are outside Edinburgh?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's question implies that those who use public transport in rural areas will suffer because of the increase in fuel tax. Public transport should not be affected in any way, because bus operators do not pay duty on the fuel that they use for public services. In answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the Lothian regional council's application could not be accepted by the bus group because its external financing limit would have been exceeded.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is no public transport in some of the rural areas in eastern Scotland, and that the 20 per cent. increase, together with the additional 4p levied recently and the further 4p expected next week, will have a devastating effect on those rural areas?
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government accept that any increase in fuel costs creates problems for people living in rural areas. However, I remind my hon. Friend——
    Mr. Canavan: Friend?
    Mr. Rifkind: —that even taking into account the proposed increases, the proportion of the tax to the total cost of petrol is still less today than it was in 1970.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the study called for by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is of vital importance to my constituency, where petrol is now £1·75 a gallon in some areas? Is he further aware that as a result firms such as Schweppes and Beecham Foods have announced that they will no longer bear the extra transport costs to the Western Isles, and that the cost will be added to the 15 per cent. VAT?
    Mr. Rifkind: If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about transport to the Western Isles, he will acknowledge that in the period of less than two years during which this Government have been in office they have more than doubled the amount of assistance given by Government to keep down transport costs to island communities. The costs are far less than they otherwise would have been.
    Mr. Millan: Would not the study be useful in providing further evidence of the devastating effect of the 20 per cent. increase in petrol tax on rural areas, and perhaps encourage those Conservative Members who spoke brave words at the time of the Budget to vote against the increase?
    Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that the increased cost of petrol is only one of the factors that affect mobility in rural areas and elsewhere. Those factors were taken into account by my right hon. and learned Friend when he announced his Budget.

    Seed Potato Industry
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many forms have so far been returned ,and what proportion this represents of those distributed, for the referendum on the revised proposal for the establishment of a Development Council for the Scottish seed potato industry.
    Mr. Younger: As the last date for the return of forms is 10 April, the referendum is not yet completed, but seed potato growers appear to have responded readily. By 7 April, 707 forms had been received, representing about a half of those issued.
    A total of 1,535 forms were distributed. They were sent to all seed potato growers recorded as having had seed potato crops classified in 1980, and about 200 growers who had crops classified in 1978 and 1979 and who might be considered as having an interest in the issue. The response from the two types of grower polled will be recorded separately.
    Mr. Henderson: Is not my right hon. Friend disappointed, with only two or three days remaining for the return of the forms, that there has not been a larger return because the poll affects a matter that is vital to the industry? Whatever the outcome of the referendum, will my right hon. Friend ensure that something will be done to help this industry, which is so vital to the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. The original proposal for a Development Council was modified and simplified as a result of discussions. A further extended debate would be to no one's advantage, and would result in delay in implementing the wishes of the majority. However, I shall study the matter, once the returns are in.
    Mr. Peter Fraser: If the referendum shows that a substantial majority—more than 40 per cent.—is in favour of the establishment of development council status for a seed potato organisation in Scotland, will the Secretary of State support it, because it is in line with the aggressive marketing initiative that his right hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has so frequently urged on the agriculture industry?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. However, I have to await the result of the poll, and I shall then decide whether to make a development order. If I so decide, I shall lay a draft order which requires a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

    Electricity Generation and Supply
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will meet the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board to discuss the future plans of the board for electricity generation and supply.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so. My officials meet the board's senior officials regularly to discuss its plans.
    Mr. Canavan: How can the electricity board use a so-called increase in demand to justify building Torness while coal-fired power stations such as that at Kincardine are under-used, and at the same time claim that there is a decrease in demand and use that as an excuse for reducing the number of electrical power engineers by 17½ per cent.? What kind of crazy double talk is that from a public body?
    Mr. Fletcher: The position with Torness is simply that its capacity will be required in the 1990s, not only to meet the level of demand then, but because it is wasteful to burn oil and coal is expensive to burn. Nuclear power must be the fuel of the future.

    SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

      Newspaper Vendors
      Mr. Ron Brownasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many people selling newspapers were charged with breach of the peace during 1980.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): I regret that the statistics for persons convicted of breach of the peace do not disclose the circumstances of the offence.
      Mr. Brown: Is it not the case that the couple commonly known as the "Glasgow Two" were charged and convicted for a breach of the peace? More important, was it not true that before that they were charged under the prevention of terrorism legislation? Why did the Ministers deny that? Why did they lie to us?
      Mr. Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware——
      Mr. Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Brown: Why did the Minister deny that?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is very fortunate that he is not being named. He has been here long enough to know that when I rise to my feet he should resume his seat. He was being extremely discourteous. The hon. Gentleman came here only at the last election, but he has been here two years——
      Mr. Brown: It is still a lie——
      Hon. Members: Name him.
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to name him. He——
      Mr. Brown rose——
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will leave the Chamber for the rest of the day. If he does not, I will name——
      Mr. Brown: In natural justice, Mr. Speaker, I would expect you——
      Mr. Speaker: I name Mr. Ron Brown for gross discourtesy to the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "out."] Will the senior Minister present move the motion?
      Mr. Younger: I beg to move,
      "That Mr. Ron Brown be suspended from the service of the House."
      Question put and agreed to.
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will now withdraw from the House.
      Mr. Brown: So much for democracy.
      The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.
      Later—
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is always a matter of regret when an hon. Member has to be named in the House. I am not trying to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the decision was wrong. I know the circumstances of the incident referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) and I am satisfied that the action taken by the police and the Crown Office was totally correct. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to an inconsistency that I think appeared in the Solicitor-General's reply——
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot now pursue the answer to the question. The House gave me support when I put the Question, and I had given the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) an opportunity to leave the House for one day.
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown rose——
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any further points of order at this stage.

      Sheriff Court, Peterhead
      Mr. McQuarrieasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many persons are employed in the procurator fiscal's temporary office at the sheriff court in Peterhead.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The procurator fiscal at Peterhead has a staff of three.
      Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the continued delay in completing the alterations to the sheriff court is putting great pressure on all those who use it? Can my hon. and learned Friend apply pressure to the authorities to complete the alterations to the court so that it may be brought into action at the earliest possible moment?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This matter is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I understand that the adaptation and enlargement is going ahead, and the procurator fiscal and the sheriff clerk should be able to return to permanent accommodation in the court house next April.

      Scottish Courts (Industrial Action)
      Mr. Ancramasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions have been abandoned or delayed as a result of industrial action in the Scottish courts over the last month.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This information is long and complicated and I shall write to my hon. Friend, but in Edinburgh and Glasgow, where the strike is continuing, the number of cases that have been abandoned or delayed as a result of industrial action in these courts is about 1,600. A proportion of these cases, which includes cases of drunk driving, driving while disqualified and driving with no insurance, is likely to be lost.
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful for the answer. Will my hon. and learned Friend agree that, industrial action of this sort is an impediment to justice and a disgrace upon those
      952
      whose duty it is to serve the courts, not to close them? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that while justice is necessarily blind, it should not be silent?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes, I greatly regret that the action should be taken. I remind those who are taking it that they are riot just employees. They have statutory duties which they ought to perform, and the scuttling of justice does nothing for those involved in the dispute.
      Mr. Dewar: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recall that in March 1979, when the emergency legislation to deal with the last courts strike was being discussed, he described the strikers as highwaymen and mobsters and compared them with torturers? He suggested that the strike should be made illegal. Are those still his opinions? As he violently attacked the then Government for delaying the introduction of emergency legislation, when will his Government introduce such legislation to deal with the present action?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have no reason to withdraw anything I said during the last dispute. I confirm that those who serve the courts have a number of statutory duties and a duty to undertake them
      Mr. Budgen: Are there any plans in Scotland for the abandonment of prosecutions primarily in the interests of good race relations?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, Sir.

      Flying of Flags (Breaches of the Peace)
      Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions have resulted from breaches of the peace whch have been caused by the flying of flags since 1 July 1980.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There have been, so far as I am aware, no prosecutions resulting from breaches of the peace caused by the flying of flags since 1 July 1980.
      Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that there are outstanding problems in the city of Dundee where incidents relating to the flying of a flag and the defacing of Jewish buildings and other such matters have occurred?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There may be circumstances where the flying of flags or banners contributes to circumstances which could amount to a breach of the peace, and if such are reported to the procurator fiscal prosecution may result.
      Mr. Ernie Ross: Is the Solicitor-General aware that when the police examined the synagogue that was unfortunately daubed with slogans they confirmed that the gang slogans on the building could be seen on many walls in Dundee? Is he aware that they have nothing to do with flags? They are more a symptom of our present society which does not give young people jobs, something that causes problems in the inner cities. Such daubings can be seen in towns and cities throughout Great Britain.
      The Solicitor-General: I have no reason to believe that the daubing of buildings and other vandalism is justified by any excuse, and it should not be stimulated by any activity.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the flying of the PLO flag in Dundee has created a sense of outrage throughout the Scottish community?
      The Solicitor-General: That may very well be so, and it will have its repercussions, but not necessarily in the prosecution of a criminal offence.

      High Court (Industrial Action)
      Mr. Peter Fraserasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many High Court prosecutions have been delayed or abandoned as a result of industrial action in the courts this year.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: On 9 March the High Court was to have commenced sittings at Edinburgh, Glasgow and Perth. Because of industrial action these sittings were delayed for a day. At the High Court at Glasgow a case involving three accused who were due to stand trial on 30 March was dropped from the roll. However, the accused will be re-indicted for the sitting which is due to commence on 5 May 1981. The accused are all on bail.
      Mr. Fraser: While the problem is not yet acute, does my hon. and learned Friend accept that if this industrial action continues for any length of time there will be serious problems in the prosecution of crime in Scotland and highly serious complications arising from the operation of the 110-day rule?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I can assure the House that no cases in the High Court or on indictment will be lost. I do not for a moment underestimate the seriousness of the loss of cases of drunk driving or of driving without insurance. However, the matter is at the moment contained.

      Glue Sniffing
      Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions involving glue sniffing took place in 1980; what was the success rate in defended cases; and if he will make a statement.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There is no separate register kept by procurators fiscal of the numbers
      954
      of prosecutions involving glue sniffing, as that act in itself is not illegal. The charge libelled in any prosecution where an accused has inhaled a solvent will depend on the circumstances. I cannot therefore quote the success rate in defended cases where glue sniffing is a feature.
      Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider the cases of Fisher v. Keane and Skeen v. Malik in which the Crown Office through the procurators fiscal sought to control this dangerous habit by prosecution? In the event of the failure of those cases, what does the Crown Office intend to do either by way of different charges or by way of encouraging his right hon. Friend to take action and to introduce legislation to deal with this problem?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a matter which finds agreement on both sides of the House. It is a serious problem among young people and so far it defies solution. The case of Fisher v. Keane was successful. If appropriate circumstances arise, I have no doubt that we can try another prosecution. In the meantime, it is the responsibility of all hon. Members to demonstrate the hazards of this unfortunate habit.

      Questions to Ministers
      Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the course of Question Time the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) and subsequently the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) accused members of the Labour Party, both inside and outside the House, of anti-semitism. In the absence of any evidence to support such an outrageous slur, can you offer, Mr. Speaker, any protection to my right hon. and hon. Friends against such outbursts from Conservative Members?
      Mr. Speaker: I was not aware of any such charge against any hon. Member in the House. As I understood it, it was a reference to others outside the House and was something to do with one of the cities in the North.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not it a case of "methinks the gentlemen doth protest too much"?

Northern Ireland (Air Services)
Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South) (by private notice)asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he proposes to take in view of the continuing interruption of air communications between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): I appreciate the considerable inconvenience that the closure of Aldergrove airport has caused. Although there are other means of transport available, including ferry services, many people have had to postpone journeys or make alternative travel arrangements. This sort of situation cannot fail to add to the difficulties that industry and commerce in Northern Ireland have to face. The Government are not, however, directly involved in this dispute. It is one between Northern Ireland Airports Limited and some of its employees. I understand that a joint statement by the Northern Ireland airport company and the union will be made later this afternoon to announce the results of discussions that have now concluded. Like right hon. and hon. Members, I hope that there will be a successful conclusion.
Mr. Molyneaux: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we share his satisfaction at the fact that the two sides have now come together and that there has already been a report that something constructive has emerged from that? Does he agree that the recent disruption to traffic highlights the demand that our party has repeatedly made from this Bench, namely, that there should be an increased number of links, both surface and air, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Does this not also highlight the need for further study on the lines of the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Economic Council?
Mr. Mitchell: I recognise the importance of Northern Ireland maintaining as far as possible sea and air links with Great Britain. I have some reason to believe that the dispute will be settled later today and that we may expect the airport to return to normal working later this evening.
Mr. James Kilfedder: If there is no settlement of the dispute this afternoon, will the Government become involved, in view of the great hardship caused to business people and holidaymakers, and the disruption of freight? Surely it is possible for the Government to act more quickly, rather than to allow the public to be inconvenienced, as has happened so far.
Mr. Mitchell: I understand that freight services are not involved in the dispute. There are many occasions when it is wiser to leave it to the respective parties to settle their own differences.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Are the employees who are involved in the dispute members of a Civil Service union, rather like employees of the Civil Aviation Authority, or are they civil servants in their own right?
Mr. Mitchell: No, they are not members of that union.

Liverpool Inner Ring Road
Mr. David Alton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under
956
Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the fact that the leader of the Merseyside county council has refused me permission to address his council committee about the decision to proceed with the construction of the Liverpool inner ring road, despite a standing order of the county council requiring all-party agreement at the time of the opening of tenders."
In the teeth of local opposition the Merseyside county council has decided to suspend its standing orders to enable it to accept tenders for phase 4 of the Liverpool inner ring road scheme. The scheme will cost taxpayers and ratepayers a total of £150 million. The rate to be paid will total £5 million, at a time when Liverpool ratepayers are facing horrendous rate increases and when the local police force is being cut back in numbers and overtime is being reduced because of lack of funds.
This decision has been taken by a small cabal arbitrarily changing its own rules against the wishes of local opposition parties. The decision has been bulldozed through three weeks before the local elections. The decision has been taken in the almost certain knowledge that there will be a change in control of the council.
The issue is also important because £50,000 was paid in fees to the consultants, of which the chairman of the highways committee was then an employee—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall have something to say at the end of this application. I hope that the House will listen.
Mr. Alton: In recommending that the road be built, he did not declare his financial interest at any meeting of the committee. The road has more to do with corruption and vested interest than the needs of the people of Liverpool. The matter is important and urgent, because a special meeting has been called on Friday to discuss the applications for tender. I have today received a letter from the leader of the county council refusing to allow me to speak at the meeting on behalf of my constituents, who regard this expenditure as an outrageous waste of ratepayers' money. This is typical of the high-handed and undemocratic way in which the council behaves. My only response to the attempt to gag me was to raise this urgent matter in this way on the Floor of the House.
The road will result in the disappearance of a further 1,000 jobs in a city where there are already 50,000 people out of work. It will cost £150 million, when expenditure on much more important things, such as the buses, police, education and housing, is being slashed. This matter is being rushed through in a last-minute panic, in a devious and deceitful way. So frightened is it of criticism that the Conservative-controlled county council will not allow a Member of Parliament to speak against its proposal at the meeting on Friday. For that reason, I gave notice that I wished to raise that matter under Standing Order No. 9.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) gave me notice this morning, before 12 o'clock that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the fact that the leader of the Merseyside county council has refused the hon. Member permission to address his council committee about the decision to proceed with the construction of

957
the Liverpool inner ring road, despite a standing order of the county council requiring all-party agreement at the time of the opening of tenders."
I believe that our Standing Order No. 9 procedure is being abused. It is being abused today and it has been abused recently, because it enables hon. Members to make a speech to which no answer is possible. It should be directed to ensuring that there is an emergency debate. I have had the uneasy feeling in the last few days and today that the House knows that not all applications under Standing Order No. 9 are genuine. Therefore, I must rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In his undistinguished speech the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) made a charge of corruption against a distinguished, although, I regret, deceased constituent of mine. I do not know whether that charge of corruption is in order, but if it is in order, should it not be ruled as immoral?
Mr. Speaker: I have said before that every hon. Member takes responsibility for his statements in the House. We have our freedom of speech and every hon. Member is responsible for what he says.

House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (Amendment)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The House will recall that on 24 March the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) sought leave to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule entitled "House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (Amendment)". That Bill was aimed fundamentally at disqualifying the right hon. and hon. Members who sit in the House in the Social Democratic interest. The hon. Gentleman introduced his Bill with his characteristic moderation, but you may be disturbed to know, Mr. Speaker, that in col. 813 of Hansard the hon. Gentleman's speech is recorded as having been delivered by you. Therefore, I ask that the appropriate column of Hansard be amended accordingly.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I can well understand the Hansard reporters confusing you with me, Mr. Speaker, because we have so much in common. I congratulate you on the best speech that you never made.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). Life is full of tribulations. I had noticed that error and I moved with greater speed than usual to assure Hansard that I was unworthy of being shown as the author of the oratory of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). I understand that in the fullness of time, when the bound volume is published, the correction will be made.

Prayer Book Protection
3.46 pm
Viscount Cranborne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for parishioners in any parish to require certain forms of service to be used in the parish.
It is a sad occasion when any hon. Member should feel impelled to seek leave to introduce a Bill such as this. The Book of Common Prayer is one of the glories of English literature. I am gratified to find that so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members have seen fit to give me their support because the Book of Common Prayer and the forms of service contained therein have permeated the English language. They have enriched it and formed the basis of part of the tradition of England. That language was produced many centuries ago. It has matched man's highest aspirations. Those religious aspirations have separated man from the animal kingdom.
Until recently the Book of Common Prayer was available to all people who wished to use it. Many hon. Members have ackowledged the beauty of the Book of Common Prayer. They have expressed the hope that its language and form of service would not be lost and would not remain unavailable to those who wished to use it in their worship in the Church of England. I would go so far as to quote my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) in a typically distinguished speech which he made in the debates in December 1974, when the House considered the worship and doctrine measure. He said
"I believe in all conscience, as one who would regard it as retrograde beyond measure if this book disappeared from the services of the Church, that those like me would have a power to our elbow which the law does not currently provide if the measure were passed."—[Official Report, 4 December 1974; Vol. 882, c. 1691.]
I have heard a strong rumour that after I have spoken my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in order to oppose this motion. I look forward to his speech. I know that he will address the House with his customary scholarship and eloquence, and that he fully supports the beauties and glories of the Book of Common Prayer.
However, I feel a trifle sorry for my hon. Friend because he will be supporting a point of view which, in retrospect, has managed to achieve the slow murder of the Book of Common Prayer since the passing of the 1974 measure. Far be it from me to anticipate what my hon. Friend will say. He will make his speech in his own good time. However, I suspect that when he speaks he will deploy certain arguments, and I shall hazard a guess as to what at least one of them will be.
My hon. Friend will say that I am meddling in matters of great constitutional importance. He will say that as a result of the 1974 measure a concordat was, in effect, put into operation between Parliament and the Synod of the Church of England which clearly provided that the initiative in legislative matters governing the Church should come from the Synod and not from the House. I do not deny for a second that that has been the effect of the 1974 measure. I would not seek to argue with my hon. Friend if that is the basis of his argument. But that concordat was made on two clear conditions, and it is one of those to which I draw the attention of the House.
960
I can do no better than quote a great luminary of the Church of England, the former Archbishop of Canterbury. At the time of the debates on the worship and doctrine measure, he stated in another place:
"Again, it is not a Measure for abolishing the Book of Common Prayer. As I shall presently show, it gives to the Book of Common Prayer a secure place which could be altered only by the action of Parliament itself."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 November 1974; Vol. 354, c. 868.]
The Archbishop of Canterbury was supported in this House by the then hon. Member for Kingswood, Mr. Terry Walker, who stated:
"If the Synod should ever wish to alter this so that the 1662 book, or some services in it, were to be abolished, the Church would have to come to Parliament with another measure and thus, the Book of Common Prayer is given a secure place in the future of our worship."
My contention is simply that it is not Parliament which is in danger of breaching the concordat; the Church has breached it. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope). He is an ornament to the Government Whips' Office. We on the Government Benches have come to value his prescience. In the same debate he stated:
"In spite of the safeguards referred to by a number of hon. Members, I believe that it will make permanent the decline, to put it no stronger, of the Book of Common Prayer."—[Official Report, 4 December 1974; Vol. 882, c. 1571–1649.]
I fear that my hon. Friend's forebodings were correct.
What has happened—there is evidence of this in the colossal amount of correspondence that I have received during the regrettable publicity prior to my application this afternoon—is that more and more people throughout the country find it impossible to attend a service in which the Book of Common Prayer is used. The clerics of the Church of England have brought about the beginnings of the slow strangulation of one of the greatest glories that this country enjoys. If the House needs an example, I have it on good authority that in the majority of theological colleges in the provinces of Canterbury and York the 1662 prayer book, or, indeed, the 1928 prayer book, are not in use at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] There is a new generation of Church of England priests who do not know of the prayer book and who are, therefore, all too happy to override the evident rights of parochial church councils, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham pointed out in 1974, to decide whether to use the 1662 liturgy or alternative services.
My proposed Bill is moderate. It will merely ensure that if 20 people in a parish so petition an incumbent, that incumbent should hold one service a month—the principal service of the morning—according to the right of 1662. I hope that the House will support me in ensuring that the 1662 prayer book can be enjoyed by everyone who wishes to do so, instead of its being consigned to the muniment rooms, where only scholars and the cognoscenti may appreciate it.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) wishes to oppose the motion.
3.55 pm
Mr. William van Straubenzee: I rise to oppose the motion, acknowledging at the outset how difficult that is when it is moved in such a charming and persuasive way. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) for the kindly trailer of my speech. Unlike so many others who

961
pontificate about these matters outside the House, he at least knows what he is talking about and is a regular attender at church services.
However well intentioned towards my hon. Friend, the House should reject his proposition for two reasons. In 1974 it was the Church that asked that the Book of Common Prayer should continue to be enshrined in the laws of this land. It was not a concession wrested from unwilling clerics. It was freely given and willingly offered, because at that time it was inconceivable, as it is today, that so glorious a heritage of the English language should be abolished by either Church or State. However, it must be acknowledged that for many whom the Church seeks to serve—perhaps serves inadequately but seeks to serve—the language of Cranmer and the sixteenth century reformers does not have the same force as it did for our forefathers, and that alternative services—not substitutes but alternatives—need to be provided if their worship is to be relevant.
So it was that in 1974, when giving the Church freedom over its worship and doctrine, this House approved safeguards. It provided that decisions on the form of service in any congregation should be made jointly between the incumbent and the elected parochial church council. It was no dictatorship by the clergy. Lest it be thought that the clergy, by virtue of their office, are more likely to know the law than are their laity, I report that it was the General Synod that issued an explanatory leaflet to every incumbent and the secretaries of every parochial church council in two subsequent editions—some 112,000 simple explanatory leaflets—not only explaining the law but urging that the needs of all potential worshippers should be considered. In the 1980s that is the right way to deal with the infinite variety of situations to be found in the Church, and not through the rigidity of a Bill tied to a number regardless of the size of the congregation.
Furthermore, I can reassure my hon. Friend on one matter of fact upon which he relied. I accept, of course, that he gave his facts in all possible good faith. I have, however, checked the practice at the 14 theological colleges. It is true—I regret this—that in four of them the 1662 Holy Communion service is not in use, but in four others it is used occasionally and in six it is used regularly. That is a very different picture from the one that my hon. Friend painted.
My second reason for opposing the motion is that the House has progressively thought it fitting to entrust to the Church increasing authority over its own affairs. In 1919 it provided for the Assembly of the Church. In 1969 it approved synodical government, which was itself a very significant step forward. In 1974, as my hon. Friend said, it gave freedom to the Church to order its own worship and doctrine within very strict safeguards.
For what fundamental reason did our predecessors so decide? They did so for reasons that I believe remain valid today. They felt that it was no longer fitting for us in this Chamber—constituted not as we once were but as we are now—to concern ourselves with the details of matters domestic to the Church, especially as we ourselves had approved the setting up of representative institutions whereby the voice of clergy and laity could be heard.
As Parliament is sovereign in principle it will, of course, always remain open to Parliament to revoke that measure of independence, although I should greatly regret
962
such an attempt. The Bill, however, does not go to the principle. Instead, it intervenes in one albeit important area in which Parliament has decreed that decisions shall be a matter for the Church and in respect of which Parliament has approved an elaborate system of decision-making and safeguards. In so doing, the Bill goes against the whole trend that I have briefly outlined and that has represented an understanding by both Church and State of their respective roles in the days in which we live.
If, therefore, the motion is pressed to a Division—which I should regret—I shall seek to persuade right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that it should not be approved.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):
The House divided:Ayes 152, Noes 130.

Division No. 150]

[4.03 am

AYES

Adley, Robert

Fry, Peter

Aitken, Jonathan

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Alton, David

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Ancram, Michael

Greenway, Harry

Anderson, Donald

Grieve, Percy

Ashton, Joe

Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Banks, Robert

Grist, Ian

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Grylls, Michael

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Hamilton, Hon A.

Beith, A. J.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Bell, Sir Ronald

Hardy, Peter

Bennett, Andrew(St'Kp't N)

Haynes, Frank

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Heffer, Eric S.

Best, Keith

Hicks, Robert

Biggs-Davison, John

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Body, Richard

Hill, James

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Bowden, Andrew

Hordern, Peter

Braine, Sir Bernard

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Brinton, Tim

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Brotherton, Michael

Jessel, Toby

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Kilfedder, James A.

Budgen, Nick

Kimball, Marcus

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Kinnock, Neil

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Knight, Mrs Jill

Churchill, W. S.

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

Lloyd, lan (Havant & W'loo)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Loveridge, John

Cohen, Stanley

Lyell, Nicholas

Colvin, Michael

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Cormack, Patrick

McCusker, H.

Cranborne, Viscount

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Dixon, Donald

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Dover, Denshore

McQuarrie, Albert

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Mates, Michael

Dunlop, John

Mawby, Ray

Dykes, Hugh

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Mellor, David

Elliott, Sir William

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

Moate, Roger

Emery, Peter

Molyneaux, James

English, Michael

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Neale, Gerrard

Farr, John

Neubert, Michael

Fell, Anthony

Ogden, Eric

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Onslow, Cranley

Field, Frank

Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Palmer, Arthur

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

Parris, Matthew

Fookes, Miss Janet

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Forrester, John

Porter, Barry

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

Freud, Clement

Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

963

Proctor, K. Harvey

Stokes, John

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Tapsell, Peter

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Rost, Peter

Thornton, Malcolm

Royle, Sir Anthony

Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

Ryman, John

Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Waldegrave, Hon William

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Warren, Kenneth

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Shepherd, Richard

Whitney, Raymond

Skinner, Dennis

Wickenden, Keith

Smith, Dudley

Wilkinson, John

Speller, Tony

Williams, Sir T.(W'ton)

Spence, John

Wolfson, Mark

Sproat, Iain

Squire, Robin

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stanbrook, Ivor

Robert Atkins and Nicholas Baker.

Stevens, Martin

NOES

Aspinwall, Jack

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

Durant, Tony

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

Blaker, Peter

Eggar, Tim

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Evans, John (Newton)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Fairgrieve, Russell

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Ginsburg, David

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Goodlad, Alastair

Burden, Sir Frederick

Graham, Ted

Butler, Hon Adam

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Gummer, John Selwyn

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

Haselhurst, Alan

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

Hawkins, Paul

Coleman, Donald

Heddle, John

Cope, John

Homewood, William

Crouch, David

Howell, Rt Hon D.

Cryer, Bob

Howells, Geraint

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L' lli)

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Davis, T. (B' ham, Stechf'd)

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Dormand, Jack

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Lamond, James

964

Lamont, Norman

Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Le Marchant, Spencer

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Litherland, Robert

Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Luce, Richard

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Sheer man, Barry

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Silvester, Fred

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Sims, Roger

McTaggart, Robert

Spearing, Nigel

McWilliam, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Major, John

Stanley, John

Marks, Kenneth

Steel, Rt Hon David

Marlow, Tony

Stott, Roger

Marshall, D(G' gow S'ton)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Thompson, Donald

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Mayhew, Patrick

Tinn, James

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

Waddington, David

Moore, John

Wakeham, John

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Wells, Bowen

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

White, Frank R.

Nelson, Anthony

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Newton, Tony

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

O'Halloran, Michael

Williams, D.(Montgomery)

Patten, John (Oxford)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Pavitt, Laurie

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Pawsey, James

Younger, Rt Hon George

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Tellers for the Noes:

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Mr. W. van Straubenzee and Mr. Ken Eastham.

Race, Reg

Raison, Timothy

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Viscount Cranborne, Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. Michael English and Mr. Robert Atkins.

Prayer Book Protection
  PRAYER BOOK PROTECTION
  Viscount Cranborne accordingly presented a Bill to provide for parishioners in any parish to require certain forms of service to be used in the parish: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1 May and to be printed [Bill 114].
Orders of the Day
  SUPPLY
  [16TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered
  SUPPLY

    European Community (Developments)
    Mr. Speaker: The Lord Privy Seal.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that this is a hybrid form of debate in that the Government tabled the motion, but in the past it has been customary, since this is a Supply day, for the Opposition spokesman to start the debate. I hope that we can still follow that precedent.
    Mr. Speaker: I am easy, if the House is.
    Mr. Davies: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Lord Privy Seal.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That this House takes note of the Report on Developments in the European Community, July to December 1980 (Cmnd. 8195).—[Sir Ian Gilmour.]
    4.16 pm
    Mr. Davies: Since we debated the last report on developments in the European Community, just before Christmas, Britain's relationship with the other countries of the Common Market has deteriorated and there has been no progress towards alleviating what many see as some of the more damaging aspects of Britain's membership.
    The common agricultural policy, as has been shown by the recent price agreement, is now more entrenched than ever. The Government do not seem to have either the imagination or the strength to propose and press for fundamental reforms.
    The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is gradually filleting our fishing industry into minute pieces. Our net contribution to the 1981 Community budget will probably exceed £500 million. The Government's negotiating tactics, if they can be so described, have achieved nothing while arousing the contempt of the French and the anger of the Germans, so that, again, after the last summit, the cry "Perfidious Albion" was heard in the counsels of Europe.
    Paragraph 1·4 of the report deals with the common agricultural policy. It contains an even weaker statement on the CAP than the last report that we debated. It merely states:
    "The Government will continue to stress the need to restrain surplus production…and to reduce the…costs of the CAP."
    Merely to stress the need to reform the CAP will achieve nothing, and nothing has been done to remove some of the damaging aspects of that system.
    Only last week the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acquiesced in a price agreement which will probably cost the British consumer at least £500 million, will put up prices probably by between 1 and 2 per cent. and will generate even more surpluses which will have to be disposed of at even greater cost.
    A report in The Daily Telegraph on Tuesday—I hope that the Minister will comment on it—suggested that the figures given in the House by the Minister of Agriculture
    966
    about the increase in the price of food were not similar to some of the figures that his officials put to the House of Lords Select Committee. Under the headline
    "Walker Food Prices Wrong Say Ministry",
    The Daily Telegraph states:
    "The ministry"—
    not necessarily the Minister—
    "estimation is 7p lb. on butter, 5½p lb. on cheese, 2½p a kilo bag on sugar, 2p lb. on bacon, 5p lb. on beef, and ½p on a standard loaf".
    I hope that when he speaks the Minister will tell us whether those price increases in The Daily Telegraph were correct.
    Mr. Tony Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman has probably heard in this House from the Minister of Agriculture his estimate that food prices will go up by 1 per cent. a year. Is he aware that the Commission believes that the average level of food price increases in Europe this year will be 3 per cent. as a result of these measures? I dare say that there are differences between this country and Europe, but is it that we are learning new maths in the Ministry of Agriculture of the United Kingdom whereas they have got old maths in Europe? What is the position?
    Mr. Davies: Sometimes we feel that perhaps they have not learnt any maths at the Ministry of Agriculture because it is not very clear, as the hon. Gentleman says, what the increase is likely to be. I said between 1 and 2 per cent., being modest and fair and not wishing to criticise the Ministry too much. No doubt we shall be told what the figure is when the Minister replies to the debate.
    There is little doubt that the CAP has been a financial disaster for the British consumer and the British taxpayer. What is not always remembered is that it has not generally provided corresponding benefits to British farming. Many sections of British agriculture would be much better off if we had a system of national aids to agriculture instead of the ridiculous system of the CAP.
    Mr. David Myles: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to give an example?
    Mr. Davies: I was about to give two examples. One is in relation to dairy farmers. It is absurd that there is a levy on dairy products, the reason being apparently to reduce surpluses. But, as I understand it, there are no surpluses of dairy products in this country, so why should our farmers, and our consumers presumably, have to bear this levy?
    Another example is livestock producers. Their greatest input cost is the cost of feeding stuff, especially maize imported from North America. The cost of maize is pushed up artificially by the tax on imports and as a result of this settlement the cost of importing maize from North America will increase and these costs will have to be taken into account in next year's price settlement. So that with the CAP prices are putting up costs and costs are putting up prices. It is a quite ridiculous system and certainly not the best way of regulating food production or the agriculture industry.
    It is quite clear that we shall not get from the Government any fundamental proposals for the reform of the CAP. It is quite clear from the statements of the Minister of Agriculture that he has no intention or idea of reforming the system. I do not think that we shall see any radical proposals from the Commission, either.

    967
    The first paragraph of the report that we are debating states that it covers the last period of the Presidency of Mr. Roy Jenkins, who I believe is this month's leader of the Social Democrats. In a depressing epitaph for the Jenkins' Presidency the January edition of the publication Agra-Europe, which is a respectable publication in Europe on agricultural matters, says that the European Commission, under the Presidency of Mr. Roy Jenkins
    "has failed miserably in the attempt to tackle the problem of farm surpluses in the EEC."
    Farm support costs have gone up from £3 billion at the beginning of that Presidency to £8 billion at the end—an annual rate of growth of more than 23 per cent. The report goes on:
    "The Jenkins Commission made no recommendations, nor has it initiated any policy changes which have done anything to solve the CAP problems."
    So on past evidence there has been no real attempt by the Commission to reform the system, and I do not believe that we shall see any attempt in the future. A paper has now been produced called "Some Reflections on the CAP", but all that it does is suggest that the problems can be solved, or at least alleviated, by putting another tax on food. It suggests a tax or a levy which is pompously called a co-responsibility levy, but all that it is is a tax on food production. The only effect that the levy will have will be to put up prices even further, because farmers will decide on the prices they require and the levy will be put on top of that. So prices will go up, and neither the farmers nor the consumers will benefit. The more efficient farmers will suffer more than the less efficient because of the way the system will operate.
    The whole object of this tax is to provide more money for the Commission. Why not simply reduce the prices? The object is to provide more money for the Commission so that, presumably, that money can be used to create a new common policy, which will probably be quite as absurd as the ones that we have already.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am very interested in the right hon. Gentleman's view on the co-responsibility levy. Is this one of the many matters on which the Labour Party is performing a neat U-turn? Has he completely forgotten that the co-responsibility levy was supported by successive Labour Ministers of Agriculture?
    Mr. Davies: That is a rather silly point. The Commission has now brought forward proposals for the reform of the whole system and it is proposing a co-responsibility levy over the whole range of products. That is how the system is to be changed—by putting a tax on food across the board, as I understand it. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree entirely with my criticism.
    The only worthwhile reform of the CAP would be to dismantle it and let each country in the EEC get on with helping its own farmers and its own food industry in the ways best suited to its own traditions, economic factors, and farming structures. I cannot believe that the security and the prosperity of Western Europe would be jeopardised by the disappearance of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Hugh Dykes: In the major debate on the EEC last year the right hon. Gentleman said, in castigating the French, that 25 per cent. of the French population still worked on the land. The real figure, as we
    968
    know, is 9 per cent. In view of his abysmal ignorance on the subject, why should we listem to anything that he says about agriculture in Europe?
    Mr. Davies: I admit entirely that I gave the wrong figure, but the point that I was trying to make then was fair and a right one—that because France is still to a great extent an agricultural country, far more so than we are, there will not be any basic change in the system.
    As a start on the process of demolition, perhaps the Government should use the talks which I understand will be starting in the middle of this year for restructuring the budget to try to change the system whereby spending on the CAP is an open-ended commitment. The present position with regard to the budget is quite absurd. We have Treasury Ministers shuttling back and forth to Brussels for budget meetings, arguing about expenditure which is only 30 per cent. of the total EEC budget.
    I hope that the Government will press for a change in the system so that the way in which the budget operates in relation to agriculture is no different from the way in which it operates in relation to the regional fund, the social fund and any other form of expenditure. I think that that is a quite reasonable and constructive suggestion to make. There is no case for having an open-ended commitment. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will tell us the Government's thinking about this matter and the whole process of reorganisation and restructuring of the budget.
    If the CAP has been bad for both the consumer and sections of British agriculture, the other common policy, the common fisheries policy, looks like being a disaster for the British fishing industry. In the first section of the report the Government talk about the continuing effort to negotiate what they call a satisfactory common fisheries policy. Of course, the time has long passed for the negotiation of a satisfactory common fisheries policy because the pass was sold when the last Tory Government negotiated entry and agreed in the Treaty of Accession to allow, after a period of transition, the fishermen of the other countries to fish right up to our shores.
    The irony of the situation is that one leading member of that Government was the present Minister of Agriculture, who now has to try to pick up the pieces of that betrayal of the British fishing industry and is not making a very good job of it.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is always anxious to be fair and that with his condemnation of the Conservative Government he would wish to associate the Labour Government., who renegotiated the terms.
    Mr. Davies: I have never denied that the renegotiation process did not go half as well as we hoped.
    There have been two opportunities for discussion on fisheries. The first was before we entered, and the second is now, when we are coming to the end of the transitional period. Now is the time to stand firm on behalf of the British fishing industry. The Government are not doing that because they have given way on the percentage of total allowable catches. They have accepted 36 per cent. when most people, inside and outside the House, said that they should stand fast on 45 per cent. I quote a passage which appears in a House of Lords Select Committee report, which sums up the position:
    "Given that around two-thirds of the Community's catch is taken from United Kingdom waters, a quota of 45 per cent.…

    969
    seems none too high, and the Committee urge the Government to press for a figure of at least this order in respect of quotas in Community and third-country waters".
    The Government failed to do that. They caved in and settled for a percentage that was far too low.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the point at issue is not just the amount of fish taken from our waters compared with that taken from other EEC areas; is not the quality of the fish round our shores better than the quality of fish round their shores?
    Mr. Davies: I do not pretend to be as much of an expert on fishing as is my hon. Friend, but he is absolutely right, and that factor has to be taken into account.
    All that is left now is the final sell-out, which will take place after the French Presidential election. The Government are always optimistic in their negotiations with the French and they think that perhaps after the election the French will be nice to us. Of course, they will not be, and there will be another sell-out on the exclusive zone and the zone of dominant preference.
    Will the Lord Privy Seal give an assurance this afternoon that the Government will not abandon either the 12-mile exclusive zone demand or the demand for a dominant preference zone between 12 miles and 50 miles? Will he say categorically that the Government will not budge from that position? If he cannot give that assurance, the statement made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign that
    "fishermen will find a true and determined friend in the next Conservative Government"
    will be seen to be even more false and hollow than it seems now.
    The role of the Minister of Agriculture, both in the CAP negotiatons and on fisheries, cannot be better summed up than it is in an article in the magazine "Livestock Farming". A Somerset farmer in the April edition writes as follows:
    "The inability of Mr. Peter Walker to negotiate a fisheries policy, and the plight of our fishermen should fill us with foreboding. The Minister of Agriculture appears to be equally unwilling to deal with our difficulties. Mrs. Thatcher should appoint a Minister of Agriculture of the calibre and vision of the late Tom Williams who would give us sound policies to ensure security, confidence and expansion in place of our present unsatisfactory position."
    Trade figures are set out in table 2 in the final annex of the report, which shows that for the first time since we entered the Common Market we have a balance in our trade with the Community. As so often in the past, the appearance of EEC matters is different from the reality. We have to look further along that table to see our trading position with the EEC. The figures show only the balance of visible trade, not the contributions across the exchanges that go to the budget. More important than that, for every year since we have been in the Common Market we have had a massive deficit in trade in manufactured goods. There was a deficit of £1·7 billion in 1980, making a cumulative total over the years of almost £9 billion.
    Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us how many jobs have been lost as a result of that decline in our manufacturing industry? He might tell me that jobs were not lost, but the Foreign Secretary in Tokyo today gave a stiff warning to the Japanese that if they did not stop sending their goods to Europe import controls would be imposed by EEC
    970
    countries. He went on to say that he was talking about the loss of thousands of jobs. If our trade deficit with Japan means the loss of thousands of presumably manufacturing jobs, equally our trade deficit with the EEC must mean the loss of thousands of manufacturing jobs. We need an assessment from the Government of what that loss has been.
    Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman is possibly coming to this point, but it is worth emphasising that our trade deficit in manufactures with the Japanese is a mere £800 million a year, whereas our trade deficit in manufactures with West Germany was £1·8 billion in the last year—two-and-a-quarter times as much. That has not been sufficiently taken on board.
    Mr. Davies: I am sure that the hon. Gentlman's figures are right. If we have a deteriorating balance on manufactured goods, jobs are lost.
    The facts on manufacturing trade have borne out what we said from the Labour Benches when the previous Tory Government were dragooning the country into the Common Market. We said then that British industry was not in a competitive position to withstand the dismantling of tariffs which entry entailed. That is what has happened. If our industry had been competitive the resource cost and the budget cost of the CAP might just about have been carried, but as it is, the substantial deficit in trade in manufacturing goods plus the high cost of the CAP have broken the back of the British economy over the past seven or eight years.
    The Lord Privy Seal will argue that the position is improving—that our deficit in manufacturing goods in 1980 was less than it was in 1979. That is absolutely right. In 1980 it was £1·7 billion and in 1979 it was £2·7 billion, so the deficit was less. The reason for that is the depressed state of the British economy, caused mainly by the Government's policy.
    Retailers, companies and business men have destocked because they cannot afford to carry large stocks when there are high interest rates and high inflation. Those stocks are largely in cars and other manufactured consumer goods from Europe. It is only to be expected that the deficit in 1980 will be lower, because of the depression and the recession.
    If, as the Government say—no one else believes it, but the Government apparently do—we have bottomed out and the economy is gradually on the upturn, there will be more stocking. More cars will be brought in, and more consumer goods, and in 1982, if there is a recovery, the deficit on manufactures will go back to £2·7 billion.
    Mr. Tom Ellis: Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean? When he links the deficit in our manufacturing trade with the Community and other countries with the lack of competitiveness of British Industry, is he advocating a siege economy?
    Mr. Davies: I will come to that in a moment. I am not avoiding the point.
    The Lord Privy Seal will say that everything is much better now because we have North Sea oil, which we are selling to the Common Market. Indeed, it is the oil that balances the trade between us. The tables show that in 1980 we had a surplus of £2·8 million in our trade in fuels—presumably that was mainly oil—with the EEC. That is more than double the 1979 figure.

    971
    We now have the worst of all possible worlds. Our massive deficit in manufacturing and the enormous cost of the CAP are being paid for by the depletion of a finite resource, North Sea oil. There was a time when we debated in the House and outside what we should do with the benefits of North Sea oil. It is quite clear that that avenue has been frittered away in financing the dole queues which the Government have created by their economic policies and in paying the enormous cost of membership of the Common Market.
    The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) asked whether I was in favour of a siege economy. That is an emotive term and I am not sure what it means. Judging from what I have read of his remarks in Tokyo, the Foreign Secretary is in favour of a siege economy. One of the leaders of the hon. Gentleman's party—I do not know whether he is last month's or next month's leader—the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is also in favour of import controls. The Financial Times of 5 February reported that he made a speech in London to some French industrialists. He said that we might have to impose controls on imports from Europe. We might have to move towards the terrible siege economy that the hon. Gentleman deprecates and seems to fear.
    There is already a siege economy in relation to agricultural products. There are controls on food coming into the country. There is no free trade in food. Given the difference in value between the green pound and the natural exchange rate, we pay tax on inter-Community trade in food. With a certain amount of poetic licence, that could be described as a tariff. Therefore, there is a siege economy in agriculture. The country needs free trade in agriculture and some measure of protection for our manufacturing industry. However, the Treaty of Rome does not allow that. The system is wrong and does not suit our structures.
    Paragraph 1.2 of the report states that the Commission must produce proposals for the restructuring of the Community budget by the end of June 1981. That is an important statement. I am sure that everyone looks forward to the negotiations. No doubt the Government have some hopes. I do not know their plans or proposals for restructuring the budget. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will give us some idea of the Foreign Office's radical thinking on restructuring the budget and the CAP. We should like to be told at least the bare outlines. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will say that he is negotiating and cannot divulge everything, but he should tell us something about the Foreign Office's radical plans for restructuring the budget.
    The report does not say that Britain's net contribution to the 1981 Community budget could be at least £500 million. There are differing figures. In March 1981 a pamphlet gave the figure of £570 million. The White Paper on public expenditure gives a smaller figure. However, it will be about £500 million. That is the figure after the rebates that were negotiated at the Foreign Affairs Council on 30 May. Therefore, £500 million will cross the exchanges to our competitors. What is the point of such a system? We are subsidising our competitors in Europe when our economy is in a bad state, when we have had to cut public expenditure and when many of the disadvantaged cannot get any help from the Government. Nevertheless, the contribution could be at least £500 million. I should remind the Lord Privy Seal that a 10p tax on a gallon of petrol would be roughly equivalent to £500
    972
    million. No doubt the Lord Privy Seal will correct me if my figure for the 1981 budget is wrong. However, if it is right, it means that we are handing an enormous amount to our competitors in Europe.
    Hon. Members will agree that restructuring is most important. We should be given some idea of the Government's thinking. What justification is there for countries paying more into the EEC than they can get out of it? What justification is there for a system in which three countries pay in, namely, West Germany, Great Britain and France, and the other countries are net beneficiaries? What is the purpose of such a system? What is wrong with balancing the books? What is wrong with what the French call the "juste retour"? According to that system, a country pays in roughly the same amount as it gets back. I understand why the Germans are unhappy about their contribution.
    If the system under which some benefit while others do not created equality between the poorer and the richer regions of Europe, and if regional disparities were becoming smaller, there might be something to be said for it, but the system is getting worse. The disparities between the poorer and the richer regions are becoming greater. What is the point of some countries paying more in while others get more out? Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal will explain.
    Mr. James Hill: The original concept behind the principle of not expecting a juste retour—which was found in the regional development documents and in the regional fund—was that wealth should be spread throughout the Community. The Community has probably suffered because certain member States have always expected £1 back for £1 put in. It is that false, almost shopkeeping approach that has prevented a spread of wealth throughout the Community. In terms of regional development, we could benefit just as other members of the Community benefit.
    Mr. Davies: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman criticise a "shopkeeping approach". I should have thought that it was sensible to question the paying of large sums into the Community when nothing happened. The disparities are becoming greater. Where is the money going? What good does it do to the Community as a whole, let alone to the net payers into the EEC?
    From 1 July, for six months, we shall hold the Presidency of the EEC. That should be a golden opportunity to reform the CAP and to restructure the budget. Unfortunately, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will chair the Agriculture Minister's Council meetings and the Foreign Office will chair the Council of Foreign Ministers. Therefore, to expect radical change is to expect a lot, particularly from this Government.
    If the Foreign Office displays the same appalling negotiating tactics as it used on 30 May in the Foreign Affairs Council there will he no hope of any change. Those negotiations led the West German Chancellor—who has been Britain's friend in many negotiations— to accuse the British Government of cheating. From the communique, most Opposition Members realised that there was a link between the budgetary arrangements and the common fisheries policy and other matters. I am not surprised that Helmut Schmidt thought the same. He read it in the same way. It is time that the Foreign Office looked at the exact

    973
    words and clauses of the treaties and communiques. It should not negotiate, as it sometimes does, as if it were negotiating with eighteenth century Mogul princes. It is negotiating with highly sophisticated, competent, Continental civil servants.
    The British people know that Britain got a bad deal when it entered the Common Market. They know that entry has been bad for the housewife, bad for the taxpayer and bad for our industry. Unless there are fundamental radical changes soon, the increasing demands to free Britain from the damaging provisions of the Treaty of Accession and the Treaty of Rome will become so irresistible that even this Government will not be able to ignore them.
    4.48 pm
    The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) treated us to his usual polemic about British membership of the Common Market. He told us that we had made no progress towards alleviating the burdens of membership. He said that the Government had neither the imagination nor the strength to do this or that. Apparently, we have been filleting our fishing industry. He even complained about our net contribution. He said that we needed radical change. He kept attacking my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is noticeable that when anyone does that to my right hon. Friend's face, the person doing so gets very much the worst of it. When hon. Members say such things to his face, they do not get much change.
    It was interesting to note that when the right hon. Gentleman tried to find a better Minister of Agriculture he had to go back to Mr. Tom Williams. He was not a member of the last Labour Government or of the one before that, but of the Government from 1945 to 1950. Mr. Williams was a good Minister, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's implicit judgment that there has not been a good Labour Minister of Agriculture since then. That means that there has not been a good Labour Minister of Agriculture for 30 years.
    What the right hon. Gentleman said was silly enough, but it was absurd when we remember that he was a member of the Labour Government who were in office from 1974 to 1979. One would think that a visitor from Mars would never believe that there had been a Labour Government during the past 15 years or that they had anything to do with the present position in the Community. However, the House knows that the Labour Government did nothing to improve our conditions of Community membership.
    At one point the right hon. Gentleman even referred to the rebates that "we" negotiated. It was once said in a Western "Who's 'we' , white man?" It certainly was not the right hon. Gentleman. It was a Conservative Government who negotiated the rebates, and the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Party did nothing whatever. The right hon. Gentleman complained about the appalling negotiating tactics of the Foreign Office, but one wonders what they were like in his day, because nothing happened.
    The right hon. Gentleman makes the debate totally sterile when he draws a veil over the Labour Government's five years in office and pretends that it did not happen. We ought to debate this subject on a more serious level. The right hon. Gentleman also talked about the trade deficit.
    974
    Of course we have trade deficits with other countries—for example, with the Community and Japan. So far as I can see, the right hon. Gentleman's only remedy is to cut off trade altogether, which would not be sensible.
    I am sure that the majority of hon. Members will agree that the White Paper that we are supposed to be discussing describes a busy if undramatic period in the Community. It was a period of consolidation between one important negotiation and another. The report permits us to assess the progress that the Community and Britain within it is making.
    It is better to approach this subject in that spirit than to recount developments in a way that makes the Community sound like a boxing ring. We do not regard it as a boxing ring. Obviously, it is our responsibility to stand up for British interests in the Community. The Government have done that consistently, and will continue to do so—I shall deal with some of the right hon. Gentleman's wilder points as I proceed—but, equally obviously, confrontation with our partners is not an objective of our policy. The objective must be fair and fruitful co-operation. I think that I can fairly say that that is what took place in the period that we are discussing.
    One of the principal examples of this, which is of close interest to us, is the subject to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in such misleading terms, namely, the budget contribution settlement which was reached on 30 May and was debated in the House on 2 July. That agreement had to be turned into a concrete arrangement. The Community had never done anything like it before. It was no easy task, but it was successfully negotiated and agreed at the Council on 7 October. The outcome was complex, and I set it out in an answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) on 27 October last year.
    There were those in Britain, particularly Labour Members, who feared that we would never be able to negotiate that agreement and that our Community partners would not keep their word. We never shared those doubts. We knew that the agreement would be honoured, and it was. The payments are being made on time. Before 31 March we received £645 million, of which £211 million was paid under the financial mechanism—75 per cent. of our estimated gross entitlement. A total of £434 million was paid under the supplementary measures scheme, and that represents 81 per cent. of our estimated entitlement under the scheme. The remainder of our refunds will be paid in the autumn.
    It was also agreed on 30 May that the Community should try to reach a settlement of the common fisheries policy by the end of 1980. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a linkage and advised us to look at the words. I was instrumental in negotiating the words, and I assure him that we paid close attention to them. In fact, there was no linkage. If he looks at the words, he will see that that is so.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: In that case, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that Helmut Schmidt's interpretation is wrong?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I am. I am saying that our interpretation is right. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at what was agreed on 30 May.
    It is nearly five years since, at the Hague conference in 1976, the Community set itself the task of adapting the

    975
    common fisheries policy to take account of the general move to 200-mile limits and laying the basis for the necessary changes. I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that agreement could have been better, as the Labour Government were in power at the time. However, five years is too long. We were ready to come to an agreement last December, but our French partners were not.
    Here again it was wrong of the right hon. Gentleman to imply that it was our fault that there was no agreement on a common fisheries policy by the end of last year. It was not our fault. We were ready, but our French partners were not. We are still ready, but we cannot reach an agreement if other parties are not prepared to do so. We are not responsible for the delay. We regret it.
    Obviously, a common fisheries policy is of the greatest importance to the Community. It will enable stocks to be conserved and marketing to be conducted in an orderly way. Without it our industry cannot look forward to a secure future and plan its investment as it would like. We made it clear that we could not agree to arrangements that did not safeguard the interests of British fishermen in our own coastal waters. It is really an abuse of language to say that it is "un-communautaire" to refuse to give priority to the French in those waters. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues have been scrupulous in ensuring that the interests of our industry will be safeguarded in any agreement.
    Mr. Tom Ellis: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that even if he were to establish an exclusive limit around our shores the problems would not be solved? I ask that because the secretary of the Cornish Fish Producers' Association agreed with me at a public meeting in Plymouth recently that the main threat to Cornish fishing came from Humberside.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: As the hon. Gentleman sagely pointed out, those difficulties exist. There are, of course, other difficulties to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer. For example, fish do not remain in the same waters all the time. They breed in some parts of the waters and then move to other parts. Therefore, the idea of creating the equivalent of a moat around fishing waters would not work.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose——
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. I regret to tell him that I shall be winding up the debate, and I shall have a chance to answer him then.
    I should also like to mention the important agreement reached last week by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on an agriculture price package, about which he told the House last Friday. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said, it is a satisfactory package to us, and it is satisfactory that agreement was reached early in the year.
    The right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who is no longer present, talked about the discrepancy between what my right hon. Friend said and what was said by Ministry officials in the House of Lords. The Ministry officials were talking about the original Commission proposals, which did not include the savings and gains for us that my right hon. Friend negotiated in Brussels last week.
    976
    These are matters of real concern to us. We retained both the butter subsidy and the beef premium. We also obtained improved arrangements for clawback on sheepmeat exports. The regulation governing payment of our whisky refunds, which will be retroactive to 1973, was also agreed. Some measures—for example, agreement on future access for New Zealand butter and the import quota for manufacturing beef—will be especially welcome to our friends in New Zealand and Australia and will mean that the Community will fulfil the international obligations that it has undertaken.
    The right hon. Gentleman waxed eloquent about the iniquities of co-responsibility levies. No one would gather from his remarks that the co-responsibility levy originated under the Labour Government. He ought to check his facts a little before making that sort of speech to the House.
    The agreement also contains a number of useful savings measures of the same sort in the cereals and, processed fruit and vegetable sectors. We regard it as very important that the Council was able to agree on the need to keep milk expenditure within the 1981 budget provisions. We regret, on the other hand, that the Council did not endorse the view that the rate of increase in expenditure on the CAP should be kept markedly below the rate of increase in our own resources. None the less, we had our own position on this clearly recorded, and we received welcome support from the German and Dutch Governments.
    With regard to price increases, our farmers will receive benefits that they greatly need in order to cope with steeply rising costs. At the same time, the cost to consumers has been kept as low as possible. I shall not say to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North what I said while he was out of the Chamber, but I say again that the estimate of 1 per cent. is right. The reason why it may be 3 per cent. in the Community is that we received benefit in the settlement which other countries did not receive. The increase in United Kingdom food prices should, therefore, be no more than 1 per cent.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know that he takes account of debating points. Last Friday the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not reply to me when I asked him how a farm gate price increase of about 9 per cent. reflects itself as only 1 per cent. in retail prices. Can the Lord Privy Seal answer that?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: It is due to a number of reasons. Farm prices are only one element in food prices. In addition, the commodities Mat are covered by a CAP are not only part of what everybody eats. A further reason is that things such as milk prices are set by the Government, and not by the Council of Ministers. The effect is only in regard to manufacturing and does not affect the doorstep delivery of milk. I can give a slightly longer and more detailed answer in my winding-up speech, but that is the basis of it.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I think not. I dealt with my hon. Friend's point when he was out of the Chamber. He will be able to make his speech later. On second thoughts, I give way to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Marlow: I am delighted that we are to receive benefits from last week's negotiations that will not be received by other countries Our food prices are to go up

    977
    by only 1 per cent., whereas in the other countries food prices will go up by 3 per cent. These must be massive benefits. Will my right hon. Friend tell us something about them?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I have already mentioned the butter subsidy. I have also mentioned beef and lamb. I have no reason to believe that our estimates are wrong. I do not think that they have been challenged by anyone except my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, who tends to stick out his neck on these matters. But that is up to him.
    I deal next with the Community's external relations. Co-operation over foreign policy—no doubt the right hon. Gentleman left that out for the sake of brevity, and I do not complain—is another matter in which there has been increasing interest and willingness to make progress. My right hon. and noble Friend made a major contribution to this in his speech in Hamburg last November, when he called for a framework for a European foreign policy
    "strong enough and flexible enough to respond rapidly to the challenges of the world today".
    Herr Genscher has since taken up a similar theme.
    The importance of the European role in the Middle East is widely acknowledged. President Sadat said that Egypt considered the Luxembourg declaration of last December to be a turning point that was likely to have a constructive impact on the peace process in the near future. As the House knows Mr. van de Klaauw, the Dutch Prime Minister, is continuing his consultations.
    Similarly, on Poland, the Ten remain in close contact with one another and with the United States. Europe has underlined to the Soviet Union the obligation of all States that signed the Helsinki final act to base their relations with Poland on the strict application of the charter of the United Nations and the principles of the final act. If they do not, the consequences for relations within Europe and throughout the world will be extremely serious. As the House is aware, this was re-emphasised in the recent communiqué of the European Council at Maastricht.
    I hope that the House will share my satisfaction at the entry of Greece into the Community on 1 January. As we know, the Community continues to negotiate with Spain and Portugal on the terms under which they will accede to the Community in due course. Much progress has already been made, but there is considerable ground yet to be covered. We remain determined to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion with the minimum of delay.
    Looking to the period ahead, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, we have a major task in seeking to restructure the Community budget. The Community committed itself to this under the 30 May agreement, and the European Council at Maastricht urged the Commission to bring forward its paper on restructuring in good time so that the Heads of Government could have a first discussion in Luxembourg at the end of June. Meanwhile, we have been thinking about the various ways in which this task can be approached, and we have been examining ideas on an informal basis with our partners.
    We start from certain principles. In future the Community budget must not result in any member State being put in the unacceptable situation in which we found ourselves when we took office—that of bearing an excessively high proportion of the cost of the Community.
    978
    It would, however, be neither practical nor appropriate to buy ourselves out of difficulty by simply increasing the total of Community expenditure. The Government are firmly opposed to raising the ceiling of 1 per cent. VAT, and both the German and French Governments are firmly on the record with the same position.
    Chancellor Schmidt, whose country now bears the largest financial burden, has recently repeated the proposal which he and President Giscard aired last year, namely, that there should be some kind of limit on net contributions to, and receipts from the Community budget. Such ideas as that will need close examination.
    There is no magic solution to the overall problem. We hope that the Commission paper, to be produced in June, will give a broad assessment of the possibilities and provide the Community with an acceptable basis for the negotiations that will follow. We shall negotiate with a firm and recognised commitment to making a success of restructuring. We shall press for a much better balance in Community spending policies. This means reducing the disproportionate share of the Community budget taken up by agricultural expenditure, and further developing nonagricultural policies.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To put the matter of the budget contribution into perspective, and without in any way wishing to reduce its importance, may I ask my right hon. Friend to take this opportunity to tell the House what the total budget contribution—even before the contribution was renegotiated—represented as a proportion of the gross national product?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: My hon. Friend has got me there. I shall give the answer later. I do not think that it is a very high percentage, but it is a sizeable sum of money.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor rose——
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I think that the House fully supported us—even though some hon. Members were less than gracious about our achievement—and fully appreciated that it was right that we should seek and get a two-thirds reduction in those contributions.
    A number of modest and welcome savings in the CAP formed part of last week's settlement on agricultural prices, but obviously much more thoroughgoing reforms will be necessary in order to provide a permanent solution. To the extent that we succeed in doing that, obviously additional finance will be available for policies such as those of the regional and social funds, which are of particular concern to the United Kingdom.
    At the same time, any solution must take into account the accession of Spain and Portugal.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: If I heard the right hon. Gentleman aright, he said that thoroughgoing reforms of the CAP were obviously necessary. As the Commission will not propose any, and as the British Government are not making any proposals, where are these thoroughgoing proposals to come from?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: These things are evidently clearer to the right hon. Gentleman than they are to me. It is not clear to me that the Commission will not make those proposals. We shall have to see—[Interruption.] I do not think that it is clear. The Commission will make its proposals in June. We hope that they will be thoroughgoing proposals.

    979
    If not, I agree that other people will have to put forward proposals, but in the first instance it must be for the Commission to do so.
    What is needed, as I think all hon. Members agree, is for the Community to find a way of ensuring that the budgetary burdens and benefits correspond much more closely than they do at present to the needs and capacities of individual member States, so that unacceptable situations do not arise in future. I believe that we shall find the right way to deal with these matters. There is wide agreement in the Community on the need for change. I think that we are all agreed that we have to succeed.
    Clearly, there is a need for confidence and co-operation between member States over the coming year. I believe that the agreement of 30 May last year created a better equilibrium and a better atmosphere in the Community. Various political issues were resolved during that period. Equally, this year's agricultural price settlement was achieved fairly quickly. Against that background, it is easy to exaggerate the degree of crisis within the Community.
    I realise that things are often said during elections that should not be taken too seriously. As Dr. Johnson might have said, politicians are not on oath during election campaigns. The allegation that Britain is not prepared to obey the rules of the Community is unfounded. Anyone who makes such a suggestion should specify which rules we have broken and which rules we are not prepared to observe. I hope that anyone trying to do that will at the same time list the rules that his country has broken in the past and list the rules that his country is breaking at the moment.
    The idea that it would have been better for the Community to remain a Community of six seems to me parochial and out of touch with history. President Pompidou surely showed the vision of a far-sighted and realistic statesman in agreeing with other founding members to enlarge the Community. he made a major contribution to the construction of Europe. It is perhaps worth noting that President Giscard d'Estaing, to name only the most eminent, was a prominent member of President Pompidou's Cabinet. Mr. Pompidou was able to see that a Community of nine or 10 could work as harmoniously as one of six. Afer all, in the life of the enlarged Community, there has been no empty chair.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is possible to argue that President Pompidou, in finding another dumping ground for surplus French agricultural production and surplus German manufacturing production was showing a little self-interest.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I think that the debate is taking place on a more elevated level than that.
    We approach the restructuring exercise in a spirit of cooperation and with confidence. Much is at stake. We wish to see a Community greatly strengthened, with an agreed common fisheries policy, less costly agricultural funding, which does not encourage the production of surpluses, and a budgetary system that is equitable.
    The White Paper gives an account of the responsible stewardship of British interests within the Community, combined with a real feeling for the benefit of the Community as a whole, which is itself a British interest. The progress made is the result of steady work by a Government who believe in what they are doing. The difficulties that we encounter can be, and are being,
    980
    overcome. We cannot expect everything to come right at once. To build a Community that is beneficial to us all is not the task of a few weeks or months. If one is building for the future, one has to build thoroughly and well.
    It is depressing, therefore, to hear talk of withdrawal by some Opposition Members, although not all. There have been even more curious notions of a sort of selective membership, involving withdrawal from our legal commitment to enforce Community legislation, and the enactment thereafter of only those Community laws with which Parliament agrees. Apart from the legal impossibility of running such a system, our partners would quite rightly not stand for the two-faced commitment that it would represent. We shall not let ourselves be put off course by such ill-formed ideas. The issue is far too important.
    It must be kept in mind that the Community is about much more than money and agricultural products, vital though these isssues are. The economic problems of the Community can be resolved in a way that benefits everyone. I believe that the White Paper that we are debating shows solid progress towards that end. Economic questions are not the be-all and end-all. The vision of political unity that inspired die founders of the Community may have become blurred in our severely practical age. Opposition Members show a remarkable lack of vision and a remarkable neglect of what is happening in the world if they are pleased about what they regard as Western disunity. Their approach is not merely parochial; it is a blindfold one.
    The realities on which the vision was based—the background of post-war devastation and the wish to drive away the spectre of conflict: in Western Europe, once arid for all—are, if anything, more relevant today than ever before in a world of political and economic uncertainty. The ability to work together in the European Community to deal with our common problems has become riot just a matter of convenience or an optional extra that successive Governments can accept or reject at will. It has become a necessity.
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I am pleased to follow the Lord Privy Seal. I wish to direct most of my comments towards Foreign Office responsibilities rather than to those of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I do no propose to deal with all 11 sections and five annexes of the White Paper. I shall concentrate entirely on section II.
    This is the first time since 1972, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have sought to catch your eye in a Common Market debate. The House will recall that I am a convinced opponent of Britain's entry to the Common Market. I am a Francophile. I am one of the vice-chairmen of the Franco-British group. I am also a convinced European. I am grateful that this House sends me to the Council of Europe of 21 countries. I would not wish to be a member of the European Parliament in spite of the fact that my bank manager would probably be most pleased with the balance that I would be able to show for services in that direction.
    Since the accession of Britain, I have not spoken on these matters in terms of secession. I was convinced that I did not need to add my pressure. However, I have been watching the situation over the years. One of the saddest

    981
    aspects of the life of a parliamentarian is the number of times that one can regretfully say "I told you so" about the consequences of Government action. Since our accession, that has been my situation. I have been expecting for some time that the Common Market would drown itself in its lake of wine, kill itself on ascending its mountains of agricultural and other produce or, more likely, choke itself on the miles of documentation which seem to emerge from Brussels. Hon. Members receive a yellow paper once a fortnight. If the documents contained therein were laid end to end I believe that they would reach from Land's End to John o'Groats.
    Among the many reasons why I opposed Britain's accession was my feeling that the Community was not outward looking. It was an inward-looking Community. I should therefore like to draw attention to a paradox with which I think the Lord Privy Seal should deal. I address myself to the political arrangements under which the Common Market, for the first time in a considerable period, has shown itself to be outward looking. I do not criticise what is a move in the right direction by the Community in looking out from its own immediate problems.
    My complaint concerns section II, dealing with the initiative taken last June and followed up last July in the Middle East and the intervention in arrangements that have been proceeding since 1974 to try to solve the Israel-Palestine problem. I believe that the initiative that has been taken is misguided and is likely to be counterproductive to the purposes that the Community, wishes to pursue.
    I support a wider Europe. It will not surprise the House to know that I serve on the health committee of the Council of Europe. It met only a fortnight ago in Israel. One was therefore able to gain an impression, far more than is possible from reading newspaper articles, about how it feels to be an Israeli citizen in the circumstances that have
    The initiative last June by the EEC has not helped but has served to complicate an already complex matter. It is right that the desire for peace should be part of the Common Market's outward-looking political programme, but in a dispute of this kind the nations concerned cannot be seen to be independent of the argument when they have their own interests, particularly the oil of the Middle East. The initiatives ignored reality and sought a blueprint in which was put forward, in the guise of an honest broker, a loaded solution to the difficulties of the countries in the Middle East.
    Israel, Egypt and the United States—the three signatories to the Camp David accord—have all expressed concern, in varying degrees, especially about the Venice declaration clause in connection with PLO participation in future negotiations. The Arab world, too, received the initiative coolly. It says that the declaration initiative does not go far enough. However, although the EEC initiative has made little impact on the parties involved in the Arab-Israel conflict, the British Government continue to argue that the framework set out in the Venice declaration should provide the basis for reviving the Arab-Israel peace initiated at Camp David.
    The White Paper, in chapter 2, focuses attention on the PLO. It is argued that if the PLO were involved in the negotiations the PLO would be bound to recognise Israel, and that would lead to the resolution of the Arab-Israel
    982
    conflict. There is no evidence for that. It is evident from the recent statements of Foreign Office Ministers that when Lord Carrington takes over the Presidency of the European Council in July the British Government will have an opportunity to upgrade contacts with the PLO. That would be a retrograde step. If a meeting takes place, it will set back even further the peace process in the Middle East.
    The Foreign Office analysis of the Middle East contains certain flaws. First, it says that the Arab-Israel conflict, if resolved, would stabilise the region. I do not agree. That conflict is only one of a multitude of crisis points in the Middle East. Even if that conflict were resolved, many areas of tension would remain, notably the Iran-Iraq war, not to mention Libyan and Soviet ambitions for expansion.
    Muslims are worried about the increasing conflict between two sectarian groups in Islam—the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. That conflict is likely to cause headaches in the Foreign Office during the next decade—just as Northern Ireland has done during the past 10 or 12 years.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Is not my hon. Friend underestimating the long-standing grievance of the Palestinians? Does he deny them their right to the homeland that they so desire?
    Mr. Pavitt: My hon. Friend is right to draw my attention to the Palestinians. I shall deal with that matter later. However, the PLO is not the only group of Palestinians with a grievance. There are many Palestinians outside the PLO who do not resort to terrorist tactics. I doubt whether the EEC initiative in trying to involve Arafat and the PLO will take us any further forward.
    The Foreign Office assumes that the PLO is prepared to recognise, if the circumstances are right, Israel's right to secure borders—despite about 30 meetings between Foreign Office officials and the PLO, not to mention contact with other European States, and the visits of Gaston Thorn and Mr. van der Klaauw. The PLO even hinted that it would be willing in any circumstances to recognise Israel. To date, no statement of recognition has been issued by any PLO official. A meeting between Lord Carrington and PLO representatives, before any such guarantees were given, would be construed by the PLO as British endorsement of its present position, entrenching even further its refusal to accept Israel's right to exist.
    Mr. Marlow: When will the Israeli Government recognise the Palestinian right to exist?
    Mr. Pavitt: There have been at least five rounds of negotiations since 1974. That right to exist was accepted by Israel in discussions with President Sadat as a long-term view, and was part of the Camp David arrangements agreed between Egypt and Israel.
    There have been five agreements since 1974. There was the agreement between Syria and Israel. In 1975 there was the agreement between Israel and Egypt. Then in 1977 there was the startling and world-shaking meeting between Sadat and Begin. In 1978 there was the Camp David accord. Finally, there was the 1979 treaty beween Egypt and Israel.
    The EEC and Great Britain are not neutral bystanders. The EEC initiative should be rethought because it is unlikely to preserve the kind of peace that we are seeking in that part of the world. I shall quote the words of a man whom I regard as one of the great world statesmen and who

    983
    may return to power after the election in Israel. I refer to Mr. Abba Eban. He said in a recent speech, after talking of all the changes that had taken place as a result of Camp David, American intervention, and Egypt, and the possibilities of a slow and progressive move towards settling the quite legitimate rights of the Palestinians to have their own country with their own autonomy and a democratic system of government, and not one governed by Mr. Arafat——
    Mr. Roy Hughes: I apologise for intervening, but I know that my hon. Friend is a keen supporter of the United Nations. When he talks about the right of Palestinians to have a state of their own, does he take into consideration the views contained in successive resolutions of the United Nations on the matter?
    Mr. Pavitt: Yes, indeed—especially resolution 242. I could talk on that subject at great length. It may be remembered that I was sacked from my job as PPS in the Foreign Office and my then Foreign Secretary, Michael Stewart, is now in another place.
    Mr. Abba Eban said, in connection with the number of changes that had taken place:
    "What has remained unchanged is the PLO's attitude towards Israel. Not one letter in the PLO's Charter has been altered, on the contrary: at the National Council meeting of the PLO in Damascus all the old tenets and policies have again been confirmed. The PLO stands firm behind its wish to 'eliminate the Zionist entity from the Arab homeland'. This inflexibility in the desire to finish Israel off as an independent Jewish state rules out the PLO and its leader Arafat as partners in any discussion. There too the European Middle-Eastern policy starts from false assumptions."
    I remind the House of the trauma felt by Israel at the time of the Six-Day War. The United Nations peacekeeping force was present, but within 24 hours the guarantees that Israel would not be driven into the sea disappeared and it found itself standing alone. That traumatic experience has deeply embedded itself in Israeli consciousness. It means that any future guarantees must be more effectve. Face-to-face negotiations across a table are more likely to be successful because those principally concerned—the Egyptians, the Israelis and Palestinians in a wider sense—can be assured what will happen.
    I am a member of the United Kingdom all-party group to the Western European Union. The union has been discussing these matters. It passed a resolution requiring that Israel should retain its sovereignty and be given a guarantee. The difficulty over the guarantee is who gives it and who, after the withdrawal of the United Nations in 1967, can give the assurance that it will be worthwhile.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the important experience of 1967, but that was not necessarily a precedent because had Israel allowed or wanted the United Nation forces to be stationed on its side of the border that particular danger would not have arisen.
    Mr. Pavitt: From my reading of the history of that period—and I was then closer to these events than I am now—I believe that there was no such option. The United Nations troops were withdrawn in 24 hours. For seven days there had been a massing of Egyptian artillery. The consequence of that action is that whatever guarantees are given must be copper-bottomed, and whatever happens the outcome must be a negotiated settlement.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) asked about the United Nations. Part of my opposition to
    984
    the Common Market and Britain's membership of it stems from my experience between the wars. Regional associations were shown then not to be a step towards world government. The Axis powers formed regional groups and that killed the League of Nations. When it was most needed it was a dead duck. I would therefore rely on the United Nations rather than on any initiative through the EEC.
    My final point requires me to wear another hat. I am a sponsored member of the Co-operative movement. I have no financial interest, but through that movement I declare the interest of the consumer. I am profoundly concerned at the possible disappearance of the ancient British custom of the morning doorstep delivery of milk. I regret that the Consumers Association response to this issue has been related solely to the price.
    If present agricultural mechanisms continue to apply we shall be drinking UHT milk purchased in packets. It will be a great boon to the supermarkets, in that people will be encouraged to buy the milk in this form as a draw to other spending. Having saved money on the milk, they will spend more on other items. Although on the face of it the housewife may be able to save a penny on a carton of milk over the delivered price, the process threatens to destroy the economics of doorstep delivery. If the volume of milk handled by the delivery dairies falls, their operation will become uneconomic.
    The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) was out of the Chamber when I said that I was a Francophile. He knows more about these matters than I do. He understands that milk is a key element in the overall production of Britain's farmers. With the establishment of the Milk Marketing Board it has been possible to have a balanced farm economy in which milk plays its part. If milk is removed from the equation, the inevitable result for the housewife is that all other dairy produce will become dearer as the farmer puts up the prices to compensate for the loss of income from the milk..
    I hope that when this issue comes before the Council of Ministers our Minister will bear in mind that while the method of delivering milk to the doorstep is peculiarly British, that is how we like to proceed. If they are denied that method, Britain's housewives will resent not being able to "pick up a pinta" on the doorstep as they have done in the past 100 years.
    5.36 pm
    Mr. Richard Body: The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) has spared me having to make the comment that I almost invariably do in these debates when I follow a Labour Member, to the effect that I agree with every word that has been said. On the first part of his speech I urge him to appreciate that the European Council is primarily concerned with three issues. The first is the withdrawal of Israel from those lands to which no one, least of all someone who supports the efforts of the United Nations, as the hon. Gentleman so warmly does, could claim it has any title. Secondly, the Council has tried to form a reasonable view about the self-determination of the Palestinian people. Thirdly, it has considered the anxious problem arising from the new status of Jerusalem. There can be no prospect of any enduring peace in the Middle East unless those three matters are resolved, and they must be resolved fairly soon.
    Mr. Pavitt: I hasten to agree, but I am more concerned with how they are resolved. The Common Market's approach is wrong. The Camp David approach, involving negotiations, will be the most effective.
    Mr. Body: That remains to be seen. I am willing to throw almost any brick at the Common Market, but on this occasion I do not doubt its intentions. I think that the initiative can be useful, and I pay tribute not to any Head of State in the Community but to the President of Austria for the lead that he has taken in this matter. If we could make the Council of Europe a more effective organisation, which I would dearly wish to see, it would be an infinitely better forum than the so-called European Council.
    On the other point in the hon. Gentleman's speech, he may know that I am a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture. We spent the whole of last year examining the problem of UHT milk. I cannot see how we can exclude it if we are to stay in the Common Market. We have sought to keep it out on two grounds. First, the EEC does not use imperial units. However, now we are going metric we can no longer advance that argument. Secondly, the Government were not satisfied about the hygiene of the processing plants.
    Our Committee, which carried out a most careful examination, was unanimous in its view that there could be no question mark about hygiene. Therefore, we have no valid excuse, as long as we are hooked on the common agricultural policy, for keeping out UHT milk. This will be serious for the delivery of the pint of milk on our doorsteps every day or every other day. The Select Committee had strong evidence that once an appreciable amount of milk is purchased by housewives at supermarkets at perhaps 2p a pint cheaper than they can buy it on the doorstep, the economics of the doorstep delivery will collapse and many areas will no longer have that delivery.
    We were all entranced by my right hon. Friend's peroration. I made a mental note of one phrase when he was speaking of the Western unity that is evolving. As I understand it, Herr Schmidt arranged for his Foreign Secretary to visit Moscow. As a result, it has emerged that Mr. Brezhnev is to visit Bonn on a date to be agreed. It appears that the visit will take place fairly soon. Most of us applaud this initiative. Was there any co-ordination or consultation, or whatever the vogue phrase is in the Foreign Office, among the Heads of State before the initiative was taken by Herr Schmidt in an area that is obviously of incalculable importance to Western Europe?
    The White Paper contains many disappointing paragraphs. Indeed, every paragraph is disappointing. I am more than delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) is in his place. We remember so well the speeches that he used to make. Is there a single paragraph that my hon. Friend says can justify even the meanest portion of all the propaganda to which we were subjected a few years ago?
    Sir Anthony Meyer: My hon. Friend must not tempt me into making the speech that I hope to make if I succeed in catching the eye of the Chair. As we are constantly hearing about the horrifying balance of trade that we have with the EEC, will my hon. Friend care to read the figures contained in the final annex, which tell us that British trade with the EEC is now in balance?
    Mr. Body: I think that my hon. Friend has been present throughout the debate. He probably heard the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who I think understated the position. The right hon. Gentleman should have made it plain that in our trade with the Community in manufactured products—he rightly said that this was the area that would determine whether jobs and factories would survive—we were exporting 28 per cent. more to the Community than we were importing in 1970, before we joined. We are now exporting 11 per cent. less than we are importing. That is an enormous difference.
    I do not want to be unfair to my hon. Friend, but how many jobs are being lost on Merseyside, an area that he knows only too well, and how many factories are being closed as a result of the grave deterioration in our trading relationship with the Community? The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) referred to a siege economy. Does anyone suggest that we had a siege economy in 1970, or that we were trading unfairly with the rest of the Common Market at that time?
    Some hon. Members—at the moment the majority of those in the Chamber—would dearly like to go back to the trading conditions that we had in the 1970s. If that were possible we might have fewer people in the jobcentres queueing for work.
    There is one paragraph in the White Paper that is especially disappointing to tens of thousands of extremely poor people in Third world countries. I refer to paragraph 4.6, headed "Sugar and Isoglucose". In July 1980 the Council of Ministers agreed to authorise negotiations for the EEC to join the International Sugar Organisation. Some of us said "About time too". Every other country and trading group has joined it. Soviet Russia has joined it. The USSR is not a sugar exporter but it is peddling the tale to Third countries that it is more interested in their welfare than is the EEC, and its ambassadors and its trade missions are making that point with some success. I hope that those in the Foreign Office who are concerned with containing Communism will bear in mind the importance of the issue, especially when so many sugar producing countries are in strategic positions of great value to the expansion of Soviet Russia.
    To join the International Sugar Organisation means subscribing to the International Sugar Agreement. That in turn means that the EEC will have to stop its practice of dumping vast quantities of sugar on to the world market in such a way as to depress the price for sugar that is available for tens of thousands of very poor people.
    Sugar consumption in the Common Market is now static. It is about 9½ million tonnes a year. Under the Lomé convention we are bound to import 1·3 million tonnes from a number of Third world countries. That means that sugar production within the Common Market should be no more than 8·2 million tonnes. Any surplus has to go on to the world market at a dumped price, yet sugar production in the Common Market is likely to approach about 12 million tonnes this year. Therefore, we can be certain that about 3 million tonnes will be put on to the world market at a dumped price by the EEC. Every ounce of that sugar will undercut the sugar produced by Third world countries, together with a limited amount from Brazil and Austria.
    The 1·3 million tonnes that comes in under the Lomé convention is only half of that which the ACP countries must export to gain the foreign exchange that they need.
    If they are to maintain their standard of living, woeful though it is, they must export, at a reasonable price,

    987
    another 1·3 million tonnes. It is impossible for them to have that market if the Community persists in putting on to the world market such a vast quantity of sugar, as it has in recent years, and as it is likely to do again this year.
    The Council of Ministers will consider that matter in the course of the year. No doubt it will say, as it has said so often, that those countries in the Third world should grow something else. There are a number of reasons why it is not feasible for those countries to do so. Cane sugar is one of the few crops in the tropics that can be grown on the same soil for 50 years or more without the yields declining. The experts who have seen the problem cannot think of any other crop that can be grown as successfully as sugar cane in those circumstances. Every other crop has been considered. A queue of experts has gone out to the Third world to conduct experiments with other crops, yet each in turn has come back with the knowledge that there is no substitute for sugar in those countries.
    Almost without exception, the tropical countries, which grow sugar at a reasonable price, are in danger of having hurricanes and cyclones at regular intervals. Those will devastate any other crop. Last summer I was in what was said to be the worst hurricane in living memory in the West Indies. The day after, I saw houses and property which were appallingly devastated. However, when I went round the plantations I saw the sugar cane that had survived and that had hardly been damaged. The banana crop was gone for the year. Tomatoes and all the other alternative crops were destroyed, but the sugar cane survived. Even when the hurricane or cyclone strikes when the crop is nearly ready, unless the cane is split altogether the crop can still be harvested. That was so in Mauritius recently, when 45 per cent. of the crop was harvested, although the people had endured one of the worst cyclones in their history. Therefore, the climate is such in those countries that no other crop can be grown. I hope that that point will be argued on their behalf by someone who is their only spokesman in the Council of Ministers—the representative from this country.
    May I put forward two other arguments to my right hon. Friend in the hope that they will not be forgotten by those who argue the case? The growing, harvesting and milling of the cane sugar can be mechanised. However, in most of the Third world countries, this has not been done. The Governments of those countries take active steps to prevent mechanisation so that tens of thousands still have a job. Those jobs would be lost if the industry were to be mechanised, as it is in Australia. In a word, the sugar industry is labour-intensive. In those countries no other crop could provide as many jobs as in the sugar industry.
    We know why there are so many tens of thousands of people in those countries. Islands such as Jamaica, Barbados and Mauritus were scarcely inhabited when our forebears chose to take them over. The inhabitants at that time have long since disappeared. In their place came hundreds of thousands of slaves and indentured servants. We know that too well. But it is not ancient history. I think that I know how old my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is. It was in his lifetime that those indentured servants were still being taken to places such as Fiji and Mauritius.
    Our moral responsibility is not an ancient one to be written off. It is one of this century and of the lifetime of many of us. It will not be good enough to wash our hands of that responsibility. In this century we are doing as much as we did in the last century to people in those islands so that we might have sugar at a price cheaper than that at
    988
    which any other Western country could obtain it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will not overlook that moral responsibility.
    The Lord Privy Seal is a kindly man. I hope that he will not mind my saying that I remember that more than 30 years ago he used to argue with great conviction on behalf of people whose fortunes were not of the happiest, in magistrates' courts in the poorest parts of London. I dearly wish that some sort of concern could be expressed on behalf of those tens of thousands of people who are now in danger of losing their livelihoods if the EEC goes on dumping such vast quantities of sugar in such a cruel way. It dumps twice as much on the world market as the amount which the Third world countries must get on the world market—apart from the Lomé convention—at a reasonable price to secure their standard of living, which is in any case pretty deplorable.
    I visited Australia, another sugar-producing country, about three weeks ago. I was appalled to see that farmers there, who can produce sugar much more cheaply than anywhere else in the world, have a standard of living which farm workers in my constituency would not tolerate. I visited a number of farmers' homes and saw farmers with 100 or 200 acres of well-farmed land. Their homes appeared to have no recently manufactured furniture. Any car outside seemed to be an elderly model. Judging by their clothes and their possessions generally, their standard of living was more than modest. I hope that I am not using unkind words about my hosts.
    However, those farmers had sizeable acreages. They had invested their all, yet they were not living as they should live. Adjoining vacant land, which could grow wheat at half the price at which we could produce it, was available for sale at £200 an acre. Other land which could no longer grow wheat had to go over to cotton and other commodities in order to secure an outlet. Above all, some of the dairy farmers had been driven out of business.
    The Prime Minister of Australia has said that one-third of Australia's dairy farmers have been driven out of farming because of the EEC dumping butter and dairy products on to the world market. Australian farmers are among the most efficient in the world, but they cannot compete in those circumstances.
    The people who support the CAP because they believe that the world is growing short of food should appreciate that there need be no shortage. Only 44 per cent. of the world's arable land is being cultivated, and the remainder will never be brought into production unless those who will cultivate it can expect a reasonable return. I do not want to take the Lord Privy Seal to task, but he is mistaken in saying that the opportunities for getting cheaper food from the rest of the world have gone and only small quantities are available. That is nonsense, when many farmers have gone out of business because they cannot find a market for their produce. If farmers can be assured of an outlet, they will produce the food. As long as they are denied an outlet their production will contract and they will grow less and less food, as is only too visible when one visits Australia and other countries that grow food much more cheaply than, I regret to say, our partners across the Channel.
    I also visited Mauritius recently, and was sad to see how many Russian diplomats were there. Similar overture s are made by Russia and her satellites to all the countries with which we have cut our trade. If we do not buy the food that they produce they will sell it to the Russians. When

    989
    those markets are opened to the Russians it is not only trade missions that move in, as my right hon. Friend knows. Apart from the morality and economics of the situation, I hope that the Foreign Office will understand the strategic importance of the sugar-producing countries and play fair with them.
    We must ensure that the EEC acts honourably, subscribes to the International Sugar Agreement and stops the despicable practice of making poor people still poorer.
    6.3 pm
    Mr. Russell Johnston: It is my lot to follow the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) for the second time in debates of this sort. I am deprived of the pleasure of saying that I agree with every word that he said, but I agree with most of his criticisms over the sugar problem, although I make no claim to be as knowledgeable about it as he is. However, it would be wrong to proceed from criticising a particular EEC policy to arguing that the Community, per se, is unacceptable. Criticism of one aspect of an institution should not undermine its whole concept.
    The hon. Gentleman suggests that because Australian farmers are efficient and can produce food more cheaply they should be allowed to do so, but he should realise that that suggestion has repercussions not only for our Continental colleagues but for our domestic agriculture. I see him nodding.
    Unfortunately, these debates are tending to rehearse arguments about membership instead of examining how progress can be made. That was exemplified by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) in his remarks on the CAP, when he said that the best reform would be to dismantle it. That is a point of view, but his speech was depressing, because it was arid, cold, lacking in forward projection and without a single positive idea. If he is suggesting that we should get out of the Community because it is causing us devastating damage, what is the promised land that he proposes as an alternative? He did not even faintly sketch an alternative scenario. That is the weakness in the stand taken by the official Opposition.
    We on the Liberal Bench believe that withdrawal from the Community would do profound political and economic damage to this country and to the Western Alliance. The Polish situation throws into relief the threat from the East, and we are still far from clear about the direction of the American Administration, so it is mad to contemplate weakening our ties with our natural allies—and if it is suggested that the other countries in Western Europe are not our natural allies, who are?
    Trade figures are usually rehearsed in these debates, although this time we have not gone through the well-founded argument, which pro-Marketeers sometimes forget, that oil exports are thrown into the balance. Our trade balance with the other EEC countries is unsatisfactory, but objective commentators accept that the pattern of Britain's industrial decline was well established before we entered the Community. It is unfair to suggest a causal relationship. The question is whether the opportunity to pull out of the decline is greater inside or outside the Community.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: In 1979 our deficit in manufactured trade with the Six was £4,000 million and
    990
    our surplus with the remainder of the world was £5,900 million, so we are financing a deficit with the EEC out of the surplus that we are still having to run with the remainder of the world. That is the essential pattern.
    Mr. Johnston: Our export market with the Community is growing, but our export market with the remainder of the world is declining. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston said that we should go back to the halcyon days of 1970. I am surprised that he did not suggest returning to the situation in 1870, when our trade position was much better. We cannot go back. The hon. Gentleman is a natural-born free trader, and is not in favour of barriers, but there would be no point in coming out of the Community unless we put up trade barriers—even moderate ones—to prevent an inflow of manufactured goods from the Community.
    Mr. Body: I do not want to go too far into history, but surely in 1846 the Liberal Party was urging precisely that in seeking to repeal the Corn Laws.
    Mr. Johnston: Perhaps we should leave that before we go even further back into history.
    The right hon. Member for Llanelli asked what was wrong with the juste retour. We have been through that many times in the past decade, and it is sad to hear that question asked in the House. What is wrong with it is the point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), in his intervention. One will never achieve any kind of wealth distribution throughout the Community if one adheres to the juste retour. The logical consequence of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that if one wants redistribution of wealth there must be an extension of the regional and social funds.
    I cannot see how successful political enlargement—by which I mean the accession not only of Greece but of Portugal and Spain—will be possible unless there is also some budgetary enlargement. Like other hon. Members, I have visited all three countries and discussed what they hope will be the consequences of membership. Their economic expectations cannot be met within the Community's present budgetary restraints. Nor do I see how the Community can make any progress towards economic convergence and wealth redistribution without contemplating budgetary extension. The Lord Privy Seal re-emphasised that that was not the policy of the Government. I see no possibility of progress unless the Government, as well as Mr. Schmidt and President Giscard d'Estaing, change their minds on that.
    On the common agricultural policy, it is sadly true that the Community is, as it were, going sour on milk. One should not overlook the security of supply that the CAP has developed and the agricultural revolution that it has achieved in the original Six. It is an incontestable fact, however, that its budgetary effect has been gravely disadvantageous to this country. Nevertheless, the problem is much more specifically a commodity problem than a general problem of the basis or principles of the policy itself.
    If one asks the Government, as I do occasionally at Question Time and at other times, what they intend to do in the Community, the usual answer nowadays is to refer one to the Foreign Secretary's speech in Hamburg. One is told that the text is available in the Library and that one will find all the answers there. I do not deny that it was a good speech. But a speech is neither a strategy nor a set

    991
    of proposals. The Lord Privy Seal said earlier that the Government wished to see the Community greatly strengthened. How do they intend to do that? I shall put four questions to the right hon. Gentleman.
    First, what are the Government's financial proposals? Given the status quo, I believe that there is little argument, even between pro- and anti-Marketeers, about the urgent need for the removal of barriers to invisible trade and of non-tariff harriers to trade within the Community. Both those factors operate to the disadvantage of this country. Their removal would be wholly within the spirit of the Treaty of Rome and the competition policy. What are the Government's views on that aspect?
    If the Lord Privy Seal mentioned the terrible term "EMS", he did not do so very loudly, and it slipped past me. Have the Government taken their thinking any further forward on that aspect?
    Secondly, how do the Government see the future of Community regional, social and industrial policy? We know that the existing regional policy is a sham. I say that as a pro-Marketeer. I remember the time when everyone was excited about the regional fund. I remember the work put into it by George Thomson when he was our first Commissioner, and the idealism at that time. All that has gone. It is an absolute sham, when it could be very much otherwise. Again, however, if it is to be otherwise, it will require acceptance of budgetary extension.
    There is no reason why a regional employment premium should not be introduced, for example. Members on the Opposition Benches frequently—and Conservative Members occasionally—regret the disappearance of the regional employment premium in this country. I should have thought that there could be no objection in principle to such a development on a Community-wide basis.
    Thirdly, what developments do the Government wish to see on the energy front? Section IX, on page 27 of the White Paper, is entitled "Energy", but that one page does not tell us much. It certainly tells us nothing about the future.
    I ask two simple questions on this. First, are the Government talking to other Governments about Britain's being willing to give priority assurances on oil supply in any crisis situation? It is comforting to know that one's friends may be depended upon if anything goes wrong. We all remember what happened to the Dutch the last time they fell out with the Arabs. Secondly, are the Government satisfied with EEC expenditure on research in two important areas? One is in nuclear safety. I am not against nuclear power, but I accept that many people have reasonable reservations about safety and believe that insufficient attention has been paid to it. It is an expensive and complicated business, and typical of the kind of business that is better carried out by the Community as a whole with more concentrated resources. The same applies to the search for alternative energy resources.
    Mr. Dykes: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the idea of a levy on oil imported into the Community? The United Kingdom would benefit through having its own oil and not having to pay the levy. For the others, it would mean a marginal percentage, so as not to deter, on the gross price of a barrel of oil, but it would provide a useful additional source of revenue to the total Community budget in the long term.
    Mr. Johnston: That proposal is certainly worth considering.
    992
    My final point is, I know, close to the heart of the Lord Privy Seal. He is on record on many occasions as speaking of the need for an effective mechanism to develop political co-operation. How successful has he been in persuading our Community partners to develop, for example, a permanent Secretariat for the Council? Again, speaking personally, I reject the view now very fashionable among hon. Members, that economic and political problems are best solved by increased nationalism. The root of their rejection of the Community is the belief that we cannot solve problems in co-operation with others, but only through our solution alone. They are therefore not prepared to consider negotiation. Sad to say, not since the pressure exerted for the creation of the regional fund have any British Government taken a significant initiative within the Community. The White Paper gives no hint that the Government are considering embarking upon one now.
    The White Paper is laid before us at a time of general recession, when incipient nationalism in the Community is growing. I have often said that if Germany behaved with the same degree of nationalism as do Britain and France, Europe would be in grave danger. The Lord Privy Seal is a civilised, reasonable and almost benign man, and I understand that he will be responding to the debate. However, I must say that the White Paper does not give a hint that the Government intend to proceed in Europe with the urgency that is required.
    6.20 pm
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The debate so far has been mostly about the internal affairs of the Community. The problems are real and important. We have gone over them before. Some of my more expert hon. Friends have dealt thoroughly with the details of those problems today.
    My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal touched on political co-operation, as did the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). I agreed with much of what he said. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) also referred to political co-operation. However, he dealt with a specific political problem facing the countries of the Community and the Community as a whole rather than the general matters referred to by the hon. Member for Inverness.
    Listening to the debate, as to previous debates, I got the feeling that, important though the issues were, they arose only because of the member States' failure to co-operate and the Community's fundamental political and economic weakness in the world.
    If we want evidence, a startling fact is that the countries of Western Europe are now no longer able to pay for their own defence. They certainly cannot pay for their own nuclear defence, and they are no longer able to defend themselves with their own armies, navies, air forces and weapons, even on the conventional front.
    That seems to be the background against which the debate should be conducted, stating, as it does, the fundamental fact that the Community apparently does not have the will to exist as an independent, or potentially independent, entity in the political world.
    I am not suggesting that it will be desirable or possible for the Community to withdraw from NATO or to regard itself as equivalent in strength to the greater Powers, but it should be a modest target to develop our own resources to make a contribution slightly more geared to our potential wealth.

    993
    I wish to concentrate on the Community's external political and economic policies, to put forward some ideas, and to hear from my right hon. Friend how he thinks the Community's position in, the world can be strengthened.
    The White Paper, in paragraph 5.1, under the heading
    "Section V: Economic, Monetary and Budgetary Questions",
    states:
    "The European Council … reviewed the operation of the European Monetary System and decided that further development, including the creation of a European Monetary Fund, should be undertaken at an appropriate time."
    I am moderately glad to hear that, but it does not seem to recognise the urgency of some of the monetary and exchange problems that affect Europe, or some of the basic economic problems that face the Western world. Both the Community and the Western world as a whole are in a classic slump. I think that the Communist world is rather worse off, but for somewhat different reasons.
    Savings within this country, Europe and the world are high, and possibly still on the increase, yet investment is low, and possibly still declining. That is one of the root causes of the world's difficulties. In my view at least it stems largely from the fact that the increasing price of oil means that the greater part of our loose resources are flowing to the Arabs, who are not investing them in manufacturing industry or in the Third World, where they have at least as great an interest as Europe.
    I am sure that my right hon. Friend will say that the problem requires a wider solution than that which Europe alone can provide. Of course it does. We need a solution based at least on the OECD, and better an even wider one including Japan, but if the European Economic Community means anything it should be trying to take the first step on its own. Must we always wait to do something that could be useful? Must we always wait to try to persuade others to do something that we think will be still more useful? Could not Europe, on occasion, make a start and try to persuade others to follow?
    I think that the European monetary fund could be developed into a genuine European bank, which could be developed even more as a true bank than the World Bank. We must have some mechanism by which the vast amounts being earned by the OPEC countries can be rechannelled into investment in the developing and manufacturing countries. We need a mechanism of that kind to deal effectively with investment in the Third world, including the raw material producers, and with some of the dangerous implications of Europe's trade with Iron Curtain countries.
    I should like my right hon. Friend to comment on the potential dangers to Western Europe and the EEC of the current situation in Poland, not so much militarily or politically as economically. I understand that Poland's debt to other Governments is more than $20 billion. In addition, Poland is heavily indebted for its current balance of payments to private sector banks in Europe—especially in Western Germany. If Poland's difficulties take too long to resolve, what effect will its economic position have on the Community and what organisation has the Community to deal with it? The answer to the last point is "None". If the dangers that I have suggested are real, we need something more than an undertaking to do something "at an appropriate time", because that is very vague,
    994
    Also, we in Western Europe, in the Community, have been bedevilled for some time now by problems of rapidly changing rates of exchange—a sort of post-Bretton-Woods situation, in which there is no coherence in the fluctuation of exchange rates in relation to each other. I fully accept that an ultimate solution has to be found which is wider than purely European, but if we had a European Bank we might start an initiative that would attempt to bring about a certain degree of coherence in exchange rates.
    I know that we have the EMS. I am one of those who think that the British Government could take a step in this direction by joining the system. I do not think that it is very satisfactory for us, but I do not see how we can urge another system on our partners within Europe until we at least try to make some sense of this one. I do not like a basket of currencies. As somebody once said, if a basket is filled with different kinds of rotten fruit, all the fruit remains rotten whatever combination there is in the basket. The difficulty is that we have no standard against which to measure currencies—no true link with reality. However the situation is organised, in purely monetary terms it will not, in the end, prove very effective.
    I am not one of those who believe that it is possible to reforge the link with gold; nor do I think that a gold exchange standard is really workable. But I believe that it should be possible to devise a system of stabilising currencies against an agreed measure of the price of manufactured goods or the price of raw materials, or a combination of the two. Indeed, in about 1973 some work was done within Europe on these lines, the Dutch notably making a very significant contribution.
    Paragraph 2·9 of the White Paper refers to a rather slow approach to a better mechanism for achieving political unity. Incidentally, the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, South illustrated the need for a more coherent organisation in order to obtain a policy with some sort of overall identified purpose, rather than one that relied on a whole series of ad hoc approaches to different political problems.
    Many years ago I was a rather incompetent amateur soldier, but I was taught one thing that I have always remembered. It is not possible to decide what objectives have to be captured in the course of an operation until it is decided precisely what the object of that operation is. Many good ideas come to nothing because of confusion between the interim objectives and the overall object.
    I ask Her Majesty's Government to push rather harder than they have so far—despite the admirable speech in Hamburg of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—to achieve some sort of organisation for working out a clear intention in general before acting in particular cases. This implies a somewhat more coherent approach to defence problems and to NATO, as indeed it does to the need for greater economic effort and co-operation. It still seems ridiculous to me, from a political, defence and, indeed, economic point of view that the countries of Western Europe should be using weapons that cannot even use one another's ammunition. That is absurd. Nor do I believe that the Community can seek to be taken seriously as a political force until its members have shown that they are willing to work together more closely within NATO on the defence side.
    As a sideline, I wish that a little more study could be carried out within the Community of the likely economic

    995
    effect on this world slump situation of trying to improve our capacity to defend ourselves and our own procurement of weapons, transport, and so on.
    Looking back, I think it is fair to say that when the then President of the United States, Mr. Roosevelt, started his New Deal, a major contributory factor to its success was the rearmament programme that was undertaken at about the same time. That is something that we ought to look at not only within the United Kingdom but collectively within the Community, in case it might have much the same effect.
    In making these few points I have been concerned solely with one overriding consideration, namely, the strength and position of the Community in the world—its political strength, its overall economic strength, and its capacity to act as a serious ally within NATO, including the provision of such help and support as has to be given to our allies outside the NATO area. I hope that when he winds up the debate my right hon. Friend will give the House reassurance on these points, which to me at least are very worrying indeed.
    6.37 pm
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: When I entered the Chamber at the beginning of this debate my heart went out to the Lord Privy Seal. When I realised who was likely to participate in it, I sensed that he must have felt that he had been here before. Those who are apt to participate are apt to make the same points, and today's debate has proved not altogether exceptional in that respect, although I must say that the speech of the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) focused on some of the issues that are particularly pressing at the present time. I am happy to follow him, because he has made my task of speaking in this debate much lighter, as many of the points that he made were on matters to which I intended to address myself.
    The difficulty that we face in viewing our place in the European Community is that the perception of the British people of the Community is very different from that of those who are outside the Community. I think that we often underestimate the enormous capacity of the Community to inflict damage, and even more its capacity to intervene powerfully to assist the countries of the world in facing some of the acute political and economic difficulties that characterise our present situation.
    Those who attend any of the sessions of the United Nations bodies are made aware of the powerful impact of the collective voice of members of the European Community upon their debates. In the corridors, when discussions of trade policy are taking place, one realises what enormous power the Community has, although it does not always choose to exercise it collectively.
    I share with the right hon. Member for Farnham a sense of disappointment that at this time, perhaps one of the most dangerous in the post-war period, there is not a clearer sense of direction coming from the Community, and perhaps from the Government, on the development of our Community role in the world.
    The right hon. Member spoke of three issues to which I want briefly to draw attention. Some of them were also touched on by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston).
    The instability that we face because of the world slump is not being assisted by a coherent response from the European Community. The Government have not made
    996
    clear how they can use our membership of the Community to come to terms with issues that are perceived as problems. They have not made clear whether they see for Europe a role in tackling the recycling of oil surpluses. Of course, that problem will have to be tackled in another forum as well, and other members of the OECD should be involved in these issues, but within the Community we are in a position to take a lead, to co-ordinate our views and to seek to effect some of the recommendations which, for example, have come from the Brandt Commission. There is not a great deal about this in the White Paper—indeed, there is nothing about it—allthough I suspect that the Lord Privy Seal will acknowledge that it is not beyond the competence of the European Community to come to terms with this issue.
    The White Paper suggests a vague commitment to further development of the European monetary system. There will undoubtedly be differences of view within the Council of Ministers on what that development should be, and the White Paper perhaps cannot sufficiently spell out the position of member Governments on the issue—that is not its purpose. This debate provides the Government with an opportunity to state their view on what further development there might be and the time scale that they have in mind for the creation of a European monetary fund. The White Paper speaks of "an appropriate time". Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal will tell us what the Government think is the appropriate time.
    The contribution of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) was focused, as his contributions tend to be, not on the wider question of the capacity of the Community to influence the development of arguments in world forums but on the impact of particular European policies on specific parts of the British economy. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was more than usually empty, not only because it was to some extent repetitive but because it sought to make rather arid debating points.
    In his line of argument on the common fisheries policy the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be more concerned with demonstrating the truth of an assertion that he had made some months ago that there was a link between the settlement of the fisheries policy and the settlement of the budgetary differences than with obtaining a settlement of the common fisheries policy that is in the interests of British fishing. He posed briefly as the friend of Helmut Schmidt, an astonishing posture for one who is interested in the future of Britain's fishing industry.
    I was not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the British Government should have acceded to German pressure for the settlement of the dispute with Canada in December. The British fishing industry would not have been at all satisfied if the Government had made that concession. The unwillingness of the Government to accept a part of the package in December cannot properly be thrown at them as a criticism.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) did not say that. The hon. Gentleman should not put words into the mouth of my right hon. Friend. That is not what he said.
    Mr. Maclennan: I did not suggest that it was what he said. I said that it was the clear implication of what he said. The clear implication was that the British Government, in

    997
    not acceding to Helmut Schmidt's request in December, were acting in bad faith in their dealings with him. The Government could have acceded to Helmut Schmidt's request only if they had sold out. The right hon. Gentleman cannot ride those two horses at the same time. That is the sort of argument that he constantly produces.
    Mr. Roland Moyle: My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) is not here to defend himself. The clear implication of my right hon. Friend's remarks was that the relationship that Britain has with her Continental partners will inevitably lead to bad blood and enmity. In talking about the fishery dispute and its resolution the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is missing the point.
    Mr. Maclennan: I thought that it was the right hon. Member for Llanelli who was missing the point. He was trying to score a debating point at the expense of the Lord Privy Seal and the Government. I thought that he was doing so at the expense of the interest that this country has in a united, bipartisan approach to the resolution of our dispute with the Community about the shape of the fisheries policy.
    I do not propose to follow the line taken by the right hon. Member for Llanelli in going through the long list of disagreements that exist between ourselves and certain Member countries of the Community on particular topics. That is perhaps better confined to discussions on specific issues. A debate of this kind allows us to take a broader view of the issues involved in the development of the European Community.
    If there is one major disagreement between myself and right hon. Members who speak for the official Opposition about Europe, it is that they have the most selective memories. They seem like men who have suffered a motor cycle accident and have lost their memories about the years when they served in Government. It is almost as if things had never happened. It is as if for the bulk of the time that we have been full members of the EEC they were not personally and ministerially responsible for many of the matters on which they now take such a strong line. Not only are they unwilling to acknowledge the difficulties that confronted them as Ministers and led none of them—not even the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)—to resign his portfolio, they fail to acknowledge that those problems are still with us. These problems will be resolved only by the step-by-step approach that they espoused when they were Ministers. They were ready to trumpet their small steps in the House.
    I accept what the Lord Privy Seal said, particularly when he spoke about the CAP. Successive Labour Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had much less to trumpet about when they came back from price fixings with the EEC.
    Mr. Jay: Is not the hon. Gentleman's selective memory overlooking the fact that in 1971 the Conservative Party signed the Treaty of Accession, which has limited the actions of every Government and which began all our troubles?
    Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman's memory seems to overlook the renegotiation of terms, in which Labour Ministers participated. When the issue was put to
    998
    the British people in the referendum it was not suggested that such matters could not be taken further. Today's leaders of the Opposition said then that what had been achieved was acceptable and should be accepted. Those same people now argue that the impossible can be achieved within the short space of time that elapses between these six-monthly debates.
    Mr. Jay rose——
    Mr. Maclennan: I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Dan Jones: Will the hon. gentleman give way to me?
    Mr. Maclennan: Yes.
    Mr. Dan Jones: I worked for my right hon. Friend when he was president of the Board of Trade and a member of the Government. During that period he was against the EEC.
    Mr. Maclennan: I have the highest regard for the honour of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on this matter. I yield to none in my admiration for his consistency. However, it is not mirrored by many of his right hon. and hon. Friends, who have remained members of successive Labour Governments.
    Mr. Dan Jones: I did not say that.
    Mr. Maclennan: I acknowledge that. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North has a proud record of coherence on this issue. There is a damaging tendency—which has been greatly fostered by some of those who have consistently opposed our membership of the EEC—to attribute post-1973 events to our membership of the EEC. It is a pure coincidence of time and history that 1973 also saw the beginning of a world crisis, which was caused by factors external to the Community. The oil crisis in the Middle East had a disastrous effect on the world economy. It was coincidental with our membership of the Community.
    It will not do for hon. Members consistently to support the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in relation to Europe. Our membership of the EEC is damaged by constant shifts in position, which are undertaken, in particular, by the Labour Party. We shall not secure the full benefits of membership if our adherence to the Community is constantly debated. Nor shall we secure the full benefits of membership if we leave ourselves open to the criticisms to which the Lord Privy Seal—with his typical, skilful diplomacy—referred in general terms.
    The Opposition are not coherent about what they would do if, by some mischance, they were once again to form the Government.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Nice.
    Mr. Maclennan: It is not nice. It is far from nice.
    Mr. Mitchell rose——
    Mr. Maclennan: I shall not give way, because the hon. Gentleman made a silly remark
    Mr. Mitchell rose;——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is obviously not giving way.
    Mr. Maclennan: It is not nice that the British people should be in such doubt about what a major party, as represented in the House, would do if it were to enter office.
    Mr. Mitchell rose——
    Mr. Maclennan: It is not nice that people do not know whether Britain will be withdrawn from the EEC without consulting them in line with the resolutions passed at the Labour Party conference. It is not nice that people do not know whether the Labour Party's policy is to repeal the European Communities Act and put ourselves in breach of our Treaty obligations. It is not nice that the British people should be left in a state of complete uncertainty. Nor is that nice for our European allies and Community friends.
    The truth is that there is a wide spectrum of views within the official Opposition, which they cannot reconcile. As a result, the Opposition Front Bench produces nit-picking arguments that are wholly destructive in intent. They are directed solely at the minutiae of the disagreements—[Interruption.] It has led them to such forgetfulness that they overlook the fact that at meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers, Labour Ministers accepted the introduction of the co-responsibility levy. The right hon. Member for Llanelli used that set-piece to beat the Lord Privy Seal round the head. That is political opportunism of the worst type. It does not go unnoticed by the public. Such political opportunism has led many people to become disenchanted with a party that was once proud to speak in more principled terms about some of the great issues to which membership of the EEC gives rise.
    7 pm
    Mr. Hugh Dykes: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said about the Community and the strong and valid arguments in favour of our membership. I also agreed with virtually everything said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan). He made a far-sighted and constructive speech, which took the debate substantially away from the routine parameters in which we constantly find ourselves.
    We had an enormously depressing and lugubrious opening speech from the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who, in his characteristic way, summed up the totally negative and defeatist attitude not only of the official Labour Opposition but of the Labour Party as a whole to our membership of the Community. To many people it is utterly depressing that this is the only member State in which this silly, nonsensical, fundamentalist debate still goes on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Denmark?"] I hesitate to dwell on the Danish situation at too great a length, because it is extremely complicated. To some extent that is a special situation. Instead, I qualify my remarks by saying that in the main member States—the Big Four—and in most of the other member States, no such debate exists.
    It is interesting to notice that by and large, but with some dissident voices—for example, the small Labour Party, which no doubt is a noticeable similarity—Ireland, which is only a small country, has been enthusiastic about its membership of the Community.
    Mr. Marlow: It is on the gravy train.
    Mr. Dykes: I want to see in Britain the inculcation of the original enthusiasm for the Community, which took us in and which was later endorsed by a two-thirds majority in the Labour Government's referendum.
    The right hon. Member for Llanelli is a principal financial spokesman for the Labour Party. The House cannot listen to what he has to say, because no one can rely on any of his statistics. He has still not adequately explained why he made the gross error of saying that 25 per cent. of the French population lived on the land, whereas the real figure is 9 per cent. A margin of error of 3 per cent. would be generous, and an estimate of between 6 per cent. and 12 per cent. might be allowable by a tolerant House of Commons; but an estimate of 25 per cent. means that one of the Opposition's principal spokesmen has produced statistics that amount to fantasy and imagination, and are not based on real facts. Therefore, no one will be able to listen closely to any of his other arguments about the Community.
    I was also depressed by what the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) said about milk distribution. It is contradictory for hon. Members to argue that the Community is heinous because it produces dearer food products and at the same to say that it is all right for British doorstep milk to be dearer, because it is a special case. There is a built-in contradiction in that argument. We wish to develop free trade within the Community on all sorts of items, yet some hon. Members complain that we do not have free trade in food products. Surely we should have free trade in milk-related products as well. The greater competition that will result in allowing in milk from all sources, including France, will give the housewife and other consumers a greater choice. Surely that is preferable to inflicting a monopoly system of distribution upon them and saying "That is all you can have".
    It was particularly offensive of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) to refer to foreign milk as positively unhygienic. It is true that at present French milk does not conform to our existing health regulations, but according to the French newspapers France plans to take Britain to the European Court to have the matter re-examined, and the Court may well uphold the French case. It is silly to be offensive in that way about other member States. Once we start being offensive they will be more offensive, we shall retaliate, and the whole furore of dangerous nationalism will build up, just as it has in previous decades. I do not want to see that happen.
    Britain has always been internationalist in its nature. We changed the orientation of our internationalism by entering the Community in 1973. I wish that new, modern internationalism and Europeanism to continue, for the benefit of future generations.
    I agree with other hon. Members that few positive, enthusiastic signs emerge from the White Paper. It is a catalogue of what is now taking place, but there seems to be very little progress on important issues. There is now an overriding requirement for real co-operation between member States. We must take the Community forward against a background of 8 million unemployed in the Community—particularly youth unemployed—and the need for substantial new industries to be developed. The Community still has scarcely any coherent industrial policy. Those are the urgent requirements of the member States, working together in positive co-operation and friendship, and we should riot be ashamed to say that.

    1001
    Nothing is sillier than to say that foreigners always try to do us down and that anything that we say is right and anything that they say is wrong. I was struck by the words of the German Chancellor, Herr Schmidt, who said at the weekend that everyone in the Community had to act as positive double agents—agents for their own country's essential interests and agents for the Community's interests as well. That is why it is important for the member States to find a solution to the fisheries dispute as quickly as possible.
    I feel that last week's agriculture price package, which resulted in an average price rise of 9 per cent., will help us obtain agreement on fisheries, in the sense that, temporarily and momentarily, a new spirit of co-operation seemed to emerge.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Dykes: Not for the moment. I want to be brief. That spirit of co-operation emerged then, but in recent weeks we have seen very little of it.
    The White Paper deals with developments up to December. However, the budget proportion for farming will be reduced to 69 per cent. [Interruption.] The figures are available from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That gives the lie to the suggestion that there is an inexorable rise in the agriculture portion of the Community's budget. That is not so. That tendency has been arrested, albeit against a background of severe inflation. It is a notable achievement.
    The 1 per cent. VAT ceiling, while still looming towards us, has not yet been reached, although there were forecasts that it would have been reached by now. It is probably the case, although we cannot be sure, that that 1 per cent. ceiling will be reached later than expected. I suppose that that is partly due to the inflationary rise in total receipts, as well as to the distortions produced, for good or ill, by the MCA changes.
    In the context of the Commission's examination of the modern budget system and the CAP, that gives us longer to think ahead about what should be done in terms of a budget for the 1980s. I am sad, therefore, that the White Paper is not more positive about that matter, because some constructive thinking is needed in that regard.
    There are several other items in the White Paper to which I should like to refer. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham that we should have joined the European monetary system by now. Had we gone into that enthusiastically, we could have pressed energetically for the EMF to be located in London. After all, London is the financial centre of Europe, and there is a strong case for locating a principlal Community institution in Britain. In the financial sense, London would be the logical location.
    In section VII on "Environment and Transport", there is nothing about the Channel tunnel, which is a vital question for Britain. I hope that the earlier, incipient indication by the Commission that Community money for that project would be available in substantial measure will again be pursued by the Government.
    I hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to deal, even if only fleetingly, with that matter, which will be tremendously important for this country in the long-term future. One reflects sadly that the ossification of thought
    1002
    in the Opposition and in those quarters that are anti-EEC has overlapping effects on projects such as the Channel tunnel, which should be a bilateral project, and in stopping any progress in such vital areas.
    I hope that in a number of other areas, too, progress will be made. The European Parliament is mentioned briefly in the White Paper in a couple of places. The whole debate about the single site for that institution should have been concluded by now. It is a disgrace—that is the only word for it—that the member States that have responsibility for the decision have not yet made it, and have only now begun to whittle down the old-fashioned French insistence on Strasbourg still being the seat of the Parliament when most people would prefer Brussels first and, perhaps, Luxembourg second.
    I should like to mention briefly a subject that is not mentioned in the White Paper because it was not discussed over the six months period of the White Paper. I hope that the Government will now begin to revive the arguments for, and the debate about, the European Trade Mark Office. If progress continues at the rate at which it can now be envisaged, that office will probably be set up in about three years' time, once the trade mark legislation is concluded.
    There is every chance that because of departmental insouciance the declining reputation of the British trade mark registry—which used to be the best in the world—and a failure of the political will to press the point hard in Community circles, Britain will run the risk of not having the office in this country when it is established. That would be a grievous loss, because the Germans were given the Patent Office and the French are now pressing very hard for the future Trade Mark Office to be set up in their own country in—surprise, surprise—Strasbourg.
    These are positive areas in regard to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland suggested that we should elevate debate rather than continue the obsession with anti-EEC policies. The only person who does it with elegance is, perhaps, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), because of his historical consistency. But for others to continue this old obsession, plus a new-found obsession, for opportunistic reasons of opposition in the Labour Party, is to go back to the idea of withdrawal from the Community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame".] My hon. Friends say "Shame", but I use the word "opportunistic" in the sense of slight praise, because this is the kind of thing that, historically in Britain, parties have done when they have gone from Government into Opposition. They have gone back on their previous positions. [Interruption.] In the face of the overwhelming requirement for nations to stand together in the blizzard of the recession, when the dangers of nationalism are now so great, it is above all——
    Mr. Marlow rose——
    Mr. Dykes: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend—it is above all important for all of us to revive the old, original rationale of Community membership and to build new ideas for the future.
    7.12 pm
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Command Paper 8195 is entitled "Developments in the European Community July-December 1980". Reports of this kind are growing grimmer and grimmer and ever more depressing in character.

    1003
    Much reference has been made to consistency on the issue of the Common Market. I have the utmost respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). On a secondary plane at least, I can claim to have been equally consistent, because I spoke against Britain joining the Common Market in the famous debate at the Labour Party conference in 1962.
    Some of my remarks, in comparison with other contributions to the debate, will be perhaps slightly mundane in character. The first paragraph of the White Paper, in referring to the period covered by the report, says that it marks the end of the period in which Mr. Jenkins was the President of the Commission.
    We are all aware that Mr. Jenkins was always a fervent Marketeer. He was prepared to split the Labour Party from top to bottom over the issue. I would be the last to claim that his interest in the Common Market was only a financial one.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Why not? I would.
    Mr. Hughes: I shall come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), if he will allow me to do so. I notice that there is no mention in the White Paper of the remuneration received by Mr. Jenkins. It is a fact that as President of the Commission he received £60,000 annually, plus, we understand., very lavish expenses, all of which was tax-free. Presumably, out of that sort of income he was able to put away a few shillings for the future. But, even if he was not, he still gets £30,000—again tax-free—for the next four years, and then £10,000 annually for life.
    Mr. Lewis: I am sorry that I interrupted my hon. Friend from a sedentary position, but I want to put it on record that I think that Mr. Jenkins went to the EEC only for the money, because he has been interested only in himself all the way through. Is it not a fact that this dishonest hypocrite declares himself to be in favour of an incomes policy for everyone but himself? Now he is a leader of a party and is proclaiming an incomes policy for everyone but himself. He is a hypocritical crook.
    Mr. Hughes: Without using such ardent language, I can again claim to have been equally consistent about incomes policy.
    It is apparently not Mr. Jenkins' intention to rusticate in the country, or even to go back to Abersychan, because, in addition to the £10,000 a year that he will be receiving throughout his life, he has a little part-time number with a firm of merchant bankers for which it is suggested he is paid about £10,000 a year. We also note his efforts to save Britain, and——
    Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The remarks which have been made suggest that the former President of the European Commission has been motivated by finance. Had those remarks been made when he was a Member of this House—as undoubtedly he will be again very soon—they would have been wholly out of order. Would you confirm that?
    Mr. Lewis: Before you deal with the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I point out that it is a hypothetical point of order. You will have noticed that the hon. Member mentioned what would have been the position if Mr. Jenkins had been here, or if he were to come back to this House. An hon. Member of this House expresses his
    1004
    own views and opinions and is responsible for his own views and opinions. Subject to the Chair allowing him to say it, an hon. Member can say whatever he likes about anyone. If it is my view that Mr. Jenkins has feathered his own nest I am entitled to say it, and I shall say it and say it again.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's advice. It is true that the matter raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was hypothetical. Each hon. Member must take full responsibility for what he says in the House.
    Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would not the matter be resolved if the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr Lewis) were to give the House an undertaking that he will say the same thing outside?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
    Mr. Lewis: What I say in the House of Commons is my privilege. If we had fair libel laws in this country I would say it outside, but the laws are weighted in favour of the rich. Roy Jenkins, as a quarter of a millionaire, is a rich man, at the expense of the hard-pressed taxpayer.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are not points of order. We should now continue the debate.
    Mr. Hughes: I have simply been mentioning the facts. Mr. Jenkins' remuneration, unfortunately, is not mentioned in the report with which we are dealing. The fact that he is now in semi-retirement has given him the chance to participate in the launching of the new party.
    The SDP cannot gain much cheer from the White Paper that the House is debating. We know that the party consists of Euro-fanatics. We know that the polls allegedly give the party a good rating. However, the polls also point out that 50 per cent. of the support comes from people who wish to see Britain out of the Common Market.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Will my hon. Friend make sure that "polls" is spelt "polls" and not the other way, because that involves Solidarity?
    Mr. Hughes: I take the point made by my hon. Friend. Bearing in mind the support that the SDP is alleged to be receiving, is it any wonder that its bikini-like party prospectus has its overwhelming and dedicated support: for the Common Market well down the list.
    I turn to page 9 of the White Paper and its reference to Japan—
    Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is a little closer to this matter than I am. Is there any truth in the substantial rumour that when those connected with this nice party were seeking a title they considered calling it the Brussels party?
    Mr. Hughes: I am not much of a gardener. E am not accustomed to this terminology.
    I see that the White Paper calls for "moderation of Japanese exports". I understand this point of view. My constituents and I are concerned about imports from our European partners. The steel workers in Newport axe particularly interested in this issue. Forty per cent. of registered new cars—steel forms a great part of their construction—come from European countries, mainly Germany, France and Italy.
    I recall, at the start of this Common Market business, Lord Stokes, then chairman of British Leyland,

    1005
    commenting on the marvellous opportunities that lay ahead for the British motor industry. Not long afterwards, British Leyland was almost bankrupt and had to be saved by the Government of the day. What has happened with cars has happened in many industries. Membership of the Common Market bears a major share of responsibility for much of the present unemployment, particularly in South Wales, once a major producer of steel.
    Section 9.2 of the White Paper, dealing with energy, speaks of the need
    "to encourage the adjustment of supplies to correct imbalances which pose particular problems for some Member States".
    This refers to oil supplies. It means, in reality, that countries such as West Germany and France are to have guaranteed oil supplies, untroubled by the vagaries of supplies from the Middle East—in other words, supplies of our North Sea oil.
    The Euro-fanatics speak about our improved balance of trade with the Common Market countries. The reality is a little different. It is North Sea oil that pays for many of the imports of manufactured goods such as cars, machinery and domestic appliances. North Sea oil is being used to pay for these imports and to keep our own people in the dole queue. Many of my constituents put their cross in the referendum in favour of Britain staying in the Common Market. They believed what they were told—that out of the Market meant out of a job. Many of those people are now signing on at the labour exchange.
    Mr. Keith Best rose——
    Mr. Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be called to speak, should he catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.
    I turn now to the bete noire of all anti-Marketeers, the agricultural policy. I claim no particular expertise in agriculture. I say only that I have never known the farmers in my area to be so disgruntled. I received a huge deputation only last week, rightly indignant——
    Mr. Best: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hughes: No, I will not. The farmers thought that there would be great pickings for them originally from the common agricultural policy. Things have not come up to expectations. Praise has been given to Labour's post-war Agriculture Minister, Tom Williams. Government support for agriculture was put on a firm and realistic basis. It reminds me of the story of the old Tory farmer who declared "It is only since this damned Government have been in power that I have been able to make a donation to the party". That illustrates the goodness that emerged from the policy pursued by Tom Williams. Now we have a contradiction. Not only are the farmers disgruntled; the housewives have had a terrible deal.
    Labour Members represent essentially working-class people. We know what percentage of household expenditure goes on groceries. Section III of the White Paper refers to the accession of Greece on 1 January 1981. This can only intensify the problems within the common agricultural policy. Our people will be adversely affected, and still more so by the accession of Portugal and Spain.
    I am aware that there has been a recession following the Middle East war of October 1973. I have a fair understanding of the Middle East situation. I have followed it closely for many years. I was vice-chairman
    1006
    of the Labour Middle East council. Before our entry into the Common Market, British households benefited from what became known as cheap food. This, in turn, kept down the level of wage claims. Small tariff barriers that existed had to be swept away when we joined the Common Market. Our products were still competitive in Europe and perhaps even more so in the markets of the world.
    All that has changed, and much of the unemployment in Britain is a direct result of our membership of the Common Market. Moreover, we are paying huge membership fees for that doubtful privilege. The White Paper offers no hope. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said, the Common Market is wrong for Britain because we need free trade in agriculture and an element of protection in industry. What is more—here I speak as a Welsh Member—the United Kingdom is on the periphery of the Common Market. Wales is on the periphery of the United Kingdom, and the periphery is the area that invariably gets a bad deal.
    From a party political point of view, I note with pleasure the growing band of anti-Marketeers on the Government Benches. That is most encouraging.
    At the Labour Party conference last October composite motion No. 15, stating that Britain should come out of the Common Market, was passed by the requisite two-thirds majority. I accept that as my party's policy and I sincerely hope that a future Labour Government will have the courage to say "Enough is enough" and bring Britain out of the Common Market.
    7.32 pm
    Mr. Tony Marlow: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes). He made a far-sighted and eloquent speech.
    We have had an exciting day. I am an assiduous attender of debates, but this is the first one that I have attended at which a Member of the new Democratic Socialist Party—the nice party—not only has been present but has spoken. The Liberal Party is very concerned, because it has been ploughing this strange territory for some time. Now it sees this new spectre sweeping up on the outside. So populist and exciting was the oratory of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that I can reassure the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) that after the next general election the Liberal Party will probably still have its nine seats and still be the third largest party in the House.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), as always, made a speech of intelligence, courtesy and good humour. I look forward to hearing him wind up the debate later. I was interested in the elevated objectives that he described, but what concern me are the bits and pieces in the middle—the mechanics—that we shall need to get there.
    The White Paper deals with political co-operation, enlargement, agriculture and fisheries, social affairs, and the Parliament and Assembly. But one important subject is missing—I hope that my right hon. Friend will see that it is included in the next White Paper, even to the extent of almost taking pride of place—namely, the cost of the Community to the United Kingdom. Our foremost task in the House is to act as guardian of the public purse. We are responsible for Supply and for people's money. Yet the White Paper contains nothing about the cost to the British people of the European Common Market.

    1007
    How is that cost divided? First, there is the real cost in money terms. Our net budget contribution this year will be about £500 million—perhaps more. That is 10p or more on the price of a gallon of petrol.
    Then, there is the cost of monetary compensatory amounts. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told me that MCAs will increase our financial contribution to the Community still further. At today's levels, it is anything between another £45 million and £200 million.
    Then there is the largest cost of all, but the one that is least recognised. We produce 70 per cent. of our temperate foodstuffs in the United Kingdom. The other 30 per cent. is purchased from other Common Market countries, but purchased at roughly twice the world market price. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, a most respected body, calculates that the additional cost to the British housewife of Continental food is about £1,500 million a year. A recent calculation made by an erudite body in Brussels showed that the effects of the farm price increases agreed last week—roughly 10 per cent.—will cost Britain another £150 million. That makes sense; 10 per cent. costs £150 million. It confirms the other figure of £1,500 million. This country will have to pay £500 million plus between £50 and £200 million, plus £1,500 million in excess of £2 billion a year.
    There are many ways in which we would like to cooperate with our friends in Europe, but why must we have this massive burden of £40 for every individual in the country, or £160 for every family? That amounts to about £3 per week. Why must we pay that tribute when no one else in the Community pays anything like as much?
    Mr. Myles: Does my hon. Friend agree that the agreement made in Brussels was not for market prices or for the price that the housewife pays, but for the support price? The support price is often below the market price.
    Mr. Marlow: I know my hon. Friend's interest in these matters, but I think that he overlooks the fact that world prices this year will be lower than the Commission estimates. The real cost to the British consumer, over and above what he could have bought at world prices, will be even greater than the figures that I have given.
    I was describing the costs of Community membership to Britain. The most devastating cost is in terms of jobs. Young people are in the dole queues. Middle-aged men with families are out of work. Elderly men, aged 55 or 60, approaching retirement and hoping to earn a little more money to increase their pension rights, are suddenly thrown out of work. We have 2½ million people out of work. How many of those people have been thrown out of work and put on the scrap-heap by the burdens that have been imposed on this country by our membership of the Community?
    I ask hon. Members to consider the sum of £2,000 million. If one takes 1 million jobs and spends £2,000 on each of them, will they not then become competitive? Will not those 1 million workers, rather than sit at home clicking their heels, produce goods that can be sold round the world? I think that it is coming to be recognised in the country that one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, for our massive unemployment, which is at a higher level than that of other EEC countries, is our membership of the Common Market under the devastatingly unfair terms that we are now tolerating.
    1008
    There is another aspect to the problem of unemployment. There are figures on trade at the end of the White Paper. They are underestimates, in terms of our deficit in trade on manufactures, because they include precious stones and precious metals, which are simply cycled through the country and sent on. In 1977 there was a deficit, in round terms, of £1,000 million. In 1978 there was a massive increase to £2,000 million. In 1979 there was a £3,000 million deficit. Everyone in Europe complains about Japanese imports and the way that they are killing some of our industries but, as I said in an earlier intervention, our trading deficit in manufactures with West Germany is two and a quarter times as much as our trading deficit in manufactures with the Japanese.
    Let us make sure that everybody in the country realises that. When, later this year, we go into the negotiations to amend and reform the Community, in which negotiations my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will play a part—and I know that he will do his best—let us make sure that the people in Europe realise the benefits that they enjoy in being able to dump their surplus manufactured products on our market.
    The third point on cost concerns the cost in terms of inflation. CAP prices are twice world market prices. What would be the price of foodstuffs if we went back to the old system of deficiency payments? What about the money that we send to the Community by way of taxation? We could reduce taxation by that amount if we were not in the Community. What about the level of interest rates that we have to pay, and that not only cost money but keep people out of work and keep our unit prices high rather than low? When he replies to the debate will my right hon. Friend let us know how much lower the cost of living would be, could be and should be if we were not now a member of the Community, on the terms on which we are involved?
    What is to be the direction of Government policy on the CAP? My right hon. Friend and I went before the British people on 3 May 1979 on the basis of a programme. Let me read two sentences from that programme.
    "We will insist on a freeze in CAP prices for products in structural surplus."
    I stress the word "insist". That sentence applies to beef, milk, butter, olive oil and many other substances. The programme went further. This freeze, we said to the British people,
    "should be maintained until the surpluses are eliminated."
    Are there or are there not structural surpluses now? That was a sensible, wise and honest policy to put before the British people.
    The CAP, as we all know, and as even some people in Europe know, is a disaster. It gives too much to the rich and too little to the poor. It does not deal with social problems in agriculture. This country, being the largest importer of food throughout the world, is saddled with a system that doubles our food prices, and a system under which 30 per cent. of our temperate foodstuffs have to be bought from other European countries at twice world market prices. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is smiling at that. I know that he would say that if we came out of the Common Market world market prices would go up and we should be unable to buy the cheap food that we think would be available. But why should we? As my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) said, think of the sugar that we could get on the world market at much cheaper prices. As was stated in The Times

    1009
    recently, the New Zealanders could increase their production of foodstuffs by 25 per cent. without a penny of additional capital investment.
    If we organised our affairs correctly, that food would be available not only to the advantage and benefit of this country but to the great benefit of the developing countries—the Third world countries, who would have something to sell us, who would be able to get hold of our currency, and who could then come back to us to buy our manufactured goods. At the moment, however, because of the monstrosity of the CAP we are prevented from doing that.
    I come next to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) told us that his farmers came to him, crying on his shoulder, last week. I do not know how much longer my right hon. Friend will be Minister of Agriculture. The farmers have had it relatively good for the past few years, but now they are beginning to discover that the CAP no longer suits their needs. The time will come when the farmers will gang up against the CAP and the European Community. Then what will happen on the Government Benches?
    My right hon. Friend is the Minister of Fisheries. We shall have to wait on that second point. But he is also the Minister of Food. When did we last have a Minister of Food? I have to explain that my constituency is basically urban and contains no farms. Why should my constituents have to pay twice the world market price for their food? What benefit do they derive from the Community that makes it worth their while to pay this money? Are they getting jobs?
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Does the hon. Member not realise that he can tell his constituents that they are helping to provide subsidised food for the Russian Communists? That is what they are getting out of it.
    Mr. Marlow: Sadly, there is great truth in what the hon. Gentleman said. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who has been so perspicacious in this matter and has so rightly and properly followed it up, discovered not too long ago that beef was going by the lorryload to feed the bloated colonial colonels of Kabul—the rapers of Afghanistan. Our beef, subsidised and at knock-down prices, is going to the Russian aggressors.
    Mr. Lewis: And the butter.
    Mr. Marlow: Yes, and the butter. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture last week told us what a magnificent deal he had achieved for Britain and for the farmers. That did not include the farmers in Newport, or in Southend, East or any of the constituencies of my hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend told us what a wonderful deal he had done for the consumer. I have been looking very carefully, but even with a magnifying glass I cannot find a good deal that has been done for the consumer. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is not here. Even in his absence, however, I say that if he had been responsible for the retreat from Moscow he would have told the House what a magnificent triumph it was.
    Last week we missed an opportunity. Our representatives could have sat at the negotiations, pointing to our
    1010
    commitment to the British people not to permit any increases in prices for items in structural surplus, staying there all night, all week, all month, through the French presidential election, saying "No, we will not move. The policy is nonsense and it is damaging the interests of our people." But they did not. Sadly, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture went back on commitments that he had given to the people of this country—commitments that I had given too, and that matter to me.
    Therefore, I have asked in the House that my right hon. Friend should submit his resignation. So far he has not done so. Perhaps he is considering the point. Perhaps it will take him some time to do so. I know that my right hon. Friend has some problems over the Government's policy generally. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and all his other colleagues have said how firmly behind Government policy they are in all its aspects, particularly the economic policy. But my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has not quite managed to make that statement yet. Not only is he perhaps a little unhappy with the way in which Government policy is developing; also, he missed his opportunity last week. It is not just a question of his having missed the opportunity; the credibility of the Government is at stake.
    I believe that we all want to attack this problem and that we all want to fight it. It is therefore essential that the next time we are discussing reforms of the common agricultural policy and of the budget we shall have somebody who can point to the manifesto, who believes in the manifesto, who is going to fight for the manifesto, and who is going to fight for the British people. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend, in all humility, if he sees his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to take him on one side and whisper in his ear that if it pains him to do what the Government are here to do perhaps while he is still thinking about it he may make that decision and come down on the right side.
    There are many other hon. Members who want to speak. I am concerned about the waste of money of my country. I am concerned about the suffering that has been caused to us by the monstrosity of the CAP and by the damaging agricultural policy that we have got at the moment. I ask my right hon. Friend to do all that he can to solve the problems that we face.
    7.51 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: There is a curiously schizophrenic tone to this debate. It is as if we are on two sides but not talking about the same object and the same Common Market. The reality of the Common Market is as the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has described it—namely, rising agricultural prices, industrial decline, not caused by the Common Market, but accelerated by it, unfair burdens and the theft of our fish stocks.
    It would be understandable if the supporters of the Market—their support is on a diminishing scale, but it still exists—said "We accept that there are problems, burdens and disadvantages. However, these are prices worth paying for the inestimable benefits of a seat at the top table, the ability to interpose ourselves between Giscard d'Estaing and Chancellor Schmidt and all the other little benefits." But they do not say that the price that we are paying in jobs, prices and burdens is worthwhile. They say that there are benefits, but they do not list them. They go on to deny the burdens. They deny that there is a trading

    1011
    disaster and an agricultural disaster. They deny the financial burden that the Market imposes on us. In doing so, their argument for the Market loses all credibility. The British people know what the burdens are and the impact of the Market.
    The schizophrenia is made worse because we are in an odd constitutional position. We have a fifth column of EEC propaganda officials, whose efforts are backed by a section of British civil servants who are being paid, directly or indirectly, by the taxpayer to discredit and attack the official policy of the official Opposition. They are being paid to gloss over and to distort the economic realities of the Common Market.
    The trade argument is a classic example of the process of distortion that is taking place. A couple of months ago it was claimed that we had a trading surplus with the Common Market in 1980. The figures have been revised, and those responsible are now in the humiliating position of having to back-track. They now say that it was really a deficit, yet the impression is being created that we are doing well in trade with the Common Market. Manufacturing trade is especially important, because that is where jobs lie. The present claims are not true and are a reversal of the facts. A false impression is being created by lumping oil into the statistics. It is interesting that one-third of our exports to Germany are oil exports. That oil would be traded whether we were in the Common Market or out of it. It is therefore statistically irrelevant.
    Secondly, the trading figures are taken for the Nine. The relevant figures are those for the Six. If gains are to be made from being in the Common Market, they will be gained in the Six and not in Eire and Denmark. We traded effectively with Eire and Denmark before we entered the Common Market.
    Then there is a concentration on the ratio of exports to imports—a meaningless ratio statistically. It is as if I went to my bank manager and said "Do not worry about my rising overdraft. Look instead at the ratio of debits to credits."
    The basic, stark facts are straightforward. Our exports to the Six rose more rapidly from 1958 to 1970 than they have done since we entered the Common Market. Imports from the Six have increased more rapidly since we entered the Common Market than before. We managed to change a surplus in manufacturing trade in 1970 with the Six—less, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North said, precious stones, which would be traded in any event—of £102 million to a horrendous deficit of £4,000 million in 1979.
    I calculated that the deficit for the first eight months of 1980 was running at an annual rate of £3,500 million. The actual figures might be slightly lower. The figures are lower for 1980 compared with the horrendous deficit of 1979 because the Government have used depression and unemployment as their form of import control. That is why there has been a slight decline in the horrendous deficit in manufactured trade. It must be accepted that the deficit is destroying jobs in Britain. It is difficult to measure the loss. However, the number of jobs destroyed by the deficit is considerable. One man's cheap import is still another man's job.
    Our surplus in manufactured trade with the rest of the world, which was substantial in 1979, and again in 1980, is now being robbed to pay for our deficit with the EEC. That is why the argument against coming out of the EEC is nonsensical. We are doing so well with the rest of the
    1012
    world that we stand to gain by protecting ourselves from EEC imports or at least by having a reasonable balance in manufactured trade with the EEC.
    The deficit in manufactured trade is one of the Government's basic problems. It is one reason why they are unable to expand the economy. There are two reasons why they cannot expand. The first is that inflation would resume. The second is that the Keynesian multiplier is alive and well, but moving to the Common Market at a fairly rapid rate of knots. If the Government were to expand the economy they would merely suck in more imports from the Common Market. The Market is keeping us in the depressed state into which the Government have helped to push us. The same propaganda machine is grinding away at agriculture. It is proclaiming that the decisions of last week were a great victory for Britain. The facts are as the hon. Member for Northampton, North, described them. In the Common Market we are paying about twice the prevailing world rate for foodstuffs. We are paying even higher prices because we are now paying an extra tax. The levy on food imports into Britain from outside the Market in the 1980 calendar year was £233 million. That burden falls directly on the British consumer, and we have added to it by accepting an obligation to pay what amounts to a tax on our imports from the Common Market.
    It is unlikely that the CAP will be reformed. If it has not been reformed after all this time, let us not kid ourselves that it will be reformed in the next few years. The Government are now enthusiastic about high food prices. Their concern is not so much with the prices paid by the consumer, but with the budget. They are using the CAP to levy high taxes on the British people, on food consumers.
    Much of the yield comes back to the Treasury, so it is a form of tax on food which, effectively, the Government are imposing through the CAP. That amounts to a total change of tune by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by the Government when we remember what appeared in the Conservative manifesto, which has already been quoted by the hon. Member for Northampton, North. That manifesto makes a joke of the words that appear in the White Paper that we are discussing.
    Presumably the White Paper was written before the agricultural settlement of last week. It states:
    "The Government will continue to stress the need to restrain surplus production"—
    Presumably they will do so by encouraging it, by financing it and by giving more money to produce larger surpluses—
    "particularly in the dairy sector, and to reduce the budgetary and resource costs of the CAP"
    by putting them up. That makes a farce of the words in the White Paper, bearing in mind what happened last week. There is a direct burden on the British consumer, who has now become the milch cow of Europe. Last week's settlement imposes an extra burden of £622 million on the British consumer.
    The Lord Privy Seal mentioned fishing. It is difficult, even for the EEC's propaganda machine, to portray what has been going on in the context of fisheries policy as any sort of triumph or move towards European understanding, good will or benefit to this country. The Lord Privy Seal said that fish do not observe boundaries such as the 100 or 200-mile limit. They swim over the North Sea. That is part of the tradition of the Foreign Office in abdicating the interests of this country.

    1013
    That attitude was characterised by the Lord Privy Seal's reply to my question on President Pompidou. Little things like self-interest do not matter and should be in the gutter. The Foreign Office believes that it is far more important than any other body. It has a tradition of noblesse oblige. Now there is more "noblesse" in the Foreign Office, and there is also more "oblige". The people who are being obliged are the Common Market partners, who have much shrewder, harder heads for those commercial interests than have our Government.
    The Lord Privy Seal was effectively saying that because fish do not observe 200-mile limits we have to give away most of our fish stocks to our Common Market partners. The annual catch in British waters within the 200-mile limit is worth about £520 million. The deal so far concluded envisages giving away most of that annual catch, which cannot be compared with oil, which, once it has been dredged up, has gone for ever. It is an annual and renewable resource which is there for every year into infinity unless we give it away. We are now binding ourselves to do that by the agreements reached in the Common Market. For the Minister and the Foreign Office to try to whip up support after swallowing that camel, while straining at the gnat of French fishing rights in the 12-mile limit, is to demonstrate exactly what sort of farce it is.
    Those French demands must be resisted. All the demands made on our fish stocks and on our waters should have been resisted far more effectively than has been done. Yet the French attitude is not just a Presidential election gimmick. The French feel that they are legally in the right. The common fisheries policy was cobbled together a matter of days before we joined. The French are in the right according to that policy. That is the essence of the problem. It is wishful thinking to imagine that that demand and that right will go away, because we abdicated our rights by the sort of deal that we accepted in 1972.
    Mr. Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the end of 1982 we go back to a common fisheries policy as agreed? Does he realise that in 1971 the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) tried to pretend that at that stage we would have a veto? That was the only reason why they were able to get certain people in the fishing industry to agree to what was proposed. As my hon. Friend knows, that veto does not exist.
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. The legal position of the fishing industry and its needs were ignored by the Government, who were determined to rush into the Community in 1972. Because of the legal situation that we accepted, our negotiating position is weak, but our moral position is strong. We bring 70 per cent. of the fish stocks to the Common Market pool. The only solution to the deadlock that has arisen is to do what the 1979 Conservative Party manifesto promised. The Conservatives promised that if the negotiations broke down, or if they were not getting anywhere, unilateral, national action would be taken. That should now be done by imposing national conservation measures to increase negotiating pressure and to demonstrate that we are seriously determined to defend our rights.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: I am interested in the hon. Member's solution. Does he also suggest that the inshore
    1014
    fishermen of Cornwall should take unilateral action against the Humberside fishermen who are poaching in their waters?
    Mr. Mitchell: That is another indication of the nature of the Common Market argument—divide and rule. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is dividing the fishermen of Scotland from those in England by proposing restricted waters around Scotland, from which Humberside fishermen will be excluded. Given the decline of the Humberside fleet, the effort from British vessels outside Cornwall is there only because there is a Russian market for the fish and because the Common Market has deprived us of other fishing opportunities which we would rather take up. That amount of fishing is puny compared with the overall threat to British stocks from the overmanned over-large Continental fleets with which we are trying to negotiate. It is a gnat's bite compared with the pressure from those over-heavy and over-large Continental fleets. Therefore, we need national conservation measures and I fail to see why the Government have not imposed them.
    I had hoped, had time allowed, to cover more subjects, such as the farce of the European Assembly and the perpetual peregrination of the shades of the damned which they resemble. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has supplied me with a quotation, which describes a picture of Hell:
    "Wherein the damned in turn Pace the battlements and burn."
    That is probably an appropriate picture of the European Assembly.
    There is also the farce of the European passport, which is being imposed on us with no reference to Parliament. I should not want it as my national passport. I should be ashamed to carry such a document.
    There is the farce of the budget and the stream of regulations from the EEC, which the CBI has asked should be halted, having recognised that the Government will do nothing about that matter. I shall not go into those matters, as they would detract from the central argument.
    We have had 10 years of experience to show us that the EEC is not doing what its defenders said it would—namely, contributing to international understanding and to building a new Europe and a spirit of European co-operation. It always has been—and has shown no signs of becoming anything better—an agricultural protection society, which does not suit this country, which never suited us, and which we undertook to enter on unfavourable terms in the first place. That makes any negotiation a Sisyphean labour, in which we can never succeed. The terms are heavily loaded against us from the start. The situation will not change and we shall not change it. Consequently, the British economy, which already has its problems, and is already weak, will be further weakened by the burdens, the drain and the costs that are reducing this country to a tragic situation.
    I do not know why the Euro-fanatics are so proud of the benefits of the Community. We are being reduced to Europe's offshore social security scrounger, begging for doles and handouts, and—more insulting—ultimately paying for them with our own money. The only benefit today is that at last we are beginning to see a clear choice emerging politically about the Common Market. The Government, for all their periodic bouts of Euro bashing, which will come again when things become difficult for

    1015
    them, are basically loyal and are committed by the attitudes of people like the Lord Privy Seal and the majority of their Back Benchers. That is one point of view—that we should stay in the EEC.
    The other point of view is represented by the Liberals. They are enthusiastic pro-Europeans who promote every grievance from Europe, from heavy lorries to overfishing, as if the Common Market never existed, but who will continue to prate their loyalty to and enthusiasm for the Common Market.
    They are now joined by the Social Democrats or, to give them their proper name, the rassemblement du peuple Jenkins, in their new guise, as it emerged today. It was interesting to hear the party's policy enunciated. It is a policy of fanatical commitment to the Common Market. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is not here to listen to me, because he would not accept my intervention. He was moved by what he was saying, but he was attacking a nest which he and his hon. Friends have already fouled in a bitter and unforgivable fashion. He demonstrated an attitude that his party is showing more widely. Its members care more for the albatross of the Common Market than for the party around whose neck they hung it in the first place. That is essentially their position. That is the second point of view clearly adopted by the Euro-fanatics or Euro fun party. They will be judged by the electors.
    The third position is healthier—leave with Labour. I hope that it will be a manifesto commitment, which is a more democratic and effective way of testing opinion than a referendum. When the people choose a Labour Government they will opt for a commitment to repeal section 2 of the European Commmunities Act, to abrogate the Treaty, to scrap immediately that which is harmful and to renegotiate the remainder. A referendum asking people to make the choice after that would be undemocratic, because it would be calling into question the mandate that the electors had conferred.
    Of course, these arguments will never convince the Euro-fanatics. It was said of the free trade enthusiasts that their zeal for the dogma outweighed alike their consideration of its truth and concern for its effects. No amount of argument will convince the Euro-enthusiasts, but a clear political choice is emerging and at least the British people know better. They know the burden, difficulty and drain that the Common Market has been to them and to their country.
    8.12 pm
    Mr. Keith Best: I am not normally churlish about the comments of other hon. Members, but the vehemence of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) should not lead us to overlook his inconsistency. He says that the Common Market sucks in masses of our money which could be better spent by us, notwithstanding previous experience, and that the EEC is directly responsible for a large amount of our unemployment. He also says that we should create Government jobs, each at a cost of £2,000, for every unemployed person. I welcome him to the wets. I did not know that he believed in massive Government subsidies, but I now understand what he has been saying all along.
    Mr. Marlow: I said £2,000 for 1 million unemployed people, so the sum would add up. My other point was that it would be money that would be left in the system, instead
    1016
    of being taken out in taxation. I am not talking about Government spending. The Government and Europe would require less money.
    Mr. Best: It is amazing that people always find facts to suit their argument. My hon. Friend said not a single word about the benefits that we derive from the EEC.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Let my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) tell us.
    Mr. Best: I shall do so. Let me first say that it is perhaps appropriate that another Welsh Member should follow the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes), who has no doubt gone to carry out his threat to consult his constituents and to outline to them the terrible tragedy of the EEC. I hope that he will also explain that he wishes to bring us out of the EEC and deny the £20 million voted by the EEC for steel closure areas, with the opportunity of creating 4,000 jobs. He will have a hard time explaining that.
    The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) spoke with stoicism. Although he did not invite sympathy, I suspect that he craved it quietly. He was much happier as a Treasury spokesman. He is in an immense dilemma. He has to attack the EEC, yet he is a Welsh Member, and Wales benefits greatly from our membership. He must have sleepness nights wondering how he can take that attitude in the House and return, craven-faced, to tell his constituents that they will, as a result, be denied EEC benefits.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: What are they?
    Mr. Best: Of the first allocation of the budget refunds, £97 million has come to Wales and the North-West. About £24½ million is being spent in Wales on improving the east-west routes to North and South Wales, which is relevant to the constituency of the right hon. Member for Llanelli. Part of the money is going towards the Bridgend bypass, which will make it easier for industries to set up in his constituency.
    Mr. Spearing: The Government have made it clear that the refund which the Prime Minister has obtained for two, or at the most three, years is being used only in:place of money that would have come from the Consolidated Fund in any case. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that decisions on voting money for the Bridgend bypass or the Menai Straits bridge should. be made in Brussels and not in this House?
    Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman totally misunderstands my point. He is suggesting that we cane the taxpayer a litte harder.
    Mr. Mitchell: It is our money.
    Mr. Best: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) knows as well as anyone that money that comes from the EEC reduces the burden on the taxpayer. The money would be spent in any event, so less money is having to come from the taxpayer.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Best: I shall not give way. The same point will only be made again.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dan Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members who have spoken without interruption should accord the hon. Gentleman the same courtesy.
    Mr. Best: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have always respected his judgment.
    We should also remember the EEC assistance for Welsh culture. I make no apology for the fact that I intend to make a Welsh speech tonight because the Principality is one of the major beneficiaries of the United Kingdom's membership of the EEC. Money comes to the National Eisteddfods such as the Urdd national eisteddfod and the Llangollen international eisteddfod and to the Royal Welsh agricultural show. That covers quite a broad spectrum.
    Mr. Mitchell rose——
    Mr. Best: I cannot give way again. The most important aspect of our membership of the EEC must be the regional policy. I find the attitude of the right hon. Member for Llanelli impossible to comprehend when he speaks of the concept of juste retour. If we adopted that attitude to Wales in the context of the United Kingdom's economy, he would be the first to fight it, bearing in mind the constituency that he represents.
    European regional development fund loans and grants to North Wales encompass a mass of projects. I shall spare the House the whole list. In Anglesey £5½ million in loan, plus a further £250,000 in grant, has been provided for the Holyhead harbour and rail terminal project. The Dinorwic pump storage scheme, on which many people in Anglesey have found employment, received £150 million in loan from the European investment bank. It is one of the largest projects ever undertaken with European backing. Again, I welcome that.
    Mr. Mitchell rose——
    Mr. Best: I must get on. What is significant about European regional development fund money is that it is for our country's infrastructure. I am afraid that we cannot be certain, on the past record of Governments of both parties, that we shall have sufficient foresight to look after the infrastructure of our nation without that extra assistance from the EEC. The statistics speak only too plainly. The amount of gross national product that we now contribute towards our infrastructure has fallen dramatically. On neither side of the House can we put our hands on our hearts and say that we were not responsible. I therefore welcome European money coming directly to help projects necessary to the future welfare of our country.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman has had his say. If he could not get it all in then, he will have to try to have another go at a later stage.
    In February this year, total net aid to Wales since 1975 was £96 million. Considered in terms of jobs, that is no flea-bite. Wales receives 16 per cent. of the United Kingdom quota from the ERDF. Again, that is no flea-bite for the Principality. Does anyone seriously—I stress the word "seriously"—believe that we would have the same amount of inward investment in this country, particularly in Wales, if we were not in the European Community? Does anyone seriously think that the American and Japanese companies that have come to South Wales would
    1018
    throw in their lot there if they did not realise that they had a market of 260 million people? Of course they would not. It would be nonsense to pretend otherwise.
    Mr. Body: Perhaps my hon. Friend would clear up one point. Would there be more or less money for us to allocate out of the Consolidated Fund for the kind of scheme that he has catalogued and for infrastructure and the rest if we were not making our present net contribution to the EEC?
    Mr. Best: I believe that there is no doubt that we shall benefit from membership of the EEC in the long term. [HON. MEMBERS: "How long?] All the speeches against membership of the EEC—and it is sad that we have had this argument yet again—have demonstrated myopic vision. They have looked at the immediacy of what is around us without any thought for the future.
    Let us consider the three major arguments against the EEC. First, the cost of the common agricultural policy is 70 per cent. of the EEC budget. It is said that that is a terrible amount of money to spend on trying to rationalise agriculture among trading partners and that it is a confounded waste of resources. Looked at in isolation it is easy to adopt that attitude. The arrant folly of that attitude is the failure to comprehend that the total EEC budget is less than 1 per cent. of the whole of the EEC's gross domestic product. Looked at in that context, the whole issue is put into the right perspective.
    Mr. Alec Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the percentage of money being spent on agricultural support represents the correct degree of support and that industry should have infinitely less?
    Mr. Best: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has actually given us some common ground. We should all like to see a smaller percentage of the EEC budget spent on the CAP. When we entered the Community, it stood at about 40 per cent. I am sure that very few people imagined at that time that it would race up to 70 per cent. Nevertheless, it is extraordinary to suggest that, just because one does not like the rules of a particular club, one must leave it. I do not understand that argument at all. Surely one tries to change the rules to one's own satisfaction.
    The second great argument against the EEC relates to the so-called wine lakes and beef and butter mountains. Nobody has mentioned that those so-called mountains amount to no more than two weeks' supply. That is the reality of the situation. It is time that the people of this country learnt some of the facts about the EEC rather than just heard the rhetoric. One must consider the insecurity of supply from world markets and how the USSR and Poland, with their deserted supply lines, must sometimes envy us. I prefer mountains and lakes to deserts. I believe that that is how the majority of people in this counry like to imagine their future.
    Finally, there is the argument about the amount of money that we hand over to the EEC. We spend 17 times more on social security than we give to Europe. That, again, puts the whole matter into perspective.
    I end on this note. Of course we need to work towards a better system in Europe. But that does not justify the chagrin of the Opposition in wishing to take us out of Europe altogether and thus deny the people of this country the benefits, some of which I have articulated tonight.

    1019
    It is ironic that so many Opposition Front Bench Members are from Wales—the principal beneficiary of our membership of the EEC. As has been correctly mentioned, we have now a straight political choice: either in or out. The attitude of the Labour Party towards Europe in trying to take us out will deny it the opportunity of ever again taking office.
    Let us not forget the men of vision who had the original concept of the EEC. That vision was born out of the second major holocaust in this century. Are we to destroy that vision or to attempt to remove the cloud that hides its brilliance? Freedom is an expensive commodity. It is worth more than any butter or beef mountain. It is an axiom of history that the surest way to prevent nations attacking each other is by binding them together in economic union.
    My generation is potentially doomed, with the nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over its head. Our greatest benefit from the EEC cannot be measured in financial terms, because it is peace.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that interventions—even sedentary interventions—tend to prolong speeches. Some hon. Members have been in the Chamber for some time waiting to speak, so I ask all speakers to be brief.
    8.30 pm
    Dr. M. S. Miller: I shall not attempt to follow the speech made by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best). It was akin to someone being robbed of £1,000 and being very happy to be handed back £2.
    I am not anti-European. Indeed, I have a high regard for all EEC countries. If I were asked whether we should leave the Common Market I would pose an alternative to my right hon. and hon. Friends: that we should stay in and get France to leave.
    Despite being pro-European, having a high regard for European countries and welcoming co-operation between European countries, I object to the principles of the Common Market. Its Mickey Mouse Parliament is the laughing stock of the Western world. Although I wish to co-operate with Europe I do not want the close and binding ties that the Euro-fanatics want, because I can remember the days when the countries with which some want us to bind ourselves strongly were not adherents to any form of democratic system—certainly not the system that we know today. In pre-war days there was grave doubt about their stability. Indeed, there is even now. Therefore, I do not want to be associated too closely with them. I believe that we should co-operate, but not to the extent that the Euro-fanatics want.
    Britain is the mug of the Common Market countries in terms of trade. We take everything, without raising any problems. The other countries with which we trade put up all kinds of artificial barriers. They erect their own tariff barriers, although they are not supposed to do so. Many examples come to mind.
    How could the common agricultural policy benefit Britain? How could a policy that devotes 70 per cent. of its income to agriculture benefit Britain? Britain is not an agricultural country. If the CAP took 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of the total amount, it would not harm us quite
    1020
    so much. The mere fact that the CAP dominates the budget makes it impossible for this country to benefit, regardless of what we do in agriculture.
    If the White Paper shows anything, it is that the Government have been very busy. There are wide areas in it on which reports have been made. I do not intend to ramble through the White Paper.
    Many of my hon. Friends made brilliant speeches. It is a pity that the House is not better attended to listen to the arguments advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends—and some Conservative Members, too—pointing out how the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries—"Fisheries" is a misnomer—and Food has given away our fishing industry. When what has been agreed comes to pass, Common Market fishing boats will come not only to our shores but on to our beaches. We shall not be able to bathe.
    I do not intend to try to compete with the speeches of my hon. Friends. I shall concentrate on one point only in the White Paper, namely, paragraph 2.1, on the Middle East, in the section on political co-operation.
    The EEC, as we know, has within the last year put forward an initiative on the Middle East and I believe that this is another area in which the Government are making a big mistake. They fail to grasp at least some of the complexities of Middle East politics, and the initiative is based on two false assumptions.
    The first false assumption is that the Palestinian Arab issue is the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Arab approach to the Palestinian question has unfortunately been an opportunistic one rather than one of genuine concern, because during the 19 years between 1948 and 1967 Palestinian refugees languished in refugee camps in Jordan and were ignored by the Arabs and went unnoticed by the rest of the world. Only since Israel occupied the West Bank in June 1967 have the Arabs shown concern over the Palestinian people. Even today they pay only lip-service, contenting themselves with words rather than the financial assistance that they could give.
    The Palestinian cause has been taken up by the Arabs not on moral grounds but because it has given them an opportunity to couch their demands in relation to Israel in what they consider to be humanitarian terms. The fundamental commitment of the Arabs is to the doctrine of pan-Arabism, not to Palestinian self-determination, and Arab animosity towards Israel is the result not of Israeli occupation of Palestinian land but, rather, of Israeli occupation of Arab land.
    I am not justifying the occupation of territory; I am merely saying what I believe to be the situation today. Any solution to the Palestinian problem short of Israel's physical removal from the Middle East will only marginally affect Arab demands.
    The second false assumption on which I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is working is that a comprehensive peace settlement would usher in an era of stability in the Middle East. We have only to look around us to see that major developments in the Middle East are not directly affected by the conflict. A comprehensive peace settlement would neither check the growth of the Muslim Brotherhood nor settle the struggle between the Ba'athist parties of Syria and Iraq. Likewise, the potential that has been unleashed by the Iranian revolution for destabilising the entire Arab world is totally independent of any outcome of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It would have happened if Israel had not existed. In fact, the argument

    1021
    is that if Israel had not existed it would have had to be invented. A comprehensive peace settlement may be President Sadat's meat but it is undoubtedly President Assad's poison, spelling imminent disaster for his political regime.
    It is simplistic to believe that the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict would stabilise the Middle East, because the traditional instability of that area is rooted within the nature of inter-Arab rivalry, unconnected with the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is hardly surprising that Israel does not view with equanimity the dangerous sacrifices that it may be asked to make, which do not help the situation and which, if they go wrong, could even lead to the elimination of Israel. The adroit political timing in launching the initiative suggest that the prime movers are not particularly concerned with the humanitarian aspects of the problem, since over the past 30 years they have made no effort to solve this problem. Their efforts are directed now to ensuring the oil supplies and expanding their trade. I do not necessarily object to that, but let them be honest in their pronouncements.
    In his visit to the Gulf States last year President Giscard d'Estaing clearly illustrated the motives of self-interest that lie behind the initiative. In return for French recognition of the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination, the Kuwaitis promised to sell oil direct to France. Likewise, the United Arab Emirates have promised to supply the French with as much crude oil as they need in recognition of France's support for Arab rights. That report appeared last year in the Financial Times.
    Therefore, eager to ensure their oil supplies and noting the apparent success of the French, the logical step for the other members of the EEC, who depend upon Middle East oil for two-thirds of their requirements, was to swap their political endorsement in the form of a European initiative, in exchange for guaranteed oil supplies.
    Trade is another aspect of the problem. I well understand the difficulties of countries that are trying to expand their trade. It is estimated that over the next two decades Arab oil revenue will increase fourfold. Needless to say, big business concerns of the Nine will be straining every nerve to have their respective Governments get in on the act, anxious to cash in on idle Arab oil revenue.
    Nowhere has this been more evident than in armaments. The chronic instability of the region—again having nothing to do with Israel's presence—coupled with the conviction of some Arab States that the only way to prop up their tottering regimes is by investing in military hardware, has created an arms free-for-all situation in Europe, led by the French. Europe has been very quick to exploit it. In the past year or so the French have concluded agreements with Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and Britain and West Germany have been involved in partnership with France. The military potential of some of these countries is even greater than that of the countries that have supplied them with arms.
    I come to the so-called Palestine Liberation Organisation. Over the past year or two prominent European leaders have been wont to emphasise what they say is the moderate stance of the PLO. They cite statements made by PLO representatives. In the House a couple of months ago a PLO representative made hard-line statements that were impossible to reconcile with any
    1022
    contemplated idea of a just and lasting peaceful settlement. The statement asked just for the elimination of the State of Israel.
    Not long ago Farouk Kadoume, the head of the political department of the PLO, said:
    "First Israel must recognise the Palestinians' right to create an independent country, and then, we shall see."
    Three days later the words "we shall see" were explicitly clarified. He said:
    "The PLO will not recognise Israel even if an independent Palestinian state is established."
    The PLO has deliberately nurtured this double image, saying hard words to its own people and softer words to the Western world, in the hope that the West will hear only the moderate line.
    Over the past few years the PLO has continued to attack not troops, not military installations, but women and children. When I was in Israel in January I watched a television interviewer interviewing two terrorists who had been caught infiltrating Israel. The interview was carried out in a calm, mild atmosphere. The interviewer asked them what their task had been. They did not say that their task had been to blow up an installation. They said that it was to kill Jews—simply to kill Jews.
    The PLO has consistently refused to amend its constitution, part of which contains that aim. Articles 1 and 9 of the national covenant make clear statements of intent. Article 9 states:
    "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine and is therefore a strategy and not tactics. The Palestinian Arab people affirms its absolute resolution and abiding determination to pursue the armed struggle."
    I shall not bother the House with the details. It is clearly spelt out that, one way or another—if two or three steps are needed, the PLO will take them—that is its objective. It would like to succeed without any great difficulties.
    The EEC declaration represents not a supplement to but a departure from the Camp David accords. I am not suggesting that those accords are perfect. However, the EEC has gone further than any other party in undermining international recognition of them. It has done so because they represent the first concrete steps towards peace that the Middle East has experienced in the past 30 years. It ill behoves those who believe in peace to try to denigrate an agreement between two countries that have not known a moment's peace for 30 years. A completely peaceful relationship between those two countries is now in prospect.
    It is possible that an accommodation will be reached and that another Arab-Palestinian State will be born. However, that State must not be motivated by the elimination of the State of Israel. It may be said that we should negotiate with the PLO, but that is worse than saying that we should negotiate with the IRA because it claims to be the only group to represent Catholics in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Dan Jones: I have also lived in Israel. I spent a good deal of time in the Negev desert. I wish to make a constituency contribution that is directly relevant to the United Kingdom and the EEC. Is the subject of Israel relevant to this debate?
    Dr. Miller: I am sorry if my hon. Friend feels that it is not.
    Mr. Dan Jones: I do feel that.
    Dr. Miller: It is for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to decide whether I am in order. However, section II of the

    1023
    White Paper is entitled "Political Co-operation". There is a reference to the EEC initiative. I am trying to explain why that initiative is a mistake. Given all the arguments about human rights, no one could complain that the Camp David agreements infringe any human rights convention.
    Israel has bitter memories of Europe's involvement in Middle East affairs. Before and during the Second World War every excuse was made not to lift a finger to help Jews, who were being massacred by the hundreds of thousands. As hon. Members know, that massacre culminated in the holocaust and the extermination of about 6 million Jews. Immediately after the war the wave of sympathy was not sufficient to spur the British Government into adopting a more humane attitude. We know what happened after that.
    In October 1973 Israel was attacked by Egypt and Syria. What action did Britain take? The day before war broke out Britain had an agreement to supply arms to Israel. The day that the war broke out the Government unilaterally abrogated that agreement. I wanted to know what Israel had done on the first day of the war that it had not done on the day before. It was not Israel, but Egypt and Syria that attacked.
    I go further than that——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, and I do not wish to comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones). However, the hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the European connection with Israel and the PLO. He is perfectly in order, but he must refer to Europe.
    Dr. Miller: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is what the British Government did, and the British Government are part of the EEC initiative. The British Government are part of the Nine who produced the EEC initiative about which I am talking. That is exactly my point.
    Not long after we joined the EEC the British Government even refused to allow one of their own allies to ferry war supplies to help Israel, which was being attacked.
    I know that the Lord Privy Seal would warmly enter into agreement to produce guarantees in the Middle East area that attempted to allay Israel's fears. However, in my humble opinion, all the EEC countries would find a dozen reasons for failing to comply with such pledges. Not only are the Government wrong in their whole approach to Britain's continuing EEC membership; they are wrong about political co-operation on the Middle East, which I believe is doomed to failure.
    8.52 pm
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: The speech of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) was different from most of the other speeches. It served a useful purpose because it reminded my right hon. Friend of a substantial worry on both sides of the House about the Middle East problem. The British Government have appeared to move from genuinely looking for a possible way of resolving this difficult problem to an almost unreasonable preference for one side in the dispute. Whereas the Camp David agreement achieved movement on both sides, unfortunately that is not the case in respect of the European initiative, which appears to have done nothing, apart from undermining the successful American initiative.
    1024
    There have been a number of interesting speeches on the economic aspects of the White Paper. I comment on only one. I was honestly surprised at the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best). He is one of the most able, intelligent and bright new Members in the House of Commons. I was surprised when he advanced some of the arguments which I associate with people who have a closed mind on issues such as this. He said that the Common Market was a splendid thing because lots of Common Market money had gone to Wales. One would think that the inevitable consequence was that if we were not in the Common Market that money would not have gone to Wales. Because of that, he seemed to suggest that Welshmen should support the EEC 100 per cent.
    My hon. Friend will know that for every £1 we receive in grants or subsidies from the EEC, Britain must pay almost exactly £2. In other words, every £1 which goes to Wales, Banffshire or any other part of the United Kingdom costs us £2. Therefore, logically, if we held on to the cash instead of contributing it to the EEC we would have twice as much money to spend in Wales, Banffshire and all the other places which need assistance.
    My hon. Friend may ask "What assurance do I have that if the Government had twice as much money they would necessarily spend it on worthwhile projects in Wales? Might they not waste it by spending it in Northampton or Southend?" The answer, surely, as he is well aware, is that although the location of these grants is theoretically approved by an EEC committee, the projects are submitted by the British Government. So the area where the money is spent is an indication of the British Government's priorities.
    The Government, as we well know, think highly of Wales. They appreciate what needs to be done there. That is why the money is going there. But it is a ludicrous argument to put forward as an advantage of EEC membership that we spend money in Wales. My hon. Friend must be aware that if we were not in the EEC there would be twice as much money to spend. It does not strike me, therefore, as a very strong argument.
    Mr. Myles: Rubbish.
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend says "Rubbish." He is saying "Rubbish" not just to me but to the Ministers who have been supplying me with most helpful answers over the last few weeks. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the ratio of the money that we have received from the EEC in grants and subsidies in relation to the money that we have paid in since we joined the EEC. The answer was 1·95p: £1. That shows that the pound that we get for Wales, Scotland, Southend or anywhere else costs us £2. It is not a basic argument, therefore, in support of our membership of the EEC.
    But we are not discussing the merits of joining or of leaving the EEC. Although we have had some of that from the Labour Party, it seemed to me that some Labour Members were trying to convince themselves that if the Labour Party were re-elected there would automatically be a decision to leave the Common Market. The position is far from being as clear as that, as the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen are well aware. The only indication of Labour Party policy that we have had is that a Labour Government might seek to repeal article 2(1) of the Treaty of Accession. We know that there has been a Labour Party conference decision, but we do not necessarily accept that items passed at political party conferences become policy.

    1025
    We should be looking at the White Paper and making the kind of assessment that the Lord Privy Seal tried to make on the question whether we have made good progress over the last six months; whether we have been making progress in any direction at all.
    For those who are interested in major reforms of the EEC the recent agricultural price review was probably the most disappointing event of all time in an EEC context. It seemed to confirm once and for all that there is no prospect whatever of having a major structural reform of the CAP that would be politically acceptable to all its members.
    We should have seen some reform. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) rightly said, the Government were elected on a manifesto which said that we would insist on a freeze on the price of all goods in surplus. What happend to that manifesto? We know that the Prime Minister, the Lord Privy Seal and other members of the Cabinet are concerned about trying to keep to the manifesto. They are constantly saying "Tories keep their promises". But this promise has not just been abandoned; it seems never to have been discussed at the EEC. It is not because the Government are crooks, rogues or rascals. It is simply because, in the discussions across the table, it has become obvious that our basic manifesto commitment was not a starter in the EEC if we wanted to get any progress in any other direction. That, probably more than anything else, is an indication that it is politically impossible to reform the CAP.
    We had a splendid paper from the Common Market Commission that said, in effect, "The most we can possibly add to prices is 7·8 per cent., and even that will need lots of safeguards such as a cut in the British green pound and double co-responsibility levies." The Commission said "That is the maximum we can possibly afford unless we are to have more surpluses, more expense, and the nearer approach of the eventual collapse of the CAP."
    But what happened to all these propositions? They were abandoned by the politicians. All the reassurances went, one by one—about the green pound and all other restrictions. We ended up with a much higher price than the Commission said was the maximum that the system could possibly afford. It stands out a mile that unless we have seven years of plague and drought, next year the surpluses in the CAP will be greater than they were last year; next year the expenditure of the CAP will be more than it was last year. What progress has been made towards reform?
    Mr. Myles: Is my hon. Friend saying that he would like to see production at levels that would occur in a year of plague or drought? We had two years of drought, not long ago, when the support price for potatoes, about which he complains, was £40 a ton and the price to the consumer was between £200 and £300 a ton.
    Mr. Taylor: I was not recommending that prices should be fixed on the basis of drought conditions. Everyone knows that no movement towards reform of structural surpluses has been made in the price review. The cost will be worse next year than it was last year. No movement towards structural reforms to deal with surpluses has been made. The prospect of achieving
    1026
    structural reforms simply does not exist, because of the actions of agricultural lobbies and the views of the French and the Germans.
    I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he honestly thinks that progress has been made. I accept that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, although presenting some strange figures and estimates, not for the first time, has won certain battles for Britain within this package. On the other hand, it is the package that matters. We should be concerned that there has been no movement towards structural reform.
    We should also be concerned that exports of cheap, subsidised food to Russia in 1980 were the greatest ever. Some items had not appeared previously. I am told that 149 million litres of cheap subsidised wine at a price of 30p a bottle went to the Russians and was sold for five times the price, so helping to finance the Russian war machine. Butter was sold at between 31p and 40p a pound, again producing massive profits for the Russians. I do not see that the Lord Privy Seal can claim six months of progress.
    No movement has been made towards controlling the vast expenditure of the so-called European Assembly. There are two obvious needs. There is the gentleman's agreement whereby the Council of Ministers does not question spending by the European Assembly and the European Assembly does not question spending by the Council of Ministers. No movement has been made to remedy that situation.
    There is the crazy level of expenditure involved in the European Assembly meeting in Strasbourg and Luxembourg with the decision-making process in Brussels. A decision by the Council of Ministers in that strange sounding place called Maastricht was that the status quo should be maintained. That means, in other words, maintaining the enormous colossus in Strasbourg, maintaining Luxembourg and also holding meetings in Brussels. It is shameful that the Council of Ministers failed to offer any guidance aimed at cutting this enormous spending, which annoys many people—enthusiasts and critics of the EEC alike.
    It is a big disappointment that the White Paper makes no mention of a willingness by the Government to examine the consequences of Common Market membership for our economy, for jobs and for trade, especially at a time when we are supposed to be looking for major structural reform. Speech after speech has been made by those who argue that the Common Market is the biggest job destroyer in Britain. I have heard the Minister say that the Common Market helps jobs. We seem to be moving more towards a fanatical position. My own view is that, on balance, the Common Market has been bad for the British economy. Surely, at a time of 2½ million unemployed and when prospects are bleak, the British people are at least entitled to see the Government introduce some kind of inquiry to try to identify the effects of Common Market membership so that we can try to get the rules changed to help this country.
    The questions that I have put to Ministers have been treated in the same manner as the Government treats all questions. Their response is total, blanket commitment and enthusiasm for the EEC. I asked what had been the effect on jobs of the £6 billion deficit in trade in manufactures with the Common Market in the three years from 1977 to 1979. I was told that it was not possible to make an estimate. Yesterday in Japan the Foreign

    1027
    Secretary told the Japanese that their trade was destroying thousands of jobs in Britain, yet we are told that the Government do not know the effect of the massive deficit in Europe.
    What about the effect on the contributions? We pay £3,000 million net into the coffers of Europe—more than we have got out of it. Surely, that means something in terms of jobs. We could spend £3,000 million in Scotland, Wales and England, or on reducing taxation or bureaucracy. Surely that would help industry and jobs. We might want to give more subsidies to British Steel and British coal. We might want to reduce taxation. No matter what the purpose, I am sure that we all agree that an extra £3,000 million could be used to create more jobs in Britain.
    So what has been the effect? We are not told. What about the effect of entry on the cost of food? We have been given various estimates, all of them hedged with qualifications. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in a written answer that subject to qualifications it costs the British housewife £3,000 million a year—that is, about £5 per week per family. That is a lot of money. Surely, that affects jobs and prosperity.
    We have the evidence of countries which did not join the EEC. What has happened in Norway? Unemployment there was 1 per cent. and is now 1·2 per cent. What has happened to jobs in Austria? Unemployment was just under 1 per cent. and I am told that it is now about 1½ per cent. Of course, other reasons may be involved.
    I hope that the Government will take the matter seriously and not just tell us that the situation would be much worse if we were not members of the Common Market. There is overwhelming evidence that the present rules are bad for Britain. Let us consider what changes are necessary, because changes are coming in the EEC. It is time to accept the fact that the CAP cannot be reformed and to seek ways in which national States can run their own agriculture, under article 39, in co-operation with one another.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: I note what my hon. Friend is saying about national States co-operating without the common agriculture policy. Will he tell us the outcome of his conversations with Monsieur Debré, when he was in this country, when he suggested that it would be better to have political co-operation without any CAP? Did he get a favourable reaction?
    Mr. Taylor: Monsieur Debit said that national responsibility should be built up. When I asked him about the CAP he said that it was a fundamental pillar of the EEC. I, too, would take that attitude if I were a Frenchman. Just because a Frenchman believes that the CAP is a fundamental pillar of the Community and is good for France does not mean that we should accept it.
    The Community will run out of cash, and there will have to be changes. We should not be happy about what has happened during the past six months. This is the time when we should be considering major structural changes. There has not been much sign of that happening during the past six months, but I hope that there will be more in the coming months.
    9.9 pm
    Mr. Dan Jones: I have about two minutes in which to put my case, and I shall do my damndest to do so in that time.
    1028
    The references from the EEC to this country include textiles. In 1947–48, one of the major industries in Burnley was the textile industry. It was approached by the then Labour Government who begged the people of the area to stay in textiles, although those who had been in textiles since the last century had had enough. Eventually they agreed to co-operate. At that time, of course, it was possible to export floor cloths. Today, that industry is finished. That was the reward for sticking to textiles.
    On the social side of the EEC report, I want to mention a coal yard adjacent to a residential area in Burnley. No hon. Member would live in that area for any length of time in the conditions that the people of Burnley have had to tolerate. I have made one application after another to the EEC for help, but each has been turned down, and no help has been forthcoming. Even so, the White Paper refers to the social funds available for improvement. These are urgently needed.
    Will the Minister be kind enough to examine what I have said? I am prepared to meet him personally at any time convenient to himself when we may discuss this intolerable state of affairs. As a miner, I have endured coal dust and I know that it is dangerous and leads to lung complaints. I feel certain that some of the people in the area that I have described have suffered from those complaints.
    I have now used the two minutes I promised to take for my speech. To avoid prolonging it I simply appeal to the Minister to afford me an opportunity to elaborate on the case that I have made. I have no doubt that the people to whom I have referred deserve far better treatment from the EEC than they have been given.
    9.11 pm
    Mr. Roland Moyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) for resuming his seat so promptly. We have had a lively if somewhat thinly attended debate, similar to the one that we had in December. To that extent the House reflects the feeling in the country. Membership of the Common Market fails to inspire the country, and the House generally reflects that sentiment on these occassions.
    An interesting aspect of these debates is the absence of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). One might have expected them to attend to bask in the glory that they conferred on the country as a result of negotiating EEC membership, but both have been conspicuous by their absence. I hope that they are not having spasms of conscience.
    Mr. Alastair Goodlad: My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is ill.
    Mr. Moyle: In that case I apologise to the right hon. Member for Bexley, but he was not here for the December debate, and that is worth bearing in mind.
    The Lord Privy Seal answered a question today from my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) about EEC passports. He said that there will be further opportunities for the new format of the United Kingdom passport to be debated before any change is made. May we take that as an undertaking by the Government that there will be a debate on the passport before the new form is adopted? I should like the Lord Privy Seal's assurance on that matter. If on the occasion

    1029
    of that debate the right hon. Gentleman is seeking a compromise to unite the House, may I suggest one for him? He could propose that the passport should be dark blue and that "EEC" be removed from the cover. I am sure that that proposition will unite the House.
    Membership of the Common Market is the Government's central foreign policy commitment. An impartial observer would at times find it difficult to understand that. The Government say that one of their main duties, if not the main duty, is to ensure the military protection of their citizens from external attack. However, membership of the Common Market in no way contributes directly to Britain's military security. We are members of NATO but there is no relationship between membership of the Common Market and membership of NATO. France is a member of the Common Market, but although a signatory of the North Atlantic Treaty she is not a member of NATO.
    The main motive power of NATO is the United States, which is not a member of the Common Market. It is arguable that that is as it should be—that it is not a hangover from the historic period after the Second World War when the United States was so strong and Western Europe was so weak but is a fundamental requirement.
    In this respect I disagree with the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), who called for a greater degree of military independence in Western Europe as a result of political co-operation. To detach Western Europe from the United States of America would lead to a great deal of pressure for Western Europe to build up its own massive and sophisticated nuclear retaliation system independent of the American system.
    I cannot believe, in opposition to the right hon. Member for Farnham, that the development of a further centre of nuclear decision-making would add to the world's stability. If we separated ourselves from the United States I am sure that that pressure would mount and become successful. Indeed, it is already mounting from the right hon. Gentleman before any such decision has been taken or is likely to be taken.
    I believe that both sides of the House agree on the broad principles of political co-operation within Western Europe in diplomacy and foreign policy as set out in the White Paper. The nations of Western Europe occupy much the same geographical part of the globe. Therefore, they have roughly the same spatial relationships with the rest of the world. Their civilisation has common roots and there is much common intellectual inheritance. They have the common aim of defending and promoting democracy. They have many other common characteristics. Even without being members of the Common Market there would be many interests that would compel us all to endeavour to evolve a common foreign policy.
    It is interesting to note that foreign policy is outside the Treaty of Rome. There is no requirement under the treaty to develop a common foreign policy, yet a large part of the White Paper is devoted to co-operation in foreign policy. Happily, co-operation is developing and we all agree with that. I have two reservations. There seems to be a tendency at times on the Continent of Europe to watch for a faltering on the part of the United States and to pounce into the gap when that happens. It is not bad in itself to try to supplement the lead that the United States gives in the Western world, but there must not be too great
    1030
    a divergence between the foreign policies of the two groups—namely, the United States and Western Europe. Whatever compulsion there may be to bring a common foreign policy to Western Europe and to evolve a common foreign policy doctrine, there are great gaps between the evolution of that policy and the execution of the policy in practice. There is a great deal of pious posturing that Western Europe, as yet, is unable to implement.
    The Middle East has been referred to by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) and for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). It was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). Nowhere else is the divergence of policy between the United States and Europe more possible and more likely to be counter-productive than in the Middle East. There is no doubt that the recent European initiatives and statements on the Middle East have had the substantial effect—I should say a beneficial effect—of sharply focusing attention on the vital interests of the Palestinians as a party in the negotiations. That is to be welcomed.
    However, the various declarations—especially the Venice declaration—do not fit in easily with the Camp David accords. The Americans have in their favour the fact that the Israelis are determined that they will not readily talk to the PLO in its present form. If anyone listening to the debate had any doubts on that score they were probably put at rest by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride. It must be remembered that the Israelis are one of the two essential parties to any peace-making process in that part of the world.
    At the same time as making those declarations, I do not believe that Western Europe can deliver much in the Middle East at this time. Therefore, the aim must be to try to co-ordinate United States and European policy and not to try to demonstrate that Western Europe is better at solving the problems of the Middle East than is the United States of America.
    The latest representative of the Common Market to go to the Middle East is Mr. van der Klaauw. It would be interesting to hear from the Lord Privy Seal what has been the result of his recent visit to the Middle East on behalf of the Common Market countries.
    The rapid deployment force is basically an initiative of the United States. It would be a bold man who could declare what is the correct current foreign policy and defence solution to the situation in the Gulf, which is fraught and tense. Many of our oil supplies go through the Straits of Hormuz. If anything, the rapid deployment force is a solution fraught with a mass of problems. Not least is the relationship between action in the Gulf and the situation that might subsequently develop in Western Europe. There is also the relationship between the United Kingdom and France, which have forces in that part of the world, and some of the smaller NATO countries.
    The right hon. Member for Farnham wanted to know how Western Europe might be strengthened. The Prime Minister would be much more likely to secure her policy objectives in the Gulf if she thought a little more deeply about what she said and how and where she said it, and co-ordinated with friends and allies before she made statements in places such as Washington. Sounding off without adequate preparation leaves our friends in the Gulf with the feeling that they are being treated like the imperial

    1031
    chattels which they felt they were not so many years ago. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will pass on that well-intentioned piece of advice.
    There are other areas where the West European countries have a substantial interest in the maintenance of peace and are exercising political co-operation. There is the war between Iran and Iraq. There is a black spot on the record there, as the French moved quickly to supply arms to Iraq the moment the American hostages were released from Iran. The lesson here is that the one area where there are considerable tensions in the political co-operation between the countries of Western Europe is in the arms trade. It would be helpful to get together on that matter so that the world was not endangered by too reckless a pursuit of the sales of arms to various countries in that part of the world. After all, Iran and Iraq are now under intense pressure. Their resources are being considerably strained by the war. If they are deprived of weapons, they cannot fight that war to its ultimate conclusion and damage to us all.
    I shall not go over the past history of the dispute in Afghanistan. The initial Western European reaction was not good. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) gave much evidence about that. However, the situation could have been restored. The Foreign Secretary made a sensible suggestion about an international conference, which is not entirely being followed through. There was also the problem of President Giscard d'Estaing, who suddenly launched forth on television with his scheme for settling the problem, without deep consultation with the rest of his allies in Western Europe. There again there was somewhat of a blot on the cooperation in. Western Europe. However, there is much cooperation in that area.
    If the Common Market is to carry on in its present form for some time, it at least has the role of conferring democratic respectability on a number of countries which seem to need it, in view of their past history.
    I do not wish to sound patronising, but I am happy to join the Lord Privy Seal in welcoming Greece to the Common Market. Its membership sets the seal on the sensible return of the Greek people to democratic government. I, too, believe that Spain and Portugal should join the Common Market as soon as possible. I understand what is meant when it is said that democracy in Spain is fragile, particularly in the wake of the attempted military coup, but in many respects it is not fragile. The great majority of the Spanish and Portuguese people wish to conduct their affairs by democratic methods in conformity with the general standards of Western Europe. However, Spain has a closed military caste, some of whose members have lived a monastic life and developed views at variance with those of almost everyone around them. If Spain becomes a member those people are less likely to have a destructive influence on the development of Spanish democracy, so I urge the Government to make sure that the Mediterranean farmers of France and Italy do not delay the entry of Spain and Portugal.
    In the internal bargaining to keep Western Europe working together, and with the success in political cooperation that arises not from the Treaty of Rome and the institutions of the Common Market but from our common interests, why must we accept the bureaucratic top-hamper and expensive budgetary machinery, dominated by the CAP, which is directly against our interests as a nation? I agree with the great majority of speakers in the debate;
    1032
    it brings us a little advantage. I believe that in international tariff negotiations we have the advantage of the general European strength, although that is not accepted by all my hon. Friends. However, the disadvantages are immense. The CAP takes about three-quarters of the Common Market budget, so little can be spent on industrial support, relieving debilitated regions and other social measures, which we need above all else.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: I hate to interrupt a most statesmanlike and balanced speech, but will the right hon. Gentleman join me in urging the Government to encourage the Common Market to develop industrial and regional policies in order to counter-balance expenditure on the CAP?
    Mr. Moyle: As the hon.. Gentleman confessed in the previous debate, he has been arguing that case for 20 years. If he will possess himself a little longer, I propose to spend most of the remainder of my speech on that matter.
    We import food, and wish to do so at the cheapest price. Before we joined the Common Market our deficiency payments system kept our prices down to world prices. We sold our home-produced food to our people at a subsidised price—much cheaper than it would otherwise have been. The CAP, as has been said, is based on the Corn Laws principle—food is not brought into Western Europe until its price has risen to the price at which Western Europe can produce it. Non-European prices have to rise to European prices before the produce is imported. In the past eight years world food prices have been either about the same as European prices or very much cheaper.
    At no stage in the eight years during which we have been in the Common Market has there been a substantial amount of food from world. markets at prices higher than European prices. In 1979–80 the Common Market price for wheat was 63 per cent., barley 61 per cent. and maize 90 per cent. higher than the world prices. Barley and maize go into animal feedstuffs. Ii will therefore not surprise the House to learn that beef and veal prices in Europe are about 104 per cent. above the world price. Sugar is about 31 per cent. higher and butter a massive 311 per cent. above the world price.
    Incidentally, I see that in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) the Minister of Agriculture has reiterated that the recent agricultural settlement will add only 1 per cent. to the cost of living. The Lord Privy Seal had notice of our discontent with that earlier, in an intervention from my hon. Friend. We should like to know the mathematics of that calculation. It takes a considerable suspension of disbelief to imagine how the settlement could add only 1 per cent. to the cost of living.
    All of these factors massively inflate our cost of living. There is pressure on wages to compensate for the increased cost of living and pressure on our industrial costs to compensate for wage costs. This leads to a loss of export competitiveness, particularly for trade manufacturers. I shall not stress the point again. We have been over that ground substantially and the Lord Privy Seal knows that that is our concern, not the overall trade, which includes the price of oil.
    As many hon. Members have said, that means that we have to put up with substantially greater unemployment than we need. The problem of balancing our trade and

    1033
    exporting our goods to the world has been the central economic problem in all the 15 years that I have been in the House, both before we joined the Common Market and subsequently. This whole business, however, seems to contribute towards making a solution to that problem infinitely more difficult.
    Few would deny the burden of the argument that I put forward. Members of the House therefore fall into two categories. This relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). We are either reformers or deserters. I shall repeat a pro-deserter argument that I put to the House last December and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) alluded. I said:
    "In the early 1960s the argument was that we should join the Common Market in order to stop the CAP. In the late 1960s it was suggested that we should join the Common Market in order to stop the CAP solidifying. In the early 1970s people said that we should join in order to reform the CAP. It is now argued that the CAP cannot go on as it is, and that it is bound to be reformed."
    Going through all this, one is reminded of the donkey with the carrot tied to its neck and of the advertisement for The Times, which reads:
    "Have you ever wished you were better informed?"
    Nowadays it is said that the budget will run out of money in 1982 and the CAP will therefore be reformed. It is also said that the CAP will never survive the accession of Spain. I repeat the point that I made during the earlier debate:
    "The CAP may be modified, but it will not be reformed. It will remain rooted in its high-price, Corn-Law-type principles. We will not be allowed to trade on the world markets and to buy the cheapest good food"—
    as we used to, before we joined the Common Market—
    "although that is in our interests."— [Official Report, 18 December 1980; Vol. 996, c. 978–79.]
    and I believe that it is good Socialism, too.
    The situation is even worse, because on 17 November the Minister of Agriculture, talking to the Conservative Brussels Association, defended the CAP in principle. On top of that, for good measure, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, talking to the Ubersee Club in Hamburg on the same night, said that the common agricultural policy was part of the fabric of the Community. That seems to be an abdication of responsibility by those two Ministers, given our economic position, and almost a dereliction of duty. If the Lord Privy Seal is right in his claim that we are to try to reform the CAP, those two speeches have more or less given away our negotiating position before we have started to negotiate.
    The latest price increases have added to our problems. It was said—this is in direct contradiction to undertakings given during the general election campaign, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—that we would refuse to countenance any further increases for products in structural surplus. We have now piled structural surplus on top of structural surplus. Cereals, beef, veal, sugar and milk—all products under the CAP in substantial structural surplus—have had further price increases. That reduces income to the budget by providing the incentive to produce more European food and less world food, which has to pay a levy when it comes into the Common Market. It is now clear that the Common
    1034
    Market does not conform to British national interests, because the budget is almost wholly dominated by the CAP.
    Last year the Prime Minister claimed that she had won a great victory on the budget. She certainly won something, but at best it was minor victory. This is not introduced as carping criticism of the right hon. Lady. I hope that she will go in for more battles of the same kind. Indeed, I have no wish or capacity to carp. But we must not delude ourselves further about the Common Market and the common agricultural policy. It was only half a victory—half a loaf—despite the right hon. Lady's claims to the contrary, because she got only half the sum that she should have got back from the Common Market had justice been done by this country's contribution. That was at the cost of a permanent strain on our relations with our Western European allies. We have produced evidence today that that strain in relations is still carrying on.
    That victory was reduced to less than a quarter of a victory, because it was a rebate for a limited period only. This time is now half spent. This time next year we shall again be in a knock-down, drawn-out battle with our allies in Western Europe to secure the same half loaf that we won last year.
    The victory was further diminished by the form that it took. Instead of allowing us to keep our money, the Brussels authorities insist on our handing our money to them. They then graciously decide to give it back to us to spend in this country on projects of which they approve. They also claim that this returned money is EEC money.
    Only a few days ago I had a press handout from the Foreign Office listing projects in all the regions of the United Kingdom being financed by EEC money. That is not EEC money. It is out money. In the days of yore it would have been raised in this country, it would have been discussed in the House and the House would have decided how the money was to be spent. This procedure bypasses our democratically elected Parliament and diminishes its sovereignty, and it should not be tolerated. That is the answer to the spurious claims made by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best).
    People are beginning to realise that the common agricultural policy has in no way been reformed and that it will not be reformed. It is part of the essential warp and woof of the Common Market, and it is here to stay so long as we are in the Common Market. That is why the Labour Party, at its last annual conference, voted for a different relationship between this country and the Common Market in future.
    The old relationship has been tried and found wanting. We are determined to apply that new relationship on our return to office. It will be one based on friendship with our Western European allies. After all, we have much in common in foreign policy and diplomacy, and have done the ultimate by committing our defence forces to the defence of Western Europe. I am sure that our allies would not wish to do anything to compromise our capacity to maintain that commitment.
    The existence of the Brussels bureaucracy and the Brussels budget, based essentially on the common agricultural policy, are irrelevant to our main aims of security and diplomatic co-operation. Therefore, why should we put up with the rigidities of the present Common Market system when they damage our economy to a demonstrable extent? The rigid straitjacket of the common agricultural policy must be removed from our shoulders.

    1035
    The 1972 legislation, which enacted our attachment to the Common Market, was a mistake in principle which ought to be rectified as soon as possible. That is section 2 of that Act. Flexibility and the sovereignty of a democratic Parliament should be our watchwords for the future. That is why we foresee a totally new relationship for the future with the nations of Western Europe.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: The right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) began his remarks by complaining about the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). I think that he will admit that that was a fairly cheap remark, because he knows perfectly well that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup is not well and could not possibly have been here. Looking at the House, he knows that there is not much point in noting absentees. I do not see that there is much point in noting them; it would be more to the point to note those hon. Members who are present. The right hon. Member would have done better, I think, to keep off that matter.
    Despite the very small attendance, we have heard some extremely interesting speeches and I will try to deal with as many points as I can. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said that there were some fifth columnists paying officials to attack the official policy of the official Opposition on the EEC. If there were such people they would be extremely clever because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked, who knows what the policy of the official Opposition is on the EEC? It would therefore be extremely difficult for anyone to attack it.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is to come out of the Common Market.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is in a position to speak for the official Opposition. In a recent article by the right hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr. Healey) he talked about Britain's physical survival as well as our economic future depending literally on the skill and sensitivity with which we work within the Western Alliance and the European Community. That does not sound to me like coming out, and it may well be that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, as the official Opposition spokesman on foreign policy, knows what the official policy of the Opposition is. Otherwise, I think that it must be conceded that there is a good deal of doubt on that subject.
    The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) talked about nitpicking opposition, political opportunism and selective memories. That is a fair critique of some of the speeches that we heard from the Opposition—and I am afraid I do not exclude the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East.
    I shall write to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) about the subject that he raised and we might have a meeting. We will certainly take that matter up.
    The right hon. Member for Lewisham, East said that he did not concede that the effect of the recent price settlement would be only 1 per cent. on the retail price index. In fact, it will be less than that. We never said that it would be 1 per cent. on the RPI; we said that it would be 1 per cent. on the food price index. It is about 0·2 per cent. on the RPI. That is because the premiums and subsidies that we have obtained for this country for beef,
    1036
    lamb and butter are together worth about £300 million. They help British consumers and are not available to other member States. That is why the effect on the food price index is lower than the 3 per cent. figure that the Commission has suggested.
    I also tried to explain to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) why a 9 per cent. increase in food prices will lead to only a 1 per cent. increase in the retail food price. First, the common agricultural price regimes do not apply to all food, nor are producers' costs the only element in retail prices.
    Secondly, the effect on the British consumer is mitigated by the beef, lamb and butter subsidies. Thirdly, there will be no effect on the liquid price of milk in the United Kingdom, which is fixed by the Government and not by the Council. Fourthly, the fierce competition in the pigmeat market will prevent the Common Market price increase being fully reflected in the retail price. Similarly, the strong competition for shares in the British butter and cheese market will moderate the effect on consumers.
    Mr. Marlow rose——
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I will give way to my hon. Friend while noting that he refused to give way when he was speaking.
    Mr. Marlow: That is not quite correct; I gave way two or three times.
    My right hon. Friend says that we get back from the Community £300 million on butter and beef. Is he saying that we are getting back £300 million more than we would have got back if we had the same arrangements as last year?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Yes. The settlement is a small net gain to the United Kingdom. The inflation rate in the Community has been ignored by some of my hon. Friends. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) that farmers should be the only people in Europe to get no price increase for their product is highly unreasonable. It is inconceivable that that should happen. For most countries in the Community the price rise is less than the rate of inflation.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) spoke, rightly, of the importance of our milk delivery system. Our restrictions on imports of milk are designed to protect both human and animal health. We are determined to maintain the protection provided by our health and hygiene regulations. We consider them to be fully and entirely justified.
    My hon. Friend spoke eloquently and with great knowledge on the subject of sugar. The whole House will agree with what he said about the importance of sugar to certain countries, particularly the ACP countries. Their imports are guaranteed for an indefnite period under the sugar protocol to the Lomé convention. That applies to the Community as a whole and not just to the United Kingdom. Despite the closure of the Liverpool sugar refinery, the bulk of the ACP supplies will continue to be refined and consumed here.
    My hon. Friend also mentioned Community membership of the International Sugar Agreement. It offers the best means of regular balancing of the world market. We support accession to the ISA and hope, now that agreement has been reached on the Community's internal sugar regime, that the mandate that the Commission negotiated can be agreed by the Council.
    Mr. Body: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it will be impossible for the EEC to be admitted to the International Sugar Organisation so long as it goes on dumping up to 3 million tonnes of sugar a year?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: We shall see. I hope that my hon. Friend is being too pessimistic.
    Several attacks have been made on the fisheries policy. I dealt with our good faith when I was answering the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). Much has been said about the unsatisfactory arrangements that were negotiated at the time of our entry. If those in Opposition found the arrangements so unsatisfactory, why did they not include them in their renegotiation of the terms of membership? They were not mentioned.
    The inequity of the common fisheries policy, which was agreed prior to our coming to office, is recognised in the transitional arrangements and in article 103 of the Treaty, which envisages further arrangements being made.
    The right hon. Member for Llanelli asked about zones. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made it clear on many occasions that the Government's objective is to obtain an adequate zone of exclusive access, with preference beyond that designed to benefit coastal communities that are particularly dependent on fisheries. In conducting the negotiations, the Government will continue to maintain the closest liaison with the industry.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify that point about the zone of dominant preference? Does his answer mean that the Government will not agree to any arrangement unless they get a zone of dominant preference from 12 to 50 miles?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said. He has carried the industry with him and has made considerable progress.
    The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) suggested that membership of the Community was the cause of the problems that have beset our steel industry. That is farfetched, particularly as that industry has been uncompetitive in world markets because of the failure of previous Governments to take the necessary decisions. It is interesting to note that the agreement reached in the Council on 30 October—to which reference is made in the White Paper—was much welcomed by both the industry and the trade union.
    The hon. Member for Grimsby and my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and Southend, East spoke about our visible trade balance. They tended to ignore the fact that it was much better in 1980 than it had been in 1979. The hon. Member for Grimsby complained that we used the import-export ratio. He said that it was a meaningless statistic. It is not meaningless. It happens not to suit his argument. He then said that we had a manufacturing deficit with Europe and a surplus with the rest of the world. It is fairly obvious that if a country trades with others that do not have manufacturing capacities there will be a manufacturing surplus. Therefore, that point was singularly irrelevant. If the hon. Gentleman were to compare our trade performance with the EEC with our performance with other manufacturing areas he would find that we have done better with the EEC than with Japan or the United States of America.
    1038
    As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, it is absurd to pretend that the decline in our trade is due to our membership of the EEC. The problem is far more deep-seated than that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham said, it has been with us for many years. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) made an extremely positive speech. He called for more Government initiatives in several areas. I am glad to say that we have not been as backward as he thought. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has put forward proposals for a Community fund to help finance investment in coal production in member States. We look forward to further Community action in support of the coal sector. Similarly, Community member States and other countries within the International Energy Authority have acknowledged a need for additional measures to alleviate the problems that might arise if there were problems with oil supplies that fell short of a full crisis. I agree with what he said about regional and social funds.
    Several speeches have been made about political cooperation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham spoke eloquently about the need for more co-ordination in the defence sphere. He reminded us of the sober fact that Europe is incapable of defending itself. That will remain the case for many years. My right hon. Friend thought that the Community should have more say in security matters. As he will know, the German Foreign Minister agrees with him. Nevertheless, we must emphasise that NATO must be the primary forum for defence matters. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, East was not right to say that France is not a member of NATO. She is.
    Mr. Moyle: France is a signatory of the North Atlantic Treaty, but not a member of the organisation.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: She is a member of the organisation, but she has contracted out of the integrated structure.
    The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) and East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East criticised the European initiative. There was some support for it in a modified form from the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East. The hon. Member for East Kilbride was wrong when he said that Egypt was opposed to it. As I said earlier, President Sadat has said that the European initiative is extremely important, and he has welcomed it. It is not true that he is against it.
    After all, the Venice declaration seeks to secure peace in the Middle East by getting agreement on two basic principles, namely, the security of Israel and the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. Surely that is something on which everyone should agree. That is in everyone's interest, and it is entirely right that Europe should seek to have those principles established.
    Dr. Miller: I have no objection to the right hon. Gentleman's last comment. Perhaps he will check his notes, because I said nothing about Egypt's not wishing to have any association with the initiative.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I apologise; perhaps the hon. Member for Brent, South said that. It is wrong to suggest that the Venice declaration is not even-handed. It is not a good argument to say that no one cared about the Palestinians before 1967. In fact, there have been United Nations resolutions every year since 1948. Even if people did not care about the Palestinians before 1967, that is

    1039
    more a criticism of people in Europe and the rest of the world. It does not mean that the issue was not alive or that it should not be solved.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham asked about Poland. I spoke earlier of our concern at the political situation there and the need for non-interference. The Community has followed developments in Poland with great concern and has been ready to do what it can to give economic help. I confirm my right hon. Friend's figures. They are of that order of magnitude—extremely large and very serious.
    On 1 April the Community followed up its December decision to provide food and agriculture products to Poland at the Polish Government's request by a further decision to make available additional amounts of food and agriculture products on special terms.
    At heart, our membership of the Community is a political reality, as it was for the founders more than 20 years ago. It was a political decision to join, made many years ago by the Conservative Party, which we constantly reaffirm. The decision was also made by Parliament and by the people of Britain. The hon. Member for Grimsby got into great democratic knots by suggesting that another referendum would somehow be more democratic.
    We cannot go on changing our minds about Europe merely because the Labour Party keeps changing its mind.
    Mr. Spearing rose——
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, but I have only two minutes left.
    This does not mean that we should not seek the best possible economic and financial arrangements within the Community, or that we should not try to track down and eliminate inequities and idiocies where they exist. There will always be some of those.
    As the debate has shown, we differ strongly from the Labour Front Bench spokesmen, who basically adopt a "Little Englander" approach. We wish to consolidate and strengthen a Community dedicated to peace and security, which is firmly based on economic structures which are to the benefit of all its members.
    Of course, we are not blind to the inadequacies of some major Community policies, but we are setting about the reform. Our record shows that we are capable of getting results and can negotiate much more successfully with our partners than did the Labour Government. Our task will be to strengthen the base of the Community, and Britain within it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House takes note of the Report on Developments in the European Community, July to December 1980 (Cmnd. 8195).

    European Community (Developments)

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Water Bill and the Energy Conservation Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

    Water Bill
    Lords amendment considered.
    10.1 pm
    Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, with great respect to you, raise the question that the Opposition amendments to the Lords amendment are not to be called? It puts us in a little difficulty, for three reasons.
    First, as the Opposition spokesman, I learnt of this only at a late hour. Secondly, this matter, although not called tonight, was dealt with in Committee. An amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) specifically referred to breakages in the sewerage system and the effect upon large areas of the country. Thirdly, under the Water Act 1974 the concept of the hydrological cycle was accepted, by which regional water authorities have responsibility for water supply and the cleaning of dirty water and its being fed back into the water system.
    Therefore, in our law and in our practice the question of drainage and sewerage is now inescapably linked with the supply of clean water. When sewers are collapsing, particularly in the North-West, the effect on the clean water system is very serious indeed.
    While fully respecting your decision, Mr. Speaker, as we wish to raise these matters, which are of considerable importance, may I ask for a little tolerance in the debate on the Lords amendment in order that we may make clear to the House the relevance of the sewerage system to the water system?
    Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for the way in which he presented his point of order. I am sorry that he did not know until a late hour that the amendments had not been selected. Part of my difficulty is that, although what the right hon. Gentleman says about the linkage in law is correct, and although water undertakers are responsible for sewerage, the Bill has no provisions whatever relating to sewerage. It is concerned entirely with the water supply. I am, however, prepared to meet the reasonable request that the right hon. Gentleman has made and to show, in the discussion of the the Lords amendment, the same degree of tolerance as the Chairman showed in Committee.
    Mr. Howell: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word of apology to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell).
    During the debate on Third Reading, in dealing with clause 2, on the subject of water for fire-fighting purposes, I rejected somewhat strongly the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that the North-West water authority intended to make good the sum of £500,000 presently charged to users of fire-fighting equipment by charging domestic as well as measured consumers.
    1042
    As I have subsequently informed the right hon. Gentleman, his information was more up to date than mine. My Department had been informed in writing and subsequently by telephone by the North-West water authority that it intended to recover the sum only from measured consumers. However, the authority subsequently changed its mind and ultimately decided that the £500,000 should be recovered from all consumers who recieved a water supply. That clearly includes the domestic sector.
    I unreservedly apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House for misleading them on that occasion.

    Water Bill
      New Clause A

        CIVIL LIABILITY OF STATUTORY WATER UNDERTAKERS FOR ESCAPES OF WATER
        Lords amendment: After clause 5, in page 4, line 34, at end insert:
        (1) Where an escape of water, however caused, from a communication pipe or main statutory water undertakers causes loss or damage, the undertakers shall be liable, except as otherwise provided in this section, for the loss or damage.
        (2) Statutory water undertakers shall not incur any liability under subsection (1) above if the escape was due wholly to the fault of the person who suffered the loss or damage or of any servant, agent or contractor of his.
        (3) Statutory water undertakers shall not incur any liability under subsection (1) above in respect of any loss or damage suffered by any excepted undertakers for which they would not be liable apart from that subsection.
        (4) The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and the Limitation Act 1980 shall apply in relation to any loss or damage for which statutory water undertakers are liable under this section, but which is not due to their fault, as if it were due to their fault.
        (5) Nothing in subsection (1) above affects any entitlement which statutory water undertakers may have to recover contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978; and for the purposes of that Act, any loss for which statutory water undertakers are liable under that subsection shall be treated as if it were damage.
        (6) Where statutory water undertakers are liable, under any enactment or agreement passed or made before the coming into force of this section, to make a payment in respect of any loss or damage, they shall not incur liability under subsection (1) above in respect of the same loss or damage.
        (7) In this section—

        (a) "communication pipe" and "main" have the meanings assigned to them by section 1(1) of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945;

        (b) "damage" includes the death of, or injury to, any person (including any disease and any impairment of physical or mental condition);

        (b) "excepted undertakers" means—

        (i) statutory undertakers within the meaning of section 290(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971;

        (ii) any highway authority within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980;

        (iii) any bridge authority, bridge managers, street authority or street managers within the meaning of section 39(1) of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950; and

        (iv) any person on whom a right to compensation under section 26 of the said Act of 1950 is conferred;

        (d) "fault" has the same meaning as in the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945; and

        (e) "statutory water undertakers" has the meaning assigned to it by section 11(6) of the Water Act 1973.

        (8) This section shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.
        Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

        1043
        As the House will recall, when we considered the Bill on Report we undertook to introduce an amendment to provide for compensation when individuals suffered loss or damage from escapes of water from water mains. The new clause, which was introduced into the Bill in another place. fulfils that obligation.
        When we last considered this matter we looked at the principles closely and I explained why the Government had agreed to introduce this amendment and why it should, in our view, for the moment at least, be confined to escapes of water from mains and communication pipes.
        Our intention was, I think, widely welcomed not only on both sides of the House but elsewhere, and I do not think I need take up much time in explaining it. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) argued persuasively that the principle should also be introduced to the sewerage system. I agreed to his suggestion that I should receive an all-party delegation, including outside interests, such as the National Farmers' Union, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and others, to discuss the matter further. I have written to the hon. Gentleman today about this.
        As the House will recognise, the new clause imposes on statutory water undertakers a strict liability for escapes of water. That is to say, it makes clear that water undertakers are liable except in the circumstances specified in the clause. But we have not introduced many limits. We have provided that where it is wholly the fault of the person suffering the damage, or his servant, agent or contractor, no liability should rest on the water undertakers. This is the effect of subsection (2).
        Subsection (4) provides that where it is partly the fault of the person suffering the damage—r his servant, agent or contractor—he undertakers' liability should be diminished accordingly. Subsection (3) provides that no other statutory undertakers, highway authorities or allied body should benefit under this provision. The Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 exists to govern the relationships between these bodies and should be left undisturbed to do so. We also feel that it would be unreasonable that statutory water undertakers should have a higher degree of liability towards other undertakers than vice versa. That is the reason for subsection (3).
        We believe that it would be wrong for people to be able to benefit both under this clause and under other provisions in respect of the same damage. Subsection (6) prevents that possibility.
        Subsection (8) provides for the clause to be brought into force by order of the Secretary of State. The commencement date will be the subject of consultations with the water industry and will be set to enable water undertakers to make the necessary insurance and budgetary arrangements. Our initial view is that the provision should come into force on 1 April 1982.
        Although the Bill did not contain this provision when introduced, I think that few here tonight will doubt its importance. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and to the hon. Member for Edmonton and his hon. Friends for seeking to introduce it. I am sure that the Bill is greatly improved by the inclusion of this clause and, accordingly, I commend it to the House.
        10.8 pm
        Mr. Denis Howell: I express first my appreciation to the Minister for the generous manner in which he corrected
        1044
        the error in our previous proceedings about the effect of the consequential costs of eliminating water for firefighting purposes to other water consumers and in particular, for confirming what I said on Third Reading, that it had been decided, particularly in the North-West, that the cost had to be borne right across the board, which would mean an additional 1 per cent. to the domestic consumer. The Minister's apology was typically magnanimous and is fully accepted by the Opposition. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting the record.
        We are also grateful to the Government for accepting, even though in a limited form, the proposal that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), supported by the Opposition, put forward, that where water main bursts occurred that caused damage to commercial, industrial and particularly domestic consumers and, I think, also agricultural consumers, the cost should be borne by the water authorities themselves. I am aware that the National Water Council has expressed serious reservations, not least because when these bursts occur they can be of such seriousness and of such a size that the cost to the water industry in rectifying them can be enormous. This may be a new principle being embarked on in our statutes.
        I agree with the Government that it is right that the individual householder and citizen must be protected from the astronomical cost that may fall upon them through no fault of their own.
        Certainly agriculture has cause for anxiety. The industry will be pleased that the Government have accepted its point of view, particularly since the Government believe that it is virtually impossible for farmers and others to insure against such eventualities. The Opposition believe that it is impossible for the domestic consumer in towns to insure against such a calamity. The cost of insuring or rectifying the damage done by burst water mains must be accepted by the water authorities—the statutory authorities—and not by the domestic consumer. The Opposition are therefore happy to endorse the proposal that the Government made in another place in that regard.
        However, we are less than happy that burst sewers are not to be dealt with in the same way. I shall not weary the House by quoting what the Government spokesman said in the other place. In essence, he said that the principle could not be accepted because of the cost involved in the collapse of sewers. The cost is enormous. It is surely logical that if a person in one road is compensated for damage done by a burst water main, a person in the next road whose house or property is damaged by a broken sewer should be likewise compensated.
        The collapse of sewers throughout the country is an enormous problem. I am glad that the Minister said that he will see a deputation. I hope that that will prove a constructive suggestion.
        Having regard to what was said earlier by Mr. Speaker, I shall briefly explain the size of the problem. There are between 50 and 60 collapses of the sewer system every week in the country as a whole. In Manchester alone, there are two collapses each week. Our failure and inability to replace these antediluvian sewers is so great that I am told that the method of calculating the problem is now referred to in the technical jargon of "DDB" meaning a double-decker bus. So when a collapse in the sewer system—as happened recently in Manchester—is referred to as "five

        1045
        DDB", it means that the havoc created is equivalent to the size of five double-decker buses. The House will understand the enormity of the problem.
        10.15 pm
        Manchester alone needs £870 million to replace the sewerage systems that have been there since the Industrial Revolution—some of them, I am told, since the French Revolution. A very serious situation has developed. It has been calculated by one of the officers of the National Water Council that the cost to the country of replacing its ageing, dilapidated and collapsing sewerage system is £5,000 million. That illustrates the considerable extent of the problem.
        Mr. David Crouch: The right hon. Gentleman referred to DDBs. I have never heard that jargon before. It can apply only to Manchester. I am sure that no other city would have such a designation for the troubles suffered from sewers. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that when I first went to my constituency, 15 years ago, the sewer just outside Whitstable was open on the surface and running out to sea? That has been put right by my influence—whether, also, under the influence of a Conservative or a Labour Government I forget. It was much more important to worry about whether it would be put right than about which Government did it.
        Mr. Howell: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who has made a very pertinent point. The logic of what he says is not only that the open cesspools and sewers should be dealt with where they run to the sea. Collapsing sewers that affect the gas and fresh water supplies give rise to a serious problem. Sewage gets into the clean water supply, and that can have incalculable consequences for all concerned. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I are agreed about the serious nature of the problem for convenience and for public health, and I am obliged to him for making that clear.
        Another factor is also clear. It arises from the activities of the Secretary of State and his fly-by-night accountants. They have visited the regional water authorities, looking at their books on the basis of current cost accounting. By that means they have been able to rectify their earlier accountancy instructions to the authorities, which would have added enormously to water rates this year. Magically, the water rates have been brought back down to what the Government think is a more reasonable level. However, those activities have also involved an additional cut in the amount of money available for the replacement of sewers and for the capital works that are involved. That will add to the problem.
        Our aim tonight is to highlight the extent to which it is not now possible for the Government to provide for the maintenance and replacement of our ageing sewerage system. The problem is most serious in the North-West, but London and other industrial towns, such as Birmingham, and regions such as the North-East and the North, are catching up. I do not make a party point here. Both sides of the House have a responsibility in this respect. The House as a whole must provide for the collapsing sewerage system. However, the hazard will be heightened by what the Government have been doing recently, and the problem must be tackled soon.
        1046
        In conducting research for the debate I discovered that eight years ago the country was spending twice as much on the replacement of decrepit sewers as it is spending this year, while the problem now is four or five times as great as it was then. These figures throw up in sharp relief the problem to which we seek to draw attention.
        We welcome the fact that in another place the Government met the anxiety that we expressed in Committee and on Second Reading about the collapse of water mains and the effect upon domestic, commercial and industrial users. We hope that he will accept the logic of the position that where a householder or an industrial or commercial user is affected by a collapsed sewer the same arrangements should apply. That principle, which was admirably stated by the Minister and by Government spokesmen in the other place, has been absolutely right in respect of water supply, and in logic it must be applied equally to the drainage and sewerage system.
        I thank the Minister for taking action. I hope that on a subsequent occasion he will extend the Government's clarity of thinking to cover the whole water cycle. The principle under which the water supply operates is that it is impossile to divide the supply of wholesome water from the treatment of the dirty water that follows. For example, water in the River Thames is used five or six times over during its passage along the Thames. It is used, cleaned, put back into the system, used again and cleaned again. That process takes place on four or five occasions.
        That was the principle that a previous Government established as the basis for our water industry. The hydrological cycle leads to responsibility for the supply, use, disposal and drainage of water. Logic seems to lead inescapably to the Government's accepting responsibility for burst sewer mains as well as responsibility for burst water mains.
        Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has met in full the argument that was advanced on Second Reading. The agricultural community is grateful for the way in which he has responded. I am grateful to Labour Members for the support that they have given in the course of getting the new clause on to the statute book. That is especially true of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham).
        I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend say that he hoped that the commencement date would be in April 1982. I hope that he is able to adhere to that date. As he will know, water authorities have on occasions been able to persuade Ministers not to bring legislation into effect. The most notable example is that some of the provisions in part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 are still not in operation. We are dealing with an insurable risk and there are no budgetary implications.
        I hope that it is appreciated that the scope of the new clause extends beyond damage to property. My hon. Friend has rightly provided for its extension to personal injury. This will be of importance because a number of road accidents are caused by the presence on the roadway of water escaping from mains. In the past, those involved have not been able to recover damages except on proof of negligence. That position is changed by this provision, and I think that it will be greatly welcomed.
        Mr. Robert Litherland: The difficulty facing those with constituencies such as mine in central Manchester is accepting that the cost of liability for

        1047
        damage will affect the funding, maintenance and revitalisation of the sewerage system. Those are factors that are causing all the problems. I agree with the compensation factor, but I am sure that we are all agreed that prevention is the remedy and that prevention is costly, especially in cities such as Manchester, which is one of the oldest industrial cities. Because of that, it has some of the oldest sewers. Many were built in the 1800s and 1850s. Some were built at the time of the passing of the Police Act 1792. Therefore, it does not need a mathematician to reach the conclusion that many have outlived their expected life of 125 years.
        Some of those sewers are now more than 150 years old and are still in full use. That is a tribute to the workers who built them. However, life does not stand still. There have been many changes since those sewers were constructed in brick and in many shapes and forms. There have been changes since the Industrial Revolution. There have been great changes in heavy goods vehicles and transport usage of the roads above the sewers and great changes in the deterioration below the surface. In 1981 we are faced with a losing battle unless finance and resources can be found to reverse that situation.
        The general public can comment and put pressure on their local councillors to have the public highways maintained, but how many people are aware of what lies beneath the surface? How many people are aware of the problems?
        Lately, the number of sewer collapses in my constituency has reached frightening proportions. Massive holes are appearing with monotony. The effect of those collapses in the city is depressing. Major diversions and road works caused by sewer collapse have an added detrimental effect.
        A losing battle is being fought when dereliction is taking place faster than renewal. Although the problem is underground and out of sight, it will not go away. Each day there is a new threat. One day the catastrophe of a double-decker bus disappearing down a gaping hole in the road, as envisaged by the city engineer, could become a reality.
        In recent years there have been three serious major sewer collapses, all involving major traffic diversions. Fortunately, those collapses were located before a serious highway collapse occurred. The possibility of a collapse is a serious danger when one considers the risks to life and limb from one of the oldest sewerage networks under roads carrying heavy loads of industrial traffic. As a regional centre, Manchester takes a tremendous amount of heavy traffic. It is one of the oldest cities with a deteriorating sewerage system, and the combination of this and the heavy traffic could be a disaster.
        The following factors pose a problem in my constituency: the danger, the cost to business, the delays in getting to work, and the inconvenience of congested city roads and diversions, which put additional loads on to the adjacent streets, which are often overloaded at peak hours, with resulting additional traffic congestion. Therefore, industrial and business traffic often has to be diverted over longer routes, and movement is slower because of the amount of traffic being absorbed. That is all the result of the deterioration of the sewerage system.
        Moneys have been found to revitalise the inner city areas. The urgent request is that finance should be found for what is a priority. It is no use financing surface
        1048
        environmental improvements over a decaying underground network of sewerage and water supply systems. Many of the water distribution mains were constructed in the same era as the sewers. They also have reached the end of their useful life. If a water main bursts it will cause a sewer collapse, and vice versa.
        The financing of the water mains comes from the same source and is virtually competing with the financing of the sewerage system maintenance. It is recognised that that is an immense problem. It is an offshoot from the Industrial Revolution and the rapid growth in the North-West in general and in Manchester in particular. However, moneys will have to be found unless there is to be a continuation of the problem.
        10.30 pm
        Patch-and-prop solutions over the years have only delayed the inevitable. The infrastructures are worn out and must be replaced rather than repaired. The disparity between the money spent on highways and the money spent on sewers should be rectified. It is no use walking, cycling, motoring or traveling by bus on well-maintained highways if at any moment they may collapse. There is a joke to the effect that I represent the largest and most expensive golf course in the world, with all the holes dotted throughout the city centre.
        It will be expensive to renew the sewers. The city engineer and surveyor has advised the council that if it is necessary to renew completely all the obsolete sewers in the city centre we could be talking about at least £50 million, when the provision in the North-West's proposed five-year capital budget is only £1·6 million. I mention only the problem in Manchester, but other major cities may have similar problems.
        Mr. Geoffrey Read, the city engineer and surveyor, told the highways committee:
        "It is appreciated that the Highways Committee regard the allocation of funds for the renovation of sewers to be of paramount importance and will continue at every opportunity to press the Water Authority and the Government for an improvement in the situation. After all, it was the mills. the mines and the hardworking population of this area during the Industrial Revolution that ensured the nation's prosperity and it would seem not unreasonable that the nation as a whole should, in return, contribute towards the dereliction we have beneath us to-day.
        To summarise the present situation:—

        (a) there is positive evidence as to the widespread structural dilapidation of the early part of our City centre sewerage networks—a potential danger to life and limb;

        (b) there is positive evidence of widespread inadequate hydraulic carrying capacity leading often to continual discharge of polluted liquid to our main water courses—a potential public health risk."

        I implore the Government to find the money to revitalise the sewerage system. This part of the Bill highlights the vicious circle of compensation needing to be paid because not enough finance is given to remedy the cause of the problem. I repeat that prevention is better than compensation.
        Mr. Paul Hawkins: It is a good amendment, but it will cost the ratepayers more money as the cost of insurance will be heavy.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) stated that the definition was wide enough to cover a large number of people, but what do the terms "communication pipe" and "main" mean in subsection (7)(a)? It states that they
        "have the meanings assigned to them by section 1(1) of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945",

        1049
        but I should like clarification.
        In my constituency, the River Ouse runs for about 11 miles from close to my home out to the sea at King's Lynn, into the Wash. When we had the East Coast surge, a relief channel was dug alongside the river for nine miles, allowing the water coming down from Ely in time of flood to bypass the Denver sluice, which was built by the great Dutch engineer, Vermuyden, and was later reconstructed. In the opposite direction, some of this water can be channelled off to feed the reservoirs in Suffolk, which in turn feed back to the Essex reservoirs.
        The sluice has been constructed in such a way that surplus may be directed into the sea or back inland to provide fresh water for householders in Essex.
        Part of the system is open, in large canals, and part of it is in a 15-mile length of underground pipes. As the Anglia water authority knows, I am worried about the condition of Denver sluice. Three out of four of its sluices have already had to be closed because they were in bad order. If in times of flood so much water has to be put into the new canals that they overflow on to agricultural land or burst the pipes running into Suffolk and Essex, will farmers in my own and neighbouring constituencies be covered by the clause?
        That is really my only question. If my hon. Friend the Minister cannot answer it now, although he probably can, perhaps he will let me know later. It is a very urgent matter. For many years there were floods in Norfolk and the Isle of Ely in which tributaries of the Ouse, and, indeed, the main river itself, burst their banks. We have now constructed a different system and for 20 years or more we have succeeded in avoiding the great floods which used to occur every five or seven years, causing millions of pounds worth of damage.
        There is now a build-up of bad maintenance in a major part of the system, due to lack of money. I do not blame the Anglia water authority, which is pressed in all directions. I am fearful that considerable damage may be suffered by farmers with land on either side of the new canals—which I call water mains—or the underground water main, which is, in fact, a piped supply taking fresh water to the householders of Essex.
        Mr. Ted Graham: I can only tell the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) that if he does not obtain a positive "Yes" from the Minister, many of us will have been fooled, both here and in Committee, as to the interpretation and intention of the new clause.
        I re-emphasise on behalf of the Opposition two points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who opened the debate and by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland).
        I must say first of all, and without reservation, that the Government are to be commended for the speed and fullness with which they seized the opportunity presented to them by the initiatives taken on Second Reading, when the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) introduced the possibility of taking this step, and in Committee, when he and other hon. Members on both sides carefully explained to the Minister and his colleagues the urgency of the need to take it. The Minister is to be congratulated for the manner and the speed with which the clause appeared and the consultations that took place.
        1050
        It is difficult to quantify the precise number of people who will benefit, because with the commitment to prove negligence one does not know how many people give up and do not try to obtain compensation. To that extent, therefore, we are in the dark. Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Grantham said, this will be covered by insurance and the purpose of the clause in terms of water damage will undoubtedly aid a great many people.
        Secondly, we cannot see why there has been so little speed in responding to what we regard as the twin objectives of the initiative put forward by the Opposition. The Minister has not said other than that he would consider the problem of sewage. He said that in Committee, and on Report he again reserved his position. We allowed him to do that because of the assurance in Committee that there would be a new clause. We recognised the urgency of effecting the borrowing powers provisions for the British Waterways Board. We do not wish to hold those up.
        There is an interesting aspect in the Government's priorities. They should have acted more speedily in regard to consultations. The Minister in the other place was chided by an Opposition Member about the consultations taking place earlier than had been forecast. I acknowledge that the Minister has written to me today in helpful terms. We intend to respond to his invitation on an all-party, all-interest basis as quickly as possible.
        I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Grantham about the operative date. The hon. Gentleman wants a categoric assurance that it will be 1 April. Will the Minister consider the operative date being earlier than 1 April? There may be pressure in another place for it to be later than 1 April next year. That is why the hon. Member for Grantham went out of his way to raise the matter. I suggest that the effective date should be before 1 April because, as the hon. Member for Grantham pointed out, the clause will have, few if any, budgetary impacts on water authorities.
        If the Minister says that he does not wish to interfere with the preparation of budgets by water authorities, I suggest that he had better think again. In February and April the Secretary of State did not hesitate to say to the water authorities "I know that you have prepared your budgets, but you must think again." He sent in his accounting Whiz kids. They reported that even though the budgets had been prepared it was possible to effect substantial savings. We know that the accounting Whiz kids transferred figures from one column to another. In effect, they forced on the water authorities reductions in their contingency funds and in the amounts they had decided to spend on capital projects.
        The Minister should be more forthcoming on the question of sewers. We may have failed to comprehend the scale of the problem because we have not seen the national survey costings. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central knows his area well. The North-West is possibly the worst area in the country.
        10.45 pm
        The Thames water authority is very little different. I have spoken to the authority within the past day or two. In view of what the Minister has insisted that it cuts from its capital expenditure over the next two years, I asked it what were the projects on which it would have made progress but would not now make progress. I was told that on certain projects, which the authority felt were essential for the protection of the health and the environment of my

        1051
        constituents and others in terms of sewerage and water, there would not now be progress, because of the actions of the Secretary of State.
        On capital, money was due to be spent on the Mogden sewage treatment works, on metering and control equipment. That has now been delayed, not as a result of the budgetary measures of the Thames water authority but on the diktat of the Secretary of State. The Crossness sewage treatment works digestion plant conversion will not now take place. The Worcester Park sewage treatment works extension, the Berwick Avenue surface water sewer, the Northern stormwater outfall at Thamesdown, and the Moor Park and Westbury foul and surface water sewer have been deferred and delayed.
        While telling the House that they are sympathetic to consideration being given to solving the sewerage problem, the Government are telling the Thames water authority, in a cavalier fashion—although the authority knows best and is willing to levy a fraction of a penny water rate to get ahead with the work—that it cannot do so. This is for the Government's political purposes and because they want to appear to be seen to cut costs.
        In the Thames water authority area there are 31,000 miles of sewers. I have been delighted to learn that the authority has a programme of investigation, which it will take two years to complete, to ascertan the extent of the damage to its sewerage system. No matter what the cost, it seriously wants to find out. I am grateful that the authority is doing what I believe every other water authority wants to do, and that is to make sure that instead of using the Bill and this clause to enable a person to claim compensation it stops the damage by renewing the pipes and the systems.
        I very much hope that when the Minister responds to this debate, having already won medals for what he has done in Committee and what he has authorised in another place in terms of liability and the need to claim negligence on the part of an undertaking in relation to water supplies, he will tell the House that he appreciates that there is an enormous problem to be considered in terms of sewerage and that he will be helpful to the deputation when it meets him.
        With those words, we give a very warm welcome to the new clause that has come to us from another place.
        Mr. Giles Shaw: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the points raised in this debate.
        The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and others, in particular the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), raised the question of sewerage in connection with the indications given in the Committee that we would look at the principle of extension of the sewerage system. I should like to make two points on this. There must be in our minds a distinction between a clause which deals with liability and compensation and the question of capital renewal and replacement of an utterly obsolete sewerage system. These two things must be separated in dealing with the measure now before us.
        The hon. Member for Manchester, Central quite rightly drew attention to the enormous need for capital works and capital replacement in an area which contains a substantial amount of ancient sewerage system and in which there was, therefore, increasing risk of collapse. In law, it is a
        1052
        question whether collapse is caused by the last double-decker bus to pass overhead, by the negligence of the North-West water authority or by the negligence of the highway authority, which might not have determined the stability of the foundations. A substantial chain of questions are raised that are not easy to answer in the simple terms of a clause that extends compensation.
        I turn to the subject of costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) suggested that there were few, if any, budgetary considerations. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) also raised this point. There is a significant cost element in extending compensation under the new clause. We did our best to ask the industry for its estimate of the additional costs that it would incur through insurance cover. The estimates suggest that costs to the industry as a whole could be between £8 million and £10 million. This must be seen in the context of the overall amount of revenue that is attracted to the water industry. That amounts to about £1·54 billion. One might see a relationship between the provision of costs and 0·6 per cent. for charges. Nevertheless, it is not an insignificant element in relation to charges.
        The Government recognise that in respect of water mains, where pressure is involved, the case for damage is more substantial because o:' both force and frequency. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), I should point out that we can define a water main. The water main is the pipe that gives the general supply, under pressure, from which consumers draw their supplies. The communication pipe runs from the main to the boundary of the consumer's premises. That pipe comes within the authority of the water undertaking.
        Mr. Denis Howell: Can the hon. Gentleman give the relative figures for collapsed mains and collapsed sewers? My information is that there is little difference between the number of bursts in clean water supplies and the number of bursts in the sewerage system. I fully accept the figures that the hon. Gentleman was obliged to give the House, which showed the enormity of the cost to the water industry. Does he accept that if the size of the cost is a factor in excluding sewers from this provision, the obligation on the householder or farmer must be overwhelming? Does he not realise that that cannot be accepted? If a statutory authority cannot accept such an obligation, we should not expect the domestic user to do so. That is neither logical nor legally correct.
        Mr. Shaw: As regards the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, no one knows the cost of extending the provision to cover the whole sewerage system. That is one reason why I suggest that the problem should be carefully discussed. As regards the right hon. Gentleman's second point, he should recognise that a substantial part of the sewerage system is not in the hands of statutory water undertakings. Much of it involves private building land. A private developer has the right to tap into a sewer, generally speaking. It is not certain that a water authority would cover the vast majority of breakages.
        I accept that the matter requires careful assessment That is why the offer made to the hon. Member for Edmonton is being eagerly taken up. I should emphasise that we can define "water main". Bursts occur frequently' and usually affect both domestic and agricultural premises. It will be very difficult to deal, within the same

        1053
        time scale of preparation and definition, with questions of what would happen when there were bursts within the sewerage system and where the liability should rest. The point raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central vividly illustrates the problems of definition.
        Hon. Members have understandably criticised water authorities for their failure to deal quickly with all the problems of their systems, but the authorities inherited a most difficult problem. The majority have moved with commendable speed in trying to bring the sewerage and water treatment systems up to a more modem condition. I pay them full tribute for their rapid progress in the relatively few years in which they have been in operation.
        This brings me to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West. I guess from his description that he was referring to a system that is not so much a pressurised conduit of pure water for domestic use as a combination of factors, including the transmission not of water under pressure but of general water from one area to another. I shall write to my hon. Friend in detail about the sluice and canal system. It may not be easy to bring it within the definition of the compensation clause that we are discussing.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and the hon. Member for Edmonton asked about the commencement date. At present we intend the clause to come into force on 1 April 1982, but we must discuss the date with the authorities. They recognise that it is their duty to see that the provision is implemented as soon as possible after enactment. However, I have said that there are budgetary considerations.
        Mr. Graham: Those who suffer hurt are to be given a remedy, but as long as this prospective change is held in suspense there will continue to be, for six months to a year, aggrieved people who are denied the benefit of the legislation. It will be on the statute book, but the effective date will not have been reached. The prospect of redress, of remedy, is now held out. Although some people may want that remedy to be delayed, for their own very good reasons, I hope that good will and the greater good of the greatest number will prevail.
        Mr. Shaw: For damage due to bursts, the water authorities have traditionally offered, particularly to individuals, ex gratia compensatory payments that have not been ungenerous. I am sure that that protection will continue. We should be doing the authorities a disservice if we suggested that a serious gap was opening up between the passage of the Bill and implementation of the clause, although I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
        I recognise that although we seek to solve one problem in the clause, other problems remain. Their complexity is such that it will not be easy to resolve them quickly. The cost of the compensation that we propose will ultimately have to be borne by consumers. We must tread with care before adding significant costs.
        While water authorities are fully in control of the mains and the communication pipes leading therefrom, they are not in the same position as regards other water disposal systems. However, I look forward to meeting the hon. Member for Edmonton and his all-party, all-interest group.
        It appears to be the wish of both sides of the House that we should agree with the Lords in the amendment and see the Bill through to Royal Assent.
        Question put and agreed to.

    Energy Conservation Bill [Lords]
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Energy Conservation Bill [Lords]
      New Clause 1

        VOLUNTARY CODE OF PRACTICE
        'The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the commencement of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament a copy of a voluntary code of practice, as agreed with the relevant manufacturers, relating to efficiency standards and energy labelling for domestic energy consuming appliances.'—[Mr. Eadie.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        11 pm
        Mr. Alex Eadie: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        I do not think that the Minister will be surprised to see the new clause on Report, because it is associated with an amendment that I tabled to clause 1 in Committee. Among other things, we were unhappy about electrical appliances being excluded from the clause. As an Opposition we voted on the amendment. Indeed, as the Minister will recall, I put down a marker when we reached clause 8, which deals with the interpretation of part I.
        I have had the opportunity to read in a more leisurely way what the Minister said in Committee in reply to my proposed amendments to clause 1. He argued very strongly in favour of a voluntary code of practice. For the information of the House on Report, I must quote to some extent what the Minister said at the first sitting of the Committee, because it is central to the reason why we feel that the new clause should have his approval. He said:
        "The development of voluntary efficiency standards is clearly the first route which the Government at this stage ought to take."
        The Minister outlined certain prerequisites. He said:
        "The second is a new look at the possibility of a voluntary system of energy labelling, to give consumers the information on which to make a rational choice."
        The Minister complimented his hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson) when he said:
        "I entirely accept the comments made anecdotally by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton—an important example of the kind of difficulty that the consumer is facing. Where we can help in encouraging industry in this way, we should."
        The Minister then outlined to the Committee a third route.
        He said:
        "The third route, possibly at some later stage, is a scheme with statutory backing. We hold this in reserve, because we must make it clear that we should like to see this move forward in a way which is efficacious for industry and for the community."
        In the course of his reply, the Minister was interrupted by his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), who wanted an assurance from him. It is fair to say that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East and his hon. Friends were seized of the kinds of argument that we were advancing when moving the amendments to clause 1. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East, in his intervention, asked the Minister to
        "assure us that this is not just verbiage in order to placate one-or two members of the Committee, and that there really is a meaningful timetable, which will lead to something in the foreseeable future."
        One could not be more forceful than that.
        The Minister replied:
        "I am sure that my hon. Friend will not make the mistake of assuming that, if I give what is clearly my support and approval of this route, I would regard that as verbiage … I have tried to indicate the rational route, the route that will be of help to
        1056
        industry and, I hope, to the consumer and to society. I hope that what I have said will persuade the hon. Member for Midlothian to seek to withdraw his amendment. If not, I hope that I can rely on the support of my hon. Friends."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 March 1981; c. 27–28.]
        I believe that the House will support me when I say that the hon. Gentleman has made my case. I anticipate his support and that of his hon. Friends. The period of six months before the Act becomes law is generous by any standards. My hon. Friends and I cannot be accused of rushing the issue. Work can proceed on achieving a voluntary code of practice with the relevant manufacturers.
        An accusation was made (luring our debates that the Bill paid too little attention to consumers. The acceptance of the amendment can redress the matter. I have pleasure in commending it for the support of the House.
        Mr. Peter Rost: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) reminded the House that in Committee I supported the inclusion of electrical appliances either in some form of type approval or, preferably, some form of energy labelling. I am pleased to see the amendment before the House. It might produce the most desired result of all—a voluntary code of practice, as already applicable in some European countries and proposed in others.
        My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who persuaded me not to support the original amendment because he favoured some sort of voluntary code, has reacted rapidly to what may have been my rather sharp rebuke that we wanted not verbiage but action. Since the Committee stage was concluded not many days ago my hon. Friend has acted. The Department of Energy, under the leadership of my hon. Friend, appears to be moving fairly smartly towards urging the electrical appliance industry to try to agree a voluntary code.
        I have met the director of the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Electrical Appliances. Although the association is not over-enthusiastic about a voluntary code for labelling domestic appliances, it is nevertheless persuaded that this is likely to happen and is willing to co-operate with my hon. Friend.
        I wanted simply to record that there appears to be some movement. I hope, therefore, that there will be no need for the House to accept the amendment, since it appears that my hon. Friend is determined to establish a voluntary code, even if it takes a little longer than six months to achieve.
        Mr. Tom Pendry: I intend to intervene briefly in this debate to support the new clause and the voluntary code of practice. In my constituency I have a firm called IMI Range Limited, known locally in Stalybridge as Range Boilers, which manufactures hot water cylinders of the British standard kite-mark kind. These cylinders are most efficient, but are slightly more costly than the non-British standard cylinders or screw-in, heating-element type, which are about £2 cheaper but much more expensive to operate. It is estimated that between 1·5 million and 2 million people have such cylinders installed, and that the cost to the nation is between £20 million and £26 million a year.
        More and more of these less efficient cylinders are being installed. The present annual rate of installation of non-British standard cylinders is over 100,000. A saving of £1·3 million could be made if British Standards were

        1057
        adhered to. A recent survey carried out by the University of Manchester institute of science and technology shows that the annual increased fuel cost for the average household is between £13 and £14 per year more if the less efficient cylinder is installed. Moreover, 25 per cent. more fuel is consumed when the boiler is used for water heating. The report shows conclusively, following extensive tests, that heat exchangers with greater heat transfer capability enable gas boilers to run more efficiently during hot water production cycles. In those conditions, the fuel consumption for hot water production is greater by over 26 per cent., and by 23 per cent. when the screw-in and medium-duty heat exchangers are employed.
        I am making a constituency point, because the factory has lost about 55 per cent. of its work force over the past 18 months. However, it refuses to lower its standards. It has paid a high price. It may ultimately have to lower its standards. The company looks to the Government to accept the spirit of the new clause. It could then stay in business and produce the kind of cylinder that should be used throughout the country.
        I shall not go through the report, but I shall be glad to give the Minister a copy of it. It is hot off the press. I hope that he will study it closely and make known his views on it at some stage. If we are in earnest about saving energy and reducing costs, we must pay careful attention to the important issues that I have mentioned.
        Mr. Frank Haynes: I, too, felt that we had an interesting Committee stage. The two sides of the Committee agreed on many things. I see no objection to the new clause.
        The message came over loud and clear in Committee that the Government were not able to provide the money to do various things in the interests of energy conservation, but they fell over themselves to agree to do anything that was free, or that would not cost much.
        It is all very well to keep talking about the manufacturers, but we should be talking about the consumers. It is not just a matter of persuading manufacturers to take certain voluntary steps. We must stress that those steps are in the interests of the consumer. We are talking about energy conservation. Great strides can be made in this direction. The Minister should accept the new clause because it is in the interests of energy conservation, which is related to the problems of the whole economy. It may play only a minute part, but over the years will save the country millions of pounds. In addition, it will be of great assistance to the consumer
        11.15 pm
        The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and other hon. Members for putting down the new clause again. We had long discussions on this subject in Committee and it was discussed in another place. It is clearly of considerable importance. I acknowledge the words of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). The company in his constituency is to be commended for its consistent diligence in the pursuit of energy efficiency. But it would be unwise to take the House through the detailed and lengthy discussions that we had in Committee, useful though they were. All right hon. and hon. Members present have no doubt diligently
        1058
        studied our Committee proceedings. In this clause, however, we are examining not only the arguments concerning a voluntary code of practice. The essence of the clause related not to the voluntary aspect which featured in our debates in Committee but to the time limits that hon. Members feel should be put upon the Government in committing themselves to certain courses of action.
        The problem is to decide on the best approach towards realising the scope for improvement. In Committee I said that there were several possible ways forward—voluntary efficiency standards, a new look at the possibility of the voluntary system with energy labelling, which is embodied in the clause, or, perhaps at some later stage, a scheme with statutory backing. I said that the Government intended to meet the industry and others concerned in the coming months to examine these possibilities fully. The objective had to be to establish a broad measure of agreement on the way forward to more energy-efficient domestic appliances.
        In reply to an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), who made similar comments tonight, I said that there would be an energetic pursuit of the matter and that the Government for their part would act without delay. Since then, as my hon. Friend seems to know, although the Committee discussions were only four weeks away I have already written to the director general of the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Electrical Appliances inviting him—he has accepted, with other leading members of the industry—to an early meeting, which has already been arranged. Since the meeting in Committee my Department has also written to the Electricity Consumers' Council, to the Consumers Association and to other consumer organisations, including the Retail Trading Standards Association, the Retail Distributors Association and others affected, inviting them to meet me or, if they would prefer, to let us have an up-to-date statement of their views on this subject.
        I hope that hon. Members will accept that we are not letting grass grow under our feet on this important issue. I meant what I said in Committee—that the Government would pursue this matter energetically and without delay.
        Mr. Rost: My hon. Friend also said that he had been making inquiries in his Department about how energy labelling schemes were working on the Continent. Will he give an assurance that he will keep his officials busy on getting up-to-date information about how other schemes are working in other countries, so that we can see what prospects there are of a sensible, workable scheme?
        Mr. Moore: I never hesitate to ask my officials on such matters, but I assure my hon. Friend that the officials in the Department are perfect examples of excellent civil servants who are constantly efficient in the pursuit of the public good in this area. I returned yesterday from Berlin, where I had discussions with other IEA Government representatives about energy conservation, among other matters, and they were excited and impressed by our activities in this direction.
        I come now to the clause that is under discussion. I said that we would pursue these matters energetically, and I think that we are doing so. I agree with many of the remarks that have been made about the character of voluntary labelling under the clause. However, I believe

        1059
        that it is not reasonable to expect the Government, industry, consumer organisations and others to reach a conclusion within the next six months.
        First, we want carefully to consider all the possibilities. We are approaching the problem with an open mind without any preconceptions of what may be the best way forward. Secondly, we are aware that some of the technical problems are complex and that they may be difficult to settle in a matter of months. I have already drawn attention to the slow progress that has been made by international standards bodies on the development of performance standards for domestic appliancies. I emphasise that I do not wish to convey the impression that the task is impossible. I merely wish to say that it is complicated.
        Thirdly, we know from our substantial experience of consulting manufacturers and consumers that representatives of manufacturers need quite reasonably to consult their colleagues and that those who represent consumers equally reasonably need to consult representative councils or other bodies. Again, this takes time.
        Finally, we shall have to consider imports of appliances and how they are to be treated. We have already written to the European Domestic Appliance Association. Again, with the best will in the world, it will take a little time.
        I draw an analogy with the work that went into the Bill. The Government started consultations on energy efficiency standards for heat generators several months before the consultative document was issued in August 1979. By the end of October 1979 we had received most of the replies. In the early part of 1980 we were able to start putting our proposals into draft legislation. The Bill has almost completed its parliamentary stages. Even so, the work is only half complete. We now need to draft detailed orders under the Bill in consultation with manufacturers and others, such as the consumer organisations that I referred to in Committee, as clause 26(3) requires. It will be a little time before the powers in the Bill have been used to their full extent. I shall be disappointed if in the next six months we have not made substantial progress on the objectives that we have set ourselves on domestic electrical appliances.
        The Government will be pressing manufacturers and consumer organisations hard to this end. However, I doubt whether we shall be in a position in six months' time to agree a voluntary code of practice. I should be misleading the House if I suggested that that would be possible in so short a time. I am sure that hon. Members will not regard this as an indication that the Government are half-hearted in what they have set out to do. I ask hon. Members to recognise the complexity of the task.
        We are committed to examining all the possibilities, and they go wider than a voluntary code of practice on efficiency standards and energy labelling. These matters will take a little time. I hope that in the light of what I have said the hon. Member for Midlothian will feel able to seek to withdraw his clause.
        Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friends and I attach a great deal of importance to the debate. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) takes the biscuit. He started to inform the House that he had been in consultation with electrical manufacturers and that everything was going well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Haynes) will remember, the electrical manufacturers did not want to touch anything in
        1060
        this measure with a barge pole. My hon. Friend was saying throughout the Bill's consideration in Committee that the consumer's voice had really to be expressed.
        The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East said that there was no need for change. The terms of the clause meet exactly his arguments in Committee. He has what he wanted. He should have allowed his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to reply to the debate to ascertain whether he thought that the proposition was acceptable. I know that certain of us feel that we are fountains of wisdom, but there are some issues on which we like our colleagues on the Front Bench to express a view.
        Mr. Rost: The hon. Member is becoming agitated without cause. He is misrepresenting what he must have heard, if he had listened. I did not say that everything was going well or that I was taking over the responsibilities of my hon. Friend at the Department of Energy. All that I said was that my hon. Friend had initiated the talks. He was simply carrying out the assurances that he gave us in Committee. I was congratulating him on that.
        Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friends heard what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East said. He could have fooled us.
        I accept what the Minister said in reply to the new clause. He gave a proper explanation of the Government's difficulties over time limitations. However, on behalf of the Opposition, I warned him in Committee that we would try to come back to that matter. We were concerned about something being done to give the consumer some sort of safeguard, understanding and assurance.
        The Minister attacked the point in my new clause, saying that six months was not sufficient time. He advanced a reasonable case when he said that in order to put into being that voluntary code of practice, it would mean many consultations.
        My hon. Friends and I are pleased that the Minister has given categorical assurances that that will happen. The only dispute between us is on the question of when it happens. I shall not ask my hon. Friends to go through the Lobbies on the basis of its happening in six, seven, eight or nine months. I accept the Minister's assurances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New Clause 4

        COIN OPERATED GAS METER
        In the Gas Act 1972, Schedule 4, paragraph 7, line 19, there shall be inserted, at the end, the words—
        "(2) Under this section the meter shall be a coin operated prepayment meter, if such a meter is required by the consumer, unless the Corporation gives a written statement to the consumer showing why such a meter cannot be installed. If any difference arises under this section between the consumer and the Corporation, that difference shall be determined by arbitration in the County Court on the application of either party and the decision shall be final and binding on all parties."—[Mr. Ashton. ]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Joseph Ashton: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take new clause 5—Coin operated electricity meter——
        At the end of the Electric Lighting (Clause) Act 1899, section 52, there shall be inserted the following words—

        1061
        "(2) Under this section the meter shall be a coin operated prepayment meter, if such a meter is required by the consumer, unless the Board gives a written statement to the consumer showing why such a meter cannot be installed on the ground of safety or practicality. If any difference arises under this section as to the safety or practicality of such a meter that difference shall be determined by arbitration on the application of either party and the decision shall be final and binding on all parties.".
        Mr. Ashton: I shall try to be brief, because of the lateness of the hour, but this is an important part of the Bill.
        Since they came to office the Government's policy on the conservation of energy has been primarily one of conservation by price. That is why there has been a massive increase in the prices of electricity, gas and fuel oil, with a corresponding cut in the amount of subsidies available for insulation. That has resulted in a great increase in the number of disconnections.
        Disconnections of electricity in England and Wales in 1979 were carried out in respect of 88,790 families. In 1980, that figure shot up to 122,702, which is a 40 per cent. increase in disconnections of people who cannot pay their electricity bills because of the increase in charges, unemployment, depression and the poverty that is afflicting many people.
        In London alone in 1970 there were 16,467 disconnections. In 1980 that figure shot up to 37,648—more than double inside a year. Every day, 770 homes, on average, are disconnected because people cannot pay their electricity bills. Nothing is done for them. A scheme was put forward under which the Government juggled with grants and heating allowances for people on social security or for the elderly. However, for those not on social security who are probably low-wage earners, there is no help.
        One of the best forms of electricity conservation is the old coin-in-the-slot meter, in using which people automatically know how much electricity they are consuming. One of the tragedies of the method of purchasing electricity and gas today is that the meter is tucked away under the sink, at the top of the cellar steps, or in a similar place, so that people cannot see how fast the wheels are going round. Suddenly, after three months, a bill comes in for £150 and knocks them sideways. They cannot pay, and they have to cut back on food purchases or on hire-purchase payments. It causes distress when the big bill comes in at the end of a winter quarter and ordinary people cannot pay.
        11.30 pm
        It is the duty of the House to give some sort of help to these people. If we cannot give them financial help let us at least give them the right to demand a method of payment that enables them to budget from one week to the next. Many thousands of poor families would go to bed if it got to 10 o'clock on a Thursday night and the electricity supply went off because the meter needed more money. They would know how much they were consuming with that method of payment.
        There is no better method of energy conservation than that by which the customer pays according to what he can afford. In the gas industry in 1970, 5½ million consumers were paying by way of coin-operated meters. Ten years later that figure had dropped to 2 million—and that drop
        1062
        occurred at a time when the number of consumers rose. Because of slum clearances and people moving into blocks of flats the method of payment has changed.
        Every hon. Member knows of cases in which disconnection has caused great distress. I had one case in November, when a blind man, confined to a wheelchair with multiple sclerosis, had his electricity cut off. He had not paid his bill. He could not read the reminders that had been sent. He lived alone except for a mentally handicapped son aged 16. His daughter lived down the street and she used to see to him, but that week she was in hospital, having a baby. The Yorkshire electricity board came down and disconnected his electricity, leaving this man alone in his house, with a guide dog and two or three lighted candles to show that the electricity had been cut off. The guide dog could have knocked over the lighted candles and set the house on fire.
        I rang the Yorkshire electricity board and chased it from the top man to the bottom. I asked "Why didn't you put in a meter?" I was told "He never asked for one." This happens time after time. All too often the bureaucracy in the gas and electricity boards goes for what is most convenient for its red tape and not for what is most convenient for the consumer. Practice varies widely throughout the country. Electricity and gas boards will say "The consumer can have a meter. There is nothing to stop him having one." Just try and get one.
        We all know of one-parent families that have come to us saying that they would like a slot meter to be put in. When the Member of Parliament or the social worker asks, the meter is installed. If such families are to be disconnected they get one. On the other hand, if the consumer is being caused a great deal of hardship in finding the £100 to meet his bill, as long as he can pay he will be fobbed off when he asks about a slot meter. Instructions to staff are to the effect that they must not encourage consumers to have meters. There is hardly a showroom in the country where there is a sign saying that meters are available on demand.
        If hon. Members examine the handout given to people who have difficulty in paying their bills they will note that it says:
        "You can have a slot meter if you have problems paying your bill and none of the other plans help."
        The "other plans" mean energy stamps, or paying so much a week, or other nice devices that satisfy the bureaucrats in the offices.
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the important thing is that people should have slot meters before they get into difficulties? Is he aware that many of my constituents find, when they get into difficulties and have a meter installed, that the meter is set at such a level that they are having to pay off their debt and meet current costs?
        Mr. Ashton: That is absolutely right. It is essential that people have the meter installed before they get into debt. Otherwise they have a debt of £150 and find that they are putting 50p into the meter every half hour.
        There are problems with meters. They present a temptation to people who may break into them. The man who collects the money might be knocked on the head and his cash might be stolen. There are problems like this in certain areas. Everyone accepts that meters are not the ideal way to collect money, but they are a great help to pensioners. Old people who know that they have difficulty

        1063
        in paying their bills will not break into their meters. With some meters the same coin can be used over and over again, so that even if the tenant has to pay the bill at the end of the quarter he has some idea of how often he is using energy and so can use his appliances to the limit that he can afford.
        The new clauses do not provide that any consumer, under any circumstances, has the right to demand a coin meter. There are obviously some circumstances in which the board or the corporation has a case for saying that on grounds of safety or practicability it is not wise to install a meter. There might, for instance, be a very old lady who has a gas fire with a pilot light. If the money in the meter runs out and she puts in more money but does not light the pilot light, she may be gassed in her own home, or she may strike a match and cause an explosion. Where there was an old appliance the board would be justified in saying that it would not install a meter until the appliance had been changed. In some areas the meters are grouped at the bottom of a block of flats. They are easily accessible to anybody, and in such a case the authority would be justified in saying that it would not be right to install a coin meter. A similar argument would apply if the meter were outside the house.
        The clauses provide scope for negotiation. They may at first sight seem to be ambiguous, but they have been drawn up by the electricity and gas consumer councils, in consultation with the Child Poverty Action Group, the Right to Fuel Campaign, and many other people who are interested in helping people to pay their bills. There is an arbitration panel to deal with electricity disputes. This goes back over many years, to earlier Bills. Gas disputes have to be dealt with through the county courts because there is no such panel for the gas industry.
        What is provided here is fair to all. The authorities have to give their reasons in writing, and that is important. There is no question of the consumer going to the local office and being fobbed off by a clerk saying "You are not having one and that is the end of it. It is not our policy to install such a meter." The reason for refusal has to be given in writing. I am sure that if the reason given were not satisfactory and the consumer told the local press, or went back to the Child Poverty Action Group or the consumer council, people there would be ready to help to take the matter to arbitration or to the county court.
        We went to see the Minister, and I thank him for his courtesy in examining the case that we put from the electricity and gas consumer councils and the Child Poverty Action Group. I realise the difficulty in which the Minister finds himself. The Policy Studies Institute has issued a report on this matter. That report has been available for some months, and it is likely to be some months more before anything happens. We know from experience that some of the finest reports that are produced to show how bureaucracy and red tape can be cut and the consumer protected find their way on to shelves, where they gather dust for many years until a new Minister comes in, or a new Government come in, or some other idea is launched, and they never see the light of day.
        I ask my hon. Friends to record a definite opinion to show the Minister the feeling of the House that because of the price of energy, the need for conservation and the massive increase in the number of disconnections, it is imperative to adopt this measure to help at least 1 million or 2 million poor people, who will very much welcome this provision.
        Mr. David Alton: I support the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). My noble Friend Lord Tanlaw made similar points in another place, and on Second Reading I pursued one or two of the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
        Many consumers would like the opportunity to pay by slot meter but have been deliberately prevented from doing so by electricity and gas boards. My local board, Manweb—the Merseyside and North Wales electricity board—has for some years discouraged people from having slot meters. Some of the reasons have been explained to the House. It can be dangerous for the consumer or the collector, and there have been muggings and harassment. However, many elderly people would like the option. They have great difficulty in coping with large bills. In the winter months bills can be as much as £70 or £80 a quarter, and these people find them difficult to pay. Elderly people sometimes have a stroke or a heart attack when they receive such bills. Many would like to pay as they go along, as they did before.
        Help is available through the DHSS and by rebates, but it is not the same as the basic self-respect and dignity of being able to pay as one goes along. Single parents also have problems, and they, too, do not want to live on handouts or to have someone pay the bill for them late in the day. They want to take action before the bill becomes too large, and a prepayment meter is the answer. When enormous gas and electricity bills build up and the rates and water rate bills come in people have nervous breakdowns and other mental disorders and families can break up. Great personal hardships can result.
        It is not asking a great deal to give people the chance to pay as they use the electricity. I hope that the Minister will accept this reasonable and commonsense amendment.
        Mr. Arthur Lewis: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) on bringing forward the new clause. Although some hon. Members may see difficulties in its way, no one could be against it.
        Apart from the old, the sick and the disabled, in my constituency and others we have a large number of Commonwealth citizens. We used to call them immigrants. Many come from Africa and Asia, and they feel the cold more than we do. For them, what we consider to be a nice, warm day can be cold. I visit my constituents in their homes, and they apologise, saying that the place is cold when it is unbearably hot. They do not realise that heating the house night and day eats money. If they had a slot meter, when they were watching television at 10 o'clock at night the electricity would go off. They would realise how much money they had put in during the day and they would go to bed.
        When the electricity supply is cut off there is a danger not only to the blind, the sick and the disabled but to children. My African and Jamaican constituents think nothing of putting candles all over the place, including the children's bedrooms. The children then skylark about, and it is all too easy for a candle to be knocked over and set fire to the bedding. If people had a meter they would know that if they did not put enough money in the current would go off automatically. If they had no more money they would have to go to bed. They might have to try to get assistance the next day, but that would not matter because they would be able to get help.

        1065
        I raised the question of help for the sick, the disabled and the old some time ago. I pay tribute to the Government for having stopped those people from being cut off until welfare workers had been called in to investigate. In that respect the Government have done a good job, as have the various boards. I am now concerned about those who may have the money to pay up to a point but who simply do not realise what happens when the charges accumulate. Constituents of mine have had bills of £400. That is a ludicrous amount. But they are cold and they simply do not understand. They are cold even on a summer day. I explain to them that they will have to turn off the heating. If they had meters, many of these difficulties would be obviated. I therefore pay tribute to my hon. Friend for introducing the new clause.
        Mr. Haynes: I support the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). Bearing in mind the statements of the Secretary of State for Energy about the cost of energy and the charges for consumers, it is clear that there is a massive problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw has stirred up a hornets' nest because he happens to be a journalist. Comment in the national press has brought people to my surgery and to meetings held throughout my constituency. In the main, it is the elderly who come to talk about what they have read in my hon. Friend's columns. He covered the question of providing meters in the home. He has stirred up a hornets' nest but I congratulate him because it is a step in the right direction.
        The main issue is energy conservation, which means reducing the cost to the economy and saving energy. We must consider the awful situation in which the price of energy increases month by month.
        I wish to fire two shots across the bows and to utter two words of warning. Many constituents who come to me actually have a meter, but because of the cuts in public sector manpower the man does not come round often enough to empty it. Constituents have telephoned me at home at the weekend asking me to get in touch with the authority to get somebody to empty their meters. One is then told quite smartly that there will be a charge for providing that service for an elderly person who cannot get another coin into a clogged meter. I hope that the Minister will take note of that problem. At the same time, I agree with what is suggested in the new clause.
        One point that burns up many elderly people is the standing or standard charge. With each bill, the standard charge is increased. It is a racket, and it should be stopped. Let us be fair to the consumer. We have some responsibility in this place for ensuring that the consumer gets a fair deal. If it is a fiddle, let us bring it out into the open so that people know what is happening about the standard charge.
        If there is a certain amount of coinage in the meter, the consumer gets a rebate. Surely the meter could be adjusted so that rebates did not have to be paid. The consumer may have to wait four, five or six months for the meter to be emptied. It may be a pensioner, someone with a very low income or a single person with a family. It is a burden to such people to have to wait so long for a rebate.
        I ask the Minister to consider this matter seriously. I say that with a great deal of feeling. I know the Minister to be a compassionate man. I have discovered that from talking
        1066
        to him. There is only one thing wrong. He is a member of the wrong party. He should be with the Opposition. [Hon. Members: "Which Minister?"] I am not talking about the Secretary of State. I am referring to the Under-Secretary of State.
        Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: We thought that my hon. Friend was talking about the Secretary of State.
        Mr. Haynes: No. The right hon. Gentleman has only just walked into the Chamber. [Interruption.] When hon. Members are quiet, I shall continue with my speech.
        I hope that the Minister will look seriously at this problem, because it is happening in his constituency, too.
        Mr. Allen McKay: I shall be brief. I support the new clause.
        Disconnections seem to take place mainly at weekends. The Yorkshire electricity board seems to disconnect on either a Friday night or a Saturday morning, and it is difficult for people to get supplies reconnected at weekends. Whether we like it or not, the Government's policies have led to low pay and high energy costs. People are also confused because of the new water rate system.
        Two points arise on the coin-operated system. The pay-as-you-go meter system will lead to what used to happen years ago. A person without money in his pocket would pop next door and borrow sufficient to keep going until Friday. People helped each other in that way.
        The main problem is the standing charge or the charge for installing a meter. It is ironic that a person who has to ask for a meter to be installed because he cannot afford to pay in the normal way is landed with a bill for the installation. I should like that to be looked at along with other things, so that if a charge is to be made it is taken into consideration at a weekly or a monthly rate.
        Mr. Don Dixon: I do not think that anyone could add to the points that have been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who moved the new clause. Coincidentally, however, just this week I received a letter from one of my constituents, and I want to place it on the record because it sums up how people feel, not only old-age pensioners or the sick but the unemployed, who are also finding it hard. The letter states:
        "I have just been reading the Joe Ashton column in today's edition of the Daily Star. Being one of the army of the unemployed I am finding it harder and harder to meet the ever rising quarterly bills, so I think it is a good idea to install coin-in-the-slot meters. Could you please use your vote to help the hard-pressed sick, unemployed and low-paid workers meet their bills."
        I do not think that anyone could sum up the matter better than that unemployed person, who is finding it hard to live on the pittance that he is getting from the State and who gets quarterly bills and wants only to go ahead and pay for what he has. I certainly support my hon. Friend's new clause.
        Mr. Bob Cryer: I support the new clause that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) moved, because of my experience, as a Member of Parliament, of the fact that the question of discretion whether to install coin-in-the-slot meters is that of the board and not that of the consumer. These clauses shift the right to the consumer, with facilities for some form of arbitration. I should like to refer to two cases that have come to my notice within the past few weeks.

        1067
        The first is the case of a man and wife and four children, with the electricity cut off, no heating, no lighting, and cooking on an open fire. In 1981 it seems an extraordinary set of circumstances. Installation of a coin meter was refused by the Yorkshire electricity board until the consumer had paid £50. He was a textile worker on a temporary short-time working scheme and therefore on a low wage, with his wife not working. Clearly he was in a very difficult if not impossible position in terms of obtaining relief and electric light and cooking facilities in the usual way.
        The other was a North Eastern gas board case, which occurred within the last few days. A single-parent family was threatened with disconnection because the mother owed the board about £50. Ten pounds was borrowed from her neighbour and paid to defer disconnection. Disconnection was threatened within seven days unless the £40 was paid. As a single parent the mother is in receipt of £37 a week, and quite clearly cannot have a slot meter unless the £40 is paid off. On £37 a week that is virtually impossible.
        I therefore strongly support the two clauses, which shift the right from the board to the consumer, but give the right to the board to levy the charge that will pay off the outstanding debt. It will be a help to people on low wages and will give the consumer greater discretion. I therefore expect the Government to accept the new clauses.
        Mr. Eadie: The House must agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has raised a very important social issue this evening. The issue of prepayment meters is not a new one; it has been before the House on other occasions, and various solutions have been put forward. My hon. Friend, in the course of arguing his new clauses, said very fairly that in the past arguments had been advanced about the question of money being in an unsafe safe in the home. I know that in some areas the police have sometimes been called in aid to argue against the whole question of a prepayment meter.
        However, I think that the hon. Gentleman who is about to reply must agree that many people like to pay as they go. It is an old tradition—this is quite apart from the social problem—and I do not think that it is a bad characteristic. Given the cost of energy, it is more likely that people will want to pay their way as they go.
        12 midnight
        It should be pointed out that those with prepayment meters pay more for their electricity. No great favour is being done to those in this unfortunate situation. We should be concerned about that anomaly. If hon. Members feel priggish about this subject, they should remember that they pay their bills after they have used their electricity. We all pay in the form of deferred payments. To put it crudely, hon. Members get their electricity on tick.
        The Minister probably knows that area electricity boards do not have a uniform policy on prepayment meters. Some boards take a more sympathetic view than others. A board may take a more sympathetic view because of the social breakdown of the population. Some area boards may be more progressive and more understanding than others. Whatever the reason, they all apply different standards. The Minister should address himself to that fact. Why should there be different standards in different electricity boards?
        What information has the Minister received about discs? The police have mentioned problems concerning
        1068
        security in the home. It was suggested that discs rather than money could be put into meters. There would not then be any security risk. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what progress has been made. The issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw deserves an adequate reply.
        Mr. John Moore: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) for having raised this issue again, as he rightly did in Committee. It is an issue of great social importance to all hon. Members. I thank him for his courtesy in commenting on the visit that he made with members of the Child Poverty Action Group and with members of the gas and electricity consumer councils. I was happy to give time to listen to them.
        The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is always a worthy antagonist. I listened carefully to his remarks and I shall respond to any detailed points that he made. I assure him that there is no need to change parties in order to share compassion. No party has, or will have, a monopoly of compassion. I am delighted that the hon. Member recognised the compassion expressed by Conservative as well as Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) has an honourable record in pursuit of these problems. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont)—merits the congratulatory remarks that were made. Both sides of the House have made progress on an issue that concerns us all. However, that does not mean that I can necessarily accept the new clauses in toto.
        It is always more complex than might be imagined to change things in our society. However, I also hold a weekly surgery in an urban constituency and I recognise that hon. Members cannot be unaware of this problem. As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said, the great majority of gas and electricity consumers have credit meters. Out of 20 million domestic electricity consumers, only 1·2 million have prepayment meters, and 3½ million gas consumers have changed from prepayment to credit meters in the past 10 years. I am not arguing about the data; I am simply putting the facts on the record.
        Prepayment meters cost consumers more. At present, the gas regions and electricity boards do not pass on the full additional cost to customers with prepayment meters. There are problems of theft from meters, and meter readers carrying cash collected from prepayment meters have been attacked. It is not practical to site a prepayment meter outside the premises. We have already discussed the advantages of externally sited meters.
        We are dealing not with the preference of the generality of consumers but with the particular problems of people who find it difficult to pay their gas or electricity bills—problems about which the Government are very concerned. They were discussed fully with the two industries. There can be no disagreement that special provisions must be available for such consumers.
        The gas and electricity industries have a joint code of practice that deals with the problems of people who find it hard to pay their fuel bills. The code sets out the range of pay-as-you-go arrangements offered by the industries to help consumers to avoid having to pay a big lump sum all at once. There are four main pay-as-you-go plans, with additional local variations in some regions.
        First, the consumer can pay an agreed amount each week or each month towards fuel bills. Secondly, he can

        1069
        buy savings stamps at gas and electricity showrooms. Thirdly, he can pay sums in advance towards the next bill. Fourthly—the key to our debate tonight—he can have a slot meter, if he has problems in paying his bills and none of the other plans help, but it must be safe and practical for a slot meter to be installed.
        I should like to explain what sort of considerations the words "safe" and "practical" cover. Gas will be cut off if the meter is not replenished, and the undertaking needs to be satisfied that a prepayment meter will not cause hazardous escapes when the gas is restored. The safety consideration also means that a prepayment meter cannot normally be situated outside a building where it might be broken into.
        A prepayment meter may not be practical for large users of gas or electricity—for instance, where there is gas central heating or where some of the supply is on an off-peak tariff. Sometimes there are practical difficulties, particularly for disabled people, who have problems of access to the meters.
        The Policy Studies Institute is carrying out a review, sponsored by the gas and electricity industries and their consumer councils, of the industries' code of practice and the practical application of prepayment methods. The institute produced its interim report last year, pointing out, among other things, the importance of prepayment meters as a means of helping people to avoid disconnection.
        My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State held discussions with the industries and, as a result, announced on 8 December last year that it had been agreed to amend the code of practice to make it clear that prepayment meters were now more readily available, provided only that installation was safe and practical.
        The previous condition that the consumer should be suffering real hardship has been dropped. In addition, the industries undertook to ensure that their staff at all levels were fully familiar with the code and observed it strictly.
        The revised code has been published and is widely available at electricity and gas offices and showrooms, as well as the offices of many voluntary organisations, such as the citizens advice bureaux. But I have taken note of the comments that have been made, and I ask all hon. Members who have examples of particular areas of difficulty to draw them to the attention of the Department of Energy and to the attention of my hon. Friend and myself. We should like to hear of any instances where the code is not being published and promoted properly.
        The Policy Studies Institute will complete its review later this year and its final report will be published. The hon. Member for Ashfield was worried about its gathering dust. I assure him that it will be published. The Government are taking a close interest in the progress of the work and will be consulting all the interested parties about any recommendations that may be contained in the report.
        We shall pursue with the industries any further changes to the code that might be necessary. I accept that there may on occasion be difficulties of communication, particularly in ensuring that the code is operated uniformly by the industries at all levels. That was the point that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) made. As I pointed out, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has
        1070
        already taken up the matter with the industries, and he has their assurance that every effort is being made to ensure strict observance of the code by their staff.
        I repeat that I have taken careful note of what hon. Members have said and of the individual cases that they have raised. If they will let me have any details of those cases I shall ensure that they are brought to the attention of the industries.
        Mr. David Penhaligon: With regard to the definition of practical difficulties the Minister will recognise that one of the problems arises with external meters. There is no technical reason whatever why a second meter cannot be installed in a home which has an external meter. It can be done in series with the existing one so that the people concerned can have the advantage of a slot meter. It can be a real problem in many areas, because the boards are always looking for excuses to stop installing them. The practical reason whatever why a second meter cannot be installed in the house. I can see one problem—that the consumer will begin to realise that electricity meters are not quite as accurate as the industry likes to pretend they are. Will the Minister look into the matter, as there is no practical reason why it cannot be done?
        Mr. Moore: I shall be only too delighted to have attention drawn to that question and to have it reexamined. In Committee we did not manage to integrate the debates on the outside meter, the inside meter and prepayment meter, otherwise we might have tackled the problem then.
        As I said, the Policy Studies Institute will complete its review later this year. I accept that there may be many occasions when there are difficulties of communication. I have requested hon. Members to draw attention to particular problems.
        There is, however, one further point in the new clauses upon which the fuel industries have—rightly, in my view—expressed concern. I refer to the proposal that there should be binding arbitration procedure in the event of a difference between the consumer and the fuel industry concerned.
        The installation of prepayment meters should, I think we are all agreed, be subject to a proviso that the installation is safe and practical. The fuel industries already have statutory responsibilities relating to the safety of supply, and it is not altogether easy to see how these responsibilities can be reconciled with binding arbitration in what may in some cases be an issue of safety. The Governments views on the issues raised by the new clauses are very clear and very much in accordance with the concerns which hon. Members have expressed.
        We endorse the policy of making prepayment meters available to consumers who have problems in meeting their fuel bills, provided that this is safe and practical. We shall continue to maintain our close interest in this and all other aspects of the code of practice. In particular, we shall study with care the final PSI report when it is available.
        I hope that in the light of what I have said the hon. Member will feel able to seek leave to withdraw the motion.
        Mr. Ashton: I thank the Minister for his reply but I regret to say that in view of the fact that it does not extend the rights of consumers I must ask the House to express an opinion and divide.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
        The House divided: Ayes 51, Noes 105.

        Division No. 151]

        [12.13 am

        AYES

        Alton, David

        Kinnock, Neil

        Ashton, Joe

        Lamond, James

        Beith, A. J.

        Leighton, Ronald

        Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

        Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

        Booth, Rt Hon Albert

        McCartney, Hugh

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        McDonald, Dr Oonagh

        Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

        McElhone, Frank

        Cowans, Harry

        McWilliam, John

        Craigen, J. M.

        Marks, Kenneth

        Cryer, Bob

        Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

        Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)

        Newens, Stanley

        Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

        Palmer, Arthur

        Dixon, Donald

        Pendry, Tom

        Dormand, Jack

        Penhaligon, David

        Douglas, Dick

        Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

        Eadie, Alex

        Prescott, John

        Eastham, Ken

        Rooker, J. W.

        Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

        Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

        Evans, John (Newton)

        Rowlands, Ted

        Field, Frank

        Skinner, Dennis

        Foster, Derek

        Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

        Foulkes, George

        Welsh, Michael

        Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

        Haynes, Frank

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Home Robertson, John

        Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. James Tinn.

        Howells, Geraint

        Jones, Dan (Burnley)

        NOES

        Alexander, Richard

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Ancram, Michael

        Knox, David

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Le Marchant, Spencer

        Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

        Lester, Jim (Beeston)

        Berry, Hon Anthony

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Best, Keith

        MacKay, John (Argyll)

        Biggs-Davison, John

        McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

        Blackburn, John

        Major, John

        Bowden, Andrew

        Marlow, Tony

        Braine, Sir Bernard

        Mates, Michael

        Bright, Graham

        Mather, Carol

        Brinton, Tim

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Mellor, David

        Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

        Mills, Iain (Meriden)

        Bryan, Sir Paul

        Moore, John

        Buck, Antony

        Murphy, Christopher

        Carlisle, John (Luton West)

        Myles, David

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Neale, Gerrard

        Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Needham, Richard

        Cockeram, Eric

        Neubert, Michael

        Colvin, Michael

        Onslow, Cranley

        Cope, John

        Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

        Cranborne, Viscount

        Page, Richard (SW Herts)

        Crouch, David

        Patten, Christopher (Bath)

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Patten, John (Oxford)

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

        Proctor, K. Harvey

        Dover, Denshore

        Rathbone, Tim

        Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

        Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

        Eggar, Tim

        Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

        Fairgrieve, Russell

        Rost, Peter

        Fenner, Mrs Peggy

        Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

        Fisher, Sir Nigel

        Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

        Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Gorst, John

        Shersby, Michael

        Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

        Speed, Keith

        Gummer, John Selwyn

        Speller, Tony

        Hamilton, Hon A.

        Sproat, Iain

        Hawkins, Paul

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Henderson, Barry

        Stevens, Martin

        Hicks, Robert

        Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

        Hooson, Tom

        Stradling Thomas, J.

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Tebbit, Norman

        1072

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Watson, John

        Thompson, Donald

        Wheeler, John

        Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

        Wickenden, Keith

        Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

        Williams, D. (Montgomery)

        van Straubenzee, W. R.

        Wolfson, Mark

        Viggers, Peter

        Waddington, David

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Wakeham, John

        Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

        Waller, Gary

        Warren, Kenneth

        Question accordingly negatived.

      New Clause 7

        PROMOTION OF COMBINED HEAT AND POWER
        'The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the commencement of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament a copy of a voluntary code of practice, as agreed between the nationalised energy supply industries, relating to the encouragement of combined heat and power.

        (a) The code will provide guidelines for fair competition in the pricing of fuel supplied by the nationalised industries to CHP plants, and for electricity purchased from such plants by area boards.

        (b) The code will provide guidelines to promote fair competition for the marketing of heat and power from CHP plants operated in the private sector or in partnership with local authorities, and recommended the removal of institutional, contractual or monopolistic obstacles to the generation of CHP and to the sale of heat and power.

        (c) The code will provide guidelines to the CEGB on the interpretation of its statutory duties, to optimise efficiency in the conversion of fuel, by actively promoting the marketing of reject heal from its existing power stations, and to seek partnerships with industry and local authorities for CHP developments.'.—[Mr. Rost.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Rost: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The Chairman: With this we may take new clause 3—Amendment of Electricity Act 1957—.
        'After subsection (5) of section 2 of the Electricity Act 1957, there shall be added the following subsection—
        "(5A) In executing its duties under subsection (5) of this section, the Generating Board shall promote economy and efficiency in the use of energy and shall, in particular, further the development of methods by which heat obtained from or in connection with the generation of electricity may be used more efficiently, for the heating of buildings, or for any other useful purpose." '
        Mr. Rost: The hour is late, but I hope that the House will bear with me, because although the Bill is concerned with energy conservation it omits to refer to the one area of conservation that could make a bigger contribution to energy conservation than any other. I refer to the two-thirds of the fuel that we currently throw away by the manner in which we produce our electricity—the hot water that goes up the cooling towers or into the rivers. It is equivalent to a heat loss of 60 million or 70 million tonnes of coal a year—heat from which millions of our citizens could well benefit.
        Energy prices are rising. Millions of our citizens are suffering because they can no longer afford a decent standard of heat and comfort. Yet we discard from our power stations vast quantities of energy—enough to heat every building in the country. My clause is an attempt to remove the obstacles to the development of combined heat and power—obstacles that have been removed in other countries, millions of whose citizens already benefit from

        1073
        cheap heat. There are about 3,000 district heating schemes in Western Europe outside the Iron Curtain countries. There are about three in this country.
        In Committee I attempted to insert two new clauses into the Bill. They would have changed the statutory monopoly powers of the electricity supply industry, which are one of the inhibiting factors, and would have insisted on fair tariff systems for combined heat and power. I withdrew the clauses because I received assurances, first, that the Government were already planning legislation to break the monopoly powers of the CEGB and to encourage combined heat and power, and, secondly, that, as a result of the Dr. Walton Marshall report, the Government were sponsoring a feasibility study for one lead city district heating scheme. I have returned to the subject now, however, with a clause that no Government who are dedicated to a more efficient use of energy, a better deal for the consumer, and competition and efficiency in the nationalised energy industries could possibly reject.
        The clause sets out a voluntary code of practice that will ensure fair competition within the energy industries in the production of electricity both within and outside the nationalised industries. Secondly, it will guide the CEGB on its statutory powers, so that it will help to promote combined heat and power rather than deliberately frustrate its development, as has happened to date.
        On the Continent the system of electricity supply is different. It has not inhibited private development of electricity and it has resulted in a far more efficient use of fuel, to the benefit of the consumer. Whole cities—Paris, Rotterdam, Munich and many others—have large and expanding district heating scemes. Sweden and Denmark heat huge numbers of their buildings by means of district heating. We have practically nothing of that sort. In France and Germany industries go into partnership with local authorities. Industry gets its heat and electricity cheaply because it is producing it, and citizens in nearby towns get their electricity and heat cheaply because the system of production is far more efficient than ours. We are still inhibited from developing the system, and it is time that we did more about it.
        First, the clause proposes that we overcome the obstacle within the monopoly electricity supply industry—the restrictive tariffs that prevent the establishment of effective combined heat and power schemes. Under those tariffs the CEGB pays only the base-load price for electricity that it buys from outside production and it charges combined heat and power schemes an unfair standby tariff. Other countries have removed those unfair trading practices and encouraged tariff systems that promote the more effective conversion of energy in combined heat and power. We are still allowing the restrictive nd unfair practices to continue.
        12.30 pm
        My voluntary code is an attempt to set a fair code of practice for the supply of fuels to outside producers of electricity and heat, an attempt to ensure that a fair price is offered to those who produce it, and an attempt to allow outside producers of electricity to sell it to the market outside the nationalised industry. There are institutional obstructions and unfair competition that prevent
        1074
        partnerships between industry and local authorities, and also prevent the development of combined heat and power outside the nationalised industry.
        I hope that the new clause, as posed in the form of a voluntary code of practice, will set a new standard whereby we can make real progress. Most EEC countries have already legislated to encourage combined heat and power. They already have a far greater proportion of combined heat and power. We are at the bottom of the league and slipping further behind because we still have not removed the obstacles that prevent it happening here. It is urgent that we begin to catch up with other countries. Millions of their citizens are already benefiting from heat that is distributed from power stations—the kind of heat that we throw away.
        Britain and its citizens are not short of electricity but of heat, yet the by-product of a power station is electricity. The main product is heat. It is nonsense that two-thirds of the fuel that we put into our power stations should be thrown away. The waste might have been justified at a time when energy was a low-cost item in the total production of electricity, but that is no longer so. France, Germany and Italy have legislated and provided incentives for the development of combined heat and power and for local autonomy between utilities, local authorities and industry. The disincentives have been removed.
        I give the Government an opportunity, through a voluntary code, to demonstrate their good faith in their declared intention to proceed along these lines, to ensure that our fuel is more efficiently used and that combined heat and power, which could make the greatest contribution of all to energy conservation, is not excluded from the Bill. If it were to be excluded it would be presumptuous to describe the Bill as an energy conservation measure.
        Mr. Penhaligon: New clause 3 is directed to the same issue as new clause 7. I am satisfied that the clause of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) was selected in preference to the Liberal clause. It is rather broader-based and contains a series of suggestions that I would be happy to support. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his activity on this desperately important issue.
        The Government's record on district heating and the use of waste heat from power generation is nothing short of pathetic. The Government have done just a little, and that prevents one from describing their activity as amounting to nothing. We have had the Marshall report, and a survey is taking place. That is an inadequate response to the enormous source of new energy that the use of waste heat from power generation represents. Some of us take the view that of all the alternative sources of energy available this is in many ways the most exciting and the one most likely to succeed. That is why we believe that a tremendous amount of attention should be given to it.
        There is not more than one power station which boasts a thermal efficiency of more than 40 per cent. There is no reasonable hope that the thermal efficiency of the conversion of heat into electricity is likely to improve on current figures in the near future. Until man has succeeded in discovering a new generation of steels which can maintain their shape and size at a range of temperatures and pressures that are beyond the imaginations of

        1075
        engineers now, there is no possibility that the maximum thermal efficiency obtained in the conversion of heat into electricity will increase in any meaningful way.
        The average thermal efficiency of the British power system is not much more than one-third. That figure is unlikely to be dramatically increased in the near future. One-third used means that two-thirds is thrown away, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East said. That is a remarkable factor of power generation not recognised by many. Out of every three lumps of coal brought in, one goes out as electricity and two go out in the form of waste heat. We are arguing that that waste heat should he used for the convenience of heating people in their factories, in their offices and in their homes.
        It is interesting to speculate that if only half of that waste heat could be saved—I do not say that that could be done next week—and could be used for useful purposes, there would be a fresh power source equivalent to the total generated power of the Central Electricity Generating Board. Such a prize should receive far more attention.
        We are all aware of the Government's intentions for the development of nuclear power, even if they appear to be afraid of discussing them on the Floor of the House. We are aware of the sort of money that the Government are prepared to put into that alternative source of energy. However, I cannot comprehend why this exciting possibility is almost ignored. The situation is worsening by the hour as the CEGB continues its policy of closing some of the smaller power stations which are nearer to towns and which are just the power stations from which a refurbishing and district heating system could come at the most economic cost. One could pump hot water a long way, but it is more sensible not to do so, nor is it necessary if there is a power station near the town.
        I am prepared to support the new clause of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East. It is important that the Government should stop expressing good intent on this matter and should put some money into it so that schemes can be instigated and so that there is practical feedback on how successful the operation is.
        The most obvious place to apply that science is where new estates and offices are being developed. It is easier to make the necessary installations at that time than later.
        We have had this debate before. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I hope that he will express confidence that more action will be taken on this great and exciting possibility in the next 12 months than has been taken in the last two years.
        Mr. David Crouch: I cannot let this occasion go by without making some comment. We have already discussed this matter in Committee. Even at this late hour I have to say that this is probably the most important gap in the Bill. We lose two-thirds of a source of energy and appear to do nothing about it. Why? It is because the nationalised industries say that they cannot do anything about it, because if will cost money.
        It is important that we realise that we are losing energy in this way. It is not happening in other countries. In this country we are power-rich, from North sea oil and gas and from the coal beneath the ground. Yet we allow energy to be wasted into the atmosphere. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) has done the House a service yet again by reminding us that we cannot let the matter rest here when nothing is being done by the Government or the nationalised industries.
        1076
        Something must be done. Something has been done for over 25 years in Sweden. Something has been done in Germany and France. yet we do nothing. We say that we are not a sufficiently compact urban society.
        There are great conurbations in this country, such as Birmingham, Manchester, London, Newcastle, Cardiff, and Glasgow. Those places are sufficiently compact to use this waste heat. If we do not go forward tonight, I shall certainly raise the issue again and I know that my hon. Friend will do likewise. We are both concerned to become specialists in the study of energy matters. Hon. Members have spoken of the technical probklems facing us. We shall not let this matter drop. We shall keep after it to ensure that we conserve this energy and use it for the benefit of our people.
        Mr. Eadie: We on the Opposition Benches are aware of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) because we have discussed them in Committee. We put our views then. Because of the lateness of the hour, we believe that it would be best to allow the Minister to reply to his hon. Friend. We shall listen with great interest.
        Mr. John Moore: I welcome yet another opportunity to discuss this subject, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) and taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). During our Committee proceedings I sought to record in considerable detail the pattern of progress on this key issue of combined heat and power and district heating. Those hon. Members who say that there has been no activity by the Government should refresh their memories by referring to columns 120–129 of the proceedings of Standing Committee A on 24 March 1981.
        My hon. Friend's new clause, like the new clauses that he tabled and subsequently withdrew in Committee, is clearly based on his view that the policies of the fuel industries in general and the electricity supply industry in particular are inhibiting the development of CHP En this country. His references to fair competition are indicative of this. Before dealing with this point in detail let me make it clear that although there is always scope for clarifying certain aspects of policy I do not share my hon. Friend's views.
        I dealt at length in Committee with the helpful way in which the industries are dealing with inquiries in respect of industrial CHP schemes and are assisting the Government in their CHP-district heating feasibility programmes. The new clause calls for a voluntary code of practice to be agreed between the nationalised energy supply industries and laid before Parliament within six months of the Bill's obtaining Royal Assent. Leaving aside for the moment the need for a code, this timetable is very tight—I would say unrealistic. However, I believe that I can demonstrate forcefully to the House that the new clause is unnecessary.
        12.45 am
        Paragraph (a) of the new clause seeks to establish a code that will provide guidelines for fair competition in the pricing of fuel supplied by the nationalised industries to CHP plants and for the electricity purchased from such plants by area boards. The policies of the gas, coal and electricity industries in this area were spelt out in considerable detail in Committee, and I am satisfied that

        1077
        the industries' policies are fair and do not hinder the development of CHP. The industries do not keep these policies under wraps; indeed, they are only too willing to negotiate with potential consumers, and I believe that it is unnecessary to make them the subject of a code of practice.
        The proposal in paragraph (b), which deals with guidelines for the marketing of heat from CHP stations and the removal of so-called institutional obstacles to CHP development, is premature. The matters that my hon. Friend raised will be for consideration during various stages of the CHP feasibility programme, and it would therefore be inappropriate to try to put together any guidelines on this until that work is completed.
        Paragraph (c) would provide guidelines to the CEGB on such matters as the active promotion of the marketing of reject heat from power stations. As I explained in Committee, all electricity boards in England, Wales and Scotland are under a duty to investigate methods by which heat obtained from, or in connection with, the generation of electricity may be used for the heating of buildings or other useful purposes. They have power to provide heat for such purposes, either alone or in co-operation with others. I do not think that it is appropriate for the CEGB to be given guidelines on how to interpret these statutory duties, although, of course, if there is evidence that it is not fulfilling them—I do not think that there is, but if there is—we shall need to consider the matter carefully.
        Once again my hon. Friend has used his great knowledge of CHP—I recognise that—and his ingenuity to enable us to have yet another debate about combined heat and power. I welcome this—it is a subject to which the Government attach great importance—but I do not think that my hon. Friend is being entirely fair when he suggests, both in his speech and by implication in the new clause, that the fuel industries are hindering the development of CHP through their policies.
        Mr. Rost: If my hon. Friend maintains that there is no hindrance by the nationalised industries of the development of CHP and district heating, can he explain why we are at the bottom of the league and why so little is going on here? Why is CHP and distrcit heating so much more extensively developed in other countries?
        Mr. Moore: I did not think that we wished to reiterate the whole of the detailed debate that we had in Committee about the institutional nature of our country relative to its current position in CHP. I had thought that in the new clause we were concerned ?? athe question whether at this time there were institutional barriers, put up by the Government or by the nationalised industries, to the development of CHP from this point forward. I am dealing with the present and the future, and not with the nature of the debates that we had on the way in which our country had reached this point relative to other countries.
        I come now to the new clause tabled by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) and for Truro. It is clear that its essential point is to lay an obligation on the CEGB to further the development of methods for the efficient use of waste heat from power stations. It seems to me and to the Government that it is superfluous to lay an obligation of this sort on the CEGB
        1078
        by means of new legislation, because as I explained earlier to my hon. Friend, the CEGB already has a duty under section 50 on the Electricity Act 1947 to
        "to investigate methods by which heat obtained from or in connection with the generating of electricity may be used for the heating of buildings … or for any other useful purpose."
        Under the same section, the CEGB also has the power to
        "conduct, or assist others in conducting, research into any matters relating to such methods of using heat."
        I cannot help wondering what will be the hard practical difference in amending the CEGB's existing obligation with regard to CHP in the way suggested in the new clause. An amended statutory duty is not necessary to secure CEGB co-operation in the feasibility programme. As I have already pointed out, the CEGB is co-operating fully already. Neither will an amendment make any difference to the feasibility programme, which is the essential basis for any future development of CHP district heating in this country.
        I therefore repeat what I said in Committee about our view on the possibility of future legislation on CHP. We accept that new legislation may be necessary when our feasibility work has progressed further and we have a clearer idea of its economic potential and the institutional structures that may be appropriate to exploit the potential, but it is misconceived to attempt a piecemeal approach to the subject. It is likely to be much more complicated than merely making a minor adjustment to the duties that the CEGB already has with regard to CHP, which is what the new clause attempts to do.
        I am grateful to hon. Members for giving me the opportunity to reconsider the issue. The Government's feasibility work on CHP shows that we are treating it with the seriousness that it merits. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will feel able to ask leave to withdraw his motion. Neither of the new clauses that we are considering serves a practical purpose in pursuing the objective that is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House—the objective of testing fully the potential for CHP in this country.
        Mr. Rost: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State states that neither new clause will serve a practical purpose in terms of the objective of using some of the reject heat with which we warm our fish and heat the atmosphere. I was disappointed that he did not tell us what practical steps we need to take to do what other countries are doing so much more effectively in giving people heat instead of allowing them to freeze to death because they cannot afford sufficient heating.
        There is the lead city experiment, but it does not get to grips with the problem of removing the obstacles to the development of CHP in this country. There is no economic obstacles, as feasibility studies indicate that the development would be cost-effective, but there are institutional obstacles. I hoped that my hon. Friend would accept that and would give us an indication that the Government propose to take action, even if my new clause does not satisfy the needs.
        I shall continue to press the matter, which is the most important contribution that we can make to energy conservation, but, having said that, at this stage I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 1

        POWER TO PROHIBIT SUPPLY OF CERTAIN APPLIANCES WITHOUT TYPE APPROVAL MARK OR APPROVED OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS
        Mr. John Moore: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 2, leave out from `by' to end of line 8 and insert
        'approved operating and maintenance instructions.'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
        Mr. Moore: As drafted, the Bill provides powers for the Government to require approved operating and maintenance instructions to be supplied with new heat generators, but it does not contain corresponding powers in relation to gas appliances. This reflects the fact that the EEC directive on heat generators specifically mentions such instructions while the draft gas appliances directive does not. However, recent comments made in Committee by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and by the British Gas Corporation, as well as the continuing work in Brussels, have led us to the conclusion that proper operating and maintenance instructions are important for gas appliances as well as heat generators. We therefore promised in Committee that we would amend the Bill to allow the Government to require approved operating and maintenance instructions for new gas appliances.
        The amendments will fulfil that promise. They will allow the Government to ensure that users of gas appliances have clear and easily understood guidance on how to use and maintain their appliances.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 4, in page 2, line 15, at end add
        'or is accompanied by approved operating and maintenance instructions (or both).'
        No. 5, in page 3, line 22, at end add—
        `() "approved operating and maintenance instructions" means operating and maintenance instructions approved in accordance with the following provisions of this Part of this Act by any type approval body appointed under section 3 or with any relevant Community requirements by any person authorised in accordance with those requirements;'.—[Mr. John Moore.]

      Clause 2

        U.K. REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE APPROVAL AND APPROVAL OF OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS
        Amendment made: No.6, in page 4, leave out line 7 and insert
        'appliance of a description specified in the order in respect of which a type approval under section 4 is in force, or has been applied for, and'.—[Mr. John Moore.]

      Clause 16

        ALLEVIATION OF CHARGES FOR ABSTRACTION OF WATER IN CERTAIN CASES
        Mr. Crouch: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 15, line 38, leave out clause 16 and insert—
        '16. At the end of section 60 of the Water Resources Act 1963 (exemption from and reduction of charges payable to water authorities) the following subsection shall be inserted—
        1080
        "(7) No charges shall be levied in respect of water authorised by a licence to be abstracted for use as a source of energy if and so far as such water is returned to the same source of supply".'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking amendment No. 8, in page 15, line 43, leave out from `inhibiting' to end of line 44 and insert
        `the use of water as a source of energy;".'
        Mr. Crouch: It is a very late hour. It is the remarkable extension of procedures in democracy that we have established in the House over many years which enables me to bring this matter forward at this late stage in the consideration of the Bill. The Bill originated in another place and came to this House only later. The problem was considered and well argued there, but did not succeed. Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal sought to remind the other House that in considering energy conservation and the use of the nation's energy resources the widespread and diffuse production of energy from small-scale renewable sources such as water power generation was very important. He argued very well that the generation of energy from such sources should be encouraged and that nothing should be done to inhibit such activity. Unfortunately, he did not succeed in persuading the Government to allow the matter to proceed in an entirely satisfactory way.
        My noble Friend pointed out that some water authorities had felt it necessary to impose dramatic rate increases upon those using water to generate power.
        Even though such users did not take water away but only used it and put it back so that not a drop was wasted, some water authorities, in their wisdom, and with their power and authority, saw fit to increase the charges to users of machines which generate electric power from water so dramatically as to make the whole process uneconomic and thus to inhibit its use. My noble Friend argued strongly that this was no part of energy conservation and that in a Bill of this kind such activities should be encouraged, not inhibited.
        The Bill proceeded on its way and, having come to this place, was eventually considered in some detail in the Committee of which I had the honour to be a member. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State dealt with the matter in some detail in Committee. On the question of the possible inhibition of power generation by the owners of water power generators, such as water wheels, who produce renewable sources of energy in this way, he thought that nothing was being placed in the way of such activity. If he was not extensively questioned on that reply it was perhaps the fault of members of the Committee who did not spot a gap in the Bill which, to say the least, would not encourage the generation of power in that way. Indeed, having studied the matter since then, I go as far as to say that it positively inhibits the use of machinery such as water wheels to generate electricity.
        This may seem a small matter when we have been considering enormous questions of power generation, heat and energy saving, and so on, but it is not. Just as we have considered many other matters, it is important that we should not neglect this one.
        1 am
        I maintain that clause 16 as it stands carries a prejudicial implication. If a turbine or water wheel user challenges the view of a water authority that he is an abstractor—I use the word as a non-lawyer but in a legal sense because

        1081
        everything hinges on its interpretation in a court of law—he is liable to be prosecuted in a magistrates' court, and the water authority will do its best to prove that water power is an abstraction. No doubt the water authority will call on and brief learned counsel to argue its point about abstraction. I suggest that counsel will do that with great authority and force in a magistrates' court. There, in such a lowly legal place——
        Mr. Martin Stevens: Oh!
        Mr. Crouch: It is not the High Court, appeal court or the House of Lords; it is an honourable but lowish level of legal authority and decision. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) wish to intervene? Apparently not.
        I suggest that it is unlikely that the owner of a water wheel will be able to compete with the legal weight and strength of learned counsel briefed to argue the meaning of the abstraction of water.
        Some water wheel owners who are lawyers may be able to cope. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) is a lawyer and would own to being the owner of a water wheel. I think that he would also own to being a lawyer. I cannot say whether he qualifies for the title "learned" that we give in the House.
        Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd indicated dissent.
        Mr. Church: It will, no doubt, come later. At least, he is a producer of energy in the House and elsewhere. Others not so gifted would not be able to argue their cases in a court of law.
        Lay magistrates may incline to the view of counsel arguing the interpretation of the parliamentay drafting of the meaning of abstraction. I suggest that, as the Bill is drafted, the likelihood of conviction is real. I would argue, therefore, that even at this late hour—the late hour of consideration of the Bill in the timing of Parliament rather than the late hour of the day; "at this eleventh hour" would perhaps be a more appropriate phrase—we should amend the Bill by removing the possibility of a court, at any level, low or high, assuming that abstraction should be charged at a higher price.
        I suggest that "abstraction" is not appropriate. Persons who use old or new machinery—water wheels or turbines—to generate power from water are not consuming water and, therefore, are not abstracting the water. I should like to remove any possible misinterpretations. No water authority should be able to suggest that this is abstraction and that a higher charge should be made for such use. As a common man and not a lawyer, I believe that that is commonsense. Therefore, I urge the house to accept the amendment.
        The power user does not abstract water, and the charges raised by water authorities should therefore be without legal authority. All that I am asking my hon. Friend to do is to tell me that he agrees with me and will remove this possible suggestion from the Bill.
        Mr. Eadie: When the official Opposition gave me the responsibility of handling the Bill I went over in great detail the debates that occurred in another place and I paid particular attention to the debates and arguments to which the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) referred.
        1082
        I have the correspondence from the water power users and I know that the hon. Gentleman makes a point about the whole question of legality and the bringing in of lawyers or solicitors. I must say, without wishing in any way to deride the legal profession—because a member of my family has practised law for many years—that it is better to keep lawyers out of some of these problems. We are all politicians, and have experience of this. It is far better to make sure that the law and the lawyers do not come into this. Indeed, to some extent we deserve to be criticised if we pass legislation that then becomes the subject of legal challenge and long-drawn-out legal arguments.
        My interpretation, on reading the report of the debates in another place, is a very serious one, in a sense. I have always tried to act on the basis that one's word is one's bond, and I am sure that all hon. Members have done the same. I think that it is very important that one's word is one's bond. The inference of the debates in the other place was that a promise was made. I have gone over the discussion and I believe that that promise has now been broken. That is a very serious thing to say, and I think that the Government have some responsibility tonight to try to explain why, when they gave an undertaking that something would be done, nothing has happened. I certainly believe that the hon. Gentleman owes the House some clarification.
        Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), particularly in terms of his advocacy of amendment No. 8. I just want to make one or two comments by way of clarification of the past history of this matter.
        I must declare an interest, as the owner of a water wheel, but if anyone saw it he would think that it was more of a liability than an asset, and it is not in use at the moment. I am also a member of the National Association of Water Power Users, which is based in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and is a very powerful and important body in that area.
        In the past some water authorities have used their powers under the Water Resources Act 1963 to penalise those people who operate water wheels and to charge them on a compulsory basis for the abstraction of water. This unfairness is manifest when we realise and understand, as anyone who considers this matter will, that all the water that is taken out by someone who is using it for power generation is put back into the river about 10 ft lower down—in height—in the stream.
        The bureaucratic hypocrisy of the imposition of rates in this way has been justified on the basis that in return for this charge the water authority will guarantee a secure source of supply of water in the river. In North-West Lancashire it is not very difficult to guarantee a secure source of supply of water, and that argument has given rise to a considerable feeling of grievance among many people. As a result of this definition of the word "abstraction" a great deal of resentment has been generated.
        I understand that my hon. Friend views amendment No. 8 with some favour. He may, however, feel that it is unnecessary in the circumstances. It should be noted that the amendment is completely satisfactory to those who represent the National Association of Water Power Users. In due course we shall know whether the Government will accept it.

        1083
        In the past, confusion has arisen because "abstraction" has become a hated word to the National Association of Water Power Users. Therefore, its members are anxious that the amendment should be accepted, even if the legal advice is that it is unnecessary and does not take the matter much further. Of course, water power users merely borrow the water that they use; they do not consume it. To describe such borrowing as an abstraction may be more correctly described as an abstraction of the truth.
        Mr. Peter Viggers: I rise only to assure the House that support for my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) on such an important amendment is not confined to the owners of water wheels. To take a broader view, we do not know which of the alternative energy sources of sun, geothermal power, water, tides, and so on, will eventually yield a major harvest, but I am confident that one of them will and that science will allow one of those alternative sources to become extremely important in terms of world energy supplies. An alternative battery may be involved. We do not know.
        It is wrong to allow one of those alternative sources of energy to be inhibited. This comparatively minor use of water power should not be inhibited by an incorrect rating or taxation system. Therefore, I urge the Government to accept the amendment. It is wrong that the water authorities should be able to assess a rate according to such use. We should take this matter clean out of their hands. Therefore I urge the Government to accept the amendment.
        Mr. John Moore: This has been an interesting example of the way in which a sensible and modest sector of our economy can bring legitimate pressure to bear through our parliamentary processess. It reminds me of one of my first days at the Department of Energy. I obtained an invitation to visit Mr. Osmond Goring. He, is an example of British ingenuity in developing low-power water usage in a lovely part of our country.
        If that, together with the pressures imposed by the National Association of Water Power Users, were not enough to persuade me, I might have been persuaded by the Government Chief Whip—my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). He has been with us for many years. Although silent, he has for many years been the protagonist of this cause. To the last he is here to ensure that everything that the water power users legitimately desire goes on to the statute book.
        Both in Committee and in the House I have had many discussions with the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on various matters, including coal. I know him to be an honourable man in every sense of the word. I hope that he will listen carefully to my remarks. I share his blissful ignorance of the legal trade. Perhaps I should say "legal profession". Even at this late hour there is some inhibition about the word "trade". However, I am sure there is no such inhibition about that word in a mercantilist party. Those of us who are not privileged to be members of the legal profession will understand the difficulties of some outsiders. I think that I shall remove all the hon. Gentleman's doubts if I put certain matters on the record.
        1.15 am
        Water power has a modest but important energy potential for our country. The small users of water would
        1084
        like us to make the position as clear as we can. Amendment No. 7 would completely remove charges for the use of water as a source of energy
        "if and so far as"
        the water is returned to the same source of supply. When clause 16 was discussed in Committee I set out fully the Government's view on the appropriate level of charges for the abstraction—a word that I know raises many hackles—of water for hydro power generation. I said then that hydro power could make a worthwhile contribution to United Kingdom energy supplies and that the Government wished to make sure that there were as few constraints as possible on the activities of small-scale hydro power users, and in particular that they were not inhibited by charges imposed by water authorities.
        I explained that in December my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment had written to the chairmen of the water authorities in England and Wales to point out the importance attached by the Government to the use of water for power generation. My hon. Friend suggested that anything seen as an obstacle to the development of hydro power should be removed. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend present tonight, showing the support that he has shown throughout on this important matter for water power users.
        My hon. Friend also said that a good case could be made for charging for such abstractions only at a minimal rate, not calculated on a volume-related basis but covering only the administrative expenses of granting the licence. I went on to make it clear that it remained the Government's view that where the water charges might have an inhibiting effect on the use of water for power generation the principles set out in the Department of the Environment's letter of last December should remain the guiding principles.
        That explanation is clear and specific. It represents an unequivocal assurance to water power users about the Government's position. We do not believe that it would be right to abolish all water charges for all hydro power users in all circumstances. The new clause on this matter, introduced in another place, recognised that it would be reasonable for a water authority to make a charge to cover any expenses that it might have incurred in ensuring the flow of water to the hydro scheme. It is also clearly reasonable that the water authority should be able to recover its administrative expenses in issuing a licence.
        Circumstances will be different in different cases. That is why the Government's approach has been to leave the matter of the precise level of charges, if any, imposed in any individual case to agreement between the water authority and the water users, subject always to the general considerations set out in clause 16 and the right of recourse to the Secretary of State contained in section 60 of the Water Resources Act 1963.
        I think that there is no disagreement in the House about the general objective that we are trying to achieve in the clause. We are trying to ensure that charges imposed on hydro power users do not make the hydro schemes concerned uneconomic. I believe that the clause secures that objective. It amends section 60 of the 1963 Act so as to require water authorities to have regard to
        "the need to conserve sources of energy … and the consequent desirability of preventing the charges in question from inhibiting"
        hydro power users
        "from abstracting water to use as a source of power".

        1085
        It will also provide hydro power users with a power of appeal, because section 60 contains a provision enabling water users, if a water authority does not agree to waive charges or to abate them satisfactorily, to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. Therefore, once clause 16 is enacted a hydro power user will be able to take such a dispute about charges to the Secretary of State for decision.
        Amendment No. 7 goes well beyond what is proposed in the clause. It would abolish all charges for the use of water as a source of energy where the water is returned to the river from which it was taken, as it almost invariably is. I do not think that that would be reasonable.
        I hope that in the light of what I have said about the Government's attitude to water power charges for hydro power generation my hon. Friend will feel able to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        On amendment No. 8, my hon. Friend has raised the question whether the use of water for hydro power generation is an abstraction within the meaning of the Water Resources Act 1963. This is obviously a very important and crucial point. If a hydro power user is abstracting water he is required to obtain a licence from the water authority and pay charges. If he is not abstracting water he need not have a licence or pay charges.
        The Government are aware that this is an issue on which opinions are divided. Three of the water authorities in England and Wales do not regard the use of water for hydro power generation as licensable. The majority, on the other hand, consider that where the water is diverted from a stream through a separate mill-race or channel an abstraction is taking place. But whether or not a particular individual water power user is abstracting water is ultimately a matter which only the courts can decide in the light of the particular circumstances of the hydro scheme. It is not an issue which the House is called on to decide today.
        My hon. Friend has expressed concern that clause 16 as drafted might prejudice this issue. It might carry the implication that any use of water for power generation was necessarily an abstraction, so that the water power user would have to possess a licence and pay water charges. I can say categorically that this is not the case. Clause 16 adds a further provision to section 60 of the Water Resources Act 1963. Section 60 of the 1963 Act, as amended by the Water Act 1973, provides that
        "A water authority may, on the application of any person who is liable to pay charges to the authority for the abstraction of water under a licence under this Act, make an agreement with him either exempting him from the payment of charges or providing for charges to be levied on him at reduced rates specified in the agreement".
        Clause 16 would therefore affect only someone who is liable to obtain a licence and to pay charges to a water authority for the abstraction of water. It cannot be interpreted as creating a liability to obtain a licence or to pay charges. Whether or not an individual water power user was abstracting water and, hence, required to obtain a licence or to pay charges, is a matter which only the courts can decide. It is a question which has not so far been tested in the courts. But I am advised that the clause cannot possibly be regarded as prejudicing the question one way or the other.
        Amending the clause in the way that my hon. Friend has suggested would not, alter the position at all, and I do
        1086
        not think that it would serve to clarify the intention of Parliament, since the intention is already clear—to make provision for the alleviation of water charges for hydro power use in particular cases where an obligation to pay such charges exists.
        I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving the House the opportunity to look at the matter again. As I said earlier, the Government fully share his concern that unreasonable obstacles to the development of hydro power—in particular, small hydro power schemes—should be removed. The Government's position—as I said in Committee, and as was explained again in another place—is clear and unequivocal on this point. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to accept the specific assurance that I have given about the effect of the clause and will seek to withdraw his amendment. But, at the same time, and recognising what my hon. Friend has said, if he does not feel able to do so, as the amendment makes no difference to the substance of the clause—I understand the worries and the concern that have been expressed throughout all the discussions—the Government obviously will accept it if it is pressed.
        Mr. Crouch: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will realise that, as a non-lawyer, I am somewhat confused by his convoluted reply—helped, no doubt, by his legal advisers in the Department. It is quite clear that my hon. Friend and the Government are not prepared to go the whole hog and take belt and braces to safeguard the users of water power and the energy conservers, as I have tried to describe them, who are referred to in this clause.
        I had hoped that my hon. Friend would say that he was prepared to encourage rather than inhibit these users of water power because they are practising the business of energy conservation. They use water as an energy source. They derive power from it but they do not abstract the water. My hon. Friend touched on that point but seemed to argue legally that what I suggest might be wrong. I am suggesting that the courts might find this wrong and might find against the users of water power in this way and permit high, or not-so-high, charges to be made by the water authorities.
        My argument is that there should be no inhibition on people seeking to conserve energy. I am prepared not to press amendment No. 7—the whole hog or belt-and-braces amendment—to rewrite this part of the Bill so that there can be no doubt about the matter. I hope, however, in view of the plea that I now make, that my hon. Friend will realise that I feel strongly that he should recognise the views that I have expressed. There is a doubt in my mind and, I believe, in the minds of all water users. The rewriting of the clause as suggested in my amendment No. 8 is necessary to satisfy those who are not lawyers but who want to be certain in any court of law that there can be no misunderstanding about where they stand, that they are not inhibited, and that they are regarded as conservers of energy. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I urge acceptance of amendment No. 8.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendment made: No. 8 in page 15, line 43, leave out from 'inhibiting' to end of line 44 and insert
        `the use of water as a source of energy;":.—[Mr. Crouch.]

      Clause 20

        ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS UNDER PART 1
        Mr. Eadie: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 17, line 8, at end insert—
        '(1A) The Secretary of State shall reimburse any local weights and measures authority for all additional expenses incurred as a result of carrying out its duties under the provisions of orders made under part I of this Act.'.
        The Minister will recall that I raised this matter in Committee when discussing the clause. The enforcement orders under the Bill involve local weights and measures authorites, which generally are local authorities. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I asked what cost would be incurred by a local authority in carying out a statutory obligation imposed by the Bill. This is a fair question in relation to the scrutiny of the rates burden imposed on local authorities by the Government.
        I have studied the Minister's remarks in Committee, when he said:
        "we do not expect that the Bill, as I said before, will have significant implications for local authority manpower."
        Almost the final words of the hon. Gentleman were:
        "that the local authority manpower and revenue implications were, according to their own organisations after consultation, minimal."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 March 1981; c. 86.]
        I know that local authorities will expect to be reimbursed for the minimal expense that could be involved. I am sure that no Government, as a matter of principal, would wish to impose at this time additional cost in furtherance of legislation. My amendment is simple. It asks the Government to put their money where their mouth is. I do not believe that the Government can pass the buck of responsibility to others.
        The Government cannot deny reimbursement to local authorities. If the amount is so small, why quibble?
        My amendment is an honourable position for the Government to adopt—namely, to pay the cost of their legislation. I commend the amendment to the House.
        1.30 am
        Mr. John Moore: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) rightly raised this issue in Committee and on Second Reading.
        The role of local authorities in this connection relates only to the enforcement of part I of the Bill, the type approval provisions. Part II will be enforced by Government officials, who will simply match the records of the boilers supplied with the records of boilers which have passed the efficiency test and make further inquiries about any discrepancies. Most of the work arising out of part I will be carried out by the type approval bodies. That is where most of the work will be done. Those bodies will not only have the job of testing samples of appliances to see whether they come up to the required standard and whether all the appliances of a model can, therefore, be type approved, but under clause 5 they will make sure that new appliances of a model which has been type approved continue to conform to the standard.
        The role of local weights and measures authorities will be confined to ensuring that appliances on sale in retail establishments have been approved. That will not represent a significant amount of work, because type approval will be clearly indicated by means of a type approval mark attached to the appliance. All that will be
        1088
        required is a quick visual check to see whether the appliance carries such a mark. Moreover, the checks will be carried out in the course of visits which training standards officers employed by local weights and measures authorities already make for other purposes. We do not envisage that any special visits merely for the purpose of enforcing the Bill will generally be necessary.
        For those reasons, we believe that the Bill will not lead to any significant additional expenditure by local authorities, but, even if such expenditure were incurred—this is relevant to what the hon. Member for Midlothian said—the proper method would be in the context of the rate support grant, which represents the totality of the Government's support to local authority rate-funded services, and not by way of specific and quite unprecedented provision in legislation.
        I hope that in the light of what I have said the hon. Member will seek to withdraw the amendment.
        Mr. Eadie: The Under-Secretary of State says that local authorities will be reimbursed from the rate support grant. I should have preferred that to be written into the legislation. However, the hon. Gentleman is on record as saying that if expense is involved it should come from the rate support grant. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        1.34 am
        Mr. Eadie: We have devoted many hours to the Bill, and it is late. Nevertheless, we are entitled to make a few comments about it. I shall be brief.
        We have tried to improve the Bill. Its title promised much, but the Bill promised little. We have marginally improved the Bill, perhaps because we had a Minister who listened and responded as best he could to the arguments. However, the House should take note of the Bill's inadequacy as a conservation measure.
        The Government can surely do better than this. The message to emanate from our discussions is that we Look forward in the near future to a Bill that deserves to be called an energy conservation Bill. We are sending the Bill limping on its way. That is not its fault, for I believe that it never had proper legs to start with.
        1.36 am
        Mr. John Moore: I rise briefly to discuss the Bill that I hope to see passed on to the statute book. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said, it will enable the Government to set certain compulsory standards of efficiency for space and water heating appliances. Such appliances consume about one-third of the country's energy—the equivalent of 60 million tonnes of oil a year—so obviously a large proportion of the nation's energy is covered by the Bill.
        There is proven scope for improving our performance in this area. If energy efficiency were improved by only a modest 5 per cent. in the area covered by the Bill the nation would be saved about £300 million a year. That is a sizeable and significant amount.
        The Bill also gives permanent statutory authority to the Department's energy conservation and advice schemes. I am glad that through the Bill we have been able to improve the prospects for small-scale hydro users. I have been

        1089
        gratified by the wide support given for what we regard as an important energy conservation measure, and we can all take real satisfaction in putting the Bill on to the statute book. I commend the Bill to the House.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

    Petition

      British Nationality Bill
      1.38 am
      Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition from members of the British community in Caracas, Venezuela. The petition is signed by 83 persons representing 61 families with a total, between them, of 108 children who were born in 24 different countries. All of them are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and are proud of it.
      The organiser of the petition is Mr. Christopher Stacy Waddy of Caracas. Briefly, the petition complains that the existing terms of the British Nationality Bill, which is now in Standing Committee, will rob the children of the petitioners of the right to pass their British citizenship on to their children born overseas. British citizens by descent will not have that right, whereas, by the Bill as already amended in Committee, British citizens by registration or naturalisation, being immigrant Britons, will have that right.
      The petition ends:
      "Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House amend the British Nationality Bill to provide that relief from this disability be given to our children and other British citizens by descent so as to match the relief the House has already, by amendment to the bill as first presented, granted in respect of those children also born outside the United Kingdom to parents one or both of whom is a British citizen by registration or naturalization; and furthermore that the honourable House provide that we their parents on their behalf or our children themselves being of due age be permitted on whatever clement terms the House sees fit to impose, to register all such children as British citizens so as to fortify their claim by descent against any impediment to their assumption of their full duties and rights as British citizens:
      And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc."
      To lie upon the Table.

    Gatwick Airport (Noise Insulation Grants)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Brooke.]
    1.40 am
    Mr. Keith Wickenden: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting me a third Adjournment debate in less than two years. Each debate has been on the subject of airports within my constituency. The House might be forgiven for drawing the inference that I am committed to opposition to airports and aviation. Nothing could be further from the truth. I frequently use airports, including those within my constituency. I frequently use them for purposes of pleasure, recreation and business and I hold a pilot's licence. Nobody could in fairness accuse me of being anti-aviation.
    1090
    I do not subscribe to the school of thought that I know some of my constituents do—namely, that the answer to all airports is to take them away. That is an unrealistic view and one that I would not support for a moment. However, those of us who use airports and who inflict environmental damage, as we undoubtedly do, on local residents in the vicinity of airports must be expected to provide compensation.
    I wish to draw attention to what I believe are the inadequacies in the Gatwick airport noise insulation grant scheme. The House will remember that the current scheme was introduced by order in the spring of 1980. At that time my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) and I prayed that the order be anulled on the ground that it was inadequate in various respects. My hon. Friend joins me in the sentiments that I propose now to express.
    There are two main planks of criticism. The first is that the footprint area, as it is termed, which is eligible for grant is too small. Secondly, the level of grant is too low. I need not say too much about the first plank, because I can demonstrate the inadequacy of the footprint area for which the grant is available. If the present Gatwick airport second terminal inquiry results in the terminal being built as planned it will not fall within the area that is covered by the grant. In other words, the current scheme does not even fully cover the area of Gatwick airport. Nothing could more forcefully demonstrate the inadequacy of the area.
    I am well aware that one of the problems that my hon. Friend the Minister has in accepting my argument that the area should be increased is that whatever is done for Gatwick, which perhaps in itself would not be too expensive an exercise because Gatwick is situated in a largely rural area, could not be avoided at Heathrow. The position at Heathrow is very different. It is in a much more urban area and many houses would be affected by such a scheme. I suggest that that is not a reason for allowing Gatwick, Heathrow or any other major airport to suffer. It merely means that we must look for a different method of financing the scheme.
    As for the level of the grant, I draw attention to the fact that it is not possible fully to insulate one's property on the grants available even if it falls within the restricted area. Because of that, it is widely felt, both by local authorities and by others in the area, that the scheme is not being used as much as it could be used within its restrictions.
    My hon. Friend will know that the local authorities have several times drawn the attention of the Department and Lord Trefgarne to the inadequacies of the scheme. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I summarise those arguments in order to put them on the record. I do not expect a detailed answer to these various points at this late hour.
    I mentioned that the area was very small. That is the criticism of the councils about the area. I demonstrated that the area was small by drawing attention to the fact that the proposed second terminal would not even be within it. The village of Charlwood, which is close to the airport—one can see the airport from the village—is divided by the area. Of approximately 450 houses in the village of Charlwood, fewer than 120 are eligible for the grant scheme. The village of Hookwood is a smaller village which is even closer to the airport in many respects but falls without the usual standard instrument departure routes. The village has approximately 120 houses and is

    1091
    entirely outside the scheme. No houses qualify for the scheme. That is the most serious criticism about the area which qualifies for the grant.
    The method of calculating the grant is rather confusing. It is called yardstick costs. There is a widespread belief amongst local authorities in the Gatwick area, which is largely rural, that the yardstick costs are based on the standard semi-detached house, which is commonly to be found around Heathrow airport and not on the rather different types of properties which are more likely to be found around Gatwick.
    I do not know from personal experience whether this is a fair criticism, but it is frequently made. It is felt that the British Airports Authority, which administers the scheme in partnership with the local authorities, is too often too inflexible in its dealings with the scheme. It is a common criticism of such bodies that too often they pass on the decision making. Perhaps they have no choice. I do not wish to he unfair to the authority, which has the difficult job of administering what must be an unpopular scheme in any event.
    It is felt widely—this is particularly important in the Gatwick area—that not enough consideration is given to special cases, such as listed buildings or properties which are completely open plan inside. In that respect, there are many listed buildings which deserve special attention.
    It is felt that there is no good reason why the grant scheme should not be open-ended in time. It is felt that it should be continuous and that there should he no restriction on the work being completed or on an applicant's interest in the property. Because they will have to bear part of the cost, applicants should be able to carry out the work in their own time and within the limit that they can afford.
    A particularly serious criticism made by the local authorities is that the scheme does not permit sound insulation of the roof. In many cases, roofs let sound through at least as much as windows. It may be said that this may be covered by the roof insulation grant scheme, which is primarily designed for thermal insulation and not for noise insulation. The type of insulation that qualifies for thermal grant may not be suitable for keeping out noise.
    It is particularly surprising that the grant is not intended to cover noise from aircraft on the ground. It covers only noise created in flight within a certain footprint area. When large jet engines are maintained in maintenance areas—as they are at Gatwick on occasion—and then have to be tested, they cause a considerable noise. If an unfortunate resident of the village of Charlwood, the village primarily affected by ground noise, falls just outside the grant area, he receives no grant at all, even though the noise may be considerably more than it is from aircraft in flight.
    As the scheme operates, the difference between the amount of grant available and the maximum grant available, which is achieved by not having some optional works carried out, cannot then be put towards the extra costs of double glazing, which is estimated by the contractor and which is over and above the cost yardstick limit.
    I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has given a very sympathetic response to the local authorities who have approached him, and I am grateful to him for that. I hope that he will be able to consider these points concerning the area of the scheme and the amount of
    1092
    grants. If I ask him to consider as a matter of urgency the amount of the grant rather than the size of the scheme, it is because I recognise the difficulty that the Department has in relation to other airports, in particular Heathrow.
    One problem with the scheme is that the present Government and preceding Governments have done what we so often do in this country. They have simply nibbled at the fringes of the problem instead of tackling it head on. Much as I use the aviation services—and I suppose that I make 40 to 50 scheduled flights every year and a good many more private flights—I can see absolutely no reason why I should do so without contributing towards the relief of noise pollution which I am helping to inflict upon others. The only sensible long-term answer to the problem, which is experienced particularly at Heathrow and to a lesser extent at Gatwick, is for there to be a levy on passenger flights in exactly the same way as there is a levy on passenger flights to provide the cost of security measures.
    A levy of £1 per single passenger flight, which would perhaps be 2 per cent. of the cost of the average air ticket, would yield about £5 million a year. I do not think that this is a burden which we should expect to place upon the taxpayer. It is something that we who use aircraft for business and social purposes should expect to bear.
    If it is to be argued that the principle should be extended to others who suffer environmental damage, such as those who live close to motorways, railways and hoverports, I would agree that this is a principle which could be extended. I appreciate that that goes much fun her than what I am asking for now, which is consideration of an improvement in the scheme, ultimately in the area and, I hope more immediately, in the amount of grant available. My noble Friend Lord Trefgarne has received with great sympathy delegations who have approached him, and I am grateful to him for that. I hope that he will be able to extend his sympathy into a little practical help to these constituents who suffer day and night from this problem.
    1.55 am
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) for raising this subject on the Adjournment debate tonight.
    The problems caused by aircraft noise are, as I am fully aware, a major source of concern for those who happen to live near a major airport. Yet a healthy civil aviation industry is of crucial importance for the economic wellbeing of the nation. All Government policy connected with civil aviation has to face this problem and try to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate needs and interests of those who earn a livelihood in the industry or who depend on its services for business or pleasure, and the equally important interests of those who are likely to be disturbed by the industry's operations.
    Clearly, the question of how best to cope with the noise nuisance caused by aircraft extends beyond the provision of grants to permit householders around Gatwick to install noise insulation. Indeed, it extends beyond the boundaries of this country, since civil aviation is, in its very essence, an international business. Fortunately, the most modern types of aero-engine are considerably quieter than their predecessors. In the long term, the most effective way of minimising disturbance is to promote the reduction of noise at source by encouraging operators to use the quietest and most modern aircraft available.

    1093
    To that end, this country plays a very active part in discussions within the framework of the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the European civil aviation conference aimed at drawing up more stringent standards of noise certification for all new aircraft types. The Government have already decided to prohibit the use of non-noise certificated subsonic jet aircraft on the British register from 1 January 1986, and similar action is being taken by other countries with major civil aviation interests in respect of aircraft on their national registers.
    I accept, however, that this is a long-term solution to a problem that today is of great concern to many people. The Government are therefore actively concerned in trying to minimise disturbance by imposing noise abatement measures on those airports, including Gatwick, for which they have responsibility under section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971. These measures include the use of minimum noise routes designed to ensure that aircraft overfly the smallest number of people possible; the operation of a quota system for night movements; the maintenance of noise limits for aircraft taking off; the use of quieter approach procedures; and, of course, the provision of grants to cover the cost of noise insulation for homes near Gatwick and Heathrow.
    The existing noise insulation grants schemes at these airports are thus just one part of the Government's overall strategy for dealing with aircraft noise. The present schemes were announced on 6 February last year by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry—the Member for Chingford (Mr.Tebbit). They represent a considerable improvement over earlier schemes. For example, those who had moved into the qualifying areas around the airports before the new schemes came into operation on 1 April 1980 but after the original qualifying date, which was 1 January 1973 in the case of Gatwick, are now able to claim grants for the insulation of their properties.
    I am aware that there are those who argue that the boundary of the Gatwick scheme should have been more widely drawn, and I noted carefully the points that my hon. Friend made. I am afraid that, given the constraints on public expenditure, this was not possible, but it may help if I explain how the boundary of the scheme was determined. First, it was felt that account should be taken of the substantial improvement in the noise climate around our major airports that will result from the phasing out of the noisier jet aircraft and their replacement by the newer, quieter types, such as the A300, the Tri-Star and the DC 10. Although this will lead to a significant reduction in disturbance around Gatwick and Heathrow, people living close to the airports are still likely to be subjected to comparatively high levels of aircraft noise even after the mid-1980s, and these are obviously the people who are in greatest need of assistance.
    The measure to assess the impact of aircraft noise around our major airports is the noise and number index, usually referred to as the NNI. It is generally accepted that 55 NNI represents a high level of annoyance.The boundary of the insulation grants schemes is based on the lower 50 NNI contour that has been forecast for 1985, when most of the noisier aircraft will have been retired from service. It was also considered that the schemes should provide protection for householders against aircraft noise at night. The boundary therefore includes all areas
    1094
    that after the mid-1980s are likely to be exposed to noise levels at night in excess of 95 perceived noise decibels. This is the noise level below which the current scientific evidence suggests that the average person sleeping in an uninsulated room is unlikely to be awakened.
    I know that the scheme for Gatwick has been criticised because the area is now smaller than that within the outer boundary of the previous scheme. My hon. Friend raised that point. Under that scheme there were two areas—an inner one, defined mainly by the 60 NNI contour, within which 100 per cent. grants were available, and an outer area, based on the 55 NNI contour, within which the grant level was 85 per cent. The current scheme is therefore based on a lower level of disturbance than that adopted as the criterion for even the outer area of the previous one. The fact that the area is smaller is merely a reflecton of the very real improvement that will come from the use of quieter aircraft. It is, of course, considerably larger than the inner area of the previous scheme.
    These criteria were chosen in order to concentrate the limited resources on those who will continue to suffer from comparatively high noise levels even after the new, quieter aircraft types have entered service on a large scale. This is, I suggest, a fair principle to adopt. I can sympathise with those who find themselves just on the wrong side of what may appear to them to be an arbitrary line, but I am afraid that this is unavoidable wherever the line is drawn. Furthermore, the situation at Gatwick cannot be treated in isolation. I know that my hon. Friend understands that. The Gatwick and Heathrow schemes are constructed on identical bases, and any change in one would be bound to have repercussions on the other. I do not see how one could, in equity, change the rules at Gatwick without making similar adjustments at Heathrow, where even a minor alteration in the boundary could bring significant numbers of houses into the scheme and greatly increase its cost. As I have already said, the resources are limited, and I believe that the present arrangements ensure that they are deployed to the best effect.
    With regard to the funding of these insulation schemes, I accept, of course, that it is right that the cost should be borne by those who are responsible for creating the noise that the schemes are designed to ameliorate. This is in accordance with the well established "polluter pays" principle and is, in fact, achieved under the current arrangements. The schemes are financed from the landing charges on aircraft using Heathrow and Gatwick. As these charges are reflected in the price of airline tickets, the cost of the schemes thus falls ultimately on the airline passenger. I hope that my hon. Friend will think that that is fair.
    I do not believe, however, that it is either necessary or desirable to identify this cost element by establishing a noise levy or charge, as my hon. Friend has suggested in detail, since there is no simple relationship between the amount of noise at an airport and the number of passengers using it. Moreover, the arguments for such a charge in the case of aircraft noise do not appear to be notably stronger than those that could be advanced for a similar charge to deal with the effects of noise from other sources, such as road transport. It is very difficult to see how the same principle could be extended to them.
    I am also aware that criticisms have been made of the grant levels available. Unlike the older schemes, which simply set an overall maximum figure of grant, the present schemes set maxima for each element in the insulation

    1095
    works—so much per square metre of double-glazing, so much per unit of ventilation, and so on. This is, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, a more flexible system, which recognises that the costs of insulation can vary widely according to the design of the individual house. My hon. Friend emphasised that point with reference to Gatwick. Criticisms have, however, been levelled at these individual maxima.
    This is a serious matter. The intention of the schemes, as set out by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry when they were first announced, was that the grants available should cover the full costs of insulating all eligible rooms. It remains the Government's intention that the grants should continue to fulfil this aim. I have noted very carefully the points made by my hon. Friend and I note that he is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern). All this confirms information that has been reaching us from other sources and adds considerable weight to the case for an increase in the present cost limits. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that we have been reviewing the schemes for both Gatwick and Heathrow, in consultation with the British Airports Authority, which is responsible for operating them, in order to determine what increases in the grant maxima are necessary. Although I
    1096
    am not yet able to say what the outcome of this review will be, I hope that my noble Friend who is the Minister responsible will shortly be making an announcement.
    I trust that my hon. Friend will accept that my noble Friend and I are very conscious of the problems that aircraft noise can cause for those who have to endure it. I hope that he will also accept that the Government are actively concerned to do all that they can to reduce this nuisance. I think that it is clear from what I have said that these efforts extend well beyond the subject of this interesting and, I hope, valuable debate.
    However, I am sure that my noble Friend will he most interested in what my hon. Friend said about the noise insulation grants and the emphasis that he has placed upon the matter, and that he will be strongly influenced by the powerful arguments advanced by my hon. Friend in support of an increase in the cost limits. I can assure my honourable Friend that the Government's purpose is that these insulation schemes are to be kept under constant review and that action will be taken whenever it is clear that the grants available are proving inadequate to meet the full cost of insulation.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Two o' clock.

CIVIL SERVICE
  Costs>
  Costs>
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Manpower
  Manpower
  Pay Research Unit
  Pay Research Unit
TRADE
  Retailers (Discounts)
  Retailers (Discounts)
  Company Liquidations (Borders Region)
  Company Liquidations (Borders Region)
  Local Authority Airports
  Local Authority Airports
PRIME MINISTER
  Social Security Fraud (Rayner Review)
  Social Security Fraud (Rayner Review)
  Bench of Bishops (Appointments)
  Bench of Bishops (Appointments)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Blind Persons
  Blind Persons
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Disabled Persons (Value Added Tax Reliefs)
  Disabled Persons (Value Added Tax Reliefs)
  Rolling Transport Systems Ltd.
  Rolling Transport Systems Ltd.
  Oil Companies (Payments)
  Oil Companies (Payments)
  Budgetary Measures
  Budgetary Measures
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Procurators Fiscal (Oath)
  Procurators Fiscal (Oath)
  Forensic Pathology
  Forensic Pathology
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Manpower
  Police Manpower
  Probation Service (Complaints)
  Probation Service (Complaints)
  Chief Probation Officers (Annual Report)
  Chief Probation Officers (Annual Report)
  Television Licence
  Television Licence
  Voluntary Services Unit
  Voluntary Services Unit
  Processions
  Processions
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Deportation
  Deportation
  Iraqi Students (Cardiff)
  Iraqi Students (Cardiff)
  Firearms and Shotguns
  Firearms and Shotguns
  Prison Sentences
  Prison Sentences
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Census
  Census
  Departmental Staff (Price Monitoring)
  Departmental Staff (Price Monitoring)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Benefits (Earnings-related Supplement)
  Benefits (Earnings-related Supplement)
  Benefits (Abatement)
  Benefits (Abatement)
  Invalidity Pensioners
  Invalidity Pensioners
  Invalidity Allowance
  Invalidity Allowance
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Benefits (Increase)
  Benefits (Increase)
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Motability
  Motability
  Disabled Persons (Calipers)
  Disabled Persons (Calipers)
  Blood-Lead Levels
  Blood-Lead Levels
  Tobacco Advertising (Discussions)
  Tobacco Advertising (Discussions)
  Dust Diseases
  Dust Diseases
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Royal Prerogative
  Royal Prerogative
  Angola (British Detainees)
  Angola (British Detainees)
  Passports
  Passports
EMPLOYMENT
  Jobcentres (Placements)
  Jobcentres (Placements)
  Health and Safety Commission (Confidentiality)
  Health and Safety Commission (Confidentiality)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Johnson's Controls, Swindon
  Johnson's Controls, Swindon
  Redundancies (Departmental Procedures)
  Redundancies (Departmental Procedures)
  Apprenticeships and Training
  Apprenticeships and Training
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Islands (Road Equivalent Tariff)
  Scottish Islands (Road Equivalent Tariff)
  Domestic Rates
  Domestic Rates
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  CBI
  CBI
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Western Isles (European Community Intergrated Programme)
  Western Isles (European Community Intergrated Programme)
  Scottish Economic Planning Department and Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Economic Planning Department and Scottish Development Agency
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  A8 (Coatbridge and Airdrie)
  A8 (Coatbridge and Airdrie)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Housing (Damp)
  Housing (Damp)
  Male Unemployed Persons (Tayside)
  Male Unemployed Persons (Tayside)
  Industry and Commerce (Financial Advice)
  Industry and Commerce (Financial Advice)
  Nissan-Datsun Company
  Nissan-Datsun Company
  Economic Indicators
  Economic Indicators
  Bus Fares (Lothian Region)
  Bus Fares (Lothian Region)
  Rating System
  Rating System
  Gomba Stonefield
  Gomba Stonefield
  Maintenance Orders
  Maintenance Orders
  Heritage (Sales)
  Heritage (Sales)
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Saul Street, Downpatrick
  Saul Street, Downpatrick
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Sir Peter Hayman
  Sir Peter Hayman
ENERGY
  Nuclear Power, Stations
  Nuclear Power, Stations
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  North Sea Oil (Licensing)
  North Sea Oil (Licensing)
  "Alexander Kielland" (Report)
  "Alexander Kielland" (Report)
WALES
  Houses (Improvement for Sale)
  Houses (Improvement for Sale)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farm Gate Prices
  Farm Gate Prices
ENVIRONMENT
  Building Research Establishment
  Building Research Establishment
  Agrement Board
  Agrement Board
  Disabled Persons (Access to Buildings)
  Disabled Persons (Access to Buildings)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Local Authority Manual Staff
  Local Authority Manual Staff
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
TRANSPORT
  Car Accidents (Children)
  Car Accidents (Children)
  Motorway Traffic
  Motorway Traffic
  M42 (Tamworth)
  M42 (Tamworth)
  Road Maintenance (London)
  Road Maintenance (London)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Oxford):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Number Plates on Imported Motor-cars
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what they are doing to prevent imported cars from going about our roads with "mini" British number plates falling well below the prescribed standards.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, over recent years most manufacturers of imported cars have taken steps to provide mounting spaces large enough for a British number plate. While this has significantly reduced our difficulties with sub-standard plates, there are still some vehicles, mostly American cars, which cannot accommodate a full-size number plate. The practice of fitting the so-called "mini" number plates is a potential road safety problem which we are considering along with other problems relating to number plates.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I wonder whether he can explain why it is that the police, who tell us they would have no difficulty in enforcing a compulsory seat belts law, do nothing about this offence when the evidence is quite literally staring them in the face?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right; the enforcement of the regulation is in the hands of the police. But the use of police resources is of course a matter for individual chief officers. However, in any case individual prosecutions do not get to the root of the problem. The real need is to ensure that a legal plate can be fitted, and is fitted, to a vehicle when it is new.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I wonder whether I might press this a little further. Is there not some risk of underrating the importance of this matter? Would it not be a serious matter if someone were unfortunately knocked down by one of these vehicles and then could not read the number plate because it was illegally too small? Are there not good reasons why number plates should be visible at a distance, and is there not good reason why the law should not be so openly flouted?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have already recognised that there is a problem here. I would not say that the law is openly flouted, but there are some occasions, for particular reasons, when the law is not
524
obeyed. The use of number plates which are more difficult to read than those prescribed in the regulations must add to the problems of the police and other enforcement officers. It could, as the noble Lord suggests, also lead to difficulties in identifying cars after accidents and thereby prove a road safety hazard, but I am not as yet aware of any evidence of serious difficulties which have been caused in this area. Should any evidence be presented, then of course the department will have no hesitation in consulting the relevant organisations and very promptly doing something about it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that use of these mini plates is in fact a criminal offence?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, it is. The present standards are laid down by regulation, which of course was approved by both Houses of Parliament.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, is it not one of the tests of eyesight that one can see number plates at a certain distance?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords; but the problem is that these mini number plates contain letters which are some 10 per cent. smaller than the normal ones that we are accustomed to on cars.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that our manufacturers are not able to sell motor-cars abroad if they do not satisfy the rules of the countries in which we are selling them? Why should it be possible for motor-cars manufactured abroad to come here when they do not comply with our rules?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we have of course approached the representatives of the manufacturers about the difficulties. Our reason for going to them first is that the provision of an adequate mounting space on a car is in our view the best way of tackling the problem. This approach has already worked well with several manufacturers of imported cars. The residual problem is not large, but if any of the import concessionaires or dealers in vehicles which have this difficulty are concerned about the problem and wish to discuss it, the officials of my department would be happy to arrange a meeting. Further to this, the residual problem appears to be that privately imported cars—for example, for servicemen who are serving here and belong to other nationalities—are subsequently sold into the trade in this country. At the time when they owned them they were legal.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, would the noble Lord like to explain what is the difference between openly flouting the law, which he said did not happen, and breaking it in broad daylight?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think this is a question of semantics which I am not qualified to answer on this occasion, but I shall consider and write to the noble Lord, if I may.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider whether it might be

525
worth while advising the owners of cars with these number plates that they are likely to be stopped at any moment and randomly breathalysed perfectly legally because they are at all times committing an offence?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, but this would add to the pressing problems of bureaucracy which we have at the moment.

Prison Sentences: Partial Suspension
2.37 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of growing concern about prison overcrowding on the one hand and the ineffectiveness of fully-suspended sentences on the other, they will investigate the cost-effectiveness and the deterrent value of partly-suspended sentences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we keep under review both the working of suspended sentences and the possibility of implementing Section 47 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 which provides for sentences to be partially suspended. We have not so far introduced such sentences because of uncertainties about their effect on the size of the prison population if they were used instead of fully suspended sentences of imprisonment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Is he aware that a Conservative Member of Parliament, the honourable Member for Paddington, who is a former assistant prison governor, wrote recently that the conventional suspended sentences had been a failure? Following on from that, because it is generally acknowledged that the first month of imprisonment is the most traumatic, if convicted prisoners were sent to serve the first three or four weeks of their sentence in prison and were then released to return to their normal occupation, knowing that if they put one foot wrong they would be back to serve the rest of their sentence, would this not have a much more dramatic deterrent effect and therefore have the effect of lowering the prison population overall?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hesitate to say that suspended sentences are not effective. I am aware of criticisms and, indeed, research is being undertaken to try to throw more light on this particular aspect. With regard to what the noble Lord said in the second part of his question, I assure the noble Lord that the Government recognise the strength of the argument for introducing partially suspended sentences, but we really must be confident that the overall impact of the provision would be to offer relief and not add to the prison population.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, could not the effect of introducing partly suspended sentences be to increase
526
the size of the prison population and tend to encourage courts to pass such sentences in lieu of, for instance, probation or indeed suspended sentences?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I would agree with the noble and learned Lord. This is the danger, and this is what causes the Government to hesitate.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that short sentences overcrowd the prisons very much less than long sentences, and a partially suspended sentence must be shorter than any other kind of sentence, except the wholly suspended sentence? Is the noble Lord aware that all the recommendations for the partially suspended sentence have included the recommendation that the remainder of the sentence should be served under supervision?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think the area we want to look at is the prisoner serving the shorter sentence, and indeed the Lord Chief Justice has emphasised in cases in the Court of Appeal that that is the area at which he would wish the courts to look. It is intended shortly by the Home Office to publish the results of a review of the parole scheme which will look not only at its operation within present statutory limits but also at the possibility of some extension to shorter sentences of early release arrangements. I think that is the way we should proceed.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, could the Minister indicate when the review of this subject which he has promised is likely to be concluded?
Lord Belstead: Shortly, my Lords.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, would the Minister bear in mind that there are considerations other than the immediate effect on the prison population?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and the Government are committed to ensuring protection for the public against violent and dangerous criminals. However, violent offenders are, I am glad to say, still in the minority in our prisons, and there is reason to believe that a reduction in the use of imprisonment for non-violent offenders could be achieved without sacrificing the protection which the public are entitled to expect.

School Examination System and Employers
2.42 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to improve the school examination system at GCE Ordinary Level and CSE so that it provides prospective employers with a more realistic guide to a pupil's ability.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, GCE O-level

527
and CSE examinations are to be replaced by a system of examinations based on a single scale of grades with national criteria for syllabuses and assessment procedures. We are confident that employers will find the new system more intelligible and informative than the present arrangements.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can she give any information as to the Government's proposals for the use of profile reports on pupils—how they behaved during their time at school—so that a potential employer may be informed as to the kind of person he or she may be taking on?
Baroness Young: My Lords, examination certificates do not of course record the full range of pupils' achievements at school, even for those who get high grades in a substantial number of subjects. We have invited the Schools Council to undertake additional work on the development of records of achievement which would include examination results as well as a range of other information helpful to employers.
Lord George-Brown: Nevertheless, my Lords, may I suggest to the Minister—
Several noble Lords: No.
Lord George-Brown: Certain noble Lords may consider themselves good at detail, my Lords. May I ask the Minister to be very careful, please, about this sudden tendency towards teachers' profiles of pupils? Speaking as one who never passed an O-level in his life, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that nevertheless I have a tremendous appreciation of what a teacher who might have disapproved of my personal rebelliousness, or whatever they might have chosen to call it, could have put into my profile? Will the Minister please go very carefully on this matter, particularly at a time when, as most of us know, the teaching profession is very much infiltrated by people with particular political motivations?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I made it quite clear in my main Answer that we are committed to a system of examinations at 16 plus, and there is no question of substituting anything else for an examination system. We are looking at a system of records of achievement and we have asked the Schools Council to do some research on that.
Baroness David: My Lords, what does the department intend to suggest about the 20 per cent. of pupils who take no exams, neither GCE O-levels nor CSE? What sort of assessment will they suggest for those pupils, who need one just as much as the exam-takers?
Baroness Young: My Lords, this is of course a matter of the target group at whom the 16 plus examinations will be aimed, and there is not at present a single system of examining which could be extended to cover the whole ability range and at the same time maintain standards. However, we are concerned that many school-leavers leave without any written state-
528
ment of their achievements and it is to that end that we are looking at this whole question of a record of achievement; but we have not taken any decision on the form it might take.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is normally quite easy for an employer, when proposing to take on an applicant, if the interview is thorough, to have a fairly good idea of the person's ability?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not doubt that an employer, after an interview, can have a clear idea of the applicant's ability. It is often very important for the applicant to get to the interview in the first place, and therefore a record of achievement is important.
Lord Hale: My Lords, does the Minister not recall the affaire des fiches in France which caused a controversy over military employment, because it was said that the words "good Roman Catholic" was one of the titles used to identify a suitable army officer in a Roman Catholic country? That started a political rumbustious row which lasted for many years and had severe political consequences upon the introduction of hostilities.
Baroness Young: The noble Lord's observations are rather wide of the Question, my Lords, but I assure him that we are not going into any system of a record of achievement without looking very carefully at it, and that is why we are still doing research on it.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the DES be making some pronouncement about the linking of the various examination boards? They seem to be taking a long time about it and do not appear to be getting on very well together at the moment. Could the Minister say, further, when the Cockroft Report will be issued, and whether its proposals will be co-ordinated into any new proposals that will be coming out?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the answer to the first part of that supplementary is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State believes that there should be four groups of examining boards in England and one in Wales, and I believe we are close to the point when their detailed composition can be finally settled. On the second point the noble Baroness raised. I have no information at present.
2.48 p.m.

Politically Extremist Literature in Schools
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to prevent the circulation in schools of inflammatory literature by politically extreme organisations.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government deplore the introduction of politically extremist literature into

529
schools. It is the responsibility of local education authorities and of schools to deal with any attempts to distribute such literature in schools, and they should inform the police if they think that an offence may have been committed.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether she is aware that in a world in which there is so much violence, both here and overseas, and in which there are so many violent groups, Right just as much as Left, there is a danger of having politics infiltrated into the schools by various methods which one would deplore? It is to be hoped that the Government will keep a very close eye on the subject, because it could be dangerous.
Baroness Young: Yes, it is, my Lords, and I think local education authorities and head teachers are aware that it is an offence to publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive, insulting or likely to stir up hatred against any racial group in Great Britain. Where a teacher or local education authority has reason to believe that the material offends against that provision, they should report the matter to the police.
Baroness Bacon: My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether or not what she has mentioned applies to literature distributed at the school gates? Is she aware that only a few days ago I came across an instance where fascist literature was being distributed by people at the gates of a comprehensive school in my area? What is the legal position in such a case?
Baroness Young: My Lords, if the material offends in the way that I have described, it is of course a matter for the police. Although the promotion of an extreme political opinion itself does not constitute an offence, people engaged in political activities outside a school might none the less be guilty of a criminal offence if they are obstructing the highway or acting in a manner conducive to a breach of the peace.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, surely this is a little absurd. Is not the object of education to try to set the pupils' minds alight, to make them receptive, to give them the chance to receive or to reject? Are we really going to try to protect them from the writings of such people as my noble friend Lord Shinwell, who was a highly inflammatory demagogue in his time?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have to distinguish between two important aspects of this question. The task of political education in schools is not to recommend particular opinions but to describe to pupils, and teach them about, the workings of a democratic society. The distribution of literature of the type that I have described is an offence and falls within a quite different category.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, has my noble friend any knowledge of the fact that sometimes it is a question of word of mouth, rather than literature, inasmuch as pupils in schools are strongly advised to
530
support bodies such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is not for Ministers to make a judgment on what teachers say in schools about their particular opinions. However, it is vital for us all to acknowledge the importance of professional judgment among teachers and local authority representatives, and I believe that the overwhelming majority of them use their professional judgment wisely in these matters.

Dinner
Lord Denham: My Lords, in view of the considerable length of the list of speakers for today's business, it might be convenient if I announce that although dinner will not be available, I have arranged for the Grill Room to remain open until 9.30 p.m. and for light refreshments to be available in your Lordships' Guest Room.

Beverage Containers Bill [H.L.]
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to promote the use of refillable beverage containers; to prohibit the sale of beverages in non-returnable containers; and to provide for regulations to be made to standardise beverage containers. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

Allied Irish Banks Bill
Read 3a with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
2.53 p.m.

Expenditure Cuts and the Public Services
Lord Wells-Pestell Lord Wells-Pestell rose to call attention to the effects of Her Majesty's Government's expenditure cuts on those in the community who depend on Government aid and local authority services; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. My contribution this afternoon will take the form of a plea to the Back-Benchers on the Government side of the House. I do not think that anything that I am able to say this afternoon will make any impression whatsoever upon the Government Front Bench. We have been through this matter many times before and, as your Lordships know, the Government are resistant to change and are very dogmatic so far as their beliefs are concerned. I do not hold that against them; I accept it. I want to try to discuss with noble Lords behind the Government Front Bench various matters

531
which I feel are of supreme importance to the community.
During the past few years the Government have introduced three Budgets and two social security Bills, as well as a considerable amount of other legislation that has imposed hardship on a large section of the community who are already finding it difficult to make ends meet and to maintain a reasonable standard of living. The purpose of the debate is to encourage noble Lords opposite to take a look with me at the situation which the Government have created for those people who are already impoverished. We on this side of the House have been appalled by the apparent indifference of noble Lords opposite to the effects of Government policy on some of the groups in the community. Let me be quite frank here. At first we were amazed that so much social legislation should go through without noble Lords opposite objecting, or, as in the case of the two social security Bills, with few Government supporters being present in the Chamber, as though the two Bills had little or no significance.
From being amazed we became appalled by, and indeed very early on we became angry about, the insensitivity of noble Lords opposite to what the Government were doing. We cannot accept that all noble Lords opposite are as indifferent as they appear to be to the legislation which has been passed in this House, and we believe that if they had really thought of the implications of much of that legislation they would have had something to say.
We recognise—and I do not say this facetiously—that most noble Lords opposite start off with a serious handicap in as much as their mode of living may lead them through the highways and byways but never, with very few exceptions, into the back streets where the ordinary people live. One must see how some people live, the conditions under which they live, before one is able to understand their problems. Not for one moment am I suggesting that my remark applies to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I shall have quite a lot to say about the views of the Association of Directors of Social Services—and the noble Baroness was at one time a very distinguished director of social services. I shall be intrigued to see how the noble Baroness defends the Government in a variety of ways, if she is to be so misguided as to do that.
We are prepared to think that the seeming indifference is due to noble Lords being uninformed, misinformed, or ill-informed, and the object of today's debate is to inform them of the true situation. We all need to remember, and to take, the advice of Mr. St. John-Stevas, who said:
"Man is a human being before he is an economic unit".
I say with the greatest respect that had we remembered that advice, some of the legislation that has gone through this House in the last two years could not possibly have been accepted. I also wish to remind your Lordships of what Mr. Jim Prior remarked the same weekend:
"We must have care and understanding for the victims of the recession".
We had a very long and interesting debate on unemployment two or three months ago. But how many of us can put ourselves in the position of an
532
unemployed person, with, or without, a wife and family? Some noble Lords on this side of the House can speak from personal experience in this respect, and some of us from the experience of very close relatives at the present time. We do not seem to realise that one of the most soul-destroying things in our society is prolonged unemployment. It does not only demoralise the individual, who feels that he has been thrown on the scrap-heap and that nobody wants him: his children know that their father is apparently not able to provide for them.
Those of your Lordships who saw the Observer last Sunday will have seen an article headed,
"Tragedies of the men who prefer death to the dole".
There was the description of one particular case of a young man of 17 who died after jumping from a railway bridge near his home on to a 25,000-volt power cable. He had left school some time previously, and was unable to get a job. The coroner said:
"He was a conscientious young man, who had perhaps become the victim of the economic climate".
The article then went on to give a series of similar instances; and there is a very high increase in the suicide rate resulting from unemployment.
The Social Security (No. 2) Bill, as your Lordships know, did a number of things which we on this side of the House felt to be absolutely appalling, and yet there was only one noble Lord opposite, on the Benches behind the Front Bench, who raised any question at all about it and, I think, in fact came into the Lobby with us. I quote from what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said in your Lordships' House on 2nd June during the Second Reading of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill. She said this (vol. 409, col. 1111):
"I turn now to the specific measures in the Bill. Clause 1 amends the up-rating provisions of the Social Security Act 1975, to enable the amount of the increase in certain specified benefits to be less, by up to 5 per cent. of the current benefit, than the amount necessary to restore their value".
She went on to say:
"This means an increase of 11·5 per cent. instead of 16·5 per cent. from November 1980".
She went on to say further:
"The benefits concerned are unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, maternity allowance",
and so on. It is quite appalling that we should have allowed something that is going to reduce the unemployment benefit by 5 per cent. to pass through both Houses of Parliament, and yet from my recollection there was not a single objection coming from noble Lords opposite.
I want to discuss this in a reasonable frame of mind with noble Lords opposite, because I believe that, as we on this side know, the people behind us can very often alter the intentions of a Government, and this matter is one of the things that concerns us very much indeed. I propose to leave the details of the effects of the Government cuts, so far as they affect the personal social services, to my noble friends behind me. I merely want to draw the outline and leave them to fill in the details. I will be quite frank. I approach my task with some slight reservation. I, like most, if not all, noble Lords was brought up not to take advantage of another's misfortune, in the belief that one should never hit a man when he is down—

533
and I believe that the Tory Government and the Tory Party are certainly down at the present moment. In fact, I would think that they have reached a new low in the judgment of many people.
Never in history have 364 academic economists felt moved to join together to complain about a Government's handling of affairs. Is it a laughing matter? I am glad that noble Lords are amused by it. Can anybody remember 364 academics complaining about the way the Government are managing the economy? Can anybody remember when the Churches of all denominations have banded together to criticise the Government in their treatment of people? I believe the procession which took place in a part of England was led by eight bishops. I cannot ever remember eight bishops leading a deputation. It seems that unless we come to grips with this problem we are likely to have it demonstrated in a violent way on our streets; that is, unless we face up to what is happening to a large section of the community at the present time, who are finding it difficult to make ends meet.
It is said that the Prime Minister cannot trust some of the members of her Cabinet, and it is reported that a prominent Tory MP said—and I quote for the benefit of noble Lords opposite who did not see it:
"Conservative supporters should be alerted that a determined effort is being made by a minority of Tories at Westminster to undermine Margaret Thatcher and to secure her replacement as Party Leader".
That is after two years, my Lords! This, presumably, is the feeling of a number of members of the Conservative Party in respect of their leader. It would appear that both Mr. Walker and Mr. St. John-Stevas have doubts about the Government's policy, and I understand that Mr. Pym has joined the Tory Reform Group. If the Prime Minister is not for turning, can someone persuade her to be for learning? Because I believe that the Prime Minister and those who support her need to inform themselves as to what is really happening.
She said recently, when she was trying to re-write the scriptures at St. Lawrence Jewry—and I quote:
"Creating wealth is a Christian obligation".
So far as I know, there is no such obligation placed on a Christian, but as I see and understand Christianity there is an obligation to distribute wealth fairly, and this is something that the Government have not done. Everyone will recall that immediately after assuming office the Government reduced taxation by about £4,500 million. The poorest 10 per cent. of the people in this country got just 2 per cent. of that money, while the richest 7 per cent. received 34 per cent. I know that noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite will say, "Ah!—but when we came in we did not realise the financial state of the country. We had made this promise during the election, and we were duty bound to carry it out". Only a stupid, short-sighted Government would have parted with £4,500 million in those circumstances. I wonder whether I dare suggest that the banner at the next Tory party conference should be:
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, for where your treasure is there will your heart be also".
That seems to some of us to personify the situation at the present moment.
As I said earlier, I do not believe that the majority of noble Lords opposite understand how millions of
534
our people have to struggle to make ends meet. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, will endeavour to put up a strong defence of the actions that the Government have taken. If I may be presumptuous—and I know that the noble Baroness will not mind my saying this—they will tell us that it is all a matter of money, that the Government have done their best on the limited amount of money available and that things are not nearly as bad as I and my noble friends on this side of the House try to make them out to be.
There would have been no need for this debate if the Government had not mismanaged £4,500 million on tax reductions, given in the main to people earning £10,000 a year or more, the people who, in my submission, did not need it; because if a person cannot manage on £200 a week there is something radically wrong with the individual. On 28th October 1978, the present Secretary of State said:
"Local authorities' welfare services must concentrate on the areas of greater need, the very old, the severely disabled, the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and on the children's services".
We all know what happened to them! I have a report—and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has seen it and therefore will not be able to say that I am wrong—that has been issued by the Association of Directors of Social Services, in which they say that there have been cuts in residential care for children, in residential care for the elderly, residential care for the physically handicapped, residential care for the mentally handicapped, residential care for the mentally ill and for other people who need residential care.
There have been cuts affecting children boarding out and certainly there have been severe cuts on Meals-on-Wheels, on holidays for the elderly, on travel concessions and on Shelter housing. Day nurseries have suffered and pre-school play groups have also suffered badly. But also there have suffered—and this is important—the day centres for the elderly, the one place (as I can say from some experience in Oxford) that elderly people like to go to first thing in the morning and come home from as late as they possibly can, because there they meet other people, there they live and only live to go there the next day.
Day centres for the physically handicapped and for the mentally ill and the multi-purpose day centres have suffered severe cuts and, in some instances, closures. Also, social workers and specialist social workers have been disposed of in some areas. Grants to voluntary bodies who work among the deprived have suffered; and so has training and maintenance of buildings and furniture which I am not bothered about. We know what has happened to all those groups as a result of the Government cuts in local authority resources and income by substantially reducing the rate support grant. I do not think that there is time to discuss the rate support grant. It undoubtedly represents a threat to democracy when the Government step in and begin to tell the local authorities how much money they can spend and in which direction they can spend it. It is a threat to local government in this country, as three noble Lords have said recently.
I feel that we shall be told that things are not as bad as we make them out to be and that the curtailment of local authority services is the fault of the local autho-

535
rities and not of the Government. This is an argument which has been advanced by the Government: "It is not our fault but that of the local authorities". But the local authorities have had their rate support grant reduced by £100 million—I am taking all of them. As they are the one body responsible for the personal social services they have been forced to do one of two things: either to put up the rates very substantially and to provide those services or to cut down the services in order to keep the rates down. And so you get this deprived section of the community not only losing some of their social amenities but paying higher rates; and we all know that along with higher rates goes the increased burden of high prices for gas and for electricity.
If there is any doubt in the minds of any noble Lords opposite about the serious effects of the cuts, let me refer to a statement—I was going to read three statements but will read only one—issued by the Association of Directors of Social Service, who can claim to be, as they are, a very reliable and informed body of experts in this field. The quotation that I want to leave with your Lordships is this:
"Spending on the personal social services had to increase by about 2 per cent. per year to maintain the present standard of service; and to maintain and expand the services to a level which directors considered necessary to meet the need in their areas would mean an increase of 16½ per cent. to 17 per cent. in the budget. Instead there had been a cut of 2½ per cent. to 3 per cent. in the original planned budget; this must harm services".
My Lords, I want to conclude by saying this. I do not say it lightly; I get no pleasure out of saying it; but I want noble Lords on the other side to realise what is happening because this Government may be with us for a while yet and I strongly suspect that each Budget will bring further limitations, particularly in the rate support grant. I say to noble Lords opposite that in the interests of that section of the community which is deprived they must resist this. All that this Government have given to a large number of people of this country is unhappiness and increased poverty. To people who should have been given a priority, they have given scant consideration. I plead with noble Lords opposite not to permit this to continue and to watch the Government's actions and intentions most carefully, not so much in the interests of the Conservative Party but in the interests of people for whom they say they care. If I may say so, actions speak louder than words. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.19 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I welcome the choice of Motion that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has made. Though there are many issues on which he and I do not see eye to eye, it is eminently desirable for your Lordships to debate the important issues he has raised; and the debate gives us on these Benches an opportunity to explain fully the reasons for those aspects of Government policy which the noble Lord has mentioned; to invite your Lordships to see the problems he has raised in the perspective of the country's overall situation; and to deal with some of the myths that the Opposition has been fostering—both here and, more frequently, in the House of Commons.
The noble Lord concentrated to a considerable
536
extent on social services issues, which he has great experience of handling in this House. But his Motion goes very wide and he very relevantly referred also to such issues as general economic trends, Government policy on public expenditure as a whole and local authority expenditure in particular; and to unemployment and its social consequences. I have no doubt that your Lordships will widen the debate still further, and that when my noble friend Lady Young speaks this evening there will be a large number of issues on which she will wish to offer clarification.
At this early stage in the debate, it would probably be most helpful if, instead of dealing with each of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, I concentrated on setting the framework of economic necessity and on the positive and carefully considered policies and strategies which the Government have adopted and are carrying through. Before I do so, let me say that we are as concerned as the party opposite to maintain the fabric of a caring and compassionate society. As evidence of this, it was a Conservative Secretary of State for Social Services who initiated a major programme of research into the "cycle of deprivation" by which disadvantage may be transmitted from generation to generation of the same family. The results of this programme are starting to be published, and they should give us further understanding of the causes of poverty and disadvantage.
More immediately, there can be no contesting that when this Government came to power it was given one overriding priority by the electorate: the renewal of the economy and the battle against inflation. Neither in Government nor previously in Opposition have Ministers ever claimed that this would be in any way a quick or painless process; or that it could be achieved without controversy and difficult decisions—particularly in relation to the funding of the public services.
Your Lordships are familiar with the Government's economic stategy to stimulate the economy by restoring incentives, controlling taxation, public spending and public sector borrowing, and reducing the Civil Service and other public service administration costs. This strategy is not being pursued in any sectional spirit, but in order to increase the prosperity of the country as a whole. Success will benefit no one more than the needy, the pensioners, the sick and disabled, who can never be given the services and the support that we should all like them to have until the economy creates the wealth needed to pay for them. And our strategy is delivering results. From the peak of 22 per cent. reached last summer, inflation is now down to 12½ per cent. on an annual basis. By the end of this year we expect the rate to be down to 10 per cent. While some pay settlements have been higher than we would have wished, there has been a marked—and extremely welcome—tendency toward moderation. The Government have moved to bring down interest rates, and this is helping both industry and private householders.
In the social services, the strategy has required the Government to pursue twin objectives. First, we have had to make some expenditure savings. But secondly, we have protected—and encouraged local authorities to protect—the most vulnerable. I shall show how those objectives have been reconciled in the services for which the DHSS is responsible: Government aid to individuals through the social security programme, local government's personal social services, and the

537
National Health Service. My noble friend Lady Young will in due course touch on other programmes, notably education, housing and employment measures, and aid to industry.
For the necessary savings, we thought it right to look first to the costs of administration. We have already, in two years, reduced the staff of DHSS headquarters by 10 per cent. Between 1979 and 1984 we plan to reduce the staff of the department as a whole by no fewer than 15,000 people. The Secretary of State for Social Services has encouraged local authorities to look very carefully for savings in the administration of the personal social services. In the Health Service, we are making administrative economies—including the abolition of one tier of NHS administration—which will produce savings to the tune of £30 million a year. And we have reduced by over half the number of circulars that the DHSS sends out to health and local authorities.
As regards social security, we have indeed had to find savings; but, as the social security chapter of the Public Expenditure Survey White Paper shows, it is entirely inaccurate to speak as though the structure developed from Beveridge onwards lies in ruins. Expenditure is rising—and it will continue to rise—by 8 per cent. in real terms between 1980–81 and 1983–84. Certainly this reflects increasing numbers of beneficiaries, but it also reflects protection of the levels of those main benefits. The Bill in another place at present, with associated savings on this year's up-rating, will save some £225 million; but it will do that while still guaranteeing price protection for pensioners and related beneficiaries over the period 1979 to 1981. In other words, where pensions are concerned, what we are doing in the November uprating this year is to give the full value of the 10 per cent. inflation expected between the last uprating and the next one, but on the basis of a notional 1980 benefit rate giving full price protection, and no more than that, for the period from 1979 to 1980.
The benefits which have been given 5 per cent. less than price protection have been for the most part short-term benefits, and they have been benefits which ought to be subject to tax but are not as yet. We have stuck firmly to priorities, including extra help for families and for disabled people and protection of the real value of benefits for pensioners.
The House will be pleased to hear that I can now give a clarification of the basis for future uprating of social security benefits. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security has today written to Mr. Rooker about the pledge given on shortfall by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
This Government are committed to compensate pensioners fully for price increases over the lifetime of this Parliament. This was the pledge repeated by my right honourable friend on 25th February. Pensioners include, in addition to those receiving national insurance retirement pensions, recipients of the following benefits: widow's pension—including widowed mother allowance and widow's allowance; industrial death benefit paid by way of a widow's or widower's pension; war disablement pension and industrial injury disablement pension; war widow's pension; attendance allowance, invalid care allowance and non-contributory
538
invalidity pension. Supplementary pension, now aligned with retirement pension, will be similarly protected.
Invalidity benefit and unemployability supplement have of course had their uprating abated in 1980 but part of the abatement is to be made good at the 1981 uprating—invalidity allowance and its equivalent—and we have given an assurance that the benefits will be restored to the rate of retirement pension when they are brought into tax. The abated rates, transitionally, and the unabated rates thereafter, will be price protected.
Invalidity benefit—a sensitive benefit, and rightly so—was uprated last year by less than the increase in prices. It is not yet taxed, although retirement and widow's pensions are taxed; and the tax advantage has actually attracted people who are over pension age and effectively retired to stay on invalidity benefit. This year there has been no abatement; the invalidity allowance has been, if I may use a cumbersome term, de-abated; and firm promises have been made that when invalidity benefit is brought into tax, the process of de-abatement will be completed, and the benefit realigned with retirement pension. In the meantime, there will be price protection of existing rates of invalidity benefit; and realignment with retirement pension will mean price protection along with retirement pension.
The £2 increase in mobility allowance means an increase of nearly 14 per cent. of that benefit—that is. 65 per cent. since this Government came to office. One-parent benefit—that is, the extra paid to one-parent families—goes up in line with inflation this year. This too will have gone up by 65 per cent. since the Government came to office. Family income supplement has been substantially improved by successive upratings, and by the consolidation into the rate of extra help with fuel costs. So in spite of the savings we have made on social security, the total social security cash outturn for the financial year just ended was about £23,000 million; 1981–82 cash cost is expected to be about £27,400 million, and this is about a quarter of public expenditure. Pensions have been and will be price-protected; the supplementary benefit safety net has been preserved; benefits for disabled people have been improved; help with fuel costs has been increased too and held at a much higher level; there has been further help for one-parent families; and this year's uprating will price protect child benefit, as we said we hoped to do last year.
Again, the Government's opponents are eager to give the impression that we are forcing on local authorities massive cuts in services. The facts are rather different. When the Government took office in May 1979 there was an immediate request that current expenditure relevant for rate support grant in 1979–80 should be about 1 per cent. lower than that for 1978–79 in real terms. That was about 3 per cent. below the amount planned by the previous Administration, whose spending intentions could not be sustained by economic circumstances. A further reduction of just over 1 per cent. was called for in 1980–81, and for 1981–82 the volume target is 5·6 per cent. below 1978–79. We believe that a reduction of this order represents a realistic target.
The education services alone account for over half of

539
local government expenditure and since the number of children in school will fall by 13 per cent. between 1979 and 1984, there must be considerable scope for making savings without detriment to the standard of education. In fact, the reduction on education indicated in our expenditure plans for this period is, at 6½ per cent., nowhere near 13 per cent. I would point out too that expenditure on education doubled in real terms in the 20 years to 1978–79; it would be rather surprising if, after such a long period of fairly high growth, a certain amount of fat had not grown into the system, which could be trimmed without significant loss.
Similar arguments apply to the personal social services, on which spending in real terms doubled between 1970–71 and 1978–79. In the event, while the response by authorities has varied, in national aggregate terms the target reductions are not being met. Spending in real terms in 1979–80 was about 2 per cent. above the previous year; the revised 1980–81 budgets which the Government called for are 2·6 per cent. in excess of the guideline, although we hope that some of this excess will disappear in the outturn figures. Spending on the personal social services actually rose by more than 4 per cent. in real terms in 1979–80, and it seems likely that expenditure will be maintained at about the same level in 1980–81.
The Government's assumptions about expenditure on particular local authority services are of course indicative. It is for local authorities themselves, within their discretion, to decide how best to meet local needs. The Government requirement is that they should have regard in their decisions to the needs of the country's economy as a whole, and in particular the need not to starve the productive parts of the economy. I appreciate, however, that these are difficult and worrying times for local authorities. Many of them are coping in a way which combines a responsible reaction to the Government's call for economies with careful consideration for the most important needs of their own localities.
Although circumstances vary between authorities, it is nonsense to talk about cuts seriously affecting those who depend upon the local authority personal social services. Indeed, the Government specifically asked authorities, if standards have to be reduced, to protect as far as possible the most vulnerable. This is clearly happening. In 1979–80, the latest year for which detailed figures are available, there were, for instance, overall increases of some 7 per cent. in real terms on residential accommodation for the elderly and younger physically handicapped; for the mentally handicapped the increase was even greater at more than 10 per cent. Fieldwork services also increased by more than 10 per cent. and expenditure on children, largely on those in the care of local authorities, went up by about 3 per cent. Other increases include 3 per cent. on meals for the elderly and 1 per cent. on home helps. Support for the voluntary sector was more than maintained. General grants increased by about 8 per cent. in real terms and payments for services provided by voluntary organisations increased by almost 5 per cent. On top of this, the allocations of joint finance have been increased each year and are now running above the level planned by the previous
540
Administration. The allocation for 1981–82 is, in real terms, almost double what it was in 1977–78. Most of this will be spent by way of NHS contributions to personal social services projects, giving an addition of about 4 per cent. or £56 million to the capital and current expenditure being incurred by local authorities themselves.
As I have said, the effects of local government expenditure pressures have varied greatly between different authorities. In some, undoubtedly there have been cuts. But even in such authorities, ways have often been found to make provision more economical and maintain some service development. This has often been done by imaginative co-operation with the voluntary sector. I would like to elaborate a little on the key role we see for the voluntary sector in the personal social services. Since coming to office we have consistently encouraged an expansion of voluntary care—through organised bodies, through neighbourhood schemes and mutual aid groups, and the care available through family and friends. This is not because we see the voluntary sector as a substitute for statutory services, or simply as a means of maintaining services where a local authority decides that it has to reduce its own. Our objective is a major and sustained increase in the total amount of care available to the community and we see it best provided where statutory and voluntary services work harmoniously and supportively together. We have played our own part in helping the voluntary sector's resources by maintaining the value of total DHSS grants to voluntary bodies. Those now run at more than £8 million a year, and through them we give help to over 225 voluntary bodies.
Turning now to the NHS, we find here not the slashing of budgets and services that our critics have alleged, but a careful combination of an increasingly disciplined economic management with major Government efforts to maintain standards. There were certainly difficulties in 1979–80, when we had to cope with the inadequate cash limits and unfunded pay commitments we inherited from our predecessors. It would have been quite wrong for us simply to find further money to meet these problems, so the volume of spending by health authorities was less than planned because of the effects of higher pay and price rises. But even in that difficult year, current spending on the NHS in fact increased slightly in real terms, although capital spending was somewhat lower than the 1978–79 level. And it is very relevant that in 1979–80 productivity increased—in acute sector hospitals there were 5 per cent. more in-patients treated than in the previous year, at a time when total resources did not increase.
In the financial year which has just ended, 1980–81, some problems continued because the cost of goods and services purchased by the Health Service increased faster than prices in general, and because some aspects of the 1979 Clegg award to nurses and midwives proved in practice to cost more than was expected. But notwithstanding these difficulties, spending in real terms again increased. The Public Expenditure White Paper we recently published demonstrates that in real terms the money available for the NHS was about 2.4 per cent. more in 1980–81 than in 1978–79, the last full year of the Labour Administration. In cash terms, spending over the same period has

541
risen by some £3.6 billion, or around 55 per cent. The NHS has made steady progress in reducing the national waiting list from the peak it reached in March 1979, which then stood at 752,000. The latest figure we have is for September 1980, when it had been reduced to 641,000. I must emphasise that the growth rates I have quoted are the national total. In particular areas the outcome may well have been either higher or lower depending on whether the health authority involved was a gainer or a loser under the resource allocation system.
For the future, further increases in real terms are planned. The increase in real terms in total gross expenditure on the NHS in 1981–82 is expected to be some 1.4 per cent. over the planned level for 1980–81. But my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has made clear that the achievement of the development the Government intend is crucially dependent on the responsible pay bargaining by NHS staff. Increases higher than the 6 per cent. cash limit allowance will eat into the money made available for service development. In addition, the Government are also expecting the Health Service to find a further £25 million worth of development through increases from greater efficiency in each year from 1981–82.
In conclusion, while my noble friend Lady Young may well expand on these points, if that would be helpful, in the light of the points made by your Lordships, I hope I have said enough to show that many of the criticisms levelled against Government policy are without foundation. They are myths, and they stem from a major misconception of the Government's objectives and the Conservative traditions which underlie them. No one can say with any justification that the Government are dismantling the welfare state or lack concern for the disadvantaged. We differ from the party opposite not in the extent of our concern for the disadvantaged and the needy, but in our refusal to go for the short-term palliative solution of printing money to provide extra services—an expedient that can only damage the economy and hence the long-term interests of the welfare services and the people they exist to help.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for raising this important subject this afternoon. We on these Benches share the concern which he expressed about the effect of the Government's expenditure cuts on those who depend on Government aid and local authority services. In Colchester in February, the Secretary of State for Social Services, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, said this:
"We will have reduced spending by some £1·5 billion on social security and also saved the Exchequer £750 million on the Health Service".
That, of course, is without taking into account the undoubted cuts there have been in the services provided by the local authorities. This is some indication of the extent of the cuts which have been imposed. The welfare scene today is dominated by the restriction of financial resources. There has been a nibbling away of national insurance benefits, and we saw that in the two social security Bills that were before this House last year.
However, I welcome the fact which has been announ-
542
ced by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, that it is to be the Government's policy in the future to make good any shortfalls in their estimates of the increase in prices—any shortfalls in the benefits in the amounts by which benefits are raised. That was not their policy when they first came into office, when both for long-term and short-term benefits they did not make good shortfalls. But it is at least encouraging to know that the policy has been changed. I was not quite clear from what the noble Lord said, whether de-abatement, as he described it, was going to apply to the other short-term benefits other than invalidity pension, and I hope we may hear something about that later. So a nibbling away of national insurance benefits—I do not put it any higher than that, but it was certainly that—is the first aspect of the welfare scene today.
Then the supplementary benefit review was carried out on a no-cost basis, although the Supplementary Benefit Commission had said it could not satisfactorily be done on that basis. Plans for integrating the education of the mentally handicapped, welcome in themselves, into the general educational system lacked the resources to do the job properly. The statement on Government policy for the elderly is largely devoid of new proposals. Then there are the cuts in local authority personal services which, as the Directors of Social Services have said, hit the elderly and the disabled most. In fact, in a report issued by them they say:
"The policies now being promulgated by the Government hit many of the services specially aimed at alleviating the plight of the old, the sick and the handicapped and those who cannot tolerate the stresses which our society generates".
Of course we hear repeatedly of the closure of particular hospitals and of hospital beds. If our economy were to contract continuously over the years, public expenditure cuts would undoubtedly become necessary and no doubt a point would be reached when cuts in welfare benefits and services could not be avoided; but that situation would be heralded by a steep and continuing increase in the proportion of gross domestic product devoted to public expenditure. It is true that this proportion has increased under the present Government in spite of expenditure cuts, partly because deflationary policies push up the expenditure on the unemployed, but the proportion is no higher than it was in the middle of the term of office of the last Government. So we are not in such a situation as I have described, which would justify large-scale welfare cuts, though a continuation of current policies might bring that situation about.
The wisdom of deflationary policies in a time of recession is widely challenged, but while it is true that we must live within our means it is also true that deflationary policies reduce our means. But whether or not expenditure cuts are justified as an instrument of economic policy, it is possible to argue—and we on these Benches would so argue—that the disadvantaged should not be asked to contribute to them.
We are considering this afternoon all the various welfare services which suffer from Government expenditure cuts but I suppose we are particularly concerned with the personal social services which have been singled out for particularly severe treatment; yet I am struck by how small an amount we spend on personal social services compared with what we spend on other welfare benefits. I think I am right in saying

543
that the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, said that in the past year our total social security expenditure was £23 billion. But on the personal social services, I do not suppose that the expenditure was more than £1½ billion; so that is £23 billion compared with £1½ billion. Comparatively small though the amount spent on them is, the personal social services expanded very rapidly in the early 1970s, in response to the demands made upon them, yet it is generally recognised that these demands are far from being satisfied. Who would pretend that the need for domiciliary services has been fully met? Who could say that there is adequate provision for day care or for residential care?
We have been witnessing cuts in services which are already inadequate. The Black report stated that there are 10 inner city areas where cutbacks of any kind would create despair. The demand on the social services is steadily increasing and the number of elderly people and children in one-parent families continues to rise. As the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said, there has to be a 2 per cent. per annum increase just to stand still. For example, the population aged over 75 in Liverpool will double in the next five years, yet any growth there is virtually impossible in this financial year, because Liverpool's rate support grant has been reduced by £11 million.
Local authorities have used three main methods of making savings imposed on them by central Government: abandoning or reducing planned growth; introducing new charges for services or increasing existing charges; and transferring costs, usually through joint funding, or cutting the level of services. The most serious consequences have been in local authorities with a traditionally low level of provision. Three out of five authorities which are reported to be cutting their social services by some 6 per cent. had already spent, before they embarked on this, less than the average per head of the population. Cuts in this context will inevitably have severe effects on service provision.
At least 51 authorities made savings in the home help service in 1981–81, and I am particularly unhappy about this reduction in help in the home. The survey which was recently carried out reckoned that the average cost per week for home helps is £1 for all pensioners, including pensioners on supplementary benefit. But out of a sample of 130 in Redbridge who were receiving help from the home help service, 42 said that they would cancel the service rather than pay £1.50. In one London borough, according to Help the Aged, there has been a 10 per cent. cut in the home help service and the provision of transport by the borough for conveying the elderly to day centres has been cut by half.
As an example of the personal suffering caused to old people, Help the Aged quotes the case of a pensioner couple. Both are frail and need meal provision. Thanks to the gift of a Help the Aged minibus, they could travel to a lunch club. Now, however, the number of lunch clubs in the borough has been reduced from 14 to 8. Because the lady pensioner is ambulant there is no provision of Meals-on-Wheels, so the only alternative is to travel three miles to another club, which the lady does, transporting the meals back home because of her husband's disability.
544
Day centre cutbacks by local authorities represent 10 per cent. of the total cuts in the personal social service budget. But day centres are not a luxury provision or even simply a leisure provision for the elderly. They provide essential services, such as meals, chiropody and information, as well as combating the loneliness which is the cause of many of the illnesses to which elderly people are prone.
Disabled people have been particularly hit. They are, speaking generally, among the poorest people in the community. Partly, their low income is because they are either unemployed or in low paid jobs. They have the extra costs related to disability and they have to rely, to a large extent, on social security benefits. Three-quarters of disabled people are over 75 and 2 million of the 8½ million retirement pensioners have severe or appreciable handicap. It is clear that cuts such as I have described have a serious effect upon them.
In addition, among the first services to be cut was the supply of personal aids and adaptations, telephones and other forms of assistance under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. In some cases, the supply of aids and adaptations was stopped completely when the budget for the year was exhausted. In some authorities, disabled people have to pay a handling charge for the loan of aids. A number of authorities have declared a moratorium on the installation of telephones and others are ending help with rental payments.
It is sometimes argued—and I think it was hinted at this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne—that, in the circumstances of general reduction in the statutory services, the voluntary services must do more. But the idea that we could hack back social service departments and hand their responsibility over to the voluntary bodies is absurd. I am second to none in my admiration for what the voluntary organisations do. The Wolfenden Committee found them in good shape, but they are strong in some places and not in others. They are not obliged to operate everywhere.
Statutory services and voluntary organisations, and what the Wolfenden Committee called "the informal sector of local help" are complementary. They are not alternatives. In any event, owing to Government restrictions on expenditure, many local authorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, indicated, feel reluctantly obliged these days to cut their donations to voluntary bodies. So that though the Government have maintained their contributions to voluntary bodies, there has been a loss of support from local authorities in present circumstances.
Furthermore, voluntary organisations are very concerned at the Government's failure to zero-rate charities for VAT. Help the Aged point out that, over a period of six months, they have provided 27 minibuses for transporting the elderly in various parts of the country, at an average cost of £11,000. If charities were zero-rated for VAT, they would have been able to provide another four minibuses, but publicly subscribed funds went to the taxman.
Seven well-known charities—the Spastics Society, Dr. Barnado's, Help the Aged, the National Children's Home, the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, the Royal National Institute for

545
the Blind and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf—have joined forces to complain, as they say, "in the strongest possible terms" that they are bitterly disappointed by the Budget. They say that VAT is a crushing burden on charities. Charities are also concerned that the National Health Service is encouraged locally to enter into the fund-raising field, in competition with them.
In conclusion, may I say this: It is a most unhappy, and in some respects dangerous, situation that we are discussing this afternoon. It is, surely, utterly wrong that the disadvantaged, the most vulnerable, should be expected to contribute to national expenditure cuts through cuts in the personal social services, which were already inadequate to their task before any cuts were imposed.
4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I very much welcome the debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for calling for and introducing it. Perhaps I should say that I am not going to quote quite so much scripture as did the noble Lord at the beginning. I belong to a small group of bishops who meet privately, all of whom serve in the six largest cities in this country. Last winter we were meeting, and in our conversation we felt that we really must try to find ways of expressing the very serious effects of the cuts on people whom we see in our daily work—effects on those whose needs are the greatest, the great majority of whom live in the big cities of our country.
I want to focus on two areas where the cuts are biting and where I believe that further cuts would savagely damage the services offered to those who most need help. In the first place, I shall follow the noble Lord, Lord Banks, on the effect upon the personal social services in the statutory field. Then I want to say something about the non-statutory or voluntary organisations.
Liverpool, over the last two years, has effectively abolished 50 out of 300 field posts in the social services. This has been done without causing actual redundancies—in other words, by not filling posts when they become vacant. But there is no argument that the number of filled posts has been substantially reduced. It has meant a continuation of the very bitter dispute which followed the protracted social workers strike of a little while ago. I regret very much that social workers are, in a number of cases, blacking cases. Who do they think they are hurting if it is not those who are in the greatest possible need? Although they have an emergency procedure, this blacking increases the number of those at risk. Since that strike, there have been an awful lot of hostile comments to social workers. We are told that nobody has missed the social workers not being there. Those who miss the social workers are those with the least voice in our society.
Let me give your Lordships an example of a couple in Liverpool who want to adopt two boys whom they have been fostering for some time. Both boys had been battered by their natural parents. The social worker dealing with the case was promoted. Because of the current local authority policy his vacancy remains unfilled. The future of the two boys and their possible adoption hangs in the balance. Without a
546
social worker to advise and act as a go-between with the natural parents, no move can be made. The foster mother says, "You don't realise how much you rely on the social worker until he isn't there". That sounds to me like a false economy. Or with children in residential care, consider the savings if there can be speedy rehabilitation within six months. That will need a lot of social work time, before and after. If rehabilitation is delayed, the child concerned may deteriorate mentally and, in terms of cash and of loss of human wellbeing, costs will greatly increase.
Let me give your Lordships one more example. A teenager has come before the courts. With a supervision order, the child remains at home. With good time given by a social worker, supervision can help to iron out some of the problems at home, but without that supervision there may be further trouble, a court appearance and then residential care.
This illustration leads me to say something about the non-statutory organisations, the voluntary bodies. The kind of one-to-one care which would be needed in that instance, in homes where the very greatest needs exist, is something which the statutory services may very often find themselves too stretched to be able to offer. In fact, that is a case to which the Family Service Unit, the FSU, can give the intensive care which may be able to turn things around. The noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, spoke about the circle of deprivation. If particular families are to break out of it, there needs to be a lot of time to make possible very intensive care.
It is an attractive notion to think that the cuts will drive us to look in the direction of the voluntary organisations. My own experience, from 20 years of living and working in the Inner City of London and now for six years as Bishop of Liverpool, has been of a great many connections with the voluntary movements. In fact, I ought to declare an interest. They have included the settlement movement, the youth clubs, voluntary social work, community development groups.
Grant aid has become very much more substantial since I arrived, wet behind the ears, in the Inner City in 1955. It has been a period of enormous growth in grants. But do not let us suppose that we can cheerfully put back the clock and lean on the voluntary bodies in the way that once we did. Let us look back before, say, 1955. The voluntary bodies used to pay a pittance. They imposed on a worker's sense of vocation. Perhaps the Church has done the same thing in its years. But in recent years, the voluntary bodies have come to pay nationally agreed professional salaries, and with that of course to insist upon professional skills. We must not go back on that.
Perhaps I should say that voluntary bodies have, I believe, been so spoiled by large grants from major trusts and from urban aid from local authorities that they do not bother with raising subscription lists and the rest. They would always have done well to continue the hard slog of working at subscription lists so that there is a modest income with no strings attached to it. But the grants over these recent years have enabled them to expand and to raise the service which they offer to many people in need. We must not go back on that and let people down.
Liverpool has probably put more into encouraging,

547
developing and supporting the voluntary sector than most other large cities, but it is facing the kind of reductions which have been mentioned. The city council, trying to keep down rate increases, has frozen all grants to all voluntary organisations for 1981–82. That is to say, there have been no increases for inflation while all the costs have increased. So what does an organisation do whose management committee is made up of busy people giving their time voluntarily? It has entered into an agreement to pay national salary scales to professional workers. Most of such organisations are unincorporated bodies. What happens if their members find themselves personally liable for unmet salaries, for running costs, or even for redundancy payments?
A little while ago I mentioned the FSU. On its present budget, with its grants frozen from the city, it will have to consider, before the year is out, axeing one or more full-time field workers at that point of particular need. That would be typical. A city like Liverpool has developed in recent years many self-help local community groups. In my opinion, they are one of the healthiest developments in the life of cities. In some of the most deprived areas, people are coming together to stand on their own feet, to find their own resources and to take their own responsibilities. There is a real fear in Liverpool among the voluntary bodies that national and local government attitudes to voluntary bodies will militate against community groups in deprived areas, because they themselves are much less able to raise substantial money and are less likely to get across the importance of what they are doing to public authorities, unless the public authorities go out of their way to be receptive.
I want to argue that public policy must recognise the very great significance of such community groups. I have known what it is to sit in a corridor waiting to make our case for grants, in 10 minutes flat, to the appropriate committee in Newham. I have known, too, on very much the credit side, what it was to have a very perceptive youth officer who came to see with her own eyes that somewhat unconventional youth work really was serving the youngsters in the greatest need, and who used to advise me which councillors I should ask down to show them the right things, to see that we were all right. Local authority and government get many services at remarkably low cost through voluntary organisations. For example, I know at first hand how much the Youth Opportunities Programme in Merseyside at the moment needs reliable voluntary organisations to sponsor many projects. Voluntary organisations can multiply core revenue funding but that core revenue funding has to be available in the first place if the other benefits are to be obtained.
Most voluntary organisations give the State far more than reasonable value for money. It would be good government which removed anxieties and allowed them to give the lion's share of their time, not to fund raising but to serving people. It is all very well for large voluntary organisations to decide to take on a full-time fund raiser—which is what several will now do. That is all right, but that course is not open to smaller community groups and many others. We must go on to say that voluntary organisations,
548
important as they are, cannot carry the main load of caring for the neediest. The belief that the community as a whole has that responsibility expresses an important moral principle in our country. It is an earnest of the community's acceptance that its weakest members are valued and not judged.
Certainly there is a proper discipline which money imposes, and we should not shirk that. Yet the public often presses for incompatible things. When there is a disaster, perhaps some terrible case of cruelty to a child, the public criticises the social workers and asks what were they doing; but next week there are demands again for further cuts in public expenditure. We cannot have the meticulous care which is needed from a staff if funds have been cut back to the bone. It may be that there was some fat—but I do not believe there is now—for further cuts. May I put to your Lordships that we should always beware of talking about "cuts across the board", because "cuts across the board" means that one has abandoned any system of priorities. It looks fair, but that is the last thing that it is. Caring properly for the needy is not something that a civilised society does when it decides that it can afford it; it is a foundation commitment.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, it is a very pleasant thing to follow my noble ecclesiastical friend and to express my total agreement with the spirit in which he spoke, of which we should all be sensible and indeed we should be grateful. I also want to express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, not only for the substance of what he said but for the introduction in what he said of his own feeling of anger, which I share. Anger is a good aperitif in the feast of reason for our soul, but it is a very bad main course and I do not propose to indulge in it, except to say that I have a very strong sense of the injustice which so many people feel at what are called "these cuts". I share with my noble friend his desire to make an appeal to your Lordships, particularly (shall we say?) on the other side of the House, to consider again what in fact is happening, not only in the actual conditions in which so many of our contemporaries are living but also in their feelings and attitudes.
I could almost have wished that your Lordships had been present a couple of hours ago at Tower Hill, where there was a very large demonstration, in which I took some part as it was my pitch and they courteously allowed me to have some share in it. It was raucous. It was extravagant. I was commissioned to bring some messages to your Lordships' House which wild horses would not drag out of me, but nevertheless there was an overall sense of injustice, which I would commend to your Lordships. Over and over again there was the feeling that whatever the arguments might be, and whatever the statistics might declare, here was a situation in which those who are most in need bear the greater burden and those who are least in need get away with it more or less unscathed. That, to me, is an inescapable inference from the arguments which have already been set forth this afternoon. What I should like to do is make this appeal to your Lordships, not in the sense that you have an undue amount of original sin but because it is not unlikely that you

549
may not be in touch—as some of us have been for long enough—with those who are most impoverished and most in need.
Therefore, let me in three areas describe what causes me to be angry and frustrated. The first area is that in which it is perfectly true, as the Government have said, that it is possible for them to state that they have not produced cuts. What has happened is that in the social services, as my noble friend has already indicated, there has been a vast increase in expertise, knowledge and development. What has happened is that there has been an increasing need for the fertilisation of this work, and the present situation is that in many respects that work will be halted and certainly will be curtailed of those inevitable consequences which have flowed from an increasing knowledge of what we are about.
I almost hesitate to bring in again the question of alcoholism. I am well aware of the New Testament warning that you are not necessarily heard for your much speaking. It may be that I have been somewhat type-cast as an addict in this matter of alcoholism. But here is an excellent illustration of the point I seek to make; this first trouble that now in many of the respects where we have to go forward, or indeed we shall go backward, we are prevented from so doing.
As I said the other day to some of your Lordships—very few, I am afraid—one of the great developments in the treatment of alcoholism has been the recognition that before you can apply any of the remedial processes the alcoholic has to be dried out. That is a chemical, specific and highly-skilled operation. We have discovered, having been able in the West London Mission to do this with regard to men and thereafter to provide some rehabilitation process, that we now have almost as many women in need of this drying-out process as we have men. We cannot afford it, because the grants, which have hitherto been more or less satisfactory, are the same as they were and, with the necessarily increasing costs, we are prohibited from going on with what is a necessary process if the problem of alcoholism is to be contained.
The same is true of the hostel for which I was responsible until a year ago—for boys who otherwise would have nowhere else to go and would be in borstal or in prison. The place is a shambles. Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that boys spend a good deal of their time destroying property as well as inhabiting it. There is a constant need for redecoration, which we are unable to do. It is this halting of necessary progress which I find intolerable; but no less intolerable is the already reduced amount of public care through local authorities, of which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has given precise information in certain areas. Let me add two more. Over the last two and a half years 12 local authorities have lost 400 places for elderly people. In the last two and a half years 24 local authorities have lost 1,200 places for boys. I ask your Lordships to conceive of the addition to public expenditure. It would have been much more economic to have kept those places. The moment youngsters and elderly people are deprived of these personal services, it costs a great deal more to care for them in other institutions. It is therefore this depletion of available opportunities within this realm that is causing far greater expenditure on the part of the
550
Government than the avowed—and in some cases successful economies—which hitherto have been produced.
But alongside the depletion of services there is a lamentable increase in the amount charged for the services that still remain. I want to make a special plea, which is admirably set forth by Help the Aged, and I think it is incontrovertible. If you increase from £1 to £1·50 the personal services of Meals-on-Wheels, or indeed the coming of people to care for those who are quite incapable of caring for themselves, the inevitable result will be that they will necessarily be committed to public institutions, no less kindly no doubt, but very much more expensive. These are salient points in the economic failure, let alone the moral failure, of the present cuts.
It was none other than Mr. Jenkin who, I think, probably invented the phrase "front-line providers". May I attract your Lordships' attention to an aspect of this which, it seems to me, is increasingly germane. There has been a great deal of talk recently by Government authorities, and it was ventilated in your Lordships' House only a week ago, that what we are now seeing is an attempt to take into the community rather than to take away from the community those who at particular times find it difficult to domesticate themselves or in fact are anti-social or loners. With this I entirely agree. I think that the more natural the environment in which you find people the more likely they are to respond to it profitably. That is all very well, provided that provision is in the voluntary sections of our community and is made available and made possible, but if it is not made possible then it seems to me that it totally lacks that beneficial quality which so much has been advocated in its defence. Therefore, I would tag on, if I may, to what my noble ecclesiastical friend has just said; I believe that in one sense the voluntary association is paramount. Mr. Jenkin does, by the way, in a continuation of his reference to front-line providers. But I believe that that provision in the voluntary services is in many cases a bell-wether for later public administration and public responsibility. One of the most valuable things that is now being lost is the adventurous, pioneering spirit of local voluntary associations, which, by their energy and their devotion, can provide opportunities which later on can be taken over by the authorities themselves, and those authorities will lose what now in many cases they still attract to themselves, a sense of unreality, or in some cases a sense of shame. I do not share that, but I have every sympathy for a great many people I have known over the years who would be quite prepared to accept what would be charity, what is love and care, from voluntary associations, but shy away from public institutions. I do not support their reason, but I think I understand their sentiments, their feelings.
Finally, my Lords, let me return to what was once again beaten into my experience only a couple of hours ago—and that is why I have more or less lost my voice—the sense that we do not live in a community, we live in a "heterogeneous accumulation of private parts"—that was actually said by one of the more exuberant speakers not so long ago. This is one of the things which to me make all the difference. We cannot, it seems to me, provide measures within a community when the community itself does not exist, particularly

551
at a time when so many people—2½ million families—are dependent on the wife's earnings. In parenthesis I remark that there may indeed be a further decline in the employment of women which will have a devastating effect on the general economy or the general welfare—not only women who have to go home and look after elderly relatives but women who will lose their jobs within the social services, of which a great proportion are now manned by women. Therefore, taking part in this debate, I would plead with the Government and with your Lordships that in the long run I can see many difficulties in the economic situation, but if in politics a week is a long time for an elderly person an afternoon is a long time. What you cannot do is provide long-distance improvement for people who need care this afternoon or tomorrow. I believe it would be of the greatest advantage to stimulate within the present economic troubles a greater sense of community, for out of that would come a treasure not to be measured in pounds but in an increased development of belonging to a community in which we share those things from which we suffer and find in that sharing not only comfort but remedy.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, many of your Lordships who share with me the experience of having been in public life for quite a number of years must have a certain sense of familiarity about this afternoon's proceedings. The scenario is generally the same whichever party occupies this Bench or that. You have speeches, fine speeches of deep sincerity, from people deeply moved and sad at a cutting back or an interference in work which they know to be good and doing good. And you have members of the Government firmly standing at the Dispatch Box to point out that there is a limit to the amount of expenditure which is possible for causes however good. We have all been through this before, and, speaking for myself, I have been on both sides of the argument. For that reason one fully understands and is neither shocked nor shaken by the very natural desire of the party in opposition to try to earn a little popularity by appealing to the feelings of those who will suffer as the result of Government restrictive measures.
It would be a particularly ungenerous person who sought to criticise the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and his colleagues for that in the somewhat traumatic situation in which they are today. I certainly would not wish to be so ungenerous. But, my Lords, I did, I am bound to say, very much resent part of the tone of the noble Lord's speech. The noble Lord will allow me to say that, like many of my colleagues, I am a great admirer of his. Both in office and out of office he fights for and argues the case in which he believes with skill and pertinacity. But I thought—and I hope he will himself think this when he comes to reflect on his speech and to read Hansard—that he did go a little far this afternoon in his criticism of my noble friends. He said that he was appealing to noble Lords on this side of the House on the Back Benches. It so happens that I am the first of those to have the opportunity of taking part. Therefore, I must say to him that his repeated indication that we did not care about social welfare is a wholly unfounded one which
552
I hope he will, when he comes to reflect, be ashamed he ever made.
The noble Lord went on to say that in the two social security Bills which have been before your Lordships' House in the recent past these Benches were conspicuously empty. That is certainly not my recollection. The noble Lord I think will do me the credit of admitting that I was myself present with considerable—perhaps, from his point of view, irritating—frequency during those debates. Really it is not true. Then to go on to say, as he did, that the way of life—the phrase struck a personal note with me—of some of my noble friends was such that we did not understand or know anything about what went on in the back streets, was thoroughly inaccurate. When the noble Lord comes to reflect, he will perhaps wonder how, like many of my noble friends, one could be elected to another place year after year—in my case for a basically working-class constituency—and yet know nothing about what went on in the back streets, quite apart from the possibility, like most others, of wartime experiences or indeed political experience, beginning, in my case, as a candidate for the Inner London County Council for Limehouse. It is simply not true for the noble Lord to suggest that my noble friends either do not care or know nothing about the welfare of the less fortunate section of our population whose welfare is the responsibility of my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne and his colleagues.
I hope that we can carry on the debate in this House at any rate—whatever may happen at the other end of the corridor—on the basis that we can and do disagree with each other. Indeed, I disagree fundamentally with many of the noble Lord's arguments while accepting his sincerity. I hope that we can carry on the debate here on the basis that we do not cast aspersions on each other's motives, but seek to debate these matters as sensible people who know in our hearts, as we all do, that 100 per cent. of truth does not lie either on this side or that, and that the object of debate and argument among sincere and intelligent people is to try to see where the balance of the argument lies. I do not want to labour the point any further, but in my view the noble Lord's approach does not help that, and nor, I think, on reflection, will he feel that he was not perhaps a little self-righteous about unemployment.
Of course, every noble Lord on this side of the House hates unemployment at least as much as do the noble Lord and his colleagues. The difference of view is as regards how we deal with it. But to suggest that unemployment with the humiliation that it entails—which is today I think a worse feature of it even than the economic hardship—is a matter of complacency on this side of the House is frankly untrue. Nor is unemployment peculiar to this country or to the policies of this Government. It is alas! in a time of worldwide depression a worldwide phenomenon. Indeed, certainly in Belgium the percentage of the total workforce that is unemployed is actually higher than it is here.
Nor is a rise in unemployment in this country peculiar to Conservative Governments. Perhaps the noble Lord may recall that when the Government of which he was an ornament came to office in February 1974, the level of unemployment was just under 600,000

553
and when they left in May 1979 it was rather more than double that figure. So if we are to start casting aspersions on each other's intentions and attitudes on these matters one is likely perhaps to encounter just as much mud in one's own eye as one succeeds in projecting into one's opponent's. I hope that we can debate this difficult and basically very emotional matter with the same sort of feeling and understanding as—if I may be allowed to say so—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool introduced into this debate.
We are concerned not with whether these things are bad, unhappy and evil; we are concerned with what is the best thing to do about them. When it comes to Government expenditure decisions, we all have to make up our minds on basically three courses. Do we agree broadly with the so-called cuts? They are, as has been explained, mainly cuts in programmes, but some are in the actual current expenditure. Do we approve of them or do we say that there should be cuts, but that there should be other cuts—alternatives? That is a perfectly legitimate point of view and one which in some measure perhaps I share. Or do we say that there should be no cuts? If we say that there should be no cuts, do we say that we should borrow in order to pay for the programmes, which would affect the level of expenditure, or should we increase taxation for that purpose? We must all, with respect, come clean on this matter.
I understood from the noble Lord's criticism of the budget of the year before last that he is in favour of increasing taxation. But if that is his view I wonder whether he has considered what the effect of that will he on securing the economic recovery on which our capacity to sustain all our elaborate system of social benefits depends. There is abundant evidence that high levels of company taxation and of personal taxation do have a disincentive effect. If one travels about the world, as it so happens I do to a certain extent, it is striking to see that it is the places where personal taxation and company taxation are low—the Hong Kongs, the Singapores and the Monacos of this world—where there is tremendous activity, full employment, cheerful attitudes and rising standards of life. Obviously their circumstances are different from ours and obviously much of what they do there would not be appropriate for us; but surely there is an indication, if you care for maintaining social benefits in the long run, that you can neither tax to maintain them at a time of recession and inflation nor borrow—which means simply put the charge of them on to posterity—beyond a certain very limited point.
As regards that matter, I must take up what the noble Lord said. He left nothing out. He even referred to the wonderful business that 364 professional economists cannot be wrong. I would only say to him that those 364 very distinguished gentlemen, several of whom I have the pleasure of knowing, united in a solemn, if perhaps a slightly pompous, denunciation of Her Majesty's Government, and said that other courses could be followed. However, they did not find time in the course of their pronouncement to indicate what those other courses might be. I would venture to guess that if they had done so there would have been 365 of them!
Therefore, we must come to the central point of this matter which is that the ability to sustain our social
554
services depends on the re-creation of our power to generate wealth. If your Lordships want an illustration of that, let me hark back to the Macmillan era, during which it so happens that I was for rather more than six years social services Minister—
Lord Balogh: My Lords—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sorry but I am talking about the Macmillan era and I do not think that the noble Lord actually advised us at that time. I shall give way to him later if he wishes to make a point. I ask the noble Lord to show a little patience. In the Macmillan era we had a time when social security benefits were rising steadily every year out of the product of lowering rates of taxation, because the general growth in the economy meant that lower rates of taxation produced a higher yield.
Therefore, although I shall not pretend that as Minister of Pensions and National Insurance I had an easy time with those of my noble friends who were at the Treasury, none the less it was possible to expand payments for social benefits, to raise the standards in real terms—and it was easier then to raise them in real terms, because there was hardly any inflation—and to build up our system of social security. What surely we want to seek to do is to get back to a position in which that situation recurs and in which we can move forward with an expansion of these benefits—and I agree so much with what noble Lords opposite have said because, after all, I have been responsible for administering them direct—and once those benefits can be properly afforded the situation will become quite extraordinarily easier.
I should like to pick up the remark of the right reverend Prelate in his moving speech, and I very much agree with what he said about the use of voluntary bodies. I can claim—and my reference to the Macmillan era reinforces my mind on this—that, in fact, as Minister I put into practice very much the philosophy which he outlined. I entirely agree with him that the voluntary bodies tend to be more efficient and more flexible, as well as being more economical than the official organisations. They are less bureaucratic and less tied by precedent. I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate that even in our present situation it would be a mistake to cut support for them. From my own experience I also entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate that cuts across the board are the last refuge of the intellectually-muddled; that what is required in social security administration is a conscious choice of priorities. That means not only favouring the most important directions in which money can be spent, but being equally ruthless with what seems, to you at least, to be the less favourable ones.
I can claim that that principle, which at the time we called the principle of selectivity, was the one that we tried to apply in the Macmillan era. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to look at this matter in the whole. I say this again to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell: nobody wants to damage valuable social services, but there is and must be a limit to the degree of expansion that is possible at a time when national wealth is not growing, when greater wealth is not being created; and a realistic judgment demands that there must

555
be concentration of effort on restoring that creation of wealth so that all the other consequences can follow therefrom.
Therefore, I would say to your Lordships that one can ask for a little sympathy for Her Majesty's Government. My noble friends do not have a pleasant task. They have to exercise a choice; they have to exercise discrimination; they have to try to preserve the most vital part of the structure while being tough and perhaps ruthless towards other parts of it. We can all differ—I, personally, differ—with them on one or two of the details, but that is no reason for being critical of their attitude and their approach. I believe that they seek to do the right thing for this country. I believe that they seek to do the right thing for the beneficiaries of our social services, who are, as has been said in this debate, the first to suffer when things go wrong.
I would commend one further thought to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. He concluded his speech with the words:
"Actions speak louder than words.".
I wonder whether the noble Lord is familiar with the words of Edmund Burke:
"It is a general, popular error to imagine the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare.".
4.44 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I wondered how the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, would manage to change gear in this debate, because until he started speaking there was a unanimous, very sincere, very careful and very worried discussion of those matters which, as a result of Government policy (which was not in this debate being attacked), seem to be causing real damage. That is a very interesting and important matter to discuss. But skilled parliamentarian as he is, he used an old method, which was attack. Happily, from this Bench it is not my business to intervene in arguments between the two Front Benches. In many ways this is a relief. Therefore, I shall not follow the noble Lord.
Rather, I shall take great pleasure in associating my friends on this Bench with the Motion so movingly put—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, thought it was put too passionately but certainly it was put with passion—by my ex-colleague and I hope still old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. The Government's reply was, perhaps, insufficiently passionate. It read a little like a laundry list of items which had been done, and we shall look at that tomorrow in Hansard with great interest. I do not depreciate the value of what the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, said, but it certainly was not said with passion.
Above all, what worries me is the Government's reckless disregard of the consequences of their actions. All of us who have been in Government—as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said—have been familiar with the need to make cuts and the pain involved, but in every case it is a duty to estimate the effects of the cuts and to decide whether they create too much hardship to be acceptable. If they do, you have a further problem. But in any form of cuts, not all the cuts do that; it is the edge cuts at the end, here, there and there. I think that careful attention to these can,
556
at quite a low cost, avoid the worst sort of trouble. That is what is not being given.
It seems as if a figure has been thought of out of the air, based on the requirements of an almost uncalculable calculation, and has been imposed on the rate support grant. This leaves the local authorities to incur the odium of selecting the areas to cut, and in the full knowledge that inevitably some cuts will be made which exceed the acceptable limits of hardship at the bottom end of the social scale.
I joined the Labour Party 50 years ago for just such a reason: because the Government of that day cut the dole for 2 million or so unemployed to a figure below what was scientifically recognised as the minimum cost of rearing a family—the poverty line—with the result that to this day we see people of 50 years old with bandy legs caused by rickets, which was due to inadequate food in those bad days. There are some things that no Government can be allowed to do, and that was one of them. I have never since been associated with the party that did that, nor shall I ever be.
I want to suggest that the present Government are getting very near this point in relation to the most vulnerable families at the end of the queue. I should like to quote the worries of the Family Service Units—which I am very glad that the right reverend Prelate referred to so warmly in Liverpool; I shall refer to their problems elsewhere than in Liverpool—as an example of the kind of thing that is going wrong in a way that no one can intend or be satisfied to allow to continue. I speak with pride as being the chairman of the national executive committee of the FSU a few years ago, and it was a very happy and proud time for me. I should like to point out, however, that that position carries no liability of the kind that the right reverend Prelate suggested might belong to the people who are running the Liverpool FSU, but I am sure that he is wrong about that. I do not think that they will find themselves having to pay for anything out of their own pockets.
The FSU has 23 branches throughout the country and is currently helping more than 1,000 families with more than 4,000 children, mainly in the inner city areas. In general, its clients are families referred to it from the local authorities with whom local authorities have found it difficult and time-consuming to deal. The FSU acts as a sort of long stop to the welfare authorities, and is prepared to deal intensively with a few long-term and particularly difficult cases, as opposed to the local authority's welfare people, who have to deal extensively with any applicant who comes along. The local authorities have accepted these bodies as invaluable allies and have been not ungenerous in providing funds on a regular and, with inflation, a rising basis.
A typical case referred to the Family Service Units which I will give you to show the sort of case I am talking about—and, of their thousand families, this is, in one way or another, like most of the others—is of a mother, separated from her husband, with six children to support. All seven members of this family live under extreme emotional stress, and they also have a marginal standard of living which is made even more precarious by present policies. It is, for example, of prime importance to such a family that the

557
supplementary benefit rate should be high enough to allow them to buy the basic necessities. But the evidence of the recent Family Service Unit survey, Living from Hand to Mouth—which I have put in the Printed Paper Office because I should particularly like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to have a look at it, and I shall give him one personally—satisfies me, and I think would satisfy anybody who reads it, that it is virtually impossible to provide adequate clothing, heating, and nutrition on the rates approved by Parliament. This really shows that the present rates are inadequate. So the very possibility of cuts from other sources—and when I say "from other sources" I mean from the voluntary money which people like the FSU are able to give—is an intolerable suggestion.
There are many thousands of families in a similar position where a little help and a little extra money can just help the children to stay at home and stop them from being put into care, and help the harassed mother to manage her affairs. We have—I say "we"; I mean the FSU—received consistent support from the DHSS ever since I put the FSU case to Dick Crossman 16 or 17 years ago. The DHSS have helped us. We are not complaining of the central Government support. The complaint is that as a result of the rate support grant cuts, the total is going to be reduced and we may have to stop work in certain areas.
One of the worst examples of the current difficulties facing the FSU in inner city authorities is provided by Tower Hamlets. In this hard-pressed borough the council have been unable to tell voluntary organisations what the grant aid figures will be for the coming year. It was rumoured, and I think accurately, that they were reducing last year's figure of £1¼ million to £400,000. This is a cut of two-thirds. There was such an outcry that the final decision has been reserved and nobody will know until June, but there is a serious possibility that, as a result of these cuts, the small amount that is required for the Tower Hamlets Family Service Unit, who look after 50 or 60 families there, will be reduced from the £68,000 they are asking for to something under half that. This will simply mean that these families, who are on the edge of despair the whole time, will lose their help.
That is the kind of thing which is not adequately answered by Lord Boyd-Carpenter's question, "Where are you going to find the money?". The answer is that the sum in this particular case is small, and though, when I was a Minister, that was always used as an argument, it is an argument in certain cases. We are deeply upset and worried about what is going to happen there. Almost every speaker has said that it is a short-sighted policy to deprive organisations which do preventive work with the minimal finance needed to do the job. If the mother with six children of whom I spoke had not received help from the FSU at a critical time, the cost to public funds for supporting those six children would have been in excess of £40,000; and all we are asking for is £68,000 for fifty families.
I think I have said enough to make my point. I believe that the Government are already allowing the line to be crossed which divides acceptable economies from the imposition of unacceptable hardship on innocent and defenceless people. I know that this is not a direct intention of the Government. That is
558
what makes it so difficult to get at the Government over it. I hope we shall hear serious arguments about the facts that one after the other of us is revealing, rather than a general economic statement that we have got to spend less money somehow. From these Benches we are fully in support of the Motion.
4.56 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest interest to the whole of this debate and the speeches that have been made. I have spent many years of my life in social work, and I look back on the first time that I met the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I do not know how many years ago it was, but it was a long time before the war. He was the mayor of a London borough—I forget which one—and I went as chairman of the youth clubs to make a speech there and to try to persuade that borough to give money to the youth clubs. I had a very friendly reception from the noble Lord, and, if I remember rightly, although it is 40 or 50 years ago, I think we got some money out of him. I say this simply because although I think he does realise it, he did not appear to realise how deeply many of us have been engaged all our lives in social work, and, in my case particularly, in family work and youth work.
I agreed with everything that the right reverend Prelate said, particularly about Liverpool. There was an area where the youth clubs were very strong and where we had splendid voluntary organisations and voluntary helpers. The right reverend Prelate said, and I confirm it, that he has spent much of his life helping a youth club movement of which for a great many years I was chairman.
Of course nobody likes to have to cut things. That is obvious. But the reasons which have been put forward for the consideration of noble Lords are reasons which are worthy of understanding and knowledge. I was enormously impressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has had the experience which none of us has had—possibly some Ministers have, but none of the voluntary worker people has had—of actually running a Government department and dealing with this matter. Of course that must be extremely difficult.
My experience in administration has been entirely in local government. In local government you are more limited, but you do have an intimate knowledge of all the items of social work, education, or whatever the particular department is that you are in charge of; and when I look back on all those years I realise how much one could do in different circumstances. The circumstances I remember best were those that we explored and worked on in the years which I think the Labour Party described as "the 10 wasted years". They were the years of the Macmillan Government. I think of what we did in local government in the way of establishing day centres for old people, which were only beginning then and are now, of course, accepted everywhere. They were pioneering, and were of enormous value, and still are. There was the starting of children's homes; a day centre for children; all the people, the social workers, who work in Meals-on-Wheels, and so on. All that was started in my day when I was on the county council in those years. That was because we had an expanding economy and

559
the whole world was in a much better position than it is today. Those are the economic conditions I should like to see return, and we all feel the same.
It is difficult, when speaking of the economic cuts that are being made, to know exactly what is happening, and therefore I asked for a memorandum to bring me up to date. After all, although one hears people speaking violently against certain cuts, it is not all that easy to obtain accurate information on the subject. Although we are able to read about the unemployment position and how crucial the situation is, we need accurate statistics to appreciate how large are the figures with which we are dealing. The Government White Paper on Public Expenditure refers to a figure as large as £77·8 billion. Because of the cuts, that has been reduced to £76 billion, an economy of 2½ per cent. True, when dealing with such large sums, 2½per cent. represents a considerable saving, but it cannot be considered very large when thinking of the total involved.
For instance, in connection with schools, local authorities have been asked to make a saving of between £65 and £70 million, or 1½ per cent., on planned spending. We must not forget that the school population has been reduced, and I gather that the fall in the birth rate and the school population has represented a reduction of 6½ per cent. It is always difficult to economise; whatever one does to make economies will result in criticism. Nevertheless, the number of children being educated is going down, so we shall not require so many school places and presumably we shall not require so many teachers, but that is a somewhat different point.
For about nine years I was the chairman of an education committee in a rural area. We had to economise because in those days—indeed it is still happening—the number of children living in rural areas was going down all the time. I remember being severely criticised because I closed a school which had only six children in it; it was cheaper to send those children by car or bus to a nearby school which had 50 or 60 children. I remember closing another school which had 10 children. One is always criticised for doing that sort of thing, but imagine the cost of running a school, even if it has only a few children in it; one must have a head teacher, janitor, school meals and so on. Purely as an economic exercise I worked it out once and discovered that to run a school for just half a dozen or so children cost as much as sending them all to a boys' public school. It did not make any sense to keep going the schools I have mentioned, but of course closing them was an unpoular decision at the time. Today, people are quite used to it, and they are prepared to organise transport for small groups to go to somewhat larger schools. That is an economy which in my view is justified, although one is always aware of the fact that we do not like cutting down on rural amenities. I am particularly aware of that, living in a rural area.
We have heard a great deal about the social services, and expenditure in this sphere has risen from £11,263,000 in 1978–79 to £11,800,000 in the current year and next year. For social security payments, the total has risen from £19,213,000 in 1978–79 to £20,390,000 in 1980–81. Those may not seem large
560
increases, but they are nevertheless rises when everybody is talking about almost everything being reduced. We have also heard about old age pensions. I am a pensioner and I am as keen as anyone on Help the Aged and the other efforts to which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred. Pensions have risen in three years from £19.50 to £29.60 for a single person; and for married couples the pension has increased from £31.20 to £47.35. Of course prices have gone up, but there is still a margin of improvement in the pensions paid today. These are some of the matters which tend to be rather overlooked because people concentrate on the general situation. Fur families, the supplementary benefit for children under five has risen from £4.40 to £7.90 as of November of this year, and child benefit next November will be £5.25. Single parents can now draw higher supplementary benefit after one year instead of after two years and the benefit paid to one-parent families for the first child has been increased from £2 to £3.30 as of November 1981.
I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was saying about the Family Service Unit, another organisation with which I have been associated for many years. I am glad to tell the noble Lord that one of the grants which the Carnegie United Trust gave to the Family Service Unit some years ago started the whole thing off, and we have supported it for many years. That is a voluntary organisation giving a voluntary grant, and I agree with the noble Lord that voluntary organisations are of enormous importance.
While the figures I have quoted do not solve all the problems—they never have—looking back to the years when I was responsible in local government, I can say that we took advantage of the good years and started the various social services that I have mentioned. That was all made possible not because we were overdrawing and running into debt but because we were spending money we had earned in ways of which I am proud today. I have seen what a tremendous help the efforts we made then have been to the community in which I was working during those years. I am, therefore, as anxious as anyone in your Lordships' House to see an improvement in our conditions and in the payments that are made to people and so on, but that must come about not by increasing our debt and inflation but by spending money we earn as inflation goes down, as it is now doing. Until that time comes, I would rather we lived within our means, hoping that we shall be able to help those who are severely hit by cuts which unfortunately have to be made. We have helped in many cases, as the figures I quoted show, but we must not run into debt. Our first task must be to cure inflation, and when that battle has been won we shall have the money to do some of the things that many of us have been working all our lives to do. Then it will be money we have earned, and we can spend it honestly.
Lord Noel-Baker: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise that our standards in education, affecting school age, site of classes and so on, are much below those of other leading nations, including the United States, Canada and Japan? Since education will represent the true greatness of our nation in the years to come—I am talking of 20 or 30 years from now—

561
does she not agree that what education needs is not a few more hundreds of thousands of pounds a year but a larger percentage of the national income?
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I think that education is ablsolutely vital, and I should be only too happy to see as much money as possible spent on education. But it must be money that we earn, money that we can spend because we have it, and not money that we have to borrow, with the result that at the end of the day the next generation is poorer than today's generation. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord says about education.
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I may correct one point that the noble Lord has made. I feel that he should be aware that in this country at present we have the best ever pupil/teacher ratio, at 18.6 pupils to a teacher nationally. This is the best ever we have had, and I doubt whether many countries in the world are able to do much better over the whole of their educational services.
5.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I wish to begin my speech by going down a pathway that has not yet been followed in the debate, and by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for using the word "depend" in the Motion that he has put before us. The noble Lord's Motion includes the phrase:
those in the community who depend on Government aid and local authority services…".
The reason why I am referring to this point will become clear in a moment. Dependency upon Government aid of one kind or another is inevitable in a highly industrial society such as our own. It is not a stigma to be attached to those who lack the will or the initiative to stand on their own feet, and even the most successful in our society are dependent in various ways upon Government aid. One can readily think of aid given, for example, to British Leyland. Neither is dependency a condition to be avoided, even if it could be avoided, because dependency is the inevitable consequence of industrial development, and the greater the advances in technology, the more essential a component of ordinary, everyday life does dependency upon Government aid become for all citizens. The image of strong, independent citizens who do not need help from the resources of others is feasible for only a very few privileged people.
I believe that that is clear if we look back to the beginning of the educational, health and social services. Many of them owed their immediate origins to charitable organisations and philanthropic individuals, but those initiatives were taken only in response to the human needs which emerged during the last century in the growing industrial towns. When hundreds of artisans are crowded together into small terraced houses and exposed to the strains and tensions of labour in noisy factories and amid environmental deterioration, then economic common sense, no less than altruistic feelings, demands that their health should be protected and their children educated to become, in turn, hands in the factories and the shops which serve them.
So as a consequence there has emerged in every
562
industrial nation the concept of a "social wage"; namely, the provision made by Government agencies, central or local, of services which maintain the wellbeing of the community. I want to suggest that dependency of that kind upon Government aid through the social wage and social benefits will not decrease in the future. It can only increase. That is so for a number of reasons, which I shall give very briefly. There are other reasons besides those which I shall mention.
The first reason is that modern health care employs techniques and equipment which are possible only if the state underwrites their provision and maintenance. They are far beyond the capacity of most ordinary citizens to provide for themselves, and this is true also of the equipment and medications needed in support of the chronically ill and the handicapped.
The second reason is that modern technology has displaced the craftsmen and artisans from the key roles that they once played in industrial processes, and the key people are now a much smaller number of researchers, designers, engineers, programme writers, and consultants. As computers are brought into engineering firms, so the number of draftsmen and even the number of engineers needed will become less, because the computer will repeat many of the routine design schemes in engineering offices.
Thirdly, those engaged in manufacture will necessarily become fewer as microprocessors are pressed into service. As a result of that, the earnings gap will greatly increase between those few who are privileged to work in the wealth-producing industries and the many who will have to find work in the service industries or remain unemployed.
Fourthly, the growing interdependence of the world community, both economically and politically, leads to massive changes in world patterns of trade. At the last General Synod when we were discussing unemployment one of the speakers stood up and said that it had nothing to do with the Government. It had to do with the patterns of world trade which resulted in factories being opened in some areas, while entire factories were closed down in, say, Norfolk, or other places in this country. These changes in the pattern of world trade cause widespread dislocation and unemployment among people who have little access to the decision-makers, and who are the victims of decisions made with little reference to their skill or the qualities of their service. These changes and developments will greatly increase the number of those who depend upon Government aid to protect them from their harsh effects and to maintain the quality of their living conditions. The effects of such changes are plain for all of us to see in contemporary Europe.
Today the great majority of people—and I include myself—depend upon the social wage to maintain the quality of life. They depend upon it for the education of their children, for the care of sick and elderly relatives, for the quality of the environment, for transport facilities, and very often for the provision of housing which they can afford to rent. But dependency upon Government aid is of course much wider than the generality of dependence upon the social wage. There are now in Britain 15 million people who depend on state benefits in the form of pensions, or sickness, disability or unemployment benefits. In most cases the only economic support that they have

563
is what the Government make available to them. Fifteen million people seems a large number, but it is in fact increasing, which is one of the reasons why expenditure is increasing in social services and in health services, and it is estimated by some people that by 2000 AD half the population might be so dependent. The nature and quality of this dependency must therefore take a large place in the economic and social policy of any Government.
It is of course true that the Government are not responsible for many of the economic difficulties which now face both our own country and other European nations—the world recession is perhaps the most important factor here—and that is so; we must acept it. But no Government can escape their responsibility to attend to the effects of those difficulties, and in particular to maintain both the social wage and social benefits in a just and compassionate way. The adjustment of a society's resources to provide essential services for all its members should not provide their "survival rations". It should—this is the main theme that r wish to emphasise—make it possible for all members of the community, including those dependent upon Government aid, to live securely, with dignity, to develop their full potential as human beings, and to share in the wealth of society. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool said, the core of this support cannot be supplied by the voluntary services, however welcome their help may be. While voluntary services may be ample in some parts of the country, in other parts, such as the inner cities, they are less frequently to be found in support of the statutory services.
In seeking to establish just social benefits we must measure public expenditure not only in terms of net growth or decline, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, as a proportion of the gross national product. Measured by that yardstick, our record in the last few years has not been good. Between 1976 and 1979 the Labour Administration reduced the amount previously proposed for allocation to capital expenditure by £5,000 million and withdrew £3,000 million from current expenditure on goods and services. As the House well knows, that trend of withdrawal has been continued by the Conservative Administration, most recently in the paper published on 10th March, which showed reductions in central Government spending on housing, education, transport and overseas aid. They affect both the "social wage" and more direct social benefits; and these reductions must be set alongside the cuts which local authorities have been asked to make.
I do not intend to review in any detail specific cuts which have been made in public expenditure—and these have been referred to already. May I make just two comments? The first is simply to say that I am particularly concerned about the cuts in the provision of public sector housing, where the expenditure is to fall by over £1,000 million in the financial year 1981–82. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities predicts a shortage of 430,000 homes in the next five years, and even in Surrey there is a shortage of houses for those with limited financial resources. There are two side-effects of this failure to meet the housing needs of society: on the one hand, unemployment is increased
564
in the building and allied trades; and, on the other, conditions are created which perpetuate the cycle of deprivation and increase the need for personal social services.
The second point I want to make, which has been made by other noble Lords today in this House, is that I am concerned about the general effect of these cuts on the quality of life which may be expected by those, such as the elderly, the handicapped and the unemployed, who depend, through no fault of their own, on Government aid. I tried to make that clear at the beginning of my speech, when I talked about dependency as a fact of life for almost all of us; as an essential of the developed industrial state in which we live; a fact of life which can only increase as technology becomes more dominant in our factories. I recognise fully that the essentials of the social services are being maintained—the essentials, my Lords. What I am concerned about is the fact that, as was said a moment ago, the edge is being turned. They are being reduced to the bare minimum possible, and that causes the elderly, the unemployed and the handicapped to be withdrawn from sharing in the wealth of the nation, which I believe is their proper right and their proper due.
For example, I think the linking of benefits to prices rather than to the average earnings, as has been done in the case of supplementary benefits, is in fact to withdraw the increase that is related to the growth in wealth, and to make it simply related to the basic needs for existence. I could quote some figures and reports on that, but I do not think I will do so since the point has well been made already. There has been reference to the report of the Association of the Directors of Social Services, and perhaps I might just say that the Personal Social Services Council recently carried out a survey of the reactions of 50 local authorities to the cuts in their expenditure asked for by the Government. Their survey shows similar erosion in other areas of need besides those that I have mentioned. I am not questioning the quality of the services given. I am simply asking: Are the services supported strongly enough to enable those wholly dependent on Government aid to share in the life of the community as fully or as richly as they deserve to do?
My Lords, I hope that this debate today will impress upon both the Government and the Opposition the urgent need to reassess the role of the essential services upon which the wellbeing of the whole community depends, and also the necessary part which taxation plays in making available the resources upon which those services depend, because I think that, as has been mentioned in our debate, the question of taxation lies behind the question of the social services. May I suggest that it is not simply a question of: Should we increase taxation all across the board? It seems to me that the real question is: What should be the pattern of taxation? What should be the priorities in taxation? When one looks at those questions one is forced to ask a number of other questions, such as whether our system as it has evolved is a just one; whether, for example, it is right that one-third of all tax relief on mortgage payments should be given to people earning more than £10,000 a year.
Is it just that, as the Royal Commission on the

565
Distribution of Income and Wealth reported in 1978, company welfare for salaried employees in 1975 was an extra 18 per cent. of salary for those on £5,500 a year but 29 per cent. of salary for those over £24,000, and that much of that should remain untaxed? Those figures come from the report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth. I will not go on, my Lords. There are other questions I could ask, but I believe the question is not: Should we have taxation all across the board? It is: What kind of taxation should we have? The shift to indirect taxation places an unduly hard burden upon the poorer and weaker members of society when there is no corresponding adjustment in the incidence or scales of personal taxation.
There has been a marked change, I think, in public attitudes. In March 1979 34 per cent. of those questioned in a Gallup poll wanted tax cuts. By February 1980 that figure had dropped to 22 per cent. Even more striking, in February 1980 52 per cent. of those questioned in the Gallup poll then said that they were willing to pay more tax if that meant more Government spending on health, education and welfare. Your Lordships may know that recently the social service departments of the Anglican Church, the Roman Catholic Church and the Methodist Church held a day of fasting and prayer for justice in public expenditure. That may seem an odd act to many of your Lordships. The social responsibility bodies of the Churches are not party political groups; they are people who wrestle with concern for the wellbeing of our community. To call a day of fasting and prayer is a very solemn thing to do. They did it because of a deep unease about the pattern of public expenditure—not only, I think, by the present Administration, but perhaps by the previous one as well, as the papers relating to that day clearly showed.
Finally, may I come back to the point which Lord Soper made at the end of his speech and suggest that maybe a real feeling of community in our country would be a better springboard upon which to plan the economic growth than simply the freeing of money to be used in particular economic projects. I fear that the present policies could confirm the suspicions of many people that there are in our country two nations: on the one hand, those who, because of their privileged position within the economic structure, are able through tax concessions and a shift from public to private expenditure to maintain and develop their wealth; on the other, those who are dependent for their wellbeing upon Government aid and the Government social services, which are in danger of being starved of adequate and generous resources. In a speech at the Mansion House in November 1980, the Prime Minister said:
"Poverty, wherever it exists, is the enemy of stability".
She said that with reference to overseas aid. It applies equally well to our own country. I beg to support the Motion.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I should like to commence by thanking my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell for inititaing this debate. I am sure that noble Lords will understand if I deal specifically with the Northern
566
Ireland aspects of Government policy concerning public and community welfare services. I listened with keen interest to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and I feel that perhaps part of what I may say may follow his excellent theme; a theme of dependence and interdependence, a theme in which I think he urged the need for policies to form the fabric of a caring and sharing society. The evidence about the extent of poverty in Northern Ireland is conclusive. As the most depressed region of the United Kingdom, it is characterised by low incomes, family dependence on social security and welfare benefits, high unemployment and atrocious housing conditions while such basic commodities as food, clothing, travel fares and fuel all cost much more.
The news media portray dramatic scenes of a troubled Province with its areas of communal strife, its extremes of violence and its unplumbable depths of political division; but the real tragedy is that the awesome accumulation of social deprivation and outright poverty is accepted as almost inevitable. It is true that, since its foundation as a provincial state some 60 years ago, Northern Ireland, as compared with other regions of the United Kingdom, has suffered from a wide disparity of basic living standards, those standards which make for equality of opportunity and quality of life. It is in this connection that it would be fair to say that in the early 1960s, in line with progressive changes in the rest of the United Kingdom, the Stormont Government was moving Northern Ireland toward a more prosperous and outgoing community with greater efforts towards building the social fabric so necessary for a caring society and a community wellbeing. Even since direct rule, successive United Kingdom Governments have sought to tip the balance of public initiative and investment towards closing the gaps in parity between Northern Ireland and other regions of the United Kingdom, especially in respect of employment prospects, housing accommodation, hospitals and medical services, educational opportunity and welfare facilities for the disadvantaged in the community.
I join with many in Northern Ireland who pay tribute to all those in Government who have promoted policy decisions towards attempts to achieve this parity in public and community services. I would be the first to acknowledge that, as a result of these earlier decisions, we have had in Northern Ireland opportunities for community participation in some levels of educational achievement with standards which are higher than in many other regions of the United Kingdom. Also, as some noble Lords will know, Northern Ireland has been in the forefront of the world in pioneering specialist forms of heart and other surgical developments together with medical expertise and hospital care. I wholeheartedly concur with the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Humphrey Atkins, who at a meeting of international surgeons held last week in Belfast said:
…the dedication of the medical, nursing and other staffs has been beyond praise, and their achievements have echoed round the world".
But, sadly and tragically, the experience of the past two years since this Government took office has been a manifest erosion of the scope of many of these public services including housing, hospitals, welfare and

567
education. The deterioration in the capability of many of the public services to cope with the needs of the people has given rise to much public outcry in the Province. This, in turn, has resulted in a perceptible, marked loss of morale and in frustration among all levels of professional and other groups engaged in the work and administration of these community and public services. Among many of those who are most strongly and publicly critical of the Government's policies concerning the needs of the public services are persons with creditable public-spirited and responsible records of work for the community, persons with no ideological political axe to grind but with knowledge and experience of public accountability and of the constraints necessary in the allocation of resources.
If called upon, I could quote from many public statements and official reports made within the past 12 months to verify the substance of these criticisms about the effect of Government policies on Northern Ireland public services. However, much ground has to be covered in this debate and I will attempt to be brief while at the same time being as representative as possible and fair to the case that I wish to present. Some examples which I wish to quote are typical, but not specially selected. First is the report of the Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Council, a statutory-appointed board, which states:
"…the council expressed concern that cuts in revenue and capital resources would result in a reduction in the levels of services which the boards could provide ".
Concerning the scarcity of nurses in the Province, the report of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board states:
"For some time past, the Board has been aware of the significant shortage of trained nurses in the Belfast area and the constraints placed on developments in hospital service as a consequence of this shortage".
In the area of dentistry, the Northern Ireland Committee of the British Dental Association told the Eastern Health Board, in a report published two weeks ago that:
"the dental service in Northern Ireland is in danger of collapse".
Not only are there shortages of nurses and of dental personnel but also of persons trained in radiography and physiotherapy. These shortages place great strains on the specialist treatment services to patients and to the general public. While we have a reasonably good record compared with the rest of the United Kingdom as far as waiting lists for hospital beds for acute hospitalisation are concerned, we have fallen sadly behind in cases of coping with geriatric and special care patients in hospitals.
In connection with deafness, Mr. John Henderson, the director of the Ulster Deaf Care Organisation said:
"Deaf people outside Belfast have been badly neglected for years".
He claims that there are 25,000 people in the Province who are handicapped by deafness. One particular area that I should like to mention—and I have done so before in this House—is that of infant mortality. I am relying on evidence from a special committee appointed by the Government. Its report, the Baird Report, was concerned with infant mortality and handicap in Northern Ireland. It shows that although infant mortality rates have declined in the United Kingdom
568
there is still a greater proportion of children in Northern Ireland dying before the age of one year than in Great Britain and in most other economically developed countries. The report convincingly argues that such death rates are inextricable entwined with poor socioeconomic and environmental conditions. The Government have so far refused to commit additional resources to permit the implementation of the major recommendations of this report and have satisfied their conscience by launching a limited health education programme beamed at expectant mothers. A far more aggressive approach than this, and on several fronts, is required if any appreciable improvement in infant mortality and handicap is to be achieved. Problems associated with infant mortality and handicap are not the monopoly of any one profession. Neither medicine, nursing nor social work, single-handed and in isolation from one another, is adequate.
Indeed, even given the closest inter-professional cooperation the problems are enormous. This leads me to ask: What steps do the Government intend to take to promote post-qualifying inter-professional training opportunities in the field of maternal health and child care which will equip doctors, nurses, health visitors and social workers with appropriate attitudes, knowledge and skills so that they may offer a truly effective multi-professional service to mothers and children at risk? What steps do the Government intend to take to guarantee the availability of an easily accessible, Province-wide genetic counselling service supported by an adequate medical genetic laboratory? I would not expect any Minister from the other side to answer that tonight. But my question will be on the record and I hope that I shall get a reply in due course to that particular aspect concerning Northern Ireland.
A senior civil servant in Northern Ireland is reported to have said:
"I am not sure whether money alone is the answer to Northern Ireland's troubles. I do know that there can be no solution without it".
I stand supported from this side of the House in saying that there must be public accountability in connection with public services. I support all efforts for good housekeeping and public accountability in the use of resources in carrying out these services. In saying that, I feel that due attention will be given by the Northern Ireland departments concerned to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for the year 1979–80. I quote from some parts of that report. Some £175,000 was due last year by general medical practitioners for the nominal rent in respect of the occupation of health centres. I think that it is right of the Auditor-General to draw attention to this, particularly when there are people in Northern Ireland who are unemployed or have been forced to pay back their rent arrears and other arrears in connection with their living.
The Auditor-General also draws attention to weaknesses in stores accounting and valuation and cites one instance where physical stocktaking valued goods at £180,000 as compared with a book value of £46,000—a discrepancy of almost a third. He goes on to refer to a breakdown in the system and draws attention to the fact that people in some of the services purchased fuel from commercial garages when supplies were

569
equally available from district stores. He also refers to salary overpayments in one board and a high incidence of overtime in three boards. One instance is noted where overtime payments amounted to 90 per cent. of basic salary. The warden of one hostel was paid a total of £18,953 during the year.
I cite those because here we have a public servant drawing this to our attention. I have every reason to suppose that those matters will be given careful attention and will be fully investigated. I do that because, as I have said, I believe that there ought to be good housekeeping in all these public services and public accountability. The idea that savings can be achieved by good housekeeping without affecting the standards of services is mere wishful thinking. The expenditure of hospitals and public services has been the subject to economic constraints for several years, and opportunities which may have existed for saving money in this way have long since been used up. A real reduction in the quality of service available to the public must result, at a time when public expectations and population changes are giving rise to increased demand for services of all kinds. Without corresponding increases in residential care, home-help services and mobile meals, the quality of life for many old people and others will decline and they will face a bleak future. In addition, a lack of social services facilities imposes greater demand on other, possibly more expensive, services, principally in the National Health Service. Yet in the current national economic strategy services must decline.
I think that the burden of what I wish to state is that in my view in economic terms the Government have been penny-wise and pound-foolish. Money spent now on some of these services would be a total saving in many respects in the long term. But there is another aspect of it, and that is we are building a grab and greedy society instead of a sharing and caring society.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell—and I shall persist in calling him my "noble friend" in spite of speaking from this Bench. I am grateful to him not only for giving us an opportunity for discussing this enormously important subject, but for introducing it with so much vehemence, with such depth of feeling and such depth of knowledge. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not in his place because I would refute emphatically his suggestion that the noble Lord was doing little more than playing a political game. I do not want to misquote him, but the impression he gave was that we who are the old politicians know this game. We sit on one side and we attack the Government for not doing the job properly. We sit on the other side and defend the Government for doing the job properly. It is all part of the political game.
But this is not part of a political game. This is part—and a very vital part—of the whole life of this country. It is part of the life and wellbeing of a very significant proportion of the people who live in this country, the poorest people, the under-privileged people. There is no point in pretending that many of us in this Chamber are in close contact with such people. We should be. Perhaps in our day when we were candidates for Parliament, when we were candidates for local autho-
570
rities we were in closer touch; but there are very few of us here who can get up and say, not just with sympathy but with empathy, "I know what it is like to be poor, what it is like to be suffering, what it is like to know that the future holds nothing for you, whether it is because you are young and unemployed or whether it is because you are old and alone—whatever the reasons may be". Therefore, it is vitally important for people like my noble friend to remind us of this. It is no slur on Members of this House to say that we need reminding. Of course we need reminding. It is no slur to say that unless you are reminded you will do nothing about it.
We in this country are a very extraordinary people. We pay no attention to the preservation of our countryside and the habitats of endangered species until somebody comes along and reminds us of it. Then we have a great outcry, and because of public outcry the Government put up money and that particular area is saved. Very few of us will go to museums to look at pictures or our national treasures. We pay little attention to the fact that they slip away, one by one, from the country until, again, somebody reminds us of this. Then there is a national outcry and again money comes from the Government and from other sources and a particular work of art or a particular building is saved.
Surely the plight of the underprivileged in this country is something even more important than the preservation of wildlife habitat, than the preservation of a Leonardo or the preservation of a Vanbrugh building. They are all important but this is far more important. It is right that we should think about this now, that we should talk about it now, and that we should use such influence as we have individually and, above all, collectively, upon the Government to make them realise the feelings of the great majority of people in this country.
My Lords, of course it is impossible, as the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, has pointed out, to discuss this problem without dicussing economic policy, because the difficulties which are being faced and the hardships we have heard about today are intrinsically bound up with our economic policy and with priorities. We know that, relatively, we are a poorer country than we were a few years ago. We know that we have less money to spend on all the things we would like to spend our money on, and we have to make decisions as to where the cuts should be and how the money that is needed should be raised. That is essentially an economic and political problem. The Government have decided that the priorities must be national defence and law and order within this country, and that other things have to take their share of the cuts. Of course we must defend ourselves, and of course we must have law and order in this country, and I am not going to enter into any argument as to the relative merits of one against the other. But I will very briefly enter into the argument which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, concerning where the money should come from.
The Government's policy was that we had to produce more, and that people would only produce more if they were given more incentives, and that the best incentive was to reduce peoples' tax. Therefore, in the present Government's first Budget tax was reduced, particularly

571
that affecting upper and middle management executives. I have always felt that it was an insult to those people to say, in effect, that they would not work hard unless they were paid to do so; that they had no feeling of patriotism; no feeling of the importance of productivity to their country and to the firm for which they were working; and that the only way they could be made to work harder was by giving them more money—by bribery. I consider that that was insulting; but neither the Government nor those who voted for them appeared to consider it insulting. But it has not worked. Upper and middle management is not producing any more today than it was two years ago. In fact, it is producing less, and I would suggest to your Lordships that the policy of incentive by reducing taxation at the higher levels has manifestly and demonstrably failed.
In passing, I feel it is rather a curious reflection on the attitude of the Government when the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, when talking about health services, said that the ability to maintain health services would depend to a large extent on the degree of restraint exercised by hospital workers in respect of their wage claims. So far as I can make out, two years ago the Government were saying that we would only get higher management to work harder by giving them more money and that we would only get a good health service in this country by getting hospital workers to work for less money than they might otherwise get! In one case you have free collective bargaining and an incentive towards making more profit, and in the other you are appealing to patriotism and love of one's neighbour to hold down wages. To me that does not seem to be very consistent, and it does not seem to me to be a policy that will work, or is in fact working effectively. Until we change the basic structure of our economic policy we shall always have the problems which have been so vividly outlined by almost all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to some of the problems in rural areas. I do not pretend that poverty in rural areas is as overwhelming as it is in some of the inner cities, but there is poverty in rural areas and in some respects the present economic climate makes that poverty worse in certain respects than it does in the inner cities and urban areas. In rural areas, old people are more isolated. The higher cost of transport makes it more difficult for them even to draw their old age pension and certainly to do their shopping or visit their friends. If they are fortunate enough to have a telephone—and very few of them are—the rising cost of telephone charges imposes an increasing strain on their pockets. The rural youth has even fewer opportunities of alternative work than does his urban counterpart; there are probably only one or two potential employers within reach of where a youth may be living in a rural area.
The housing situation to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford so rightly drew attention is one of particular significance in rural areas. People in those areas cannot rely on private building, even if there were any. The price of houses in most areas—even of farm workers' cottages if they become vacant—is way beyond most people's means and such
572
houses are snapped up by second home owners or commuters, depending on which part of the country they are in. They therefore depend solely on council building, and that has come to a halt. In particular, this has affected houses for old people, such as bungalows, which are a very valuable social service. Today, as the proportion of the population who are elderly increases, so are there more people wanting bungalows for the elderly. They are not available and elderly people have to go on living in unsuitable houses, which are often too large, and that means that young married people and those who want to get married are unable to move into houses which might otherwise become vacant.
Our whole family structure, as the right reverend Prelate so rightly pointed out, is at risk because of the shortage of housing. Let us remember too the spin-off effects. It is not just a question of spending more money on housing; it is also a question of saving money, because we all know what effect the present cuts are having on the building and construction industries as a whole. The cement works, the brick works, and all the ancillary industries are facing rising unemployment because there is no public or private sector building taking place. If there was an injection of capital today into public sector building there would be an enormous surge of employment in certain areas—in rural as well as urban areas—and the building industry would start taking on labour. Money would be saved on the vast amount being paid out in unemployment benefits, and money would be gained in the form of income tax from those people who were in gainful employment. Above all, the people who need housing would have somewhere to live and our community life would develop.
I will make only one further point about community life, arising from that which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Soper; and that is that we must foster in every way we can this feeling of responsibility for other people. This is one of the great assets of rural areas, where one is closer to one's neighbour and it is therefore easier to have a feeling or responsibility. The danger lies in a general attitude on the part of the Government and local authorities, and all the way down from there, that it is the one who shouts loudest who gets most, that it is the one with most muscle who wins wage disputes, and that it is only by reducing taxation and increasing take-home pay that one will get more work out of top management—in other words, fostering the lowest motives of human nature, rather than the highest. We must do what we can to encourage those higher motives which are not very far below the surface, and in that way we may being to see some alleviation of the very real suffering which there is in this country among very many people.
6 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in drawing our attention to this matter, though I shall seek to refute some of the points that he made. I should particularly like to endorse some of the things that were said by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Many of us on these Benches have spent years nursing constituencies and then more years representing them and in 25 years of such occupation, we held, I think,

573
consulting hours every single month, and each time 20 or so people came in. We listened to their complaints, and they were largely the poverty-stricken and under-privileged section because they were not able to write letters and they were not able to put their thoughts together very well. So we have had in 25 years abundant knowledge of the under-privileged, the sad, the sorry, the ill, the sick, and the deprived; and it would not be right to say that among those of us sitting on these Benches, as I think was suggested earlier, there is little experience of true poverty. There is a lot of experience and it is very grevious when we have it.
The Labour Opposition have chosen this subject and I just wonder whether the local elections tomorrow might possibly have had some influence on the timing.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Orr-Ewing: There are some local elections in my part of the country. I was sorry in a way, despite the tenor of the opening speech—
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? The noble Lord is imputing low motives to those on this side of the House. We are mainly and solely concerned with the deprived, the sick and the disabled who at the moment are going through hell as a result of policies that he supports.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I disagree entirely with the intervention, but I note it and am delighted to hear that there are no electoral interests whatsoever. That applies on this side of the House, too. There is no monopoly of compassion and sorrow in this House, as was suggested in the opening speech, and if you start with arguments of that sort, then you may occasionally get the ball hit back at you.
I have consulted the clerks and wondered whether we could amend the Motion but I was told that it was very unusual; they did not know of any case where a Motion of this sort had been amended. It would be awkward at the end of a debate, because the mover would probably withdraw his Motion and one would be left high and dry with an amendment but without a Motion. But had that been our practice I should have liked to add at the end of the Motion:
"but regrets that the Labour Opposition in both Houses have failed to put forward any constructive policies as to how they would stimulate the growth and efficiency of the wealth creating private sector so that industry can carry the cost of the largest public sector in the free world and Britain's burden of social services".
That, it seems to me, would have been a balanced Motion, which we could have discussed with greater merit than the rather loaded one which is on the Order Paper.
The noble Lord who opened the debate referred to the cuts and their effects, but again there was nothing very constructive. I occasionally read Labour Weekly—it is not my normal bedside reading, but I read it last October, when Labour had held a conference on the health service. The Labour Weekly said, after that conference:
"it was impossible to get away from the impression that the whole thing floated some feet off the ground. It is certainly good to know what the goals are. But a little greater emphasis on
574
how they are to be achieved might have helped avoid that sagging cynical feeling at the end of the day".
I think we would say, Hear, hear! and we should like to hear some constructive suggestions put forward.
I think it has also been suggested that we have forced very painful cuts—this is really the burden of the argument—on the local authorities. It may be that some local authorities and some branches of NALGO have resisted cutting the staff and have sought to cut, I think, in more harmful areas, like the day-rooms and so on which the noble Lord listed. I would hope those are not cut, except in exceptional circumstances, but it is interesting to look at what has happened to the number of people employed by local government. In March 1979, 1·927 million were employed by local authorities and in September last year, which is the latest figure, it was 1·878 million. So, a total of rather less than 50,000 people in nearly 2 million have gone from local authorities, despite the urgent need to cut their bills.
What is also significant, is that the social service departments within those local authorities have actually increased. Surely this reflects the emphasis which the Government have tried to put on—cut where it is possible and where there are perhaps too many people, but do not cut where it is desperately painful and services are essential. The figures show that in March 1979 there were 205·9 thousand in the social services and that in September last year there were 207,000. So actually there has been an increase in the numbers. That, I think, refutes the idea that somehow the Government have forced cuts on the social service departments. They have not: the numbers have actually increased.
Turning now to the burden of the public sector on the Government of the day, but for that burden it is possible that we could have been more generous and not forced these cuts as we have endeavoured to do. In an article on 3rd January 1981, the Economist drew attention to the enormous expansion of Government employment in most industrial countries, and a table was published there which showed public sector employment as a percentage of the total civilian labour force. Britain came at the top with 20 per cent. of the public sector and was way ahead of any of our competitors. Italy came next, with 15·6 per cent.; France had 13·4 per cent. and West Germany 11·5 per cent. So we had nearly twice as many people in the public sector as our Western German competitors.
The last months have vividly shown, as everyone knows in both Houses, and have brought home the demands of the public sector on the Government's financial support. The BSC needed nearly £1,000 million, British Leyland needed £990 million, and this morning I read in the paper that British Shipbuilding is losing money at the rate of £2 million a week; in other words, over £100 million a year. So the public sector is a considerable burden which any Government has to provide support for, because we could not let steel go out of existence in this country. Of course, on this side we accept the need for a mixed economy, but in contrast the Labour Party, I believe, are still dedicated to going on increasing the size and scope of the public sector. They keep very quiet on this one, because it will be very difficult to sell to the electorate that you are in favour of a larger public

575
sector, with more losses and with more bureaucrats and the like; I think this is a millstone which they would like to get off their necks before the next election.
I rather hoped that we would hear something from the Social Democrats about their policy, despite the admirable speech we have already had; but, as I understand it, they have announced that they accept the public sector roughly in its present form, so presumably they will neither denationalise nor nationalise. It will stay as a very large burden. Only the Tories have sought to reduce it. We believe it is too big and it is over-manned. Moreover, when called upon to work within cash limits, it is often the nationalised industries which have failed to prune their manpower and have made pretty demanding wage demands, often as high as 25 per cent., and have increased their prices by 25 per cent. In addition—this is the most damaging of all—they have often cut their investment programme for the future.
I am sure it is important that the infrastructure of our country should be modern and well equipped, equipped with modern machine tools and the like. It is sad, because British industry benefits by supplying the nationalised industries with their wants so that a cut there not only mortgages the future but adversely affects the viability of British industry and has an adverse effect on the jobs created there. So while the private sector has reduced its employees by something like 10 per cent. all round, the public sector has done very much less well with reduction of only about 2 per cent. or one-fifth.
The Opposition, I hope, will eventually publish their policy for the future. In the meantime, they seem to give the impression that cuts are something new, so I asked the Library to get me some facts and figures to remind us of just what happened under the previous Government not very long ago. On 22nd July 1976 Denis Healey made an announcement that £1,000 million was to be cut off the public sector. There was to be £157 million cut off the nationalised industries' capital expenditure; health and personal social services were to be cut by £70 million and so on, making a total of £952 million in all.
That was hardly out of the way when Britain needed to go to the IMF for a big loan, and the Government of the day were then told by the IMF that they must have another two series of cuts. On 15th December, just before the Christmas Recess, Denis Healey announced that they were going to cut £1,000 million off the public expenditure budget for 1977–78 and £1,500 million off the budget for 1978–79. I shall not go through the burden of that, but one of the big cuts was in health and personal social services, where a total of £40 million was cut off although it had been cut six months earlier by £22 million. So in a period of six months the Government had announced cuts of over £60 million. Therefore, it would be wrong to suggest to people outside this House or even inside this House that this is new.
I remember going down to listen to the announcement being made. A total of £2,500 million was cut from public expenditure. The capital cuts in the school building programme were £33 million, with other educational cuts such as on school meals and school milk of £50 million. The National Health Service, of which
576
we have heard a lot this afternoon, and other social services had capital cuts of £70 million and other cuts of £10 million. It was that programme that really began to reduce the rate of inflation. So we are only repeating the same pattern a little later and I hope with rather more vigour and determination than the previous Government undertook a few years ago.
When the Labour Government published their plans for public sector expenditure just before the last election in January 1979 they were basing all their plans on the fact that there would be an expansion of industrial output in the manufacturing sector of 3 per cent. Why they should have thought it would be 3 per cent. when there had been a diminishing output—not an expansion—in previous years I cannot understand, except that it might have been for electoral purposes. But we were landed with a public sector expenditure plan based on a tremendous upturn in the productivity of our industry: only then would it be possible for the Government to do it. In fact there was actually a reduction of 6·6 per cent. in 1975; a growth of 1·5 per cent. in 1976; a growth of 1·5 per cent. in 1977 and in 1978 a growth of 0·9 per cent. Yet they were telling us that the whole of their plans were based on a growth of 3 per cent., though they had no track record to justify that and no economic logic either.
Perhaps this Government should have moved more quickly in the public sector, but your Lordships will remember that they were burdened with the Clegg comparability settlement and other postponed settlements which had been promised to public servants and which were going to be honoured after the election, settlements that we could not escape from because of our obligation which we accepted. It is a fact that average earnings in the last two years from October 1978 to October 1980 went up by 44·3 per cent. while prices rose by only 35 per cent. Whether you look at the position of a single man or at the position of a married couple with two children, you will find that in real terms they are marginally better off and these increased earnings have more than compensated for inflation. If you look at the statistics you will find that that is also true for the man with two children who is on half the average earnings. Average earnings in industry are now £130 a week and a person earning £65 a week is still better off as a result of his earnings having expanded faster than inflation. It is some triumph that the Government can say, absolutely honestly, that most social security benefits have been fully protected against inflation. These include retirement pensions, widows' pensions and supplementary benefits.
This is no mean Government achievement, but let no one in the House or outside it misunderstand the facts. For 30 years we have been living beyond our means. We have been paying ourselves more than our prowess or our productivity warrants. No Government enjoys making cuts. People have suggested that we do it for fun, but surely they realise that politicians love to be loved. That is the first thing in political life. Why do you think we used to kiss babies till the babies grew too fussy? It was to gain popularity. Why did we hold welfare meetings all over our constituencies? It was to gain popularity and try to communicate. So Governments do not do nasty things for the fun of it. They do them because it is their duty, in order to put the economy right—
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene for one moment? With respect, he seems to me to be missing the whole point of this debate. This debate is on a perfectly clear motion which is suggesting, not that there ought not to be cuts but that the effect of some of the cuts is very damaging and ought to be thought about again. Nobody has suggested that the Tories or anybody else make cuts for fun. With respect, this is all quite irrelevant to the subject which we are trying to discuss.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I have to say that you need to create the wealth before you start increasing the benefits. That comes after creating wealth. I do not think anyone would disagree with that. I can see from this debate that of course there are agonising areas, and if local authorities have not cut their staffs where they ought to have cut them and have cut areas where people are deeply dependent on the support of local authorities, that is not something which we can dictate from a Government position. It must be by the local authorities being pressurised by their local representatives to make the cuts where they are not so painful and to preserve the services where they are really meeting the needs of the under-privileged, the poverty-stricken and the ill—
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the point of my intervention was that there has been a great deal of evidence from all sides of the House to suggest that that is not being done at the moment.
Lord Orr-Ewing: Yes, my Lords, and I agree. We have had some very disturbing evidence on this matter. But I do not think that I can depart from the main thrust of my argument, which is that we have to get public expenditure under control. We have to encourage the private sector to generate the wealth of this country which pays for our imports and underpins our social services. Unless you get that going you cannot afford to index fully all the social services. I accept the argument that you should not cut the voluntary services because they are most cost-effective and most compassionate because they are dealing with people; they are caring people dedicating their lives to helping the unfortunate. I hope that the private sector is investing for the future, and all my evidence in the companies with which I work shows that they are; and as the recession begins to fade we shall then be better placed to respond, to create the wealth and earn the exports. Thus Britain will be better able to look after the old, the needy and the sick who deserve the best of their nation.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will join with the last noble Lord in saying that we hope that the private sector will produce sufficient wealth in order to ensure that our economy is a stable and fast-growing one, because, if it is not, then not only will this Government have failed but the nation will have failed. So it is vitally important that that should happen. Wealth is not produced only by the private sector; it is also produced by the public sector.
578
When the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, took issue with our spokesman, as to what he said about Members opposite, I think that he treated him very unfairly indeed. It was not my impression that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was saying that people did not appreciate the problems of unemployment. He was pointing out quite clearly that, as he saw it, Government policy inevitably was going to lead to very great hardship. Against that background, nobody on those Benches made any gesture of opposition to the Government's policy at that time. It may well be that Members on the other side really believe that the Government are pursuing the right path.
I do not think that I am under a misconception about the Government's intentions. During our debate following the Budget I said that it was the Government's intention to free the economy, to allow the entrepreneurs to develop wealth so that we could all go on and up on the backs of free enterprise. I do not think anybody call deny that this is their fundamental aim.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, mentioned the Macmillan era. How very apposite! Members of this House at times forget that when the history of this nation comes to be written no historian will refer to a particular period when a Labour Government or a Tory Government were in office. History will say that this nation went through various development phases, took a certain stance, made certain pledges and then failed to keep those pledges.
This debate would not have taken place in your Lordships' House before the First World War because the Members of this House at that time would not have considered that a debate of this kind was apposite. Before the First World War or, indeed, before the Boer War, they did not consider that unemployment, poverty and suffering were a matter for the Government; it was an accident of the economy; things would get right as the cycle turned. And they did, in some cases. However, the First World War brought the first evidence that the Government were beginning to realise that they had a responsibility for the poorer sections of our community. In the words of Lloyd-George—if one were to pay attention to some of today's television programmes, I do not know how anybody could ever have believed him—we were about to build a society fit for heroes to live in.
The inter-war years were hardly a society fit for heroes to live in. Not three years had elapsed before once again the burdens of economic problems were falling upon those least able to bear them. That was the position during the inter-war years. During the 'forties Beveridge introduced the concept that in a modern age you had to look after everybody in the community, that the welfare state should be a pledge for all politicians. This was no figment of the imagination. There was a strong general consensus, arising out of a kind of society that r did not particularly admire, that we should give a pledge to this community and to the world that we would set an example by building a decent, humanitarian society in which people would be proud to live. We said something else: that gone were the days when Government would stand idly by and allow 3 million or 4 million unemployed people to be used as a means of straightening out our economic problems. Of course, nobody was blaming anybody else for the unemployment problem.

579
The history of this country immediately following the war shows that we set about building that welfare state. There was opposition as to how it should be done but, by and large, the building of the welfare state went on from 1945 to 1950. It was built upon the basis of control of the economy and of the rationing of scarce goods, upon the basis that investment had to be channelled into social services and into the production of the basic materials which were necessary in order to allow the private sector to flourish. The whole of the motor-car industry of this country was built upon and founded upon public investment in fuel, transport and everything else in order to ensure that it could be a success.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, speaks to us today as though he were the apostle of all things good. I was part of the Macmillan era, and I remember it. I can remember the age of "You've never had it so good". I know who never had it so good: the property speculators, the builders of the bingo halls, the builders of the present night clubs which are now a curse upon the face of London. And all the while the nation suffered from lack of investment where it was most needed. Slowly but surely we moved along that path. I am not blaming in particular a Conservative Government. All I am saying is that that is the path which the nation took and that it took it upon the basis that, if you freed the economy, private enterprise would produce sufficient wealth upon which we could build a new society.
Did it? Of course it did not. A Labour Government came to power with tremendous difficulties because investment had not gone into private production or into the motor-car industry. Investment had not gone into making sure that private enterprise in this country captured the markets of the world. Investment had gone into property speculation. It had gone, in fact, into where the return was greatest. So of course the productive force of this nation went down, and of course we moved into a situation where we could not afford social services.
I make no excuse for a Labour Government which made cuts in the social services. I make no excuse for the fact that because of the failure of the private sector of productive industry in this country, the IMF had to tell us what to do. There is no sense in making excuses for that. They are the economic facts.
What is the situation today? Will anybody deny that we need more investment in social services, that we need more investment in the railways—that more investment is needed all over the country, particularly in the area I am concerned with: North-East Wales, Deeside and Merseyside? Oh, no. But where is that investment going? According to the latest estimate made by one of our broadcasting channels, last year, £3,000 million went into property investment in the City of New York, a sum of money which should have been invested here. I am not denying that the private sector has the right to invest wherever they want to invest. The Government of the day have given them that right and we must not grumble if they exercise that right. But that is what is happening. Instead of seeing that money goes into productive industry, the administrators of our pension funds plough it instead into useless office blocks in the City of
580
London, in the face of wide-scale opposition from the people who live in London.
Is it right that we should have a community that is building offices when the most vital need in London is for housing and when the building of public housing has been stopped? Is it right that we should keep overloading London with a chaotic transport system when what is needed is a diversion of activity from London? But the administrators of the pension funds will continue on their way because, on its past record, investment in office blocks in the City of London has paid dividends. But the dividends that office blocks are going to pay will not be very good; they are going to be empty office blocks, a need for housing and poor amenities when the need is to create better amenities. Those are the dividends which they are going to pay. When the wise administrators of our pension funds wake up, they will find themselves with some very burnt fingers.
When this debate was put down—I should like to join with others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for having put it down—I decided to make out a list showing how the area I am concerned with—Deeside and Merseyside, one of the most badly affected areas in the United Kingdom with regard to unemployment and deprivation—is affected by some of these cuts. However, I gave up the task. It was impossible. I could not possibly have stood here and listed the number of occasions upon which effects are being felt by people in those areas. There are too many. Half a million pounds cut here, a million cut there, 50 social workers cut here, 39 social workers cut in another district. Worse still, in one district in Merseyside which three years ago conceived the idea that social services should be based upon the principle that we have to get people standing on their own feet and introduced a system called home-making, in which they deliberately used public money to enable people to stand on their own feet, to recreate homes that were broken and to create new homes out of old homes, that has gone. As a concept it is finished, because this country decides that it has not got the money to carry it out.
Let me take just a few examples. An insurance man went to a housing estate in Liverpool—a nice housing estate on the fringe of the city, facing the countryside of Lancashire. He knocked at the front door of a onebedroomed flat, in which lived an elderly woman of 74. He got no answer. He heard what he thought was a whimpering inside the living room and he thought that perhaps there was an animal trapped in there. He went on his way, worried about the fact that he had not seen the elderly lady; he went back, knocked on the door, and realised that he had made a terrible mistake. So he broke the door open and an elderly lady had been lying on the hearthrug for at least 24 hours. That is the kind of thing that could be repeated in the absence of home helps—and do not let anybody tell me that when we talk about priorities those priorities have to be within the social services.
Let me quote the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that Government must be firm; Government must determine their priorities in the social services and they must be firm in giving to those that need to be kept on, all the assistance they need—and I quote:
"but in regard to the other services it must be ruthless".

581
Ruthless in what? Removing them? Abolishing them? Will anybody tell me that ally social service today is not an integral part of the welfare state that this country committed itself to keep in being? I refute completely that if economic priorities are to be laid, they must be laid within the section of social services. Of course priorities can be laid, and those priorities were referred to by my noble friend Lord Walston. Is it right that we should even contemplate taking away from an aged person the right to travel from the suburbs to the City of Liverpool with a concessionary fare, to enjoy a few fleeting moments of company with her former neighbours? Is it right that that should be denied to her, or that she should be made to pay for it while somebody else gets thousands of pounds in relief in their income tax?
I can remember an argument being advanced in a national daily on that Budget which this Government introduced, in which it said, "there may even be a possibility that the pop stars and the tax exiles might be persuaded to come back here, if we could make it beneficial enough for them to do so". Well, I do not want them and I do not think that any society that so gears its affairs that it has to rely upon unpatriotic, selfish individuals like that, deserves to remain in existence.
Let me give your Lordships the other reason why I decided to speak in this debate. Somebody said that across the board cuts are wicked—and wicked they are. It is bad enough if you are unemployed in a place like Liverpool and you live in a block of flats and you can meet 50 per cent, of the male population in that block of flats at any time of the day, because they are unemployed too. It is bad enough to realise that you cannot buy a new suit when the last one is getting threadbare. It is bad enough to realise that your own children have not got all that they are entitled to. That is bad enough. But what makes it worse is that all those people—or most of them—have parents living near them, and they see that even the small pleasures that a welfare state gave those elderly people are being taken away from them. How does that make the unemployed person feel?
Nobody in this House will tell me what it feels like to be unemployed. Having served an apprenticeship for a miserable wage and then served the next few years on the dole, I know what it feels like. I know the sense of inadequacy, because one cannot do what one thinks one should do in society. It would have made it considerably worse if at the same time I had not been able to replace those little comforts that my mother got from the welfare state. That is the situation that the present problem is driving people into in North-East Wales and Merseyside. North-East Wales is a perfect replica of the kind of situation that was in existence in all the conurbations throughout our country before the last war, where you walked through at ten o'clock in the morning, and there were grown, fit men standing at street corners with nothing to do; where there were elderly people who would dearly have liked to go out with their sons or their daughters for a run in a motor-car in the wonderful countryside, but who were condemned to stay put. That is the kind of situation that exists.
I want to conclude on this note. I have said it
582
before in this House, but it will bear repeating. If the kind of society that we are building and I repeat, I am not making party points; at the end of the day it will be our society and our people who will take the responsibility—has to rely on the pluralities that have been listed to us; has to rely on a Member of your Lordships' House, standing there and using Hong Kong as an illustration of some kind of society that he wants, then that society deserves to perish. If shortly we do not do something to convince the people in Merseyside, the North-East, in Northern Ireland and all the other places that are afflicted by this problem, to convince these people that there is hope for them, hope for their parents and hope for the family, then this society will perish—and in a very nasty way.
6.38 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, this debate is on the effects of Her Majesty's Government's cuts on those in the community who depend, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said, on Government aid and local authority services. As an ex-Director of Social Services, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for raising this matter in the House today. In his opening speech, I think I am right in saying that he threw down a friendly gauntlet to the Back Benches on this side—and I suspect to me in particular as an ex-Director of Social Services. Therefore, in a friendly way, I pick up the gauntlet and seek, first, to establish truth in various areas of this debate and, secondly, to see how, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves today, we can look for some solutions. But I wish to point out that I am only going to cover local authority social services.
I have very deep sympathy for my ex-colleagues, both field and residential social workers. Believe you me, when one has assessed a need in the community in the sphere of the elderly, the handicapped, children in trouble, families with difficulties, the needs of the under fives and children who are abused, and when one has submitted schemes to meet those needs, only to be told by one's committee that the resources are not forthcoming, then the disappointment, the frustrations and stress for one's clients are deeply felt. We are a compassionate society and we do feel deeply when we have these schemes turned down.
However, there is another side to the coin. Perhaps I may say to (if I may so call him) my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell that he does less than justice to those who work in the social services in the statutory and voluntary sector, and indeed to the people whom we serve. I think that we should see that no despondency and gloom comes out of this debate, but rather that we look for something positive that can come out of our deliberations today. First of all, I think I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell—I had great admiration for him and I still have—that he, above all people, knows what it means to have a dream. He, above all people, knows what it is to start a movement with practically no money and to establish that movement so that it is a living thing today—and I talk about the Marriage Guidance Council, which he started and which he left in good fettle.
In a magazine, which is a professional magazine,

583
the Health and Social Services Journal of 16th January 1981, it is written:
"Think of all the problems we would not have had if we had not had rampaging inflation these 15 years or more, problems with the hospital building programme, problems with industrial relations, problems of unfulfilled aspirations for the elderly and handicapped".
It goes on to say:
"Inflation rots the very fabric of society, adding in many ways which we are now only beginning to suspect to the health and social problems of the nation. So whatever else happens to us in 1981, if inflation is brought under control, we all stand to benefit. Quite apart from the interests of the country as a whole, it is very much in the interests of health and social services that Government should continue to give the conquest of inflation first priority".
I am bound to say that among the social workers in the country, among the social services, there are those who very much take this view.
When we talk about knowing the facts and knowing the truth, I would suggest that we do not know the facts and we do not know the truth. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, quoted, and very rightly quoted, the report of the Directors of Social Services. I know that report and I have read it. But I have also talked to the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security, and he has said that his assessments and his figures do not accord with those of the Directors of Social Services. He is puzzled by their figures; they are puzzled by his. Therefore, I think I am right in saying that a committee, jointly agreed by both the Secretary of State and the Directors of Social Services, has been set up in order to find out the truth of the figures; because the Secretary of State maintains that the expenditure on the personal social services is being maintained, and in the five years 1979–80 to 1980–84 inclusive will be higher in real terms than in the preceding five years. I have looked up the Public Expenditure White Paper for 1980 and this does seem to be so.
The Child Poverty Action Group maintains—and I quote from Poverty magazine, December 1980;
"Local authorities were not necessarily having to reduce their expenditure below what it has been in previous years".
For the sake of your Lordships' House, for the sake of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, it is right that we should know the truth and it is right that we should know what is the present position. We hope very much that the Secretary of State together with the Association of Directors of Social Services will be able to give a true and accurate statement.
When it comes to the question of staffing in regard to social workers, again I am puzzled, because the figures show that the number of social workers has increased and stands now at 22,916. The number of staff in residential establishments has also increased; in 1978 it was 26,074 and in 1980 it is estimated—this may not be absolutely accurate but nearly so—it is 28,095. So here again is a discrepancy. I believe that we should know exactly what is the truth, because how can we estimate our services without knowing what the truth is?
I feel that I must congratulate the Secretary of State for setting up the Barclay Committee which seeks to define the role of social workers. If I may say for social workers, the colleagues with whom I worked
584
for so many years—and I am grateful to many noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate who appreciated their work—the sad situation is that those who work hard, those who work consistently and are committed, are those who very rarely speak. Of the 120 local authorities in only 11 authorities were social workers on strike, and in those authorities, as has been said, they were sorely missed, particularly in the area of the elderly, the handicapped and the children. Therefore I hope very much that we may establish that they are not being cut and that their work is continuing, and that they will not suffer as a result of the cutbacks.
In many local authorities where there is a commitment, where there is a sense of real desire to help the clients, those with whom they work, it is extraordinary the way the work has been able to go on despite the fact that in many local authorities cuts have been made. May I give some examples, from the point of view of structure of the departments. There are many departments in this country that have restructured, and they have restructured in such a way that the social workers have stepped down from the top bureaucracy into the field and are now much more closely in touch with field work than they were before. This is because they have had to cut down. I have learned from at least five authorities, and I think there are many more, that they have welcomed the cut-down and the restructuring because it has been something positive.
Those of us who have been involved with children in children's homes have come to realise how terribly expensive are the children's homes, residential establishments, community homes. But we have also come to realise how very much better it is for children to be out of children's homes and in communities. We have sought to foster children, to have children adopted, even those who are extraordinarily handicapped. I have done some figures and found that if a child from seven to 17 is adopted, we are saved £60,000, but that is infinitesimal as compared with what it has meant to that child. But it is the fact that, because people have realised that they must look again and concentrate on their services, there have been some really positive results.
I pass on to an area which I find very difficult. I seek the help of those of my colleagues in the House who are trade unionists. I belong to a trade union myself, so perhaps I should go to my own trade union. However, I would make a plea to the trade unions to think about the clients that we serve. There are various restrictive practices which are a terrible burden to the clients, but not to the staff. For instance, it is difficult in some areas for old people to potter about and do the garden because it is said by their trade union that they may keep somebody out of a job. It is said in some old people's homes that the old people should not cook and clean because it would deprive someone of a job. In the North-East a number of departments have got together with a view to starting up a voluntary service—a service of volunteers—and that has been forbidden by the trade unions. The trade unions have much to offer. Many of us have worked with, and been grateful to, our unions. But I wonder whether those of your Lordships who carry weight with the unions could bring this matter to their notice.

585
There are other ways in which we can curtail expenditure and give a better service. There are the day centres. In my own authority—as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will know—I was fortunate enough to get one centre built before the cuts came. We needed several more centres and I pay tribute to the social workers because they were not daunted by having no money. An enormous number of small day centres have been set up in village halls and in many ways I sometimes think that they are more effective than the rather expensive centres that are purpose built.
I am bound to say—and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will expect me to say—how important we believe is the allocation of money to be spent on intermediate treatment keeping children out of custodial care. In this respect I think that I must pay tribute to the Secretary of State because extra money has been given to the Rayner Foundation. I think that I would be less than fair—and I would wish to say this from the point of view of my own party—if I did not say that I cannot agree with my own party over the question of detention centres. I would wish the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to know that because I think that in this House we should work for what we really believe to be the best thing for the clients for whom we are working. I think that they are expensive and I do not think that they are effective. I would much rather see the money being spent on something other than detention centres.
As regards voluntary organisations, I think that we are in danger of putting our money in one place or the other. The statutory services and the voluntary organisations should work as partners and not individually. I think that for them to work separately is a great mistake. Each has something to offer to the other. The voluntary organisations have flexibility, they are able to try out schemes and they are able to concentrate on just one subject. However, we make a mistake if we do not regard the statutory and the voluntary social services as working as equal partners.
I should like to mention one further point and to ask the Minister whether, in her reply, she could say something on the question of the under-fives. I believe that the care of the under-fives is where it all begins. The book that has just been brought out called The Great Under-Fives Muddle—Options for Day Care Policy, needs to be deeply thought about particularly in an age when some mothers have to go out to work and others must stay at home. I would wish to pay tribute to the Minister who is to reply and to Sir George Young in the Department of Health and Social Security, knowing that both of them together—one from the Department of Education and Science and the other from the Department of Health and Social Security—have jointly been visiting various centres and looking at the ways in which the under-fives could be cared for.
So, in conclusion, I hope that out of this debate something positive will come—something constructive will come. I would only say that if you are committed to something, if your heart lies in that place, then whether there is money or whether there is not you will do it. You will find the money come what may. I hope that that is how we shall go forward in the social services.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I should like to ask her one question, because I think that it is important that we should get the situation correct. I understood her to say that the Secretary of State for Social Services does not accept the report of the Association of Directors of Social Service. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether it is not a fact that the Association of Directors of Social Service compiled this 95-page report as a result of a carefully prepared questionnaire that they sent out to every other director asking them to list the cuts and the enforced savings—which were in point of fact the matters that I mentioned during my opening speech.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is absolutely right. This matter has puzzled us. I think that the Secretary of State has had difficulty in squaring the money that he has allocated for social services with what is going on in the local authorities. I cannot say whether the Secretary of State's assessment is right or whether the directors of social services, are right. I only know that both are puzzled. As a result of that, I am informed—although I was not able to check it this morning—that there is a committee being set up with members from both sides to look at both reports and to see exactly where the truth lies.
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I must say that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for whom I have a very great personal regard, sounds very much more satisfied with the situation than anyone else who I know in the social services today—and I know very many of them. She started her speech by referring to feeling deeply, but by the end I felt that she was letting arithmetic rule her warm heart. I appreciate her point of view—although of course, I do not share it—that there are people who say that we must give the conquest of inflation priority. But what does that mean to an autistic child? What does it mean to a blind old man who will not live through this winter? In my view this is a totally false conception.
I have been thinking back. Indeed, I am so old that I can think back to when the late Arthur Greenwood appointed Beveridge to set up that committee over 40 years ago, and Beveridge stated quite clearly:
"The plan for social security is first and foremost a method of redistributing income".
That is the challenge that we have to face. It is not a question of whether we have the money or not: it is a question of what we are doing with the money we have. Beveridge continued by saying that:
"We should put first the most urgent needs so as to make the best possible use of whatever resources are available".
I was particularly interested in what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford had to say and I should like to take one of his thoughts a little further. I honestly do not think that this country is in a position where we can afford much longer to think in terms of Disraeli's two nations. I think that we are one nation or we shall be nothing at all, because if too many people feel that society does not care about them, they will not care about society, and its very fabric will be in danger.

587
I submit to your Lordships that the welfare programme, which started with such high hopes following the Beveridge Report, instead of being taken further forward is, in fact, going backwards from Beveridge, because the welfare programme for this country has lost all social purpose. It has become part of economic policy. The only philosophy that this Government seem to understand is the domination of fiscal considerations over everything else, especially over the wellbeing of the most disadvantaged.
We had a very impressive speech from my noble friend Lord Sefton, who put some reality into this rather academic debate. I also want to remind your Lordships of the people about whom we are talking, who are at pension age now. Most of them were born in the First World War; their young life was spent during the 1920s and the 1930s, through times of hardship and unemployment. Then came another war. These are people who have not had the opportunity in their lives to accumulate capital resources; to get a sort of camel's hump of supplies around them for emergencies.
I remember vividly how so often, when I was a Member of Parliament, there would come old men, and sometimes old women, to my surgery and often they would want to reminisce. It would turn out that this impoverished old man had been on a ship to Murmansk; that another had one been in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp; that some brokendown old woman had been a nurse in Singapore. We are talking about people who have not had the opportunity in their lifetime to build the comfort of fat around them; and because many of them are living longer, we must take on board this responsibility, even if it means a totally different allocation of our resources.
Of course, I agree with the need to work with the voluntary organisations; I have done much voluntary work myself. But we cannot use the voluntary organisations as an alibi for statutory provision. We do not have the Beatrice Webbs and the ladies bountiful with private incomes and leisure to go around the East End doing good works any more. Society is changing. More and more women are employed, and increasing numbers of women are trying to be employed because they need to earn the money to keep up the living standards of their families.
Therefore it is quite unfair to suggest that there could be an economy in this direction. I would also point out that the poorest areas which need the most help usually have the fewest resources in terms of manpower and womanpower, because there are too few of those people who can give their time to voluntary work. I have noticed this particularly in the East End of London where almost every able-bodied woman who might be thought to be a good person to do Meals-on-Wheels, is either in a factory or trying to get a job somewhere to help raise family standards.
I should like to ask one or two specific questions. Today we have heard much about what we cannot afford. I want to ask how much money is in the National Insurance Fund. I have been told that it is £687 million, just sitting there. I hope that the Government are getting a good rate of interest on it. That is three times the amount that the Government claim to be saving. How much will it be next year?—or is it
588
the Government's policy to sit on this money, and to force more people on to supplementary benefits, which have to be financed out of taxation?
By 1984 it has been estimated that 3·5 million people will be depending on the safety net of supplementary benefit. That will be an increase of half a million on this year. That was not the original intention of Beveridge. The idea was that supplementary benefits—the old Assistance Board—were there for emergencies and for difficult problems. But they were not meant to be an integral part of our social security plans. I believe that a Government's policy on welfare would be well judged, not by how many people are on supplementary benefit, but by how many people come off supplementary benefit and are paid proper rates. The Secretary of State, Mr. Jenkin, boasted at a Conservative meeting in Colchester last February:
"Compared with Labour's extravagant plans which we inherited, we will have reduced spending by something like £1.5 billion on social security and also saved the Exchequer around £750 million on the NHS—almost entirely through higher charges and higher contributions".
But every pound that the Government save is a pound taken off the people who need it and the people who deserve it.
I want to refer to the abolition of the earnings-related supplement next January. If the unemployment figures progress as they are at present, that should, on my calculation, save the Government about £360 million. Again, that is £360 million taken from people who have made their contributions and feel that they have an honest right to those benefits. Another question that I want to ask concerns income tax. What we cannot afford, we cannot afford, but in the Government's first Budget how could we afford to give away £1.5 billion? Thirty-seven per cent. of tax hand-outs went to the richest 7 per cent. of the population. Now this Government come here, saying that they cannot afford to help the poor, that they cannot afford nursery education that we cannot have so many home helps—that is where we must cut. This is the real political evil of the argument.
Then there was the failure in the last Budget to raise tax thresholds and to index allowances. In effect, that is a deliberate cut in income and it hurts most the poorest people. We are now in this sort of Alice in Wonderland post-Beveridge age where we are taxing the poor to pay for their own benefits, instead of using fiscal policies for a real distribution of the resources of the nation.
There is one particular example to which I should like an answer. For the first time in history women between the ages of 60 and 64 are to be liable to income tax if their income consists only of their pension; that is, the retirement and graduated pensions. A Question was asked the other day about this and the Minister replied that the Inland Revenue had a tolerance level, and that as long as the tax did not come to more than £30, it would not be collected. I think that this is absolute nonsense. Surely it can only mean that, if you have to bring within the network of the Inland Revenue women who have no income other than their pension, the income tax threshold is appallingly too low.
Moreover, I have to ask about this £30, supposing one woman who has worked particularly hard and had

589
a good job and has a graduated pension, say, of not many pence a week, perhaps 55p a week, and her income tax liability comes to over £30. Say it is £32 to £35. Does she have to pay only £2 or £5, or will she have to pay £32 or £35 because the Inland Revenue will say that one of these actuarially minded wooden heads at the Treasury says that it is only up to £30 that you can have a tolerance level? By freezing allowances in the last Budget the Government have brought thousands of women pensioners into this tax bracket for the first time since their retirement. This has been quite a shock for many of them.
The sick, the injured, the unemployed suffer a real cut of about 5 per cent. because the Social Security Act provides uprating which is 5 per cent. below inflation. This of course will be worsened when the earnings-related supplement will be abolished. That is a move which would have caused a Department of Trade inquiry if any city insurance company had treated contributors in this way.
Other noble Lords have spoken about the result of cuts in housing, which I think are most desperate and ill-advised. Noble Lords talk about the need to cut inflation before we do anything else, but I cannot think of anything more inflationary than paying men and women to do nothing. That must be the most inflationary nonsense in our society. We have, for instance, in Camden 1,000 houses which have been acquired in better times, but are now empty because funds are not available for improvements and renovations to make them "letable" in the jargon. So where do the homeless families go? They go to bed-and-breakfast hotels. Where do the children go? They go into children's homes at vastly more cost to the country than if the social services and welfare services were constructively financed to deal with those problems.
We are not able to give council mortgages any more to people who want to buy their own homes in the borough. That again contributes to the awful problem of homelessness. I hesitate at this late hour—or at any hour, I may say—to quote Scripture, especially in the presence of so many holy Lords. I hope they will forgive me if I say that I think a good text for a civilised society is, "Bear ye one another's burdens". That is the voice not merely of piety and good manners, but in the long run, of sound economic freedom.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I should like to join with my noble friends Lord Donaldson and Lord Walston, with me Social Democrats, in welcoming the Motion put before us today and introduced so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I was particularly moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, had to say, and very much welcomed too what my noble friend Lady Jeger has just said in her speech. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who unfortunately has left us now, in referring to the Social Democrats, said that they do not seem to be doing anything in this debate, at any rate, except supporting what some of the Labour speakers have said before them. What I want to try to do, while certainly supporting what Labour speakers have said, is also to show what one of the differences is, as I see it, between
590
the Social Democratic Party and the Labour Party on the kind of issues being discussed this evening.
I can start my argument by referring to the Motion itself, which lumps together Government aid and local authority services, as indeed it is customary to do. The central Government and the local authorities are so intimately bound up together that sometimes it is difficult to see where one ends and the other starts. My contention is going to be—and I hope I am going to carry my noble friends with me on this—that this should not be so. There should not be such a close bond. If there were not, then there would be rather less of the kind of suffering that we have been hearing a good deal about this afternoon and evening.
It is necessary to ask why have the Ministers of this Government been able to impose themselves as successfully as they have upon the local authorities. Why has the reorganisation of the rate support grant, even though it has not gone quite according to plan, been accepted as readily as it has by so many authorities? I accept of course that there has been resistance. There has been resistance on the part of Conservative authorities as well as Labour authorities. But it would have been greater still, and much of the suffering that we have heard about today would not have existed, if there had been greater independence on the part of local authorities from the hand of Whitehall.
By and large I would maintain—and I know that several speakers who have come before me have also maintained this, although there are many exceptions—that local councillors tend to be, by and large, nearer the ground and more aware of the intimate needs and the important personal needs of the people whom they serve in their own locality. I would think that by and large local councillors—and not only in Labour authorities—recognise that the already vulnerable in this country are the people who have been particularly hard hit and made more vulnerable by this Government's policies; mainly their policies which have led to the encouragement of unemployment and the growth of unemployment, but made worse by the cuts in public expenditure which they have urged on, and forced on, local authorities throughout the country.
As a result of this, grievous divisions in our society which the Welfare State had to some extent healed have now unfortunately been opened up, and in many cases searingly opened up. The divisions between the North and South with the periphery countries of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland suffering most of all; the divisions between the mature and the young, with unemployment rates higher among youngsters than among older people. Divisions also between white and black with rates of unemployment among black people, especially young black people, being a good deal higher than among their white peers. Above all, and underlying all this, the differences and divisions between the rich and the poor, of which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, spoke so well when he opened this debate, and about which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford also spoke so well earlier on.
The result of all this is that the always vulnerable have been made more so. Many in the Government would, I think, accept this. I noted the other day, as many others may have done, that Sir George Younger,

591
whose name has been mentioned already, is worried about the effects of growing unemployment on the health of people in this country. But all that is proposed by way of action on this is to start up some research project, when it surely should be obvious to many people that unemployment, producing lower incomes, and in some cases much lower incomes, is absolutely bound to lead to some deterioration in health.
According to my argument, all those changes are more present in the consciousness of local councillors than in that of many people in Whitehall. They know better than the people in Whitehall that if a housebound old lady in, say, the back streets of Gateshead is deprived of the services of a home help she badly needs, that could, and often does, lead to grievous suffering for that old lady. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said we could not afford all the home helps we need until more wealth has been created. Surely, however, to find and pay someone to act as a home help for somebody who needs her services represents the creation of wealth. The satisfaction of need through the economic process is the creation of wealth, and much public expenditure leads to the creation of wealth; it is not only private expenditure which creates wealth. The public sector as well as private enterprise produces wealth and increases the national income, and it leads to greater satisfaction of the urgent wants of people greatly in need. Monetarism may make sense to some of the surviving economists in the Treasury, but to that old lady in the back streets of Gateshead—or any other person in any other town in the country—it makes no sense at all. How can one explain it in terms that such a person, or a local councillor or most social workers, can understand?
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, spoke, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, about the importance of the voluntary bodies and I agree with what they said. My noble friend Lord Donaldson mentioned the important work being done by a voluntary body in Tower Hamlets. I do not know if Lord Donaldson has seen the proposed cuts in the grants made by Tower Hamlets Borough Council to voluntary bodies in that borough; the list runs for seven sheets, so several hundred voluntary bodies will have their grants cut to zero or to almost nothing. A vital part of the Welfare State has been the partnership between voluntary bodies and local authorities, but that partnership has depended in many cases on grants being given by local authorities. If they are to be cut off, as is happening now—it is happening not only in Tower Hamlets but in many other parts of the country—the voluntary bodies will not be able even to begin to take up some of the slack which has been left and so meet some of the extra need that has been created as a result of the cuts in local services. I should be grateful to the Minister if she could give figures showing how much local authority grants to voluntary bodies have been cut since the last general election, and particularly in the last year.
Baroness Young: My Lords, as the noble Lord has asked a specific question on a most important point to which many speakers have referred, perhaps I might intervene now to tell him that local government
592
grants to voluntary organisations actually increased by about 8 per cent. in real terms in 1979–80 and payments for services to voluntary organisations increased by about 5 per cent.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that answer, may I ask if she has any estimates for the next year, and can she give any idea—this particularly worries me—of cuts proposed for the coming financial year? As I see it, that will be the year of the real, hard, unfortunate truth for the voluntary bodies.
Baroness Young: Clearly we do not have information for the current year, my Lords, because it has only just started. The figures I gave are the latest ones I have.
Lord Young of Dartington: I am obliged to the Minister. My Lords, I return to my previous question: Why has there been so little resistance by local authorities to the pressure from central Government to save money? I suggest it stems from the dependence of local authorities on central Government grants and on our archaic system of local rates, a system which no Government so far, Conservative or Labour, have wanted to reform. If there had been some reform—if some of the proposals put forward in the Layfield Report in the early 'seventies had been acted on by a Government of either party—there would, to some extent at any rate, have been a liberation of local authorities from control by Whitehall and Marsham Street. I believe the present Government will go down in history as the most centralising Government the country has ever had—all because they have tried to take control of local expenditure and have used almost every means open to them, along with the creation of new means, to achieve that objective.
But—and here I return to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing—the Conservative Government have not been alone in what they have done. Successive Labour Governments (I put this to some of my noble friends in front of me) have been great centralisers, too—for good reasons (for the fairer distribution of resources) and for bad reasons (that there seemed to be economies of scale to be had from larger organisations)—and I am as much at fault as many others in having believed that economies of scale were so important that it was worth sacrificing a lot else to get them.
That has meant that by and large municipal socialism has not been good enough for the modern Labour Party; I believe it is good enough for the new Social Democratic Party and will prove to be so. The Labour Government of 1945, despite their many great achievements, nationalised all manner of services including gas, electricity, buses and health. It was to be a National Health Service from the beginning, although Herbert Morrison in the Cabinet argued strongly for the retention of local control over the health services, but he was overborne, and the process has gone on since then. When a National Water Authority was set up less than 10 years ago there was very little opposition to the proposal from either of the main parties, though what good a National Water Authority has done as a substitute for local water authorities has yet to be seen.

593
Certainly it has put the Government of the day somewhat at the mercy of the trade unions in that industry. So what disagreement there has been between the two main parties—and they have been manifold and important—there seems to have been tacit agreement to undermine genuine local government.
According to my argument, all will remain as it is until local authorities have their own tax base so that they are not under the financial control of Whitehall in the way they are and have been. That brings us back to the proposal in the Layfield Report about a local income tax which would give local authorities a defensible source of revenue so that they would not be so dependent on rates and, above all, so that they would not be so dependent on central Government grants. My belief is that the local income tax would play an important part in the future programme of this new party to which noble Lords on this Bench belong. The Social Democratic Party strongly believe in decentralisation. We believe that one route towards greater decentralisation would be the introduction of a local income tax. I believe that we would want to do that partly because in years to come, if success greets these efforts, it will not be necessary to have debates such as that which we have had today, in which the effects of central Government and local authority policies are all locked together, as though they were all of a piece, which they have been, but which I believe they should not be for much longer.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I do not agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, has said, but I go along with him on the point that the needs of local people are well and truly served by their local representatives. The needs of local people become apparent, and so, because they are known, they can be met. This evening I want to concentrate on the situation in Birmingham, and wish to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that I have tried to glean the facts regarding this situation. The facts have been given to me by those whom I would call very responsible people in that city. It was not long ago that we had a debate on unemployment, fostered from these Benches, and on that occasion I spoke about the serious unemployment situation in the West Midlands. As the Minister the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will recall, I have recently tabled a couple of Questions about the number of children taking free school meals.
Among the facts that I have been able to elucidate regarding the situation in Birmingham is that the percentage of free meals taken by children is rising. Not only does that mean more expenditure for the local authority, but, more importantly, it is a clear indication of the way in which the economic situation is hitting ordinary families. I am informed that the daily average of pupils taking free school meals in Birmingham during 1980–81 was 31,300. The figure that is being estimated for in respect of this year is 36,100. So there is to be an increase of approximately 5,000 in the number of children expected to receive free school meals in the city of Birmingham during the next 12 months.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who gave details of cuts in local government grants for Liverpool.
594
I should like to point out to your Lordships that 1981–82 is the first year in which the Government's new block grant arrangements are to apply. This change, and the impact of Government policies on public expenditure, resulted in the city of Birmingham losing £43 million in grant. It is very difficult to try to recoup £43 million. Whether the Government like it or not, all local authority departments have to take their fair share of cuts, in the same way as all Government departments are told that they must take their fair share. Therefore it is no use the Government saying that there are no cuts. Local authorities are having to take action in the same way as are Government departments.
I think it was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool who mentioned the problems of the great cities, and I believe that he included Birmingham in what he had to say. I am informed that with regard to the budget for social services in the city of Birmingham for 1981–82, the amount to be met by rate support grant is £49¼ million. That is a very substantial amount and I expect that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, would agree with me that Birmingham is a good provider of social services at a personal level. Regardless of which Administration has been in charge, the city has gone forward with all kinds of social service schemes at a personal level.
We must recognise that the Government are saying not only, "You must sustain cuts", but also, "You must cut your manpower". Many local authorities and Government departments are cutting the number of tea ladies who go round every morning, or the number of cleaners. It is then claimed, "Well, we have got rid of 500". But in fact the authority or department concerned has merely got rid of 500 women cleaners, only to go to an outside contractor for office cleaning. Thus there is no saving of public money. So this numbers game which the Government are calling for is really a stupid game.
In considering social services, to use Birmingham as an example I would point out that 60 per cent. of spending on social services relates to manpower. So if a local authority is asked to cut down on manpower in the social services department, it cuts down on home helps and health visitors. This is cutting back on services which people really need. The Government must recognise that the aim of personal social services is to give services to those who really need them. If there are cutbacks of manpower in social services, assessments of new work will be held up, the number of new cases taken on will be reduced and tragedies will occur. Inevitably, when tragedies occur everyone becomes very hot under the collar. But it must be realised that the Government policy on de-manning in departments and on cuts in local authority grants must be held responsible for the inevitably increasing risks that will arise, as well as for the time lag from which clients will suffer, and the reduction of services in many areas.
As I have said, I asked for facts, and I have received them from a very important source. I have been told that:
"The greatest effect upon the services of the department through Government action is that we cannot do all we would wish to do for different clients."

595
That is a straightforward fact. My informants continue:
"For instance, we can only maintain the existing level of home helps, whereas"—
Here I would point out that all large cities have the problem of ageing communities. Where possible the young people move away to more attractive areas, and in the large cities the numbers of aged and lonely people are increasing. I have been told that whereas the department would have liked to spend another quarter of a million pounds under this particular item, because of the ever-increasing number of elderly people it is unable to do so. During this Year of the Disabled it would also have liked to provide many more aids and adaptions for the disabled. The department has increased the amount by £60,000, but this will be nowhere near enough. It is not felt that that is the right contribution that the department should be making to the Year of the Disabled. It is felt that it should have been much greater.
One of the serious effects of the Government cutbacks has been felt in the housing improvement programme. I was for a long time chairman of the housing committee in Birmingham and we were always proud of the adaptations to houses that we were able to carry out for disabled people. The adaptations included such work as providing ramps outside houses, widening doors and lowering sinks for disabled housewives. We felt that all those kind of things were most essential so that people could continue to live in their own homes, in their own neighbourhoods. Unfortunately, with the reduction in housing improvement grants it will mean that there is less being made available for the adaptation of council houses for the disabled. This can only be regretted because, as I think many other noble Lords have said, if you cannot keep people in their own homes the immediate effect is excess expenditure on some other kind of public service.
Therefore, I am informed, it is true that there will be many cases in Birmingham not dealt with simply because of Government policies on rate-support and cuts in local government grants. We all accept that the Government are trying—some of us would say they are not trying in the right direction, but they are trying—to beat inflation, but I think many noble Lords ask—and I think the Bishop of Guildford also made this point—where is the tax burden supposed to fall? Is it supposed to fall on those who are sick, those who are elderly and those who are less fortunate, when we can read day after day in the national press that in this country there are some organisations, some large families, who, I am not saying are breaking the law but who are able not to pay their full share, so helping to take the burden off those in society who are more impoverished. It is for this reason, I think, that we question the Government's handling of their economic strategy.
I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has left the Chamber, but I want to make it quite clear that what I am going to say now is not a policy of the City of Birmingham. This is where I believe that perhaps those of us on these Benches sometimes think there is a difference in attitude between what some of us think and what Lord Orr-Ewing thinks. I am about to quote to your Lordships now a letter which has been
596
sent to me, because I think noble Lords know that I have a serious interest in the blind-handicapped. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and myself are vice-presidents of an organisation dealing with the blind-handicapped; and this letter was sent to me from a metropolitan borough in the West Midlands by a boy who lives in that borough and is severely blind-handicapped. The letter starts off:
"Dear Sir or Madam"—
and I am reading exactly what the letter says.
"Re concessionery travel 1981–1982. I am writing to inform you that at its meeting on the 10th March 1981, the Council decided to stop the provision of Free Bus Passes to Blind and Disabled Persons with effect from the 1st April 1981. The decision was taken as part of the cutbacks in local authority expenditure. Consequently when your pass expires, should you wish to obtain a renewal, you would have to pay the full cost of the pass as follows:
Disabled—£73.50.
Blind—£62.00.".
They even differentiate between being blind and being disabled! This person is saying to me, "What shall I do? Shall I ask for a blind pass or shall I ask for a disabled pass?—because I am blind-handicapped."
This letter says very nicely at the end:
"Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact my Department".
He contacted the department and was told, "We want it all in one go; you cannot even have a quarterly season". So the blind and the handicapped will now be asked £73.50 and £62.00 for their passes. It might be that that local authority feels that it has got to make that kind of cutback at a personal level. All I would say again is that it is not the Birmingham local authority which is taking that action.
We must look at all these things in context. I was speaking only a few weeks ago with the Birmingham Council for Voluntary Service, an organisation which tries to co-ordinate the work of all the voluntary services. While they were able to give me such details of where the local authority was going to cut back on specific grants, they pointed out to me that, with electricity going up 11 per cent., with gas going up 15 per cent., with water rates going up approximately £10 to £11 a year, with rates in Birmingham increasing by a very substantial amount of 38 per cent. and with rents of council houses going up £2.50 a week, the people were saying that obviously the all-round increases were bound to cause hardship, particularly to those on fixed incomes and those on low wages.
What I should like to ask the Minister is this. Despite all these difficulties of increased rents, increased electricity and increased gas charges, what are the Government going to do to overcome the difficulties that many of the people who are on supplementary benefit are going to face within the next six or seven weeks? Is the department geared to take up the extra work which is necessary to realign all the supplementary benefits, which are going to be so different in so many parts of the country, to take account of all these increases—the gas, the electricity, the water, the rents and the rates?
The other question that I would seriously ask is this. Statistics are clear, and the Government have statistics which show that there are many people who

597
are entitled to claim benefit but who do not claim it. I am not going into the reasons why they do not claim it—and I think Lord Soper gave his understanding of why they do not claim it—but this failure to claim in some cases is going to cause extreme hardship, especially now, with the increases in other things. Therefore, one should like to ask the Government: What promotional campaigns do the DHSS envisage to increase the take-up of benefit from their department?
The other question I should like to ask the Minister to answer when she replies is this. There have been discussions, so one understands, regarding the new housing benefit proposals, and I understand that there is a scheme in outline. All I would say to noble Lords is that I listened very patiently to noble Lords opposite when they were speaking. It is rather unfortunate that one particular Member has need to wander around and speak to everybody in the Chamber. I would have said that we have the new housing benefit proposals, and there is a scheme now being outlined. One would say, if one has read the press correctly, that it is important for the DHSS to put into operation as soon as possible the new housing benefit proposals, because this will mean that they will immediately be able to cut back on the number of people employed in the DHSS, and pass over the administration of the new housing benefit proposals to the local authorities. If this is the case—and quite obviously, the Government are considering some new scheme—will it mean that local authorities will have any benefit? Will they get any increased finance to do this? Will they be able to increase their manning to do it? Or is it just for the satisfaction of the DHSS in saying, "We can get rid of X number of jobs, but we are not getting rid of the provision; what we are doing is just putting it on the backs of somebody else"?
My Lords, I conclude by saying that I join with all those noble Lords who have spoken today and pointed out the injustice of the Government's economic policy as it affects the less fortunate. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, who said that the battle of inflation must be won. He used the word "battle". What we on this side of the House are questioning is this: Why should the more impoverished be the front-line troops in that battle?
7.50 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the hour is late and we must leave adequate time for the important debate which is to follow on the Prayer Book—particularly when I bear in mind that for some of the people who are utterly dependent on Government and local government personal social services there sometimes seems to be little left but prayer. I hope that this debate may give them some other things on which to depend. It would be a very great waste if such an excellent and well-informed debate, with speeches of such high quality, were to have no practical effect on anything or anybody. It is my earnest hope that the Government will think again. To be honest—and why should I not be so?— my worry is not their hearts but their heads. At the beginning of this debate the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, raised the question of whether noble Lords opposite were indifferent to or ignorant of the plight of some of the disadvantaged people in society. I have
598
no doubt at all that many noble Lords opposite know, and know well from their personal experience, what is happening. Many noble Lords opposite, from work that they do in the field and in voluntary bodies of one kind or another, know what is happening in society today and among the elderly, the handicapped and the disabled. But I am afraid that the Government do not seem to be clearly aware of the actual effects and of the real costs of some of their policies.
Here I must briefly take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He talked of justified cuts at the moment in the present economic circumstances. He asked those of us who feel that services must be maintained at the present level, or perhaps improved, how we will find the money. The question that I must put to him is this. How will we find the money for some of the cuts which the Government have made, which in effect are not cuts at all but items of extreme extravagance which the nation can ill afford at the present time? I must say to him that some of these cuts cost money. I am sure that he would not be in favour of cuts which, as far as public funds are concerned, prove to be costly. I will give examples.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if I may intervene as the noble Lord put a question to me, obviously if what is involved is not a cut but what I may call an "anti-cut" then my question does not apply. My question applies only to what is the really difficult issue to which I hope the noble Lord will address himself as to where savings can be made, although painfully, and what to do about it if you do not make the savings.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention by the noble Lord. It shows that he is listening with such care that perhaps there is hope that when he has heard the argument he may change some of his views.
With regard to local authority cuts, I spoke last week in the debate in your Lordships' House initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, about mental health after-care services. At that time I pointed out that at the moment there were 34 local authorities that provide no day care centres at all and no other kind of day care provision. The noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, in winding up the debate, said that the provision of day care services of that kind is mandatory under the Mental Health Act. In other words, these local authorities probably are acting contra vires; but it is a fact that every day people are having to go to hospital because of the inadequacies of the domiciliary services. People who could have been cared for at home are now having to go every day into hospital or into some other expensive institutional care because of the inadequacy of the domiciliary services at home. It is a fact that every day people are being kept in hospital because the domiciliary services in their own areas are inadequate for them to be discharged. That is costing a great deal of money.
My Lords, I think that this is hardly the time at which to drop into the debate any new matters; but perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me if I refer to two such matters of which I have personal knowledge. First, as she and we are all aware, we recently have had a vast increase in the cost of prescription charges. Now, the person who must pay the full

599
prescription charge, and there are many, and who does not have the money to buy a prepayment prescription charges exemption certificate must pay £1 per item on a prescription. The immediate consequence is precisely what happened before when the prescription charges went up and precisely what happened when the prescription charges were re-introduced—by a Labour Government, I may say—in 1967. Immediately, doctors who are anxious to save their patients' money begin to think: "If this old lady needs iron and also some vitamins, I must think whether there could be a combined tablet". Therefore we have what is called "polypharmacy", blunderbuss prescribing and we have the pharmaceutical industry setting out to manufacture, to prepare and to develop tablets which contain a whole range of different ingredients so that doctors can prescribe those rather than prescribe three or four items on a prescription and thereby save their patients' money. But it costs the nation money.
The noble Baroness will see, when modern figures are produced, that once there is an increase in the prescription charge then doctors start to prescribe in much larger quantities. Prescription in small quantities is very extravagant and wasteful, but prescription in quantities which are too large is also wasteful and costly. I think that at the end of the day when the full calculations are done the noble Baroness will find that the increase in revenue from the increased prescription charges will have had the effect of increasing the nation's drug bill as a whole rather than reducing it.
While on the subject of drugs perhaps I may go briefly to another matter about which there can be no argument. Hospitals which are at present anxious to reduce expenditure (and properly so) are reducing it in this way. They are telling consultants who have continuing clinical responsibility for certain outpatients not to prescribe or issue drugs to them but to send the patients to their general practitioner for prescription. These consultants are people with perhaps heart cases and who give anti-coagulant treatment where the therapy must be monitored and changed frequently. Patients are very often psychiatric patients being prescribed new therapeutic substances in the field of psychiatry where the dosage must be modified or the therapy changed from time to time.
Those consultants are told: "Do not prescribe the drug for the patient but send him to his own doctor and his own doctor must issue the prescription". Obviously, that reduces the hospital's drug bill; there is no question about that. But it is a fact that the cost of drugs to the public funds when issued under the family practitioner committee services in the retail chemist's shop is more than double the cost of the drug when issued by a hospital. So what is a saving for the hospital is a greatly increased expense to the nation. That is saying nothing of the hidden expense of the waste of the general practitioner's time, who must make a telephone call to find out what the drugs are and what the dose is and the waste of time in his seeing the patient. That is the kind of cut which is actually costing our nation money at a time when we can ill afford it.
Now let me turn back to voluntary bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that he was
600
entirely in favour of our making use of them. So am I. I have always been a whole-hearted supporter and believer in the Welfare State; but I have always believed that whatever central Government or local government are able to provide, however comprehensive the various services are, in an ideal world there will always be gaps which can only be filled by the voluntary and dedicated efforts of well-meaning people who are ready to come forward and give of their time and their energy. It is greatly to our credit that we still have so many people wishing to volunteer. I have been immensely encouraged by the way in which young people, teenagers, unemployed people, have been more than ready in Merseyside—as the right reverend Prelate knows in Liverpool—to do admirable work for the elderly, handicapped and sick.
As I reminded the House the other day in the other debate, to make proper use of volunteers you must have organisations and professionals. The optimum ratio is probably about one full-time professional worker for every 10 volunteers. There is nothing more inhibiting to potential volunteers than to come along, having volunteered, and find that they have had their time wasted. There is an immense pool of manpower and womanpower which we can call upon to do work to our benefit if we can provide the services. That means more money for the voluntary bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Cullen, told us that the grants to voluntary bodies would be increased in real terms. That is very gratifying. We then had the argument about whether or not the grants from local authorities to the voluntary bodies were being cut. My information comes from the all-party disablement committee and at the moment there is a 25 per cent. reduction in grants to the voluntary bodies from local authorities. I know that the figures of the noble Baroness were different, and I also know that the noble Baroness would be the last person to wish to mislead the House; but she will know that Government figures are always in arrears, and sometimes the figures of the people who are actually working in the field and who are there at the sharp end are sometimes a little more up-to-date. When the time comes that the noble Baroness has more comprehensive figures she will find that the figures referred to by the noble Lord, and also by my noble friend Lord Banks, are perhaps more accurate than those which are a little out of date, which she was able to give us, but which were accurate at the time that they were collected.
Then let us look at other matters. What about VAT and things of that kind? Last week I told you that the increase in the price of petrol was costing the Spastics Society alone an extra £30,000 a year. I am now told that the increase in VAT will cost the Spastics Society at least an extra £220,000 a year. That is an extra quarter of a million pounds a year on the expenses of just one of the many voluntary bodies upon whom we have become more and more dependent and upon whom we must rely more and more in the future. It is no good telling them that their grants will be maintained. They will have to have more, if they are to keep pace.
I am not being as brief as I had hoped. On the question of cuts in personnel, the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, spoke at length about cuts in public expenditure. I agree with him entirely. I am entirely

601
in favour of making cuts in public expenditure; but we have to think where we make those cuts. The noble Lord, Lord Cullen, told us—and I think I have the figures right—that there were to be cuts in headquarters' staff' at the DHSS, and the staff would be reduced by 10 per cent. I am not sure whether he said "had been reduced" or "would be reduced". That is welcome news. But who are these people? Some time ago I saw a copy of a speech made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Heseltine. This was to senior staff in the Department of the Environment. He congratulated them on having reduced their numbers of staff by well over 5,000. Mr. Heseltine went on to say that he was interested to see, when he looked at these rather more than 5,000 posts in the Department of the Environment which had disappeared, that they contained no deputy-secretaries and no under-secretaries. People at the top of the public service, whether central Government or local government, find it easy to get rid of people at the bottom. If we are to make economies, it is some of the people at the top whom we must get rid of.
We have heard a lot about home helps. There is no question at all that every doctor in the country will tell you that it has become much more difficult than it was to get a home help to assist some elderly person at home. I suspect that there has been a large reduction in the total number of home helps. I doubt whether there has been much reduction in the actual number of home help organisers or other people higher up in the local authority organisations.
The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Liverpool, told us that in Liverpool they had abolished 50 out of 300 field posts. These are the people who do the work at the sharp end. These are the people whom we have to keep. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, in an excellent speech, talked to us about alcoholism. You may think, my Lords, that noble Lords from this Bench have said rather more than enough about alcoholism. I shall content myself by merely reminding your Lordships of Dylan Thomas's excellent definition of an alcoholic. He said an alcoholic was somebody whom you dislike who drinks as much as you do. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who said that we spend an enormous amount of public money in very expensive institutions, highly developed, highly technological medical facilities, "drying-out"—to use the noble Lord's term—alcoholics. Those are people who suffer from a serious illness, which is very costly to society as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, was entirely right when he said that we are wasting public money if we spend money on drying these people out and then fail to provide follow-up services which are necessary in order to enable society to benefit from the expenditure in drying them out. That is the kind of saving that we are making at the sharp end.
I shall end by saying this in all seriousness to the noble Baroness: I honestly and sincerely believe that we shall save money in real terms—and by that I mean a lot of money—if we increase grants to the voluntary bodies. In doing that, we shall unlock other private funds. We shall unlock an immense amount of voluntary effort which all comes free. We shall save ourselves a great deal of money in the end. Secondly, we shall waste money if we force local authorities to
602
make cuts which at the end of the day cost money. What we really need is somebody farsighted, with a breadth of wisdom and vision like the noble Baroness, who can look at these things as a whole, and not just people looking at their own department who say, "We can save a little here". Or somebody looking at another department. We want somebody to take a broad view to look at some of these policies in the general field of health and the social services and say, "Overall, having looked at this, I find this is wasteful and costly. It is wasting public money". I say that we shall waste public money if we force local authorities to make cuts which at the end of the day cost a great deal of money. By all means cut unnecessary personnel, but I hope that so far as possible the Government will try to cut personnel at the top and not at the sharp end.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, in winding up the debate from these Benches, I should like to express our thanks and appreciation to my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell for his initiative in suggesting and pressing for such a debate. His firm and dedicated belief in the need for a compassionate, caring society is, I am sure, appreciated by the whole House, as are the invaluable contributions that he has made over a long period backed by years of practical experience.
My Lords, the debate has been well worth while. I should like to thank all the speakers, although I would disagree with some and especially with the noble Lord who completely forgot when the local elections are to be held; they are to be held on the 9th May. He said they were being held tomorrow, but the noble Lord should know by now that tomorrow never comes. I should like to thank in particular the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and the Bishop of Guildford, because they spoke in terms which could be understood by ordinary people and, if I may say so, in a manner which the nation needs from the Church today. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford also brought back some romantic memories to me, because my wife and I were married in St Saviour's in Guildford just over 49 years ago. We remember the great cross on Stag Hill which marked the site of what is now the magnificent new cathedral. It was very much in our hearts and in our minds at the time.
We have a framework of a compassionate, caring society and it still exists today, but we must never forget that the pressures of the modern world hit hardest the weakest, the poorest, the handicapped, and the sick. We must frankly admit that in Britain we still have two societies; the "haves" and the "have nots". It is at times of economic stress such as today that the vulnerable sections of the community suffer most from economy measures, however small they may appear to be on paper and in statistics. Those of us who have had first-hand practical experience of low income as a result of unemployment, sickness or poor pay realise only too well that even a small reduction in income, together with an increase in the costs of essential goods and services, can only increase misery and hardship. I have no hesitation in saying that I have known poverty and unemployment as a teenager, and although it was hard and bitter at the time, at least when I speak in a debate of this kind

603
I can speak from a wealth of human experience, which has certainly improved my education.
For the lower paid, the Budget was a disaster. The Low Pay Unit estimates that the 100,000 families who are unable to cope and to work their way out of poverty will be joined by a further 13,000 as a result of the Budget. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, who, with respect, provided us with a torrent of statistics, no doubt when replying to this debate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will provide statistic after statistic to prove the Government's action in increasing social security benefits, which in our view are inadequate. But the fact is that the cuts in social services forced upon local authorities by the financial policies of central Government, and, at times, the crazy actions of the Minister responsible for local government, outweigh any of the advantages secured by the increases in social security benefits.
Housing has been referred to—notably by my noble friend Lady Jeger. It is the view of many of us on this side of the House that housing provision is an essential social service. Rents should be geared to need and the ability to pay. It is true that rent rebate schemes exist in some areas, but, let us face it, rents are soaring. Progress in local authority housing development is at a standstill, to all intents and purposes; due to the Government's obsession with the sale of council houses there has been a gradual reduction in the housing stock, and the situation is now becoming critical. I am not against people owning their own house—I do so myself—but it is wrong to force people, particularly young couples, into that situation, bearing in mind rising rates and maintenance costs. These mean that husband and wife must both continue working and, I am sorry to say, to avoid pregnancy at all costs as that would mean economic disaster for their little family.
For elderly people on low incomes the housing situation is even more serious. When I was a constituency MP I was frequently asked for assistance in securing a housing transfer for an elderly couple or a widow from, say, a high-rise flat, a large house or a house with a garden too large to manage, to something on ground level, in order that the couple or person could cope with increasing age or infirmity. Decreased housing stocks do nothing but increase anxiety and hardship, both to the elderly and to the young.
Public transport is another factor of social consequence. Steep increases in fares and a reduction in services impose a further burden on the unemployed seeking work, those needing out-patient treatment at hospitals, the pregnant woman attending pre-natal clinic, and many others in the low income groups. So far as the elderly are concerned, the availability of bus passes varies from one local authority to another, and there is no national policy. In the GLC area, thanks to the initiative of a previous Labour Administration, free travel is available to pensioners in off-peak periods and at weekends. I must be fair and say that this valuable concession has been continued by the present Conservative majority party. Elsewhere in the country the position varies from the provision of little or nothing to a system such as that run by the GLC, but only in a comparatively few places. The mobility afforded to
604
the elderly by a system of free bus passes represents an invaluable social asset which is urgently needed on a national scale.
Some speakers today—far too few in my opinion—have given examples of reductions in social services among local authorities known to them. I should like to refer specifically to the Kent County Council. When I was a member of the (always) minority Labour group on Kent County Council and was continually in a state of frustration over the inadequate provision of social services, I used to imagine in my mind's eye the words engraved in the massive stone entrance at Maidstone: Abandon hope all ye that enter here. That is exactly how I felt time and time again. What is the present position in reducing social services in an area where the standards have never been high? I will give the House the full facts. In the 1980–81 Kent County Council budget 5 per cent. of total social services expenditure was erased. In the 1981–82 financial year a further 3 per cent. cut is being imposed—a reduction amounting to £1·4 million. In 1980–81 there was also a reduction of £700,000 to meet the Government's cash limits. The cumulative effect of these cuts is hitting at services for the elderly, mentally handicapped, young people distressed by unemployment, and young families in distress. What is more important, this has weakened if not destroyed the morale of dedicated social workers.
At its budget meeting recently, Kent County Council approved a number of cuts in social services and I wish to give them in detail. The Social Services Committee agreed to the following cuts: Residential homes, general economies, £.73,000; residential homes, maintenance cuts, £41,000; reduced provision for mother and baby homes, £5,000; increasing the minimum home help service charge from 50p to £1 per week, giving the Kent County Council—they hope—an additional £287,600: increasing Meals-on-Wheels charges from 40p to 55p, expected to yield £41,000; reduction in grants to voluntary bodies at a time when an extra load is being placed on voluntary bodies, £41,000. Then what about this one?—reduced provision for the elderly terminally ill, £31,700. Also there is reduction in craft materials for the physically handicapped, £5,000; reduction in transport aid for voluntary escorts for children, £9,000; deleting any aid for holidays for the physically handicapped, £25,900; general economies at day-care centres, £17,000; increasing meal charges to the elderly attending daycare centres, £9,000; the introduction—I do not know whether this is revolutionary—of £1 per week attendance charge for day care for the elderly, £7,500. In other words, if they want to attend they have to pay a fee of £1 per week. That is reckoned to bring in to the council £7,500. I rather doubt whether they will get it. Then there is the reduction of maintenance of day-care centres grounds, £9,000; reduction in fieldwork staff, £135,600; reduction of travel expense budget for social workers, £21,000; and reduction in social work training, £137,000.
These are not isolated examples. This sort of thing is going on all over the country as a result of Government policies and the impulsive actions of the Minister responsible for local government. What moved me to real anger is the reduced provision for the elderly terminally ill. While a great deal of unpublicised

605
specialist service is given by the Roman Catholic, Anglican and Jewish communities, the bulk of the terminally ill need support, care and attention, as do their relatives. Again, parents of mentally handicapped children have special needs, as have the children. Some of your Lordships may remember that in a recent debate I drew attention to and quoted from a television report that less than 50 per cent. of local authorities were carrying out their responsiblilities in the field of helping handicapped children. What is also disturbing—and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has also referred to the present situation—is that at a time when pressure is increasing on voluntary bodies as a result of reductions in local authority services, grants are being cut—as in the case of Kent, by £41,000.
We are told time and again by the Prime Minister and others in Government that sacrifices have to be made to reduce inflation and that all sections of the community must take their share of the burden. In the Crypt Chapel of St. Stephen in this our Palace of Westminster are stone benches lining the walls. Centuries ago pews or chairs were not common and the elderly or infirm went to sit on the benches. Tradition has it that that is where the old saying originated:
"The weakest go to the wall".
To use that phrase today I am sure could be held to be over-simplification, but the fact is that the less well-off sections in our society, the elderly, the handicapped, the infirm and the low-paid, are bearing a burden far greater in proportion than that carried by better-off sections of the community.
The Government—and this has been referred to before during this debate—on taking office gave generous cash handouts to the better-off, with no obvious benefit to the economy. Yet in April next year the jobless will be taxed on social security benefits, which is estimated to yield £200 million per annum. The same also applies to people on strike, without question of the justice of their cause. Tax rebates are to be held back equally to the unemployed or to those on strike. What right have the Government to hold back tax rebates to which people are morally and legally entitled?
Finally, it is indeed a sad commentary on life today in Britain that, while we continue to pour out money to provide the means of destroying life even during a period of economic recession, we reduce the means of sustaining life and impose reductions in standards designed to enhance the dignity of human life. This is not humanity; it is the madness of a monetary policy giving priority to material gain at the expense of easing the burdens of the needy.
8.26 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, if I were to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for introducing this debate, I do not suppose he would really believe me. He would feel that I have gone through some terrible kind of masochistic exercise in listening to this. But I should like to thank him. We have argued a great many times across the Dispatch Boxes in this House, and although I do not agree with him, and he knows that, I respect his sincerity and I am very glad that so many speakers have taken part in this debate today. I should like to pay my own personal
606
tribute to the contribution the noble Lord has made on many occasions, both from this side of the House when he was a Government Minister—a very effective one, if I may say so—and from the other side of the House, where he has always made us on this side of the House keep on our toes. I should like also to thank my noble friends who have supported me this afternoon.
I think it is perhaps a good starting point to take that we will all, in all parts of the House, accept that we do care for those who are disadvantaged in society and for those who are weaker, and that all of us would like to have more money for the many desirable causes that have been suggested today. I and my colleagues in Government certainly would; and in a way I was surprised by the speeches of both the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who were after all both members of the last Government and who were faced with very painful economic realities and had to introduce in 1976 the cuts forced on the Government by the International Monetary Fund, as was so clearly explained by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing.
I might also add a rather painful postscript, if I may say so. I hope that the facts were noted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and that his strictures on us all might at least be even-handed. I was even more surprised to hear the two Social Democrats, the noble Lords, Lord Walston and Lord Donaldson. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Walston argued for higher taxation, which would appear to be considerably at variance with his own colleagues in the Social Democratic Party, who, as I have understood it from their manifesto, are bent on encouraging incentives to increased productivity. But no doubt the outside world will at least notice that although the Social Democrats sit on a different Bench, their policies appear to be identical with those of the Labour Party, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, who complained that we have too much central government. Has this not been a policy of my party for a considerable time?—too much government of all sorts. But I would say to him—and I speak as an old local government person with 15 years' experience in local government—that I believe local government has a very valuable role to play. However, one of the difficulties he would find in social services, in education and in all these other public services is that you do get a very uneven standard of provision if there is not a certain amount of central government direction over those services.
I have listened this afternoon to an unending list of requests for increased expenditure. I have made a list: pensions, social security benefits of all kinds, extra money for the family service units, charities generally, more for children with special educational needs, more domiciliary services, more home helps, lower prescription charges, reductions on VAT and no increase in the price of petrol. Indeed, this debate has turned very largely into an economic debate. I shall not repeat the arguments, because they were so cogently put by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as to the actual choices that confront us all in this country.
Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that we shall not, ultimately, get better services in this country unless we get increased productivity from the wealth-

607
creating parts of it. If we do not have that increased economic growth, we can have better services only by higher taxes or increased borrowing, which ultimately builds up problems for the future. It is because we are confronted by these basic facts that I should like to turn, first, to the Government's policies, which are aimed specifically at increasing and helping the wealth-creating parts of our society, and indeed at helping those parts of the country which are in serious difficulties at the present time.
We have maintained the urban programme which was started by the last Government in 1977 and, as both the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, will know, there are inner city partnership schemes in both Birmingham and Liverpool. We have also started an urban development corporation on Merseyside and the present resource allocation for it in 1981–82 is some £17 million. In Birmingham the inner city partnership scheme is to receive over £16 million.
But, not content with these policies, we have also introduced a series of enterprise zones. These are an experiment in stimulating private sector development in areas of economic and physical decay where the old remedy of ever more Government interference and expenditure has manifestly failed. If successful, they will provide a real stimulus to the revival of local economies and help some of the hardest-hit areas of our towns and cities. Above all, they will create more jobs—real jobs—and we must all hope very much that these zones prove to be a success.
At the same time, there was in the Budget an entire enterprise package. Among many proposals is one of loan guarantees. This is a pilot scheme, agreed with the banks and with the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation, to run for three years up to a maximum of £50 million. Loans from two to seven years will carry an 80 per cent. Government guarantee at the full commercial charge, and the scheme will be self-financing. So in this debate we are indicating three ways in which quite specifically we are helping small businesses; and helping the inner cities to create new jobs, in order to create the new wealth from which we shall get a firmer foundation.
A number of different points have been raised in the course of this debate on which I should like to touch. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked, right away, whether or not the Government's policy was to make good the shortfall on pensions when we first came into office. Of course, in the first uprating of retirement pensions in 1979 the Government made good the previous Administration's shortfall on long-term and retirement benefits. It is very important that we should recognise that fact.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, asked me a number of questions about the whole provision for the under-fives. This is an issue in which, I know, she takes a great interest and on which she is very knowledgeable. I am glad to say that, despite the terrible warnings about what would happen in the education service, the recent HMI report on the effects of local authority expenditure policies for 1980–81 indicates that there was an increase of some 5,600 children in nursery classes between January 1979 and January 1980, and the numbers in nursery schools
608
have remained stable. At the same time, there has also been an increase in the day-care services for under-fives. By March 1980, far from falling, the number had actually increased slightly and nine local authority day centres had closed while 19 had opened.
This raises an important point about the joint use of facilities. My honourable friend and colleague Sir George Young and I have ourselves visited a number of examples of joint provision of social services and education for the under-fives. I should like to pay particular tribute to a nursery that we visited in Hounslow. That is a day nursery with educational provision within it, which is one of the most successful examples which has come to my notice. We did, of course, see a number of others.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked me a number of questions. She will, I hope, forgive me if I do not at this stage answer them all. But she asked about the amount in the National Insurance Fund, the amount expected to be there next year and what it is being used for. I should like to remind her of the debates that we had at the turn of the year about the increase in National Insurance contributions. The balance in the fund represents about 15 or 16 weeks of expenditure from the fund. There is not a large surplus in relation to the costs that it has to meet.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asked me about cuts in the numbers of civil servants. I can confirm what my noble friend Lord Cullen said in opening about the numbers that have contracted, and will contract, in the Department of Health and Social Security itself, which also include three Under-Secretaries whose places have not been filled. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked me a number of questions about Northern Ireland. If he will forgive me, I will write to him on them as I do not have the information to hand.
There were a large number of points raised on housing. Again, housing is a very emotive subject, but I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, that we believe in the sale of council houses, because we think that that is one of the ways of unifying the country. It raises standards and not only do people want to buy their houses; they want a valuable asset which they can pass on to their children. They will have something which is with them, and this is something which it is valuable for everybody who wants it to have. Far from dividing the country, I believe that selling council houses unites it, by raising standards all the way through. There are many arguments about it, but it is important to recognise that we are not seeking to divide. We are seeking to unite in a property-owning democracy—
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that her argument is tenable only if there is also a will to increase the housing stock? If she is putting the view that it unites the nation to allow people to own their own houses within a council housing estate, that presupposes that one has to go on and create more houses in order that people who are denied the opportunity of enjoying a council house are also included in the unifying process.
Baroness Young: My Lords, that is one of those arguments which are not sound. It is always the

609
argument that a council house that is sold is lost. As the noble Lord, Lord Parry, knows—I am sure that he has been involved with local authority housing as long as I have—once people get into a local authority house, they very rarely go out of it. It is extremely difficult to move out. You cannot get a house in another part of the country unless you have a direct swap. Unless you can buy it and then sell it, you cannot move. Once you are in it you stay put. You are much more likely to get some circulation if houses are sold. I do not accept that argument.
It was said by several noble Lords that there will be no house building at all, but of course that is not true. Despite all the reductions in public expenditure, we have continued to make what seems to me to be generous provision for housing, with over £2 billion allocated to local authorities for gross capital spending in 1981–82. Out of that, £12 million has been allocated to the Housing Corporation for this current financial year to be spent specifically on special need hostel projects, some of which will be for the elderly. Indeed, my honourable friend Mr. Stanley in another place said that we have made it quite clear that public sector housing programmes should concentrate on providing for those groups in special need, such as the elderly and the disabled, and there have been a number of ways in which authorities have been helped to that end.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raised a very important point about achieving a shift to community care. Clearly this is one of the most cost-effective ways of achieving care. It is better for the people and it saves money. The joint financing between the hospital service and the personal social services has proved to be a useful bridging device. Last year, the sum set aside for joint financing between the National Health Service and the local authority personal social services was £54 million. That sum has been increased in this financial year to £56 million and will increase again next year. Of course we should like it to be more, but at least we recognise the problem and we have recognised that we must do something about it in that particular way.
Nearly every noble Lord has referred to the importance of the voluntary sector. On behalf of the Government I should like to pay my tribute to the enormous amount of very good work that is done by the voluntary sector in this country. It receives over £85 million in aid from central Government. That was the amount of money that it had last year. The Secretary of State for Social Services has maintained the total value of grants made by his department to voluntary organisations between the years 1978–79 and 1980–81. The grants are increasing by 16½ per cent. in 1981–82. So this is well in excess of the rate of inflation.
The figures I have given for local authorities, which I accept are the last figures we have, are for 1979–80. However, we have to accept that if local authorites are free to choose, they are free to make their own expenditure choices. The Government, beyond exhorting local authorities to help voluntary organisations, which we have done on many occasions, have not at the end of the day the power to make them give this money, unless a direct grant is given for that particular purpose. For a variety of reasons, this is
610
not always the way in which local government wishes to receive its money from central Government.
Besides that, we have introduced a number of other policies which are particularly designed to help voluntary organisations. For example, the concession on covenants whereby contributions may be offset against higher tax rates as well as the basic rate of tax which was announced in last year's Budget, comes into force in April 1981. There have, too, in the Budget been VAT reliefs. Zero rating of articles given to hospitals has been extended to ambulances and wheelchairs and to car adaptations for disabled drivers. This eligibility has also been extended to institutions caring for the handicapped. What is particularly interesting is that the earnings limit will be raised from 75p to £2 a day without affecting eligibility for unemployment benefit, so as to encourage unemployed people to work for voluntary organisations. Of course we should like to do more, but noble Lords will recall that the last Health Services Act, which was debated at length, contains scope for health authorities to raise money by voluntary contributions for a whole number of purposes. It was a great disappointment to the Government that the Opposition somehow saw this as something which would be bad for the National Health Service, instead of, as we feel, tapping a source of money which many people are glad to give to help to provide many things by means of voluntary contributions, which otherwise in our straitened circumstances we may not otherwise be able to do. So the Government have made quite clear the great importance which they attach to voluntary contributions of all kinds.
I have not answered all the questions which have been raised in the debate. I do not think the House would have expected me to do so. However, I hope I have said enough to make it quite clear that the Government have a number of priorities. We have set our hand to try to get the economy right and to bring down the rate of inflation. Nobody in the Government, or anywhere else, has pretended that this is an easy or a painless task. Indeed, it would be foolish to pretend that we could do it easily: foolish to pretend that anybody has a monopoly of truth on getting the economy right. As has already been said, not one of the 360 or so economists has suggested something which has not been tried before and which has failed. If only somebody could produce something for us which would produce an easy and a painless way of giving us our services, of getting the economic growth that we would like, of keeping down taxes, then perhaps the public opinion polls would not swing about quite so widely. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford reminded us, at one moment they say that most people want a reduction of taxes and at the next that they want an improvement in services. Of course, we all want both. The difficulty is to live in the real world and to face the real choices which confront the Government.
That is why I have split my speech into three parts. First, I have tried to show the positive steps which the Government are taking to encourage enterprise and industry. Second, I have tried to answer specifically some of the points about what Governments can do to help the disadvantaged. Finally, I have sought to say something about our encouragement to voluntary organisations. We believe that they have a very real

611
role to play, just as we believe in supporting the family and encouraging everybody to support themselves by preventive medicine of all kinds, a point which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, because these are the ways in which individuals can help themselves.
I should like therefore to conclude by giving a summary of some of the improvements that we have tried to make for the most vulnerable groups in our society. When the next pension increase starts in November, pensions will have been fully protected against inflation since we came into office. We have completely exempted war widows' pensions from income tax. We have given a pension for the first time to the pre-1950 Service widows. Sick and disabled people have been enabled to claim the higher long-term rate of supplementary benefit after one year instead of two. Single-parent families are being given special help through the child benefit scheme. A decision has been made to make the maternity grant non-contributory from 1982, thus enabling about 60,000 more mothers to qualify for it. And special help with fuel bills is being given to poorer households at a cost of £200 million a year.
Spending in real terms on the National Health Service was slightly increased in 1980–81 and the hospital waiting list, which went up by some quarter of a million under the Labour Government, has been reduced by over 100,000. Expenditure on the local authority personal social services is higher in real terms than under the last Government. In the recent Budget we have doubled the special tax allowance for the blind and we have given VAT relief for charities serving the disabled. We believe that tax reliefs for charities will be worth about £30 million for them. The mobility allowance for the disabled is being increased well ahead of the rise in prices. So, despite difficult circumstances, we have managed during the International Year of Disabled People to make some small but worthwhile improvements. This, my Lords, seems a right priority in the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, it is not my intention to keep your Lordships for more than two or three minutes. However, I do wish to express my gratitude and thanks to the noble Baroness for what she said at the beginning of her winding-up speech. She knows that I shall be leaving the Opposition Front Bench at the end of April and this may well be my last appearance at this Box. Therefore I am grateful for the very kind remarks and observations which she has made. I think the House should know that I have enjoyed every minute of the last seven years against her. She has been very good for me. Of all the Ministers I have had to deal with, if I was up against the noble Baroness the next day I did not go to bed until I had done all my homework, because I knew that she would have done hers. I have enjoyed it very much indeed. We are in many ways deeply opposed, but it never once has had any effect upon our personal relationship or our friendship. I do not know of a more competent person. The noble Baroness is carrying two ministries. One, I should have thought,
612
at the Department of Education and Science, would have been enough. The noble Baroness is bearing up very well and I hope that she will continue to do so.
I shall not go into great length now, but my only other comment is that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, took me to task. I do not object to that for one moment because, as he quite rightly said, we ought to be able to do that without allowing personalities to come in. In what I was saying about taxation, I was complaining about the £4,500 million that was given by way of a reduction in taxation at the very first period of the Government. I was not talking about taxation generally. I did use two phrases: one was "most noble Lords opposite"; the second was "the majority of noble Lords opposite". I think perhaps it would have been wiser if I had said that I was excluding those noble Lords who had been Members of Parliament because I realise that those noble Lords who have been Members of the House of Commons by virtue of their constituency responsibilities would know what I was getting at.
With that, I only want to thank all noble Lords who have taken part, particularly, if I may say so, the two right reverend Prelates who have made a most valuable contribution. We on this side of the House would like to see more of the bishops taking part in our deliberations. I have said that on more than one occasion, and the last time was in the presence of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, so it was not behind his back. We do not necessarily expect the bishops to agree with what we say, but we do feel that it is of tremendous importance and of great significance if bishops do take part in those debates which are affecting social policy because we believe that they have a contribution to make. With that, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Prayer Book Protection Bill [H.L.]
8.52 p.m.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The new services of the Church of England have been the desire, not of the laity so much as of the clergy. Three years ago I introduced a Bill in your Lordships' House in an attempt to enable the laity, who have the new services foisted on them against their will, to enjoy the Prayer Book if they so wished in its place, through a ballot of all members of the Church electoral roll. It would be decided by the ballot whether they preferred to have the Book of Common Prayer at the three main services on Sundays.
The Bill created a debate which went on for some three hours and many noble Lords sympathised with the aims of the Bill and voiced the present grievances of the laity. Since then, much more weight has accumulated behind the cause of the Prayer Book, chiefly owing to the endeavours of David Martin, Professor of Sociology at the London School of Economics; and here I should like to give voice to the magnificent tribute which all lovers of the Prayer Book must owe to the professor for his endeavours, if I may list some

613
of them. First, the petition which he organised for presentation to the Synod on behalf of the Prayer Book, signed by most masters of cathedral music, a large proportion of Garter Knights, holders of the Order of Merit, Companions of Honour, most heads of houses at Oxford and Cambridge, heads of the armed forces and leaders of both political parties.
Professor Martin's petition coincided with his edition of Poetry Nation Review No. 13 containing articles by distinguished academics on the Prayer Book controversy, and two months after Poetry Nation Review No. 13 came out it received a second shot in the arm with Professor Brian Morris's Ritual Murder. Both Poetry Nation Review No. 13 and Ritual Murder have been published by the Carcanet Press in Manchester.
Then last summer Profesor Martin organised a Gallup Poll for the BBC programme "Everyman", which showed that more than half who claim adherence to the Church of England are unhappy about Series 3; about 70 per cent. want the traditional marriage service and nearly 80 per cent. would prefer to leave the Lord's Prayer alone. Then, as to the argument that the new services are needed for the unsophisticated men in the pew who do not understand the archaic language of the Prayer Book, the Gallup Poll showed that the working classes are slightly more traditional than the higher social categories.
Throughout these endeavours Professor Martin has handled the press with great skill so that there is now not a single national newspaper which does not favour the traditionalists' case over the Prayer Book. There have been leaders in all the leading newspapers and also generous correspondence columns and the editor of the Daily Telegraph has told me that on the issue of the Prayer Book he has received a larger post bag than on any other subject for many years.
Given the attention and the support which adherents of the Prayer Book have received from the newspapers, this would seem to be the optimum period for resurrecting the whole issue of the Prayer Book in your Lordships' House. And before going any further I thought I would say something about the Bill in which I have sought to resurrect the Prayer Book issue. I will not concentrate on such matters as are better suited to Committee—such as what is meant in the Bill by "parish" or "parish church" or whether to include any clause about the enforcement of its provisions by an archdeacon. I will merely mention that the Title of the Bill has been phrased in such a way as to wave the flag and the contents of the Bill leaves the decision of whether to have the Prayer Book on certain occasions to a given number of members of the Church electoral roll to present a petition to the incumbent, compared with the present position under the Worship and Doctrine measure where this decision is made for all except the occasional services by the parochial church council.
The reason for this is that, while the parochial church councils can override the vicar in the way that I have just described—and it is the principal object of this debate that they should be encouraged to do so even if the Bill fails to become law, that they should not feel at all shy about it—at the same time there is no doubt that as a rule parochial church councils do not act in this way.
614
Parochial church councils were innovated for administrative reasons. According to the Parochial Church Councils Powers Measure, which brought them into being, they were designed to co-operate with the incumbent. It was never envisaged that they would have thrust upon them the extra burden of contesting with the vicar over liturgy.
In the issue of Poetry Nation Review No. 13, which I have mentioned, and elsewhere, Dr. Roger Holman has explained exactly how parochial church councils fail on this account. While it should be the parochial church council which overrides the vicar, Dr. Holman has listed the ways in which it is most often the other way about.
The first method is that the clergy protest that their point of view belongs to a sacred domain in which the laity have no part. The second method is to invoke the will of the spirit to suit their own partisan case. The third method is that the parochial church council meeting is put in the context of the Eucharist and the laity are discouraged from liturgical controversy because the final prayer and benediction are postponed until the business meeting has been closed. The fourth method is that the vicar arranges the agenda of the parochial church council meeting in such a way that he allows members to wear themselves out in discussion of trivial matters and then rushes through the discussion of the liturgical question at the end under the heading of "any other business".
Having concentrated on the rather narrow aspect, with which the Bill is directly concerned, of what occurs between the clergy and the laity on the parochial church councils, I should like to consider the rather broader view of why the clergy are unlikely to relent and, if anything, go further the other way, and so the protection envisaged in this Bill becomes all the more necessary. There is always a suspicion of the undertow of a commercial influence which can corrupt religion like anything else. Points about money I suspect will always cut more ice in your Lordships' House than points about the imagery of prayer or religious doctrine, and one must ask what cash-conscious parish would buy the Book of Common Prayer if it gets a 20 per cent. discount on the purchase of the Alternative Service Book, or even some pamphlets which cost under £1 each.
Then, we know about the colossal sums to be obtained from the publication of religious texts through the massive sales of new versions of the Bible, and while the Prayer Book is not copyright the Alternative Service Book is and it attracts a copyright fee of 10 per cent.; that is to say, 35p or 40p a copy. So if 1 million copies are sold this means about £400,000 to the Church. In this connection, it is important to remember that the Alternative Services are still in process of experimentation and when you have a commodity—it can be a new liturgy or anything else—the more transient the commodity is the more money there is to be made out of it.
Then, the young clergy, in particular, promote the new services owing to their lack of exposure to the Prayer Book at theological colleges. For this reason, if the Bill passes its Second Reading I should like to table an amendment that the Prayer Book should be required for worship at theological colleges. Present evidence for the absence of the Prayer Book from

615
theological colleges is very disturbing. One bishop has questioned the priests ordained in his diocese since 1974 over what had gone on at the theological colleges where they received their training, and he found that, though the Prayer Book may have appeared as an item in various courses of worship and liturgy, there was no systematic instruction in it. And the position over worship was even worse. Among the diet of Series 2 and 3 use of the Prayer Book varied from occasional or optional to never at all.
More evidence has been adduced by Professor Martin in the latest issue of the Prayer Book Society's Journal, Faith and Worship, in which he says that wherever he has preached evensong at theological colleges he has never heard the Prayer Book, and Professor Martin adds that at Westcott House, which is perhaps the foremost theological college, they do not have the Prayer Book at all, or indeed have anything else except Series 3. It is very much to be hoped that Professor Martin can be persuaded to collate all the evidence he has collected on the absence of the Prayer Book from theological colleges in the form of a full printed report which can be presented to Parliament or Synod for debate.
Further argument for more protection for the Prayer Book now becomes clear, if we consider that if the present trend of liturgical manner continues, it will induce some ministers to forget or even to know the Prayer Book and so no choice will be left between the Prayer Book and the Alternative Services. The circumstances in which the Prayer Book may be forgotten are easy to envisage when whole areas of the country are becoming left with no proper provision between the Prayer Book and Alternative Services; and as to the Prayer Book becoming quite unknown to the younger generation, while under the Worship and Doctrine Measure the parochial church council can override the vicar for the three main services on Sunday, it is quite wrong that when it comes to the occasional services of baptism, confirmation and marriage and burial, the laity are left with no rights against the clergy whatsoever. How should the confirmants who have no need to be instructed in the Prayer Book have any idea what it is?
The cumulative drift towards the new services is not assisted by the failure of the BBC to observe the same impartiality in the broadcasting of services which they give in allocating time to the points of view of the two main political parties. Holy Communion and Matins according to the Prayer Book are hardly ever broadcast, and at Christmas all services were broadcast from the Alternative Book. Incidentally, in further illustration of the bias of the BBC, I might mention that on the Radio 4 programme on 5th April, entitled "Sunday", where this programme was concerned with this particular Bill, can I ask what innuendo was intended when the commentator did not say that the Prayer Book Society has shown that most of the laity preferred the Prayer Book; he said instead that the Prayer Book Society is said to have shown something of that kind. Furthermore, the wrong question was put in front of my first answer. I did not say that the Prayer Book was preferred by the intelligentsia as against the lower reaches of society. In this context I was referring not to the Prayer Book but to the
616
Alternative Services.
If more evidence still is required of the need to protect the Prayer Book, it may not be out of place for me to make a few quick notes pointing out the defects of the new services against the Prayer Book. It is always the wish of the House that a Peer will shorten his speech, so I will not comment at length on the well-worn theme of the inadequate language of the Alternative Services. Suffice it to say, that if you praise the Lord, it should not be in the anodyne language of a committee, that the zest and jubilation of our act of praise should be embedded in the very rhythm and texture of the language itself. No doubt other Peers will be concentrating more on the literary aspects and saying that if our liturgy is to be re-written it must be done by a poet like T. S. Eliot. It may just be worth adding that the answer to the argument that the Prayer Book is incomprehensible to the unsophisticated ordinary man in the pew, is not to modernise the liturgy; the answer is more religious education, and we know how woefully inadequate religious education has become and this is why it has had to be so intensively debated in Parliament.
Two other ways in which the new services are defective are ways on which I might concentrate in a little more detail. The first is that the new services are recommended as an archaeological improvement on the Prayer Book, because they are closer to practices of the very early Church. Yet it is important to submit that what we have here is a sham revival, a revival where the revisers of the liturgy have merely selected those practices of the early Church which are not inconsonant with modern liberal opinion; for example, because the early Eucharist was a corporate affair, there has been the move towards abolition of the Chancel Screen, which from the 4th century has separated the clergy from the laiety. The revisers of the liturgy have happily introduced the custom of the handshake and the kiss, which is extracted from Justin's First Apology. At the same time, they have left out much contained in those early Greek manuals which would be quite out of keeping with modern liberal opinion. For example, the separation of the sexes in church, the way in which the early Church imitated the spirit of the nonconformists of the latter day in their Puritan attitude towards women and so women were required not to wear any make-up in church. Then chief of all, there is the severe penitential discipline mentioned at considerable length in those early Greek manuals of which we hear nothing at all today.
The second aspect on which I should like to concentrate in which the new services are defective is their doctrinal irregularity. There is no doubt that the Synod is not entitled to commit these irregularities. On the last occasion when I introduced the Prayer Book (Ballot for Laity) Bill before your Lordships' House on 21st March 1978, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that he may have misunderstood the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, but he thought the right reverend Prelate had said that the Synod has the right to determine the doctrine of the Church of England, and he would look the matter up. I was able to say in winding up in that debate that, under Clause 5(1) of the Worship and Doctrine

617
Measure, it is specified that the doctrine of the Church of England is derived not from the Synod at all but from the Prayer Book.
There does exist in this field some difficulty in assessing whether doctrinal irregularity has been committeed or not. Because in matters of religious doctrine, just as much as in matters of poetry, more sense can lie under the words rather than in them, and this can provide all the more licence to the Synod to act irregularly, particularly now that the Privy Council has lost its appellate jurisdiction. So the Synod can act as advocate, jury and judge all at the same time. There is no doubt, generally speaking, that the old emphasis on the atonement and the Cross has been side-stepped.
I can go further and give two particular examples where I do not think there is much doubt that doctrinal irregularity has been comitted. The first is the omission of Original Sin from the service of Baptism, no doubt in deference to the liberal thought of 18th century enlightenment; but this omission must throw into question the whole doctrine of the atonment which many would regard as the kernel of Christianity. The point involved here is surely the fundamental one, whether Christianity is to be preserved in its traditional form or secularised in the way so well described by Dr. Norman in his Reith Lectures.
The second example that I thought that I would choose is the marriage service. The old order of priorities in the objects of marriage given in the Prayer Book are the procreation of children; the avoidance or—to put it bluntly—the relief of fornication; and mutual society, help and comfort, but it is impossble to deny that some significant shift of meaning has been achieved where this order of priorities is simply reversed. Furthermore, a lighter accent is put on fornication as if to deny the aesthetic elements in Christianity which helped it to be officially recognised during the years of sexual fatigue in the late Roman Empire.
Let me conclude on the matter of whether this Bill should merely act as a vehicle for debate and so serve as a propaganda exercise in giving much needed moral support to members of church councils to stand up to their vicars, or whether, on the other hand, the Bill should be pressed to a Division on the slender chance that it might become law. I think that I can anticipate the sense of the debate. Speakers will sympathise with the aim of the Bill, but then quite a few of them will say that they would be reluctant to vote for it because to do so would interfere with the present autonomy of Church government and the custom, which has arisen in the Constitution, that all legislation on Church matters should be initiated in the Synod rather than in Parliament.
I have checked this ground out very carefully and I find that according to Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 14, paragraph 350, it is clearly stated that parliamentary control over Church legislation remains unfettered and Parliament may still legislate for the Church without the intervention of the General Synod. But despite the clarity of that quotation from Halsbury which I have just made and its endorsement by the parliamentary agents who drafted the Bill and the opinion which I have in my hand from that most eminent ecclesiastical lawyer Chancellor Garth Moore, who is chairman of the Legal Advisory
618
Commission of the General Synod, I anticipate that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London will read out the sentence further on in the same paragraph of Halsbury saying that it is normally by Synod measures that legislation affecting the Church is now enacted.
So I must raise the question of the whole credibility of Church government. Whereas the electoral register of the secular Parliament has an 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. voting capacity, only a minute percentage of all who claim adherence to the Church of England are on the Church electoral roll or participate in any elections. Too much gearing is involved in those elections for them to be encouraged to take too much interest. The House of Laity in the Synod is not directly elected from the parishes. The parishes send representatives to the Deanery Synod and it is only the Deanery Synod which sends representatives to the House of Laity in the General Synod. So the men in the pews can seldom know who their representatives in the General Synod may be. There is no question that the Synod has not kept faith with Parliament over the Prayer Book.
In his excellent speech on the Worship and Doctrine Measure in 1974, the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, asked whether the Prayer Book was being properly safeguarded or whether it was on the way out. We know now what the answer is to that question. The answer is in direct contravention of Clause 1 of the Worship and Doctrine Measure saying that the powers of the Synod should be so exercised as to ensure that the forms of service contained in the Prayer Book should continue to be available for use in the Church of England. Furthermore, the present answer to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, was not anticipated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London when the Worship and Doctrine Measure was going through the Synod.
If one examines the proceedings of the Synod for 7th November 1972 one finds that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said that if the Worship and Doctrine Measure represented an attempt to abolish the Prayer Book things would be difficult, and reasonably so. The right reverend Prelate then continued that in view of the special relationship between Church and State, the State is entitled to guarantees that the General Synod will not depart from its traditional character in such a way as to disqualify the Church of England from its privileged position. I very much hope that many Peers will feel now that such powers as Parliament has given to the Synod on liturgical matters it can safely take away. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Sudeley.)
9.13 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, is, as we all know, indefatigable—
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I am sorry, I ought to have put the Question and I was correctly called to order by somebody on my left—I think he is a Presbyterian! The Question is, That the Bill be now read a second time?
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I beg the pardon of the noble and learned Lord the Lord

619
Chancellor for anticipating him. As I was saying, the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, is well known as an indefatigable champion of the Prayer Book, but I should like to start by congratulating him on a characteristically forceful speech. I think that we all expected it of him. However, I should also like to begin with two regrets. One concerns the timing of this debate. I think that it is a pity that a debate of such wide interest should take place so late in the day and I think that it is also a pity that it should come before this House at such short notice, realising the interests that bishops have in a debate of this kind and the extreme difficulty which they have in managing their diaries, which are filled with so many other matters.
My second regret is that in some parts of his speech I felt that the noble Lord was maligning the good faith of clergy and parochial church councils in the caricature that he gave us of what goes on in church councils up and down this land. I very much hope that when he winds up this debate he will take the opportunity to withdraw what he said at that point, which will be deeply hurtful if it is known to others outside this House. Having said that, I want to assure the noble Lord that I am no less anxious than he is to ensure that the book of Common Prayer is retained and used as a rightful part of our heritage in the Church of England.
However, I want to try to specify what I see as the heart of this debate. I hope that we shall not be enticed down the road, which part of the noble Lord's speech was opening up for us, into a debate on the merits and demerits of the varous liturgies which the Church of England now possesses. I particularly hope that we shall not be drawn towards the doctrinal red herrings which he put before us. The fact is that we now have various liturgies and the key issue, as I see it, is the question: Is the legislation, under which the Church of England regulates its worship, adequate to protect the interests of those who want to worship according to the Book of Common Prayer? A subsidiary part of that question is: Is this legislation being observed in both letter and spirit? Then comes the question which is really the crunch of this particular debate: Are any injustices, to which noble Lords may draw attention, so grave and so evident that they can only be corrected by Parliament acting in defiance of the long-standing tradition that ecclesiastical legislation should originate only in the Synod and not in this House?
To some extent we had this debate before in 1978. At the end of that debate the noble Lord had the grace and the wisdom to withdraw his Bill. I very much hope that at the end of this debate he will do the same, because, in fact, very little has changed since that debate in 1978. The major factor was, of course, the publication of the Alternative Service Book in the autumn of last year. We have also had three more years' experience of the working of the Worship and Doctrine Measure.
I want to start at what is, as it were, the easy end for me, by submitting to this House that there is no room for doubt about the Church's officially expressed intention to preserve a fair balance between the Book of Common Prayer and the Alternative Services. With this in mind, I should like to read the opening few words of the preface to the Alternative Service Book. It reads as follows:
620
"The Church of England has traditionally sought to maintain a balance between the old and the new. For the first time since the Act of Uniformity this balance in its public worship is now officially expressed in two books rather than in one. The Alternative Service Book 1980, as its name implies, is intended to supplement the Book of Common Prayer, not to supersede it. The addition of a date to its title may serve as a reminder that revision and adaptation of the Church's worship are continuous processes, and that any liturgy, no matter how timeless its qualities, also belongs to a particular period and culture".
Those words mean exactly what they say. I know because I wrote them. As the chairman of the committee which conceived the idea of the Alternative Service Book and brought it to fruition, I want to assure this House that all through that long process one of the dominant factors in the mind of that committee was how to ensure that the Book of Common Prayer was not irreparably damaged by the publication of the Alternative Service Book.
When the book was published the General Synod Office issued to all parishes an edition of the document, which has in fact been issued regularly, which sets out for parishes how the Worship and Doctrine Measure is to be applied. May I take the liberty of reading part of one paragraph from that document dated November 1980. It says:
"In taking their decisions the incumbent and the parochial church council need to remember that they have to bear in mind the interests and the needs of the parish as a whole. They should give particular attention to the views and needs of those who come to church regularly, and if there are differences of view they should seek, wherever possible, to find a solution that meets the widest range of needs which is possible and practicable. They should also bear in mind those who come to church occasionally; e.g. at major festivals".
Then it goes on to give examples of the different kinds of combinations of services which might be used, the ways in which decisions are to be taken, and it spells out clearly the weighting in the process which the Book of Common Prayer must receive according to the Worship and Doctrine Measure.
Many dioceses, including my own, called special meetings of clergy and others at the time of the introduction of the Alternative Service Book to explain it. Certainly in my own diocese, and I suspect in many others as well, there was careful discussion of how parishes can maintain a proper balance between the different elements now within the Church's worship. That, I say, is the official policy, and it is beyond dispute. But, despite assurances, there are persistent accusations that bishops and others have not been honest in these matters, and that there is some sort of organised conspiracy against the Book of Common Prayer. May I quote a sentence from the leading article from yesterday's Daily Telegraph. It said:
"A concerted campaign has been conducted by a body of highly placed clerical enthusiasts to force new services on a largely unwilling laity".
That is pernicious nonsense, and I choose my words very carefully.
May we now look at some of the evidence which is sometimes used to back up statements like this. The noble Lord in his opening speech referred to the petition brought to the General Synod by a very large number of distinguished people. At the time that it was brought there was some adverse press comment because the petition was received in silence by the Synod. The reason for this was that nobody knew

621
that the petition was being presented and the Synod has no procedure for receiving petitions. Therefore, silence was the inevitable response. At a slightly later stage in that session of the Synod there was an intemperate speech by a rather foolish young clergyman which attacked the petition, and this was applauded. His speech and the applause were widely reported.
At a later stage in the same session of the Synod I felt that as chairman of the Alternative Service Book Committee it was my duty to make some response to the petition, and let me read to you a sentence or two from what I said.
"It seems to me that a Christian gathering ought to listen very hard to those who speak to it out of great emotion, even if we believe that the emotion is misdirected. It ought to be especially concerned with those on the very fringe of the church's life, and not dismiss them as not being allowed to have a say in our affairs. I think there is something deeply important about the nature of the Church of England bound up in our response to this group of people representing so many facets of the nation's life".
That was also applauded, but it was not reported in the newspapers because it did not fit, presumably, in the image of the General Synod as a wild body hellbent on destruction.
The noble Lord referred more than once in his speech to Professor Martin, who is of course a redoubtable protagonist of the Book of Common Prayer. Recently Professor Martin published a letter in the Church Times which contained a number of instances to which the noble Lord referred. They were instances of so-called unfairness in the promotion of the Alternative Service Book. I took the trouble to write to all the named persons in Professor Martin's letter to find out their version of what he said. I will not weary the House by taking noble Lords through the answers I received, but I will give a typical example. Professor Martin referred to a diocesan newsletter which contained a rather extravagent article suggesting that the word "alternative" should be dropped from the title of the Alternative Service Book because it was now really the only service book that mattered. It was quoting Professor Martin's letter as if it were a matter of diocesan policy. In fact, the article in the diocesan newsletter was a signed article by a clergyman in the diocese; it was quite clear that it was his opinion and I have a specific statement from the bishop that it was neither diocesan policy nor the bishop's own policy. If people cannot write signed articles in favour of the Alternative Service Book without its being picked out as an example of unfairness, where are we?
Earl Waldegrave: My Lords, if that was not a diocesan view—I have with me a copy of what was in that circular or diocesan news—may I ask whether it was ever controverted by the diocese or by any man senior to the man who wrote it? Or is it still standing, for anybody who reads Hansard today, as an opinion published on the front page of the Carlisle Diocesan News?
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I have no knowledge of what further things have been done within the diocese of Carlisle. My point is simply that a diocesan newsletter is a forum for different news and views and it is surely not necessary for every view
622
(which some members of a diocese may not agree with and the bishop may not agree with) to be controverted there and then. My point is simply that this particular thing was picked out unfairly, I believe put in a false context and used as evidence, and it is not evidence when one looks at it closely.
There is a claim by Professor Martin of unfair bias by the BBC in the choice of broadcast services. In spelling out that point, Professor Martin has to pursue a rather delicate and difficult argument in which he is saying, on the one hand, that there are plenty of parishes which could broadcast services from the Book of Common Prayer if the BBC were not biased. However, at the same time and in the same letter he has to maintain that services of the Book of Common Prayer are being unfairly suppressed and that there are not enough of them in parishes. That, as I say, is a difficult tightrope to walk, but he manages it—just.
I wrote to the Director of Religious Broadcasting, the one who was there at the time when Professor Martin claims the bias existed, and I have a letter from him; I will not weary the House by reading it but, again, it totally controverts the claim Professor Martin is making.
The noble Lord also referred in his speech to theological colleges and what is taught in them; and here I fully admit that there is legitimate cause for concern. What Professor Martin has not mentioned is that on two occasions in the last two years groups of about 20 bishops have met with all the principals of all the theological colleges and among other things have discussed this very issue with them in order to try to ensure that there is a proper balance of worship in our theological colleges. But as the principals very truly say, democracy has come even into theological colleges, and students nowadays have a choice in the pattern of worship which the college maintains. I am afraid that in many theological college settings it is difficult to get many students to attend on a massive scale services of the Book of Common Prayer.
I do not propose to bore your Lordships with more instances. All I am trying to say is that when one looks at the kind of evidence that is brought in support of what the noble Lord has been saying, it has a mysterious habit of disappearing when it is probed. Even this famous Gallup poll, which purported to show massive support for the Book of Common Prayer among the ordinary people of the land, I suspect is not quite as straightforward as it appears to be on the surface.
When one talks in the street to very occasional churchgoers, I think it is hardly surprising that when faced with the question about what forms of worship they prefer, they would say that they prefer the forms that they knew in their childhood. What I should have liked to ask is, how many of those questioned in the Gallup poll had in fact attended, certainly on any regular basis, services of various kinds, so that they were able to make an informed judgment.
Again very impressive-looking statistics can be produced about weddings and about how people prefer the old form of wedding. But how many weddings do ordinary people in fact attend during a lifetime? What chance do they have to compare different forms of wedding service? Of course people hark back to the weddings of their childhood.

623
I have some sympathy with the feelings expressed through the Gallup poll about the Lord's Prayer; and here let me frankly admit to your Lordships that I believe that the General Synod has made a bit of a mess of the Lord's Prayer, and that we now have something which combines the worst of all worlds. I feel that we shall have to have a long, hard look at this question when we come to the next revision of the Alternative Service Book.
What I am trying to say is that this massive minority of disaffected opinion is rather difficult to detect. And some figures speak for themselves. The noble Lord, in words which I hope also he will be prepared to withdraw, referred to the publication of the Alternative Service Book as a kind of money-making racket. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. The noble Lord must know very little about clergy and their PCCs if he imagines that enthusiastic clergy could persuade their PCCs to buy the Alternative Service Book on the massive scale on which it has in fact been bought. In the first three and a half months since publication sales have now surpassed half a million. But what is interesting is that during that period the sales of the Book of Common Prayer have continued at the same level as previously; and those figures suggest that a balance is being maintained.
Perhaps I can summarise the difficulties by recalling an anecdote. Last Sunday morning I was standing in the vestry of an ancient church in my diocese, confronted by six stalwart church wardens. The fact that the church has six church wardens is a sign that it is a traditional kind of parish that is not willing to let the past slip away. It is not the kind of parish to rationalise things. I asked them, "What is your pattern of worship?", and they spelled out a pattern of different sorts of worship with special slots for the Book of Common Prayer, and so forth. Then I said, "Why don't you have a Book of Common Prayer service at a main service on a Sunday morning?". They said, "The trouble is that there are a few people who might want this and they make a lot of noise, but when we actually hold those services they do not come". That is the heart of it—they do not come.
But suppose we were to take these arguments at their face value and were to pass this Bill. I submit to your Lordships that it would lead to the most extraordinary anomalies. I do not want to press the details too far, and I do not know what size of parish the noble Lord is used to dealing with, but in my diocese we have many electoral rolls of 200 or 300, some with 500, some even almost 900. In a group of 900 members on an electoral roll, is the noble Lord really suggesting that 20 people should determine what is done on one Sunday out of four? In a group of 900 people you can get 20 people to sign almost anything.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, would the right reverend Prelate give way? Is this not the same argument as that between God and Abraham over Sodom and Gomorrah? Peradventure the Lord may save 99 just men.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I think the parallels with what the noble Earl has suggested are too perilous to pursue. I do not want to press on
624
the details of this, but it seems to me that even if amended, and even if radically amended, any Bill which relied on juggling with figures could lead to abuse, especially since a parish has a certain discretion in the way that it manages its electoral roll. I am wondering whether the noble Lord has really thought through the practical implications of this Bill. I wonder whether he has thought it through to the point of giving some attention to other minorities in parishes. I could point the noble Lord to parishes where the incumbent and quite a sizeable group of laity are longing for the introduction of alternative services, but where they are frustrated by a conservative majority. The existence of such parishes gives the lie to what the noble Lord was saying about overbearing incumbents being able to twist PCCs around their fingers. Your Lordships should see some of the PCCs in the diocese of Durham.
But if the aim of the Bill is justice to minorities, then I should like to ask the noble Lord: Would he favour an amendment to allow 20 people to sign a petition to have Series 3 on one Sunday out of four? If he would allow that, would he allow another 20 to sign a petition to have Series 2 on one Sunday out of four? I do not want to create imaginery difficulties and I do not want to pursue this point—time is passing very rapidly—but the point is that any legislation on these matters would create problems, and it is far better to deal with the differences by consultation within parishes and not by additional legislation.
Let me turn very briefly to the wider issues behind this Bill. First, there is the question which has been raised quite specifically: Is democracy in the Church of England seriously defective? All democratic systems have their defects. I am glad that the noble Lord corrected a persistent misunderstanding, which recurred in the 1978 debate, about the way in which the General Synod is elected. Its lay members are elected from deanery synods, and the deaneries of a diocese are constituencies of manageable size which are close to the life of the Church at local level. All members of deanery synods are, by and large, members of parochial church councils and are involved directly in Church affairs. Election from deanery synods to the General Synod is by proportional representation—and here the Church of England is in advance of some other legislative bodies which one might talk about. But it means that under this system minorities have the best possible chance of being represented.
What saddens many of us is, first of all, that those who love and support and want to see more of the Book of Common Prayer do not seem to stand for election or, if they do so, they do not seem to get elected. In the Church of England, we long for and invite those who feel strongly in this matter to express themselves in the Church's proper councils by getting themselves elected. I am constantly surprised that the noble Lord who is so deeply involved in Church affairs and so learned in theology apparently has not sought election to the General Synod where, if he was elected, he could pursue his interests to an audience which would be very ready to hear it.
Let me say a final word on the constitutional issue. We know that it would be a serious departure from established practice if Parliament were to break the tradition of over 60 years and try to impose legislation

625
on the Church of England, without consultation and against what I believe would be fierce opposition. There has been in the press and other places recently some sabre rattling on the subject of disestablishment. Let me declare myself. I am a firm believer in establishment. It would be a tragedy further to weaken the links between Church and State. I believe that it would be bad for the Church because it would strengthen the sectarian elements within the Church, and bad for the nation because now, of all times, we need in our nation some continuing corporate acknowledgments of religious beliefs and sanctions to give us direction. But I hope that noble Lords will understand that in these very difficult days the Church of England is struggling to find its vocation in a society which is, by and large, indifferent towards organised forms of religion.
Those of us who stand at the centre of it have the problem, first of all, of trying to maintain viable congregations of committed people in an age when commitment has to be strong and lively if it is to be of service at all; and generally it is those strong and lively people at the centre of Church life who get elected to its councils and, ultimately, to the Synod. But alongside that problem of maintaining lively communities we have, secondly, the problem of remaining faithful to the past in an age which is radically different from that in which the Church was originally shaped. Thirdly, we have the problem in the Church of England of trying to retain our links with the half-committed and the occasionally interested and the folk
626
religionists. And, fourthly, we have the problem of trying to reach out towards those for whom our cultural heritage means little or nothing. In trying to balance those four things we, as bishops, are well aware that we are constantly having to indulge in a very difficult juggling act because many of these goals conflict with one another.
I would assure the House that there are many at the centre of the Church's life who are fully aware of the issues at stake, who are anxious to do justice to all the different interests, but who do not want their hands weakened by ill-considered legislation which would inevitably by reaction strengthen the forces of sectarianism within the Church. That, I am afraid, is what would happen if by some mischance this Bill were to be passed. That is why I do not believe that the end desired by the noble Lord can be obtained by the means proposed. It is good that this issue should have an airing.
I must apologise to the House for speaking for so long at so late an hour. I notice that the number of bishops is growing and there are many noble Lords who feel deeply on the issue and who want to speak, and I felt it right at the beginning of this debate that I should try to set out all the issues at some length and as clearly as I could. It is good that we should have this debate. It is good that these issues should be publicised because they are matters of wide interest and importance. I hope that at the end of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, will have the good sense to withdraw his Bill.
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I feel a certain degree of embarrassment in intruding into these high matters. Throughout my life (which has been beset by controversy in so many different fields) I have always been rather careful to steer clear of ecclesiastical politics. I do not now regret that I should have done so. But I have no doubt at all that my colleagues were right in imposing upon me the duty of speaking. In the ordinary course of Private Members' Bills, Her Majesty's Government adopt a neutral posture. Unhappily, in matters which raise grave questions of constitutional propriety and usage, this cannot be the case. In this case—at any rate in the view of Her Majesty's Government—such issues arise and it is my duty to tell the House without equivocation that on such grounds Her Majesty's Government cannot recommend to the House the passage of this Bill through Parliament.
I must first of all, in view of the course which the discussion has taken so far, remind the House, before I embark upon my task, what this Bill says and what it is about. It is nothing to do with the doctrine in the marriage service or in Evensong or in the service of confirmation or in the service of baptism. It is nothing whatever to do with the theological colleges. Its Long Title is to provide for parishioners—and parishioners, with great respect to my noble friend, have nothing whatever to do with theological colleges—of any parish to require certain forms of service to be used in the parish church.
My noble friend said that he was going to introduce an amendment in Committee about theological colleges. I wonder how he thinks he is going to do that in a Bill with a Long Title like this. The body of the Bill has nothing whatever to do with any of the services to which he refers. It is to do with the main service in the morning in the parish church; not the marriage service, not the confirmation service and not the baptismal service. Not with the doctrines; not with the bias of the BBC; and not with the jiggery-pokery which may or may not go on inside the parochial church council. The question with which we are faced is whether 20 persons, who happen to be on the electoral roll of the parish, are entitled to impose upon the rest of them once in a month what is called the Book of Common Prayer. Whether he means Matins, the Holy Communion or what was more common in my youth Matins and Ante-Communion, he does not say.
That is the problem with which we are confronted. I must first, I hope, establish that what my noble friend has said about the opinion of Chancellor Garth Moore (whom I have known for upwards of 50 years, since he was the Junior of the South Eastern Circuit) of which my noble friend was good enough to give me a copy, and what he says about the 14th volume of the fourth edition of Halsbury's Laws of England—on which I can possibly speak with greater authority because I happen to be the editor of it—is wholly misconceived. He does not understand its effect.
Of course Parliament in this country is sovereign. There can be no subject on which it is more clearly sovereign, and few on which it clearly has more often legislated than on the established Church of England and, to some extent, the established Church of Scotland.
628
Parliament can take away a man's life without a trial, and it has done so. Parliament can expropriate property without compensation, and it has done so. Parliament can pass retrospective legislation, and it has done so. Parliament can prolong its own life, and it has done that too, not so very long ago. But in all these cases its powers are not relevant to the question of constitutional wisdom or unwisdom, propriety or impropriety.
Here the question that arises has to do with the use of legislative sovereignty and not the existence of the sovereignty, which remains clear and beyond question. The question that arises is not whether, if the Bill were to receive the Royal Assent, would it become law. Of course it would become law. It is not whether my noble friend is within the rules of order in proposing its Second Reading in the House. Of course he is within the rules of order. The question is whether, having regard to the line of conduct pursued by successive Parliaments towards the Church of England, the passage of this Bill would be a retrograde step or a progressive step; and, what would be the constitutional implications if, in 1981, we pursued the course of action recommended by my noble friend.
First, let me deal with the question of doctrine and the doctrinal purity of the Alternative Book. It is as well that we should remember that Parliament itself is representative of the United Kingdom as a whole, and of its population as a whole. It represents Northern Ireland, where there is no established Church, and where the Church of Ireland, which uses the Book of Common Prayer to a large extent, is a minority even among the Protestant community, which is predominently Presbyterian. It represents Scotland, where there is an established Kirk which is not episcopal and which is absolutely free under the Kirk Assembly to prescribe its own forms of service and discipline. It represents Wales, where the Church in Wales was disestablished within my memory. It represents England where, although there is a Church established by law and represented in this House by the Bench of Bishops, there has been an increasing tendency, to which I shall make reference shortly, to leave matters of English Church discipline, doctrine and liturgy to specially constructed ecclesiastical assemblies with a specialised understanding of these things and perhaps more leisure than we possess to debate them in detail.
On the whole, and having spent the past 43 years of my life as a Member of one House or another, I would say without doubt that the increasing tendency of Parliament and the Church organisations to go their own ways has been of as much benefit to Parliament as it has been to the Church. I can well remember an occasion during my brief visit to the House of Commons in 1964 when I was compelled to listen to a 37 minute speech by the dreaded Sir Ronald Bell—himself, I believe, a Presbyterian—the main purpose of which was to show that the Scarf—which I am very pleased to see well in evidence this evening and which is the one specifically Anglican garment—was in fact an illegal Popish innovation. I mention that example to indicate that perhaps Parliament is not the best place in which to discuss the doctrine of the Atonement. Parliament, without in any way derogating

629
from its ultimate sovereignty, has progressively over the past 60 years and much longer, and in my opinion prudently, deliberately and to its enormous advantage, divested itself of any tendency to intrude on domestic English Church affairs, and has created specific ecclesiastical bodies expressly charged with the responsibility of making such intrusion unnecessary.
Of course I heard my noble friend in his peroration attack the credibility of Church government as a whole. If so, he is trifling with the subject by introducing this particular Bill. He had better think of revoking the powers of the Synod altogether. If the clergy are gerrymandering their agenda and if the parochial church councillors do not represent the worshippers, if the laity in the Synod are not representive of the laity, then this Bill is not a proper way of setting about remedying such a state of affairs. It has nothing whatever to do with the case.
The Church Assembly was created by Parliament in 1919. In 1969 we approved the Synodical Government Measure, which brought together the Church Assembly and the Convocations. In 1974, after very full debates in both Houses, we empowered the General Synod to legislate by canon for alternative services while retaining the Book of Common Prayer. It is under this umbrella that the Alternative Book has been published. The purpose was to enable the Church authorities to conduct their own affairs without Parliament becoming embroiled in any repetition of the undignified and wholly ineffectual attempts to prevent the general use, for instance, of the 1928 Prayer Book, or even of repeating the horrible fiasco of 1874, which some Church historians may remember. The Measure of 1974 was itself carefully calculated to avoid the renewal of these fiascos. It does, I believe, provide adequate safeguards for the laity if they would only use them.
There must be a two-thirds majority in the Synod, the laity and clergy of which are elected in the manner prescribed. The forms of the Book of Common Prayer must remain available. The choice lies with the incumbent and the parochial church council which is elective. If these do not agree with one another then the Common Prayer Service must be used unless, with the parochial church council's agreement, an alternative form has been regularly used for at least two years out of the last four. Although I express some preference for the Cranmer book myself, I have not noticed an angry crowd of worshippers banging at the doors when it is used, unable to get in because of the crowd inside.
It is in the light of this situation that my noble friend introduces his Bill. It provides that, notwithstanding any wish to the contrary on the part of the incumbent and the parochial church council, a minority of 20 is entitled to impose the form of service—it does not say, as I have remarked whether it be Holy Communion, Matins, or Matins and ante-Communion—once a month in the parish church at the principal morning service. It has no other provision.
I must say I could just understand a provision of this kind if my noble friend had gone the whole way and added a provision—following the tradition of the Act of Uniformity of Elizabeth I—that all 20 of these parishioners were compelled to attend the service they had imposed upon others under a penalty of a fine of
630
400 marks. It might, for instance, be a great pleasure to see my noble friend Lord Dacre, who I am glad to see is going to make his maiden speech, doing his penance in the pew at least once a month!
In the absence of such a provision, it seems to me that the Bill is a constitutional anomaly. Under its terms it does not matter if the church is empty or full; it does not matter if the majority of the worshippers like the service or if they do not; if 20 demand it, it must be done, even if none of the 20 goes. The absurdity of this seems to me to speak for itself and these empty churches will declare a new meaning to the old adage that there is room in the Church of England for everybody.
I cannot end this speech without a personal tribute to Cranmer's book. I do not call it the book of 1662. It is stamped on every page with the genius of Cranmer, from start to finish. He was a liturgiologist of the greatest genius, as, for instance, is recognised in the somewhat hostile criticism of him in the book on the shape of the liturgy by the late Dom Gregory Dix. His language was magical. His sense of dramatic structure was superb. To give only one example, the forms of the General Confession in the Communion Service are infinitely superior to those used in the Alternative Book.
As the right reverend Prelate has clearly admitted, he had the wisdom to keep the cadences of the 15th century language in the Lord's Prayer and the Creed. I once heard an episcopal service in Gaelic. I knew when the Lord's Prayer was being pronounced, because I knew its own cadences. It does not matter, because one knows the cadences, and it can be sung to the same music. Whether one says "Our Father which art in Heaven" or "Pater noster qui es in coelis" one knows that it is the Lord's Prayer, wherever it is said.
I am sorry that it has been found desirable to change it, and I was much encouraged by what the right reverend Prelate said about that. But it may also be true, for aught I know, that some of the supporters of the new book adopt somewhat superior attitudes to those who do not happen to agree with them. In particular, it may be that there has developed a new breed of ecclesiastical laymen; if so, I am not among them.
But these are no reasons, in my considered judgment, for Parliament to intervene in the manner proposed. The forms of service used in the Church of England must be canonically correct. I believe that the Alternative Book is; if not, it contravenes the law. I believe that it must be doctrinally sound, within acceptable bounds. I am bound to say that, contrary to what my noble friend says, I believe it to be so, although I do not myself claim to be doctrinally sound always. Above all, it must meet with the pastoral needs of the worshippers, which only the worshippers can decide for themselves. Even with petrol at £1·50 and more a gallon, many of us can find within reach a service of our own choosing, if we look for one.
It is not for Parliament to give small minorities a veto and, even if it did, the English language, magically embedded in Cranmer's book, could never be preserved by force of law. We are living in 1981 and not in 1681 or 1581 or 1481. We had better spend our time in

631
Parliament on the great needs of our present population—Anglican, Free Church, Church of Scotland, Roman Catholic, Jewish, Moslem and our numerous fellow citizens who belong to no known religion—and not pass a Measure which is contrary to the whole spirit of our laws that have been enacted since 1919. As a result of the fiasco of 1928, we ought to have learned that lesson long ago. The Government invite the House not to accept this Bill.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the fact that I am speaking from the Front Bench does not, in any way, imply that I am expressing a collective view on behalf of Labour Peers. This is a matter for the conscience of each noble Lord, and I hope, after listening to the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that that applies equally to the other side of the House. On his speech, I must say, with the greatest respect, that after 30 years in the two Houses I have never heard a more biased speech from a Government Minister on a Church Measure. On Church Measures, I believe that Government Ministers ought to be entirely neutral. If you read the speech which I made on the Worship and Doctrine Measure in 1974 you will find that it is in striking contrast to the speech which the noble and learned Lord has made today. From what noble Lords on my side of the House have told me, however, I think that what I have to say will be generally acceptable to a large number of them.
This is the second occasion on which the noble Lord has introduced a Bill to ensure the continued use in our parish churches of the Book of Common Prayer. I supported him on the last occasion although he did not press it to a Division, and I warmly support him on this occasion. I believe that the first question which we should ask ourselves is this: is there a real problem which makes the kind of arrangement which the noble Viscount is proposing necessary? I believe that there is a considerable problem. It is not a constitutional problem. It is not an administrative problem. It is an intensely human problem affecting tens of thousands of our fellow countrymen. It is a problem which is causing widespread disquiet throughout the country, and in many cases real anguish.
The Synod has launched an Alternative Services Book. I do not complain in any way about that. I have no objection to it. I noted what was said in the Synod when the book was introduced. Indeed, there are safeguards in the Worship and Doctrine Measure of 1974. But the problem to which the noble Lord's Bill is addressed is that the Book of Common Prayer is never used in a great many churches—I have made very careful inquiries about this—while in others it has been relegated to the status of an antiquity which is brought out, rather grudgingly, occasionally and used for the odd service at a very inconvenient time. I have experience of this myself. So the safeguards in the Worship and Doctrine Measure and the assurances at its launching are, to say the least, not working as we expected.
A generation of young people is growing up in this country to whom the Book of Common Prayer will be completely unfamiliar. I think that is a real tragedy. There is evidence, to which the Bishop of Durham has
632
referred—professionally assembled evidence—that what is happening is against the wishes of the majority of churchgoers. But the process of substitution—and I am afraid that that really is what is happening—goes on relentlessly throughout the country. I think "relentlessly" is the right word. I am told that the process is fuelled by the enthusiasm of the bishops, who twist the arms of the incumbents, as only bishops know how, and any incumbent who holds out is too often regarded as an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has any direct evidence to support that serious allegation?
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I am making my speech in my own way, and I am saying that I have been told by a number of incumbents that this is so. The right reverend Prelate has quoted the Carlisle diocesan newsletter. I live in the diocese of Carlisle. If he is telling me that incumbents do not take any notice of what is written in the diocesan newsletter, then I am afraid he does not know the facts of life about parishioners in our parishes. I do not know whether noble Lords have seen that newsletter and its contents. Let me tell the House what it says:
"But in her wisdom and with no lack of prayer and scholarship, the Church of England has counselled, surely under the guidance of the Spirit, that for our health's sake the blood must be changed. What matters now is that the operation should be swift and complete. It is time therefore to abandon political tactics and cover up titles which suggest that this is no more than an alternative and that 1662 stands unscathed. The new book must become the prayer book of the Church of England. If it does not do so quickly, several generations will be left in limbo".
That appeared in my own diocesan newsletter.
I do not want to be unkind or unfair to the bishops, but the problem is that both they and the Synod appear to be impervious to the protests. I have read the temperate words and I have heard the temperate words which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said in reply to the petition of the 600. But I have also read the other speech to which he refers and I have here the Church Times report of it—not the report of the Daily Telegraph or the Daily Mirror but the report of the Church Times:
"This gentleman drew loud applause when he said in the debate that many who signed were rarely seen in church, and added: 'For far too long we have been spiritually castrated by the arrogance of the cultural establishment'.".
For sheer unChristian arrogance, those words, spoken in the Synod, would be very hard to beat. That was in reply to a petition from 600 eminent people throughout the country. So I think I am entitled to say that not all the bishops, but many of them do appear to be impervious to the feelings of people about this.
So far as I am aware, the public opinion poll drew no official response, except that so far as one could judge from the outside the steamroller was driven even faster. So there is a two-fold problem, as I see it—and I am speaking for myself—of the established Church introducing a major liturgical reform in such a way as to ignore the views of large numbers of its members. This is an age of conservation. Ratepayers and taxpayers throughout the country are digging deeply into their pockets to preserve the best in our physical heritage. We now have the National Heritage

633
Fund. Buildings are listed and protected; demolition is forbidden by law. But the Church of England has done the biggest demolition job of the lot in recent years. Maybe it was not exactly demolition, but they have erected a shiny, brassy new office block in front, so that only occasionally can one get a glimpse of the beautiful old building behind it.
I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, for giving us a chance once more to discuss this matter. Of course the Bill's opponents, as always, regress, as last time, into constitutional arguments. Indeed the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham prefaced his speech by asking us to keep off the merits of the alternative services—the doctrinal matters. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said this even more forcefully, as he always does, and then of course proceeded to discuss doctrinal matters.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord really means that? Can he mention one doctrine that I discussed, out of the Nicene creed or any of the other creeds?
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will read his speech tomorrow—and I am sure he always reads his speeches—
The Lord Chancellor: No, my Lords. The noble Lord has made a charge against me. I ask him to substantiate it or withdraw it and not ask me to read my own speech.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will look at his speech tomorrow he will see that he said—and I quote, because I wrote it down—"I now come to doctrinal matters".
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, my Lords, and what I said was that Parliament was not the place to discuss them and that is within the recollection of the House. So I did not discuss them.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tomorrow will read what he said. I have nothing to withdraw on that.
I believe that we should now apply ourselves to the real human problem. But of course the opponents of the Bill tell us that Parliament has surrendered its right to legislate on Church matters; not its legal constitutional right but its de facto right, if I may put it that way. I completely refute that view. The noble Lord quoted Halsbury's Laws of England. Of course, as the noble and learned Lord said, the Church-State relationship has changed a great deal. There have been a number of Measures to give the Church greater freedom in its own affairs, culminating in the Worship and Doctrine Measure of 1974. It is an evolving relationship but it is a simple, irrefutable fact that if the Church of England remains the established Church, Parliament retains the right to legislate.
634
It is not a case of imposing legislation, as the right reverend Prelate said. This is a sovereign Parliament and the Church of England is the national Church, established by law.
I do not like quoting the Daily Telegraph, but I think it got it right on Tuesday. It said:
"If Church establishment means anything it is Parliament's manifest duty to intervene now to protect the Church's tradition of worship, the right of the laity and a precious part of the English inheritance."
If any right reverend Prelate contests that conclusion, then I am going to demand that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, reads the Prayers in your Lordships' Chamber. I am going to demand that Lord Janner, a distinguished ex-chairman of the Board of British Jews be given the opportunity occasionally to read the Prayers in this Chamber. When Lords reform comes to be discussed I am going to suggest either that the Anglican bishops are removed from this House or that all the others are brought in. And when a new Monarch comes to be crowned, if I am still around, I am going to demand that all denominations have a share in the coronation.
The Church cannot have it both ways. Either the Church of England retains the privileges of establishment and if so Parliament retains the right to intervene, or Parliament surrenders that right and the Church of England surrenders its privileges. In the past decade the Church of England has tried, I think, rather to have the best of both worlds. The Worship and Doctrine Measure was followed by the new procedure for the nomination of bishops. I am not sure that that is working; I had hoped that the Bishop of Durham would tell us, but there it is. These, I think, we saw, many of us—and I said this to the archbishop; I conducted the initial discussions between the Government and the Church on this—as two steps towards the disestablishment of the Church. But at the same time the Church holds up its hands in horror at any suggestion that this sovereign Parliament should still have the right to legislate on Church matters, except at the request of the Synod, and that was the gist of the learned Lord Chancellor's speech. Of course, the Government to which the learned Lord Chancellor belongs has not, for example, hesitated to legislate about the trade unions, but it advises us not to legislate about the Church.
In the face of the present problem which I have described, the intensely human problem, not only has Parliament the right but I believe it has the duty to intervene. So, one, there is a problem; two, Parliament has the right to deal with it. I now ask another question. What is the source of the disquiet and often the anguish? I believe there are three reasons for this, and I put them in ascending order of importance. First, there is the language question. I think that is probably the least important. We are told the language of the Book of Common Prayer is archaic and therefore it is an impediment to worship, especially in the case of young people. The Bishop of London in our last debate said:
"…many for whom the language of Cranmer is meaningless and without relevance".
But, we are told, if this language is translated into the language of Oxford Street it is going to be more meaningful and more people will be attracted to church.

635
Everybody I have talked to about this takes exactly the opposite view, especially young people. I think a Gallup poll showed this with regard to young people. It is a mistaken view of the psychology of teenagers to believe that they want this changed; teenagers love the Cranmer Prayer Book language. Why should we not, when talking to God, use the English language at its very best. Why should we not retain the "thee" and "thou" as a mark of our reverence when we address the Almighty? When I go to a service where the word "you" is substituted for "thou" I never say it, I always say "thou", because I have a feeling that if I say the word "you" to the Almighty I am committing a great discourtesy. I am very pleased to hear what the Bishop of Durham said about the Lord's Prayer, but even when it is in the old form it is very often posited up by saying "who" for "which" and "those" for "them". But if the bishops insist, as the Bishop of Durham has done, that we must use the language of Oxford Street to speak to God, why not the dress of Oxford Street for his ministers?
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting again, but the noble Lord is making so many extraordinary statements that I would be grateful if he would point to the place in my speech where I told this House that we must use the language of Oxford Street.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I do not think that the right reverend Prelate mentioned the words "Oxford Street", but I—
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, or anything equivalent? Would the noble Lord please do me the courtesy of reading my speech in Hansard tomorrow and noting very carefully whether I said anything which can be interpreted as anything approaching the way in which he has referred to my speech?
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate did not say that then, I of course withdraw. However. I fall back on what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said in the last debate, which I have already quoted, and on what many others have said. I was talking about dress. If we must have modern language why not modern dress for God's ministers? When the bishops go to their cathedrals on Sunday to hail the risen Lord will they be wearing corduroy trousers and pullovers?—of course not. They will wear their richest and most glorious vestments—cloth of gold and all the rest—and rightly so. They will be arrayed like Solomon in all his glory. Why then do they insist that when I go to church on Easter Sunday to hail the risen Lord I have to use the verbal equivalent of corduroy trousers and pullover—and very tatty ones at that?
An incumbent said to me some time ago, "How can I stand up before my Midlands congregation with probably a majority of immigrants and say:
"Dearly beloved Brethren, the scripture moveth as in sundry places to acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and wickednesses. Wherefore I pray and beseech you as many as are here present to accompany me to the Throne of the heavenly Grace saying after me"
and so on?"
636
But why on earth not?—provided that he says it in a meaningful way.
Very recently I attended Matins in a small church in the new country of Vanuatu which used to be called the New Hebrides. The service was straight out of the Cranmer Prayer Book. The open-sided church was packed with men, women and children and they loved every minute of it. The Book of Common Prayer was written at the high watermark of the English language and I think that it is right and proper that we should retain it for our worship.
The second reason for disquiet is that people find the old language a tremendous comfort—and language can be a comfort. Indeed, the Book of Common Prayer recognises the comfort that people can derive from language in the communion service when it says:
"Hear what comfortable words our Saviour Christ sayeth"
and so on. I wonder whether it is sufficiently realised how much comfort people do derive from, for example, the beautiful, cool services of Matins and Evensong. So there is, I think, an acute sense of deprivation of comfort—and comfort is a basic human need.
The third reason for disquiet is that I believe that the new language weakens and makes much more diffuse the definition of Church doctrine. The noble Viscount made this point in some detail on the last occasion. I believe that this is the influence of radical theology in the Church which shies away from definition and calls it dogma; it is the theology that has diluted religious education in our schools to a point at which it has become almost meaningless.
However, I believe that in this age of waning belief and disintegrating standards the need surely is for clearer definition, not more diffuse definition. I often wonder whether the Church has lost confidence in its own faith to the extent that it, too, is unwilling to define doctrine with clarity. In the Book of Common Prayer there are dozens of memorable phrases which encapsulate the doctrine of the Church of England in the clearest and most unforgettable way. So I think that the reason for the disquiet which causes the problem that we face this evening is, first, a matter of language; secondly, the loss of comfort that the old words gave; and, thirdly, some weakening of doctrine.
Finally, it has been said that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. I have always felt that that was nonsense; it is arithmetical nonsense anyhow. The Battle of Waterloo, as with countless other great endeavours in which our island race has been involved over the centuries, in my view was won in the musty pews of thousands of parish churches across the land, where our forbears learned the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments and the Church Catechism. Their courage, their fortitude, their faith owed very much more to this little book than to any other single factor. They were nurtured on it in their youth; it sustained them in the heat of the day; it comforted them as they grew older. This innocuous looking little book has for three centuries—for 12 generations—been the cornerstone of English life, of English culture and of English morals. We in our generation must be mindful of this heritage, which is now endangered. If the Church, established by law, cannot protect it, the sovereign Parliament of this realm has the right and the duty to do so.
10.27 p.m.
Lord Dacre of Glanton: My Lords, I ask your customary indulgence, which I am sure that I shall need, on addressing this House for the first time, and perhaps especially for addressing your Lordships on a subject which in the last few days has become one of public controversy. I can only hope that although the subject is controversial, I shall be able to handle it in an uncontroversial manner, merely remarking in this preliminary personal apologia that as a doctor of divinity and a regular worshipper in the chapel of which I have the honour to be the ordinary, I do not quite understand the personal remarks about my non-attendance at church made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend did not take me too seriously.
Lord Dacre of Clanton: My Lords, in these few remarks I wish to make only a few, as I see it, cardinal points. First, it is of course said that the State, by previous enactments, has allowed the Church, in religious matters, a certain amount of autonomy and that the balance thus achieved should not now be disturbed. But autonomy is not independence. Parliament has not surrendered its sovereignty. The authority which grants autonomy grants it within limits, explicit or implied, and if those limits are transgressed, it can—perhaps must—intervene to regulate, redefine or even withdraw such autonomy.
If the Church Establishment wants independence, it wants disestablishment. Here I entirely agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. The Church cannot logically demand, as some of its leaders in their recent public pronouncement seem to demand, the absolute freedom of independence combined with all the advantages of establishment. In this particular case I submit that the Church authorities are seeking to break and have, in fact, already broken the express terms of the autonomy conditionally granted to them. They are seeking to change what has been called the lifeblood of the Church. Had they stated openly that this was their intention, would Parliament have granted them that autonomy? I do not think so. But they have adopted what is known as "salami tactics", and now it is they who are effectively disturbing the agreed balance between Church and State; and Parliament, I submit, has the duty in such cases to intervene to protect that balance.
Secondly, it is said that this is merely a question of language; that the language of Archbishop Cranmer is not intelligible today; that it is too archaic for common use; that we should put God at His ease by addressing Him in more familiar tones. My Lords, the language of the Prayer Book (as of the Authorised Version) is not unintelligible. Not only is it part of our literature—all our literature is impregnated with it, and will lose part of its resonance without it—it is merely a little more stately, more elevated, than our everyday language, and can very easily be learned. We all use different levels of language. We speak differently perhaps in this House and in our homes; and within this House we speak differently before the Throne and in the bar. Religion requires elevation in language in order to inspire depth of feeling. The
638
House of the Lord may deserve a little more profundity even than the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor has said that the Prayer Book will not be preserved by legislation; but it will be preserved by use, and that is all that we ask for—continued, guaranteed use.
It will be said that this movement in the Church is not confined to the Church of England; that liturgical innovation is a general phenomenon of today: a response to the needs of the time, the demands of the young, the claims of the future. How are we to be sure that this demand for ritual innovation is not like so many other demands of the trendy 1960s? Those of us who live and teach in universities know how quickly such fashions change; but we also know how their former advocates—the unreconstructed trendsetters of yester-year—though increasingly isolated can, by mere survival in key positions, artificially prolong an increasingly obsolete fashion. It would be a tragedy if the inheritance of the Church were to be sacrificed, as it could be, by the mere artificial prolongation of a dated trend.
For who are the advocates of these innovations? Let us be clear on this. They are not the Church. The Church is the congregation of the faithful, clergy and lay alike, and it includes many who loyally adhere without pedantically subscribing. That is the difference between a Church and a sect. An established Church has a particular duty towards the laity: a duty of tolerance and comprehension. The laity is not to be dragged unwillingly forward along a particular road by a party of activists exploiting their customary loyalty and deference.
I would not venture to use this language on such an occasion merely on my own authority. I am echoing the views of a right reverend Prelate who has written to me and authorised me to quote the words which he says he would himself have used had he been here:
"I fear"—
writes the Bishop of Peterborough—
"that members of congregations and parish councils are pusillanimous when it comes to standing up against the few who have a lust for perpetual innovation".
I hope your Lordships will allow me, as a historian, to glance back over the history of the Church of England. Our Church obtained its distinctive character in the 16th century as the result of a revolt of the laity against a clergy which had lost contact with it. A century later, the same Church of England was in its turn overthrown; its hierarchy abolished, its liturgy suppressed, its property sold, even its cathedrals advertised for scrap. Why? Not because the laity repudiated it, but because even the most loyal of them had been temporarily alienated by the "innovations" precipitately imposed by a too radical clerical party within it. They stood aside in its hour of danger, and it fell.
How is it, we may ask, that it was, nevertheless, after nearly 20 years of intermission, restored? Because the same laity, during those long years when its outward organisation had been destroyed, kept it alive in the catacombs using, as the last and strongest symbol of its continuing life, the Prayer Book of Archbishop Cranmer. After victory, that liturgy, having proved its almost talismanic power, was reassembled in the 1662 Prayer Book, that very Prayer Book which our modern innovators are seeking quietly to destroy. I hope the laity, which as Cardinal Newman wrote

639
is the real measure of the Church—of any church—will once again prevent such destruction.
10.37 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dacre of Glanton, on his excellent maiden speech. I first became aware of his scholarship with his book The Last Days of Hitler, which I read with particular interest when it came out, partly because I knew he was a leading light of an earlier generation at my school and partly because I had been to Hitler's bunker before it was flooded. The noble Lord brings to this House a wealth of scholarship and a deep sense of history and I feel sure I speak for all noble Lords when I say we hope we may often have the benefit of those qualities in the future.
While I have a limited amount of sympathy for the basic proposal of the Bill, I deplore that it should come before your Lordships' House in the form of a Bill. I say straight away that I value both the Common Prayer Book, with its expression of Protestant reformed doctrine, and the modern services of the ASB. I use the former for private prayer, but I believe the new forms of worship have brought a freshness and relevance to our corporate worship. Because we no longer think and express ourselves as they did in Tudor and Stuart times and because many of the words and phrases have changed their meaning, it is only right that we should have forms of worship in contemporary English.
I do not want to lengthen my speech, but I feel should substantiate that. Not many people have difficulty with words which have obviously changed their meaning; for example, the word "prevent"—very few people think that word in the context means "stop us". But I came upon one example where a subtle change of meaning had misled certainly me for a long time, and that is in the Creed where it says, "Our Lord rose again according to the Scriptures", which I had always understood meant, "as reported by the Scriptures"—as one might say, "as reported by Reuters". But the new form of service has a different way of wording it—"In accordance with the Scriptures"—to show that Our Lord's resurrection was in fact foretold by the Old Testament and was a fulfilment of it.
However fine the old English sounds, to many people—and to many people whom I know—it is often simply not intelligible. Furthermore the new services have helped children to be brought into our corporate worship. Despite the occasional distraction that inevitably results from that, I believe that it can be only for the overall good. All the same, one has to recognise that there are some people—many people—who find it uncongenial, or worse, to worship in contemporary English. That is a factor that has to be taken into account, and we must recognise that we have to allow for their feelings.
I believe that it is right for the majority in a parish to choose the form of worship to be used, but sensitive consideration needs to be given to the minority views, whatever they are. This is especially the case in rural parishes where there may be only one service each week, or perhaps even less often than that. Even if the proposal in the Bill were to provide the basis of a
640
solution to the problem, it seems to me ludicrous that it could ever be considered appropriate for all kinds and sizes of parish. That is why I believe that this kind of problem is best dealt with at local level, by the parish, with the encouragement of the archdeacon or the bishop, rather than by the sledgehammer of an Act of Parliament.
There are two particular reasons why feel that the bringing forward of this Bill is inappropriate. The first reason is the obvious one that the passing of the Bill would certainly be seen in the Church, at any rate in widespread measure in the Church, as contrary at least to the spirit of the Worship and Doctrine Measure of 1974; and would cause much resentment. In my view it would have a retrograde and damaging effect on the relations between Church and State. My second reservation is perhaps less straightforward, but I believe no less important. This debate is bound to receive much publicity, but I do not believe that this publicity will be helpful to the Church, or indeed to the Christian cause in general. The impression is bound to be given that all that Christians, or at least Anglicans, care about is to wage an endless controversy about liturgy; and often, I am afraid to say, we are guilty of waging it without charity—in the 1662 sense of the word, at that. At the very worst we lay ourselves open to the charge of being concerned more with ecclesiastical politics than with the great spiritual, moral and social issues of our day.
In many parts of the world the Christian Church is growing at a rate not seen since the Acts of the Apostles. In North and South America, Asia and Africa, the growth can be described as "explosive". Let me give just one example. I believe that there are now more Christians in Kenya than there are in Britain, despite the fact that our population is four times as large. Despite some welcome signs, this growth is not taking place in our country. In the current economic jargon we can perhaps be said to have "bottomed out"—but not much more. Why are we not seeing Christian growth here? Is the fault with the Church? Does it lie with all of us? What is to be done?
If there is to be public discussion about Church affairs, as indeed there should be, those are the questions that have a vital relevance to our society. As for the matter of this Bill, it should quietly be resolved within the existing Church framework, and then laid to rest. All that is needed is an element of give and take on both sides. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, having achieved a debate that has attracted so much interest in your Lordships' House, and outside of it, will rest content and will not press the Bill to a Division.
10.45 p.m.
The Duke of Portland: My Lords, rising with trepidation to address your Lordships for the first time, I crave your indulgence. The Bill which is before your Lordships is, I understand, intended to ensure that the parishioners of any parish who so desire should be guaranteed the privilege of worshipping with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. When the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure came before your Lordships' House in 1974, the most reverend Primate the then Archbishop of Canterbury stated that the Measure was intended to give the Book of Common

641
Prayer a secure place which could only be altered by the action of Parliament itself. In winding up the debate on that Measure the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London said:
"I think that I can speak on behalf of those who sit on these Benches when I say that we shall do our best to see in our dioceses that where there are people who love and want the use of the 1662 Prayer Book, then every effort will be made to provide for them".—[Official Report, 14/11/74, col. 941.]
Moreover, the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure of 1974 laid down that the powers of the General Synod
"shall be so exercised as to ensure that the forms of service contained in the Book of Common Prayer continue to be available for use in the Church of England".
However, there is a somewhat widespread feeling that those who desire to attend services at which the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is used experience difficulty in doing so. I can well understand that an incumbent who does not appreciate the rich flavour of the language of Archbishop Cranmer in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer may regard as retrograde, and even tiresome, those who apply for services at which that book will be used. I fear that some such incumbents, when requested to hold services with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, only arrange to hold such services at unwanted hours—for instance, 11 a.m. on Tuesdays and not at normal Sunday Matins—and cause those who make this request to feel that they are irritating oddities.
In his speech to your Lordships in the debate on 14th November 1974 the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, expressed a fear that the incumbents who do not appreciate the forceful beauty of the language of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer would relegate this book to the vestry and perhaps eventually to the pulping machine. I would venture to suggest to your Lordships that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is part of our literary heritage, as much as the works of Shakespeare, and that to condemn to oblivion this work, which has been sanctified by centuries of devout use, could be regarded as a sacrilege.
This short Bill now before your Lordships is no more than an effort to give parishioners confidence that the undertakings given when the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure was passed are being and will be carried out. If the Bill now before your Lordships is thrown out and is not replaced by some Measure, be what it may, reaffirming the position of the Book of Common Prayer, I fear this will be regarded by the public as an indication that the leaders of the Church desire that the use of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer should definitely cease.
10.49 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, it is my great pleasure to be the first to congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Portland, on his distinguished maiden speech. He spoke with brevity and with great sincerity and skill, and I waited with interest to see how non-controversial he would be. The noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, is to be congratulated on getting so many Peers to put their names down to speak in this debate, including the two maiden speakers, better known still for their eminence under other names. We shall look forward to hearing both of them in further debates in your Lordships' House, when perhaps they will be (may I say it?) even less inhibited than they were today.
642
The noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, is to be congratulated on getting so many bishops to attend. Sitting where I do in the Chamber I am relieved that I am on the same side as they are and also not out of sympathy with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. What I am going to say is for myself and not for my party. Feelings are strong about this Bill. We already have had interesting speeches from all parts of the House. It is right the matter should be discussed. Having said that, I do not like it and do not think it should be taken further. I seek to be brief.
First, whatever one feels about the question we are discussing, I believe it would be wrong to override by an Act of Parliament such decisions as the General Synod may make. The Church of England is the established Church. I believe it is capable of keeping its own house in order and should be allowed to do so without compulsion. Secondly, and contrary to what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Sudeley and Lord Glenamara, and following the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham in his distinguished contribution, I, too, should like to refute the argument that the clergy are involved in some sinister plot to impose a new form of worship on an unwilling and resentful congregation. My experience from serving on a church council for 18 years is that we consider all points of view, although it is not possible to keep everybody happy all the time. Our rector is a man of intelligence and integrity and a good capacity for leadership; but if the council say, No, to any of his moves, there is no question but that he falls into line with its opinion.
While for the most part using the Alternative Service Book, we have regular services from the traditional Prayer Book and it is most unlikely, if a body of 20 sincerely frustrated parishioners raised any protest with the rector and wardens, that some compromise would not be sought. The right reverend Prelate said that 20 people was a small minority. But if 20 people raised a matter it would be seriously considered. This is a matter of human relations—and on this I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, and that is about the only thing that I agree with him about—and not a question for the law. Thirdly, I like the Alternative Service Book, and increasingly so as I get to know it better. There are magnificent passages, no one doubts, in the old Prayer Book, whether you call it the Cranmer or the 1662 Prayer Book, which I cannot believe will fall completely into disuse. I think it is wrong to think that all inspiration ended several centuries ago and any change is trendy and bad.
I humbly submit my impression as a layman (and I think the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, said something of the same thing) that the Church today is moved by a vitality it has not known for years. My grandfather was very musical, but he condemned Tschaikovsky as being too modern for his taste. Habit makes it easier to appreciate what we are familiar with. We should not condemn because at first we do not know the work so well.
To summarise, this evening's debate makes plain that there is considerable concern about what is going on in our churches. That is all for the good. I accept that there is disagreement over what the order of service should be, not least when one tries to link

643
up as in my parish with the Catholics or Baptists. I like many of the changes that have been introduced in our worship and I accept that others will differ. I cannot see there is a need of justification for a Bill of this kind. I believe its purpose could best be fulfilled by discussion and perhaps compromise at parish level, if necessary by guidance rather than compulsion.
10.55 p.m.
Earl Waldegrave: My Lords, I am honoured at being the first person to be able to speak from these Benches in congratulation of the two maiden speakers that we have heard tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Dacre of Glanton—as yet probably better known as Hugh Trevor-Roper to his enormous body of admirers outside and inside this House—has shown how greatly we are to be advantaged by his having come among us here. May he speak often and on that wide variety of subjects—including history—which he has at his command. To the noble Duke, the Duke of Portland, may I say better—much much better—late than never! We welcome him also very much among us, the bearer of his great title. He brings with him a very great knowledge and experience of the new world of African affairs. May he also often speak in this House.
My Lords, I think that it is significant that two such distinguished and different men should have wished to make their maiden speeches in this House on the Bill that is now before us. It is also significant that a similar Bill has been introduced into another place this very afternoon under the 10 Minute Rule, and I actually listened to it from the Gallery of another place this afternoon. It was interesting, to say the least, to see that the other place was well attended and that the Bill was allowed to be introduced by 152 votes to 132.
As in your Lordships' House, the powers that be were perhaps not too keen in another place that that should have happened; but it did happen. The arguments there that I listened to were very much the arguments that we must hear and have already heard and will hear again tonight in this House. I think one can sum them up. They really are these. Those who are supporting these Bills say that we need them because provisos and assurances and undertakings that were given do not appear to be being wholly honoured. There is a need for a Bill to reinforce them. Assurances were given in the debate in 1974, which I must refer to again and which has been referred to already, when the Worship and Doctrine Measure of the Synod was put before this House. Assurances were given. Have they been kept in the manner that we and the whole House then anticipated? Of course change is necessary. It is always necessary. We need evolution; we need development. But we have perhaps had revolution instead of evolution.
It is agreed by all that there should be alternative services; but the whole point that was agreed and is agreed—and that nobody so far who has spoken denies—is that there should be alternatives and not substitutes. This is what this Bill and the Bill that is before the other place this afternoon give us an opportunity to examine.
The arguments against the Bill fall perhaps into two parts: the constitutional one that it would be very
644
undesirable to say now that we are going to take back powers we have given to the Synod and increasingly given to the Synod ever since the enabling Act, I think it was, of 1919, which culminated perhaps in that very all-embracing and fundamental Measure, the Worship and Doctrine Measure. That is what religion is about. It is the two things: doctrine and worship. We are told that to pass Acts now which in any way takes away from the Synod all that has been given would be upsetting and wrong.
I am not qualified to speak on those constitutional points, but I am tempted to try to make clear the point that the Church is not yet disestablished. As Our Lord once said, what does it say on the tribute money? As noble Lords will know, it bears the letters DG FD—By the Grace of God, Defender of the Faith—and it is the Sovereign's head which is on the tribute money. The Sovereign acts through her Ministers and through her Parliaments and is still head of the Church. I should have thought that there was room at least for doubt as to whether or not we can still legislate. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack said that of course we have the power to legislate on Church matters or on any matters; it is a question of expediency whether we should do so. I think it expedient, at any rate, to talk about it and to think about it.
Indeed, every measure that the Synod passes has to pass through your Lordships' House and then the other place before it becomes effective and legal. It is examined by an all-party committee of both Houses which sits in this House under the noble Lord, Lord Cross of Chelsea, and on which I have the honour to sit. The Church sometimes seems to take the view, and likes to speak often, as if it was already disestablished. It is, in a way, already de facto disestablished, but it is certainly not disestablished de jure.
If we have doubts, and many people do have doubts, I believe we are entitled in Parliament to legislate so as to ensure that the Church does in fact do what it said it would do if we gave it certain powers. So I, for one, will vote for the Bill. I think we have all the evidence we need to come to a decision in this matter, by reference to two main documents. There are an enormous number of other documents to which we could refer if there were time. The debate in 1974 was a very full debate and it took place at a more humane time; it started at 3 p.m. and finished at 7.30 p.m., and there was no reason why there should be anything but a very full House on that occasion. Then there is the evidence of the ASB—the Alternative Service Book—itself.
Taking the 1974 debate first, I should like to quote some of the things that were actually said. For instance, the most reverend Primate Archbishop Ramsay commented at column 871:
"But in order to conserve both the Church's doctrinal identity and the place of the Book of Common Prayer, and the rights of the laity—all three of these needs, my Lords—there are important provisos built into the Measure and sometimes critics of the Measure have overlooked this".
He then went on to say what the provisos were.
"In the Measure the Book of Common Prayer remains as one of the Church's standards of doctrine".
He went on:
"I believe that this retention of the Prayer Book, both as a

645
standard of doctrine and as a set of forms available when the PCC desires them, is a right means of conserving … The place of the Prayer Book in the Church's standards and the availability of the Prayer Book in the parishes when desired will be alterable only if Parliament were to decide to alter it".
This has been said over and over again ever since that day; but if you go further through that debate you will find at other points the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who was courteous enough to answer the speech I made on that occasion, spoke quite clearly about this. I see he is not in his place and I should have warned him that I would refer to something he said.
He said this at column 896:
"This is not to be a new prayer book. It is certainly not intended as something which would replace the Book of Common Prayer … The age of little blue and green and pink pamphlets in church cannot go on for ever. Nor can revision, in our generation, go very much further than it has done already".
I am afraid that this is what is so worrying, because the age of little pink, green or blue pamphlets has not come to an end. We have now got the Alternative Service Book, the ASB, available. But this is not going to be like the Prayer Book was, in the pews. You cannot read this book. It is more like a motor manual and it is one of those manuals that covers all the different makes of cars. You have to read down one column to follow whether it is referring to the Allegro and not to the Metro. It is not a prayer book, like the other, and it is not very easily available in the churches. It costs £4.50 a time, with the Psalter in it, and when I finally bought my copy from the bookshop in Wells Cathedral—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if I may intervene, it does cost much less in the soft cover.
Earl Waldegrave: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, my Lords, for telling me there is a cheaper model. But it is not a handy little book that you can use: it is a reference book which tells you all sorts of alternatives. It is a very difficult book to understand at first sight. Of course it has not been in print for very long and I have not had very much time to study it; but you really cannot get on unless you start reading how you are to use it. You need to read page 32, for instance, the general notes, which are called "distinctions in the text". It goes on:
"Distinctions in the Text sections of services with numbers in blue may be omitted. Where a number of options are included in a mandatory part of the service, the rubric governing the options is numbered in black, but the texts themselves are numbered in blue. Texts in bold type are to be said by the congregation".
But I cannot find the carburettor! I do not want to be light-hearted, but it is complicated to follow.
It has a Psalter, and the lady who sold me this book told me, "Mind you, the mice have been at that, too". I had not realised that it would not be the Psalter that I knew, and that if I looked up Psalms 95 or 121 they would not be the same. This means that we shall not find the Book of Common Prayer bound up in this volume. If we are to have the Book of Common Prayer available and usable, there will have to be two books. That will surely mean the most tremendous confusion, because there are many changes of little words. It is these small changes of little words that are worrying the ordinary layman. Those of your Lord-
646
ships who have studied this will know that they are trivial alterations. For instance,
"O, come let us sing unto the Lord",
is now
"O come let us sing out to the Lord".
It will not scan.
I said that the little pink pamphlets have not gone, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham hoped they would go. What is beginning to happen is that a certain section of an alternative service, with the optional words which the incumbent has chosen to use, will be "roneod" out on the village machine. We in our diocese shall then have to submit what we wish to use to someone in authority—probably at the diocesan office—to see whether we are using the options aright. What will be the result of this? No two churches in England will be having the same service in the same form, and every time the incumbent changes he will alter it. This has been going on for 15 years, while we have had Series 2 and Series 3. No two churches have celebrated Holy Communion with the same Series 2.
So I am afraid that I have to say, from my experience, that the Book of Common Prayer has disappeared and is not in most of the churches now—I am talking of the country churches—in a stack close to the door, or handy when you go in. You will be handed a little pamphlet and a hymn book, or perhaps two hymn books. But we are not going to have what I think so many of us hoped we should have, which is that after the experimentation with the Series 1, 2 and 3, the Synod and the Church, as a whole, would have made up its mind what it wanted to have as alternative services and it would have had them printed and published in one book. In answer to my speech in 1974, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, I recall, that my idea that the Book of Common Prayer and the two alternative services should be printed in the same volume was rather a good one. But we have not got that. A new incumbent was appointed quite recently, and there are three disparate churches, congregations and parochial church councils for the man to wrestle with. He is a young clergyman and he had never used the Book of Common Prayer in his theological college. He was unfamiliar with it. Many of us go from church to church to find that service at eight o'clock on Sunday mornings.
The assurance given was that the Book of Common Prayer was going to remain with us and always would be used. But it is not even taught in the theological colleges and it is not used very much. If one listens to the wireless one finds that the Book of Common Prayer is not used in the services which are normally broadcast by the BBC. I think that it should be, otherwise there will be endless permutations so that nobody will know where they are or what they are going to find next.
As for the already quoted Carlisle diocesan magazine, whether or not that was a personal letter I do not know, but the newsletter editor of that magazine could have checked its publication if he thought that it was unwise. But that was not done. If one were to use the language of Oxford Street for a moment, that letter said, "Let's stop messing about and get on with it. Let's say that we've finished with 1662. No one's using it, so let's say so". I think that let the cat out of the bag.

647
I pray, therefore, that it may not be too late. I know that we are still the established Church. When I know that and when I realise that the Sovereign still is the head of the Church of England I say with real reverence, and meaning what the words say, "Thank God".
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him to clarify one point. He spoke about endless combinations and permutations. Why would it make it better to have in the Bill a provision that there should be alternation between the Book of Common Prayer and the Alternative Service Books?
Earl Waldegrave: Because, my Lords, the assurance was that new forms of service for all the services—Holy Communion, Matins, Evensong, marriage and so on—would be agreed upon by the Synod and published in an Alternative Service Book but that the old service book would remain to be used on occasions when it was wanted.
11.20 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, we have been privileged this evening to listen to two of the most impressive maiden speeches which I have heard in this House. After those speeches, I venture to take part in this debate with an increased recognition of my own inadequacy. I am not well versed in the theology or the inner politics of the established Church. I fear that I take out from church activities much more than I put in. But I care for the Christian religion. I sincerely believe that we shall not truly solve the economic and social problems which occupy so much of the time of this House until we see the principles of the Christian religion more widely accepted and applied. I want to see the influence of the Church extended and strengthened. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham put it, I want the Church to reach out. I would welcome changes in the form of service which genuinely strengthen the authority of the Church and which maintained, widened or deepened its contacts with the world outside: with the infrequent church-goer; with those, as the right reverend Prelate put it, on the fringe; with those who make up the nation at large, if not the congregation on the Sunday.
I give my opinion, for what it is worth, that the wording of Series 3 does not extend but tends to diminish the area of influence of our Church. The thinness of the language of this new form of service tends to chill and not to warm the relationship with a wider congregation. Some 12 or 13 years ago, when I had some responsibility for these matters, I recall that there was a suggestion from the Bishops' Benches that we should change the form of service with which we start the proceedings in this House. At the meeting that we had to discuss the matter I asked the most reverend Primate the then Archbishop of Canterbury, "What is the reason for wanting a change?" I ought not to purport to quote his reply after all these years but I remember very distinctly how I reacted. I said to him: "Why, you will be wanting to change the words in the Lord's Prayer next". I put it that way because I thought there was nothing less likely than a change in
648
the words of the prayer so widely known and loved. It seemed to me quite inconceivable that anyone—certainly not a member of the Church, and absolutely certainly no one who held a high position in the Church—would dream of changing the Lord's Prayer. But such was my innocence; even then, it now seems, there were those who thought they could improve on the words that had been recited over the centuries.
Such insensitivity baffles me. It implies an inability to understand that the sort of wording, the sound of the wording, has become ingrained in our national life and was often more helpful and more influential, indirectly and subtly, than thousands of sermons delivered to dwindling congregations. Many of us here must have warmed by the way those around us at a service on the parade ground or on the seashore or around the war memorial have joined in the recital of the words they knew, of the Lord's Prayer.
The right reverend Prelate said he was prepared to agree that the Synod had "made a mess" of the Lord's Prayer. I was appalled by the expression he used. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said he welcomed the statement. I was appalled by it. "They had made a mess of the Lord's Prayer"! What worries me now is that it is the same line of thought, the same attitude of mind, that made a mess of the Lord's Prayer that wants to substitute the more "with it" wording for the measured language of the 1662 Prayer Book.
I am told—and it has been said again today—that the spoken language has changed since 1662, and of course it has, although I remain unconvinced that the "bed-sit" idiom is superior to, or likely to last as long as, the language of Shakespeare or Cranmer. How often have we heard in everyday situations someone say, "I have left undone the things which I ought to have done". The wording in Series 3 confession is cleared. It has all the clarity of a railway timetable. But it will never be quoted outside the Church, as those 1662 words are occasionally. I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate would tell me if that man in the street to whom he referred would ever quote sentences or expressions out of the Series 3 form of service.
A friend of mine the other day called my attention to a prime example of superfluous wording. There is the line:
"My love is like a red red rose".
One could very easily imagine the authors of Series 3 whipping out the blue pencil and cutting out one of the words in that line. The result would be crisper, more in keeping with modern usage, but the line would never be heard again. It is said apparently that all these matters are very interesting and may be very relevant, but they should not be discussed in Parliament. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor put that point of view rather more strongly than that. I claim no authority on the constitutional conventions involved, but if I am told—
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to misrepresent me. I never said they should not be discussed. I said Parliament was not the correct vehicle for imposing a service inside the Church of England in the form proposed in this Bill.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord

649
expresses in his own legal language what I was trying to express in my language. I claim no authority on the constitutional conventions involved, but if I am told that the Enabling Act of 1919 opened the way to democratic processes within the Church, which should now be used, then I claim some experience of the workings of democracy. As the right reverend Prelate himself said, any given democratic process can be open to criticism, as the Members on the Liberal Benches so often tell us about our British voting system. The elections to the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party are claimed to be democratic, but there is much dissent nowadays about the decisions of that committee being acceptable by the broad church of the party. Experience indicates that those who emerge to the decision-making summit can sometimes be out of touch with the broader basis of the organisation which they represent.
There seems to be some irritation, if not indignation, that Parliament should concern itself with these doctrinal questions. I understand that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London spoke of grave discourtesy, of the breach of faith if we pursued these matters. I would humbly suggest that the time for the officers of the Church of England really to get worried is when Parliament shrugs its shoulders and says, "Let the Church get on with it". The fact that there should be shown this interest in the forms of worship should be, I suggest, a matter of rejoicing. The noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, should be thanked by all of us for maintaining and arousing this interest. I was glad to hear that the Bishop of Durham, as distinct from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, said he welcomed the discussion which it had aroused. I think it will do good. I hope the noble Lord will press his Bill.
11.30 p.m.
Viscount Gage: My Lords, I shall be very brief because my views, such as they are, have been expressed much better than I could express them in the second leading article in The Times today, which I think should be widely read, particularly on the Bishops' Bench. I wish to make only two short additions. First, I understand on quite good authority that at the theological colleges today the students are indoctrinated with the idea of always choosing the alternative versions, and when the ordinands come out they are all set to use them. I do not know why there should be some sort of antipathy to the traditional. It is a curious idea that the traditional language in the Prayer Book is all right for the élite, but not for the masses because of its archaic language and therefore they should use the alternative versions which are being introduced. If that is true, and the archaic language of the Prayer Book is putting off the masses, then it would seem to follow that Shakespeare's plays, such as Hamlet, would have a much bigger box office draw if they, too, were put into modern language. I do not believe that that would be the effect.
My second point has not been made so far. Some years ago I attended a large church in New York, and the service was the American Episcopalian form of service. I was moved by it—it was very much what I was accustomed to in this country. It was rather wonderful. I understand that the Americans are also
650
producing a popular form of service but, of course, it would be quite different from the British form. I do not know whether it will be followed in Australia and other English-speaking countries, but if so I think that it will produce divisiveness instead of unity and that will be a great pity.
I do not propose to go into the Division Lobby in support of the Bill, partly because I always try to do what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor tells me to do, and partly because I think that if we are to have a Synod then it should decide on the form of services. Having said that, I hope that some notice will be taken of the very real feelings that exist—not only in this House, but in the country at large—about the danger that the Prayer Book of 1662 will disappear. I hope that notice will be taken of those feelings. If those concerned do not take notice of them and continue popularising services—some people might say "vulgarising" services—then what will happen is that there will be a slow and steady drift away to the orthodox Church. I am not at all sure that if things went that way I might not follow it myself. I hope that as a result of this debate—which has brought out some very interesting and important views—that will not happen.
11.34 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful I am personally to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, for introducing this debate. I think that we are all very much in his debt. I am a lover of the 1662 Prayer Book, but I think that the problem we face is very well illustrated by the prayers that we have every day here in this House. I love the prayers here. I never miss them if I can possibly help it. I love their beautiful language and I love the biblical thoughts that they express. I always feel strengthened by them.
But should not we also direct some of our prayers to the special needs of our time? For example, should we not be praying for Ireland? Should we not be praying for the families of those where tragedies occur almost daily? Should we not be praying about the problems of poverty, both here and in the third world? Should we not be praying for those who are imprisoned? Should we not be praying for those who are sick? Perhaps it might be nice if we were to mention the names of any Members of this House who are known to be seriously ill.
However, surely the remedy is not in legislation but in the first case which I mentioned. If there are any other noble Lords who share my views, we ought to go along and perhaps see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As regards the beloved 1662 Prayer Book, we ought perhaps to speak up rather more vigorously in our PCCs, rather than attempting to legislate here.
11.37 p.m.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, first, I should like to begin by offering my most sincere and hearty congratulations to the two maiden speakers who have addressed us for the first time tonight. We all very much enjoyed what they had to say; the robust common sense of the noble Duke and the historical information that was afforded us by the noble Lord, Lord Dacre of

651
Glanton, have both been invaluable contributions to our considerations this evening.
Much has been said this evening, and I do not want to cover the same ground again if I can help it and will try to avoid doing so. Basically, I have two concerns. One is on the constitutional issues which have been so ably covered by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I am bound to say that I am still not entirely happy at his diagnosis of the situation. Surely the question of the relationship between Parliament and the Church of England is in the nature of a compromise, and almost a balancing act. The Church side has been given more and more authority. Each time this happens surely the parliamentary authority is thereby weakened. Surely, by omission on the part of Parliament in playing its correct part, this would amount gradually to opting out of what I would regard as its obligations in relation to the Church of England.
The noble and learned Lord also said that what happens in the theological colleges is really no concern of this Bill. I should like to suggest that in one respect that is not so. It is the question of intent within the Church; for if no training is given on the 1662 service, surely it means that its influence and the impact that it has made over the centuries will be gradually eroded. This—for those who have great affection for it and on which I hope to say more later—is a very serious matter indeed. I hope that one of the two right reverend Prelates who are to speak later will be able to say something about this problem.
The second problem was the one raised in the debate in 1974 by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, who voiced doubts that the safeguards provided in the 1974 Measure were adequate. For my part, I am bound to say that those doubts still remain. The noble Earl pointed out that there were massive loopholes, and it seems to me that those loopholes have been used—whether intentionally or not, I do not know—over the last seven years.
May I remind your Lordships of the course that that debate took because it has some bearing on the present issue. It was also, as it were, a farewell occasion for the then archbishop. Everyone was anxious to make civil remarks to him to show appreciation of his tenure of office. This was clearly not the moment to have massive criticism of that Bill. Furthermore, we were asked to work to a timetable because the most reverend Primate had to go off to a service. This severely limited our discussion on that occasion. I hope that this will be taken into account when reference is made to the discussion on that occasion.
Those doubts still remain in my mind. Nothing that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said did anything to alter that feeling. He also mentioned—and this again is a matter of concern—that it was wrong to think that a hectoring incumbent could direct his flock into doing what he wanted. I believe this to be very true, but there are very few incumbents who would adopt that attitude. Surely what happens is that he is treated with the proper respect of one having greater knowledge than most of his congregation, and he is listened to with great care. If he uses that authority carefully, it is only too easy for him to unduly influence his flock.
652
I should like to quote an example of which I know which confirms this view. My father was in the habit of having morning prayers. It was in his own chapel, and the rector of the time kindly used to come and take them. We used to have the litany service on Friday mornings. One day—I hope I have this correct—my father noticed that the versicle praying for the nobility was omitted. He thought there must be some mistake, so he listened with particular care the following Friday and noticed the same omission. So he took the rector to task for this and said that he thought that he needed praying for just as much as the other sections of the realm. The rector replied, "This is the new form of service, and I am bound to follow it". I gather something of an impasse occurred after that.
I should have thought that my father was in a particularly strong position, but even under those circumstances he was unable to influence the rector concerned. I should have thought it was all the more difficult in the case of a parochial church council, who would not be speaking as one voice, to influence the incumbent if he had determined views. Much has been said about the beauty of the language of the Prayer Book. I entirely concur with that.
One additional point I should like to mention arises in part from a remark made by the Bishop of Salisbury at a meeting I recently attended. I hope I am quoting him in substance correctly. He said that he had been much impressed by congregations who cared for the maintenance of their church and the impact which that had on their religious feelings and their determination to support the Church as a whole. He had come to the conclusion that that should be noted very carefully. I believe that was not just because they wished to support their Church. In most cases, particularly in the country, it was a building that had been built by their ancestors to the glory of God and it was a symbol of their belief and, as it were, a symbol of security.
The same applies to the Book of Common Prayer. It gives the same sense of security. Its beauty is entrenched in their minds, and although I know some people feel this is not important, I think the vast majority think the beauty of the service matters and helps them in their devotions. Much has been said about the beauty of the language, but little has been said about the feelings of the man who wrote it. I would not pretend to know what they were in great detail, but I was looking through the diary of my ancestor the other day and saw that he noted, under the year 1555, first that:
"Dominus Ridley quondam Episcopus London et Dominus Latymer cremati sunt"
and a little later:
"…Thomas Cranmer quondam Episcopus Cantuar combustus".
I do not quite know the difference between "cremati" and "combustus", but the end result seems much the same.
The point is that in both those cases those reverend gentlemen felt so strongly about their beliefs that they were prepared to go to the stake for them, and I should have thought that they centred on the beautiful Book of Common Prayer that Archbishop Cranmer produced and left for us. I wonder whether the present Bench of Bishops would be prepared to go to the stake for their new Book? Would they think it was worth it? Perhaps they would be right if they did not think so.

653
At any rate, I conclude with a quotation from what Bishop Latymer said at the stake to Bishop Ridley:
"Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man. We shall light such a candle this day by God's grace in England as I trust shall never be put out".
This, it seems to me, is the candle that their successors on the Episcopal Bench today are hellbent on extinguishing, and if for no other reason I believe the Bill should receive our support in this House tonight.
11.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, at this hour I will be brief and simple. I believe it would be extremely unfortunate and misleading if the debate on the Bill were to appear as a prolonged tug-of-war between friends of the Book of Common Prayer (all laymen) and adversaries of the Prayer Book (all bishops) with the clergy hovering uncomfortably somewhere behind. To start with, it strikes me as an inherent improbability that the members of the Church should be neatly divided in that way, and an improbability also that pastors should be so lacking in pastoral sense, or indeed even in common sense, as to be as impervious as some noble Lords have suggested. Indeed, if the contents of my postbag at all resemble those of the editor of the Daily Telegraph, I should have to be very impervious indeed not to take notice of them, but I must say that they are quite different.
If I may speak for myself, I am one of those who came from another Church tradition and became an Anglican largely out of love for the Prayer Book, and a Church of England in which the Prayer Book had been forgotten would be one which I would hardly recognise in its impoverishment. For the record, I may say that after the petition had been presented to the Synod I soon sought to engage in conversation those Oxford members who had been among the signatories, and when I celebrate Holy Communion in my diocesan synod I am careful to alternate between the Book of Common Prayer and one of the modern liturgies.
At the same time I am perfectly convinced that to hold that God may be worshipped only in the language of the 16th and 17th centuries, and never in the vernacular of the age in which we live, tells us more about some of his worshippers than it does about God himself. The contention of some Prayer Book enthusiasts that all modern language services are of such unbearable banality that no thinking person can worship in them is simply refuted week by week by large congregations in a great many different parishes that I visit; and of course I make due allowance for the factor of special attendance when the bishop is coming.
The conclusion that I draw is that the Church will be wise to maintain (as was written into the Worship and Doctrine Measure) a coexistence of the old and the new, as indeed we have scriptural warrant for thinking to be wise. One may prize antique furniture to the disadvantage of what is modern, but one would think it as unreasonable for a householder to assert that no modern furniture can ever be seemly and serviceable, as for him to throw out of the house every stick that does not belong to the 20th century.
Now I do not think that it would be honest or helpful in this debate to deny that in the first flush of liturgical revision the use of the Prayer Book has suffered unduly in some parishes and theological colleges. But
654
there is to be recognised here a genuine problem, which I feel sure your Lordships will have the fairness to recognise. With new forms of service a congregation needs a certain amount of time in order to learn its part, as once it knew its part, at any rate in some churches, with the book of Common Prayer.
There is a further problem of how to instruct younger clergy, ordinands, and younger lay members of the Church in the new forms and at the same time to retain the Prayer Book for them, not just as a museum piece, but as a living vehicle of worship. This is a task to which bishops, incumbents, college principals and others have to continue to address themselves, and will have to do so for some time. But now that we have both the provisions of the Worship and Doctrine Measure and the publication of the Alternative Service Book, I do not think that we should despair so early of being able to find a decent equilibrium.
When the Prayer Book is presented to worshippers of all ages, its greatness will ensure that it finds younger people as well as older ones to love it, not necessarily in a fundamentalist or uncritical spirit, but with a discernment of the kind of riches that are seldom to be found in a modern liturgy. Pace today's Times leader, these riches of the Prayer Book are not timeless—no liturgy can be that—but the character of their age provides a complement to our own which greatly enlarges the possibilities of worship.
My own belief is that we do not require more legislation in this realm, whether by the General Synod or by Parliament. The attempt to regulate a people's religion by legislation is not unknown in our history, but so far as I can observe, it has never converted the British people. The most that we should require is a framework, and this is already adequately provided by the Worship and Doctrine Measure. Within that framework Christians need to be encouraged to look not only on their own things—that is, to judge causes by personal preference—but also on the things of others. That is a task that is proper to a Church—not because it is a clerically-dominated body, without any sense of responsibility to the nation as a whole, but because a Church is a free association of people who are called to live and worship in charity with one another. And that is true of a Church, whatever its constitutional position may happen to be.
While therefore I understand the motive of the noble Lord's Bill and do not at all wish to shrug off some of the evidence that has been offered in support of it this evening, I cannot really think that it would conduce to the end which many of us want to see in the Church, and I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
11.55 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I rise in sympathetic support of my noble friend Lord Sudeley, and also to say how grateful we are for the two fine maiden speeches we have had on this subject. First of all, I should like to say that I appreciate the work and intention of those who have been responsible for giving us the the Alternative Service Book. The concern of those of us who feel that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is still relevant for our present time comes from many deeply-felt convictions. These convictions are held in sincerity, as much as are the convictions of those who

655
are deeply convinced about the new forms of worship.
We are certain that the language of the 1662 Prayer Book is relevant for modern life and faith. We believe that this Prayer Book is not something just to be used purely as an academic study or as an archaic experience, but as a form of worship to be experienced and used in a practical way. Religion is not only a matter of theoretical practice, but a deeply emotional act of feeling of heart, mind, soul and body. This has its outward actions and ways of expression of that which is within us. The way religious experience is expressed varies with people, and it is not right that any one view should imply that others are practising worship with inadequate appreciation or understanding. The way of sensing beauty in religious actions and words, and being uplifted to the purity of God, will vary. Language will speak in different ways. This necessity to respect each other's need of language is the fact which has emerged so clearly in recent years, and this need of beautiful and yet familiar language is satisfied for many by the 1662 Prayer Book and, to a large extent, by the Revised Prayer Book of 1928. The need for some revision may be granted, but not the great alterations of the new services. Are we becoming too casual in addressing God? We may be doing a disservice to faith and belief through the great changes in language.
We accept the fact that some people are helped by the new services, but we ask that those defending the new outlook will, in their sensitivity, acknowledge that for many of all ages the style of the 1662 Prayer Book is satisfactory. One has learned that the young do not necessarily like the new services. For instance, within a group of 20 school confirmation candidates recently only one liked the new Holy Communion service. Some young people are just as bewildered by attempts to modernise the English as those of us who are older, especially if they feel that the English is poor. We must listen to their point of view, for many yearn for a sense of dignity and beauty in worship which they feel is not always present in the new services. We do not all feel that we want to give the kiss of peace, but that does not mean that we are not feeling loving and kind.
Have we found excellence in worship in our new services? For surely we wish for excellence in worship, both in words and in music. Is it not condescending to suppose that those who are not able to take to the new ways are missing the point of true worship? God created man with the ability to develop his gifts. This applies to the offering of worship in the best way of which we are capable. The Prayer Book of 1662 is the way for some, for whom it undeniably represents the highest expression of man's thoughts and aspirations.
My Lords, I am in sympathy with and in support of the Motion of my noble friend Lord Sudeley for the protection of the Book of Common Prayer, because this book should be in prominence alongside the new services found in the Alternative Service Book rather than in use as a second best. The souls of many need this book as an equal partner to the new services.
12.1 a.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to congratu-
656
late the two maiden speakers for their splendid contributions. I hope that we shall hear them more often on other subjects. Also, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Sudeley for presenting this Bill to Parliament and raising this problem again. One point I have noticed which is somewhat unusual is that we have had more Members of another place listening to our debate on this subject than I can remember for many a long day.
I think it is a very difficult problem. I feel strongly that we are going astray. It is very difficult for people in the churches—certainly in the parish in which I have attempted to worship during the past few years—to have to deal with constant changes and constant new ways of putting things, changes of translation which do not mean very much to any but the most clever scholars and nothing to the ordinary person. Changes in well-known prayers do not seem to be necessary and are a positive hindrance to people who have got used to old ways. It does not seem to me that it is of any benefit to the youth, either. I think that the youth I have known and met and tried to know in all walks of life have not been impressed by this or that different change. What I think they would look for is a measure of stability.
What I think is new—and I am not particularly talking about the Alternative Service Prayer Book itself; for I will come to that in a minute—is that this great mood for constant change to try to improve is also working against stability. I should have thought that stability was one of the great strengths of the Church of England through the ages and one it should hold on to rather than try to lose.
As for the Prayer Book itself, like the curate's egg it is good in parts; and the parts that it is good in are those that are used the least. I find a certain pride—although pride is not an appropriate emotion in church—in being able to find my way through it now and am better able to relate it to Series 3 or Series 2. It will take a long time, I think, before we get to a ready way of using this particular new Prayer Book when it is used. These are early days; we have only just got the Prayer Book. As far as I know I am the only person in my parish, apart from the rector, who has a copy. One of the churchwardens is anxiously waiting for her husband to give her one.
But I have a fear that whatever may be said by the Synod about having to use the Book of Common Prayer, whatever might be said if this Bill gets a Second Reading and is enacted, it would not really make all that amount of difference. I have an awful fear that this new, rather large book, with all its variations, may find itself being the most useful easy one when everybody has a copy of it and when all the churches have copies, which will be some time yet.
People will not want to have two Prayer Books; they will eventually want to settle for one. It is quite clear that all sorts of steps have been taken—for the very best reasons, I have no doubt—to find something which is supplementary in the first place to the Book of Common Prayer; and I have fears that this new book, being a more composite one, will displace it and displace it totally. This will not happen in cathedrals where everything is well regulated and disciplined. This will not happen when the bishop comes to visit. If it is well known that he likes the Book of Common

657
Prayer, it will be "trotted out" for the occasion.
However, in the ordinary run of things, I think this will probably be yet one more move to displace it. So from that point of view, I like the thought behind this Bill. But I am not sure that I like the text. We debated this subject earlier on and it was difficult then and it is difficult now to find for a Bill a text which really makes sense and which, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, cannot be discredited in detail as to an Act of Parliament. So I am not sure about that, but I like the thought and, to that extent, I would certainly go with my noble friend, if he wished so to do, into the Lobby to support this Bill on Second Reading.
12.7 a.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am one of those who supported the petition organised by my old friend and colleague Professor Martin. I should like to say to the right reverend Prelate that I am quite certain that so honest a man and so good a scholar as David Martin would not deliberately distort or misinterpret his evidence. My reason for supporting the petition was my deep belief that religion shorn of its poetry is religion seriously diminished. For that reason, I believed it right to support a movement which was asking that the Common Prayer Book should continue to be used; not that no other service book should be introduced but the Common Prayer Book should remain in familiar use for the present generation and the generations to come.
Having said that, it should be said—and it has not I think been said sufficiently in this debate—that there are in the Alternative Book prayers of very great beauty and sentences of very great inspiration. It should not be seen as a choice between a Book of Common Prayer of superb beauty and an alternative book of great commonplace.
But although I am and remain a supporter of Professor Martin's approach, I cannot in any circumstances support this Bill, for two reasons. In the first place, it seems quite extraordinary to suggest that 20 parishioners out of what may be a very large parish should be able to dictate the form of service on one Sunday in four which is, after all, a thirteenth—is it not?—of all the services held in that parish church. This is a totally disproportionate influence to give to so small a group of parishioners.
My second reason—and this is of much greater substance, one which I imagine I share with other Members of the House, though no one else has said it in so many words—is that I am one of those who believe that sooner or later (and, for my part, I hope that it is sooner) the Church in England will establish complete independence from the state. If I believe that, and I do, then it would be totally illogical to say that when the Synod—rightly or wrongly—has made a decision on what must be regarded as a matter for the Church, a matter concerning the form of worship, the state should be asked to intervene and to alter a matter which should, in my view, be under the authority of the Church. I say that, hoping as I do that sooner or later Church affairs will be totally governed by the Church and the state will cease to have any part to play in the governance of the Church.
12.11 a.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is always a pleasure listening to great intellects talking well on subjects which they totally comprehend, and history dons on the Book of Common Prayer should fill this category. Lord Dacre of Glanton filled it with distinction. My old and noble friend Lord Portland was, as someone said, trenchant—and trenchant and accurate he was.
We must thank the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, for introducing this Bill. We must also congratulate Viscount Cranbourne, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury's son, for his success in another place with an identical Bill which the House of Commons has given a First Reading. My Lords, I suggest it is unthinkable for your Lordships' House to reject on Second Reading a Bill which the House of Commons, within the past few hours, has been given leave to introduce.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, three main aspects of the Church of England are raised in this debate. In my view, they are: is the Church's new literature a worthy successor to Cranmer and Coverdale? Is Parliament the right place to discuss this change, and does it have any power to alter the decision made in 1974? Thirdly, has the Church of England fulfilled its undertaking, given in 1974? I am not a literary critic and I hold no degree; I make no claim to being an intellectual—but I am convinced that the English of the Alternative Service Book is, as one critic has put it, the English of a Treasury civil servant.
In his good and thought-provoking speech, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said that the Synod had made a hash of the Lord's Prayer. What a confession to make! The Lord's Prayer is central to the whole worship of the Church of England, and the Synod admits to making a hash of it. The right reverend Prelate went on to say, "When we have further revision …". From further revision may the Lord deliver us!
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, lost his place when searching for the Venite. I have chosen at random three sections for comparison and I chose the Venite first of all. In 1662, as most of your Lordships will know, the Venite started:
"O come, let us sing unto the Lord: let us heartily rejoice in the strength of our salvation".
Familiar, beautiful and, as the Lord Chancellor said, cadent. It has been changed to:
"O come let us sing unto the Lord. Let us shout in triumph to the rock of our salvation".
I suggest that is less cadent, no more clear and is two words longer; in other words, it is quasi-poetical and arch.
Again, the Te Deum reads:
"We praise thee, O God: we acknowledge thee to be the Lord".
Again, balanced, clear, poetical and with tons of style. The Alternative Service Book offers:
"You are God. We praise you. You are the Lord. We acclaim you".
More words, less poetry, less style and, I suggest, a change for change's sake. Surely God knows that

659
He is God and we do not have to tell Him so? The New Creed says:
"I believe in God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth".
Cranmer said "maker". Again, why change when there is no qualitative improvement and it is just change for change's sake?
The Second Collect in Evensong for 1662 starts:
"O God, from whom all holy desires, all good counsels, and all just works do proceed…".
Wonderful stuff! It is beautiful! In the Alternative Service Book it says:
"O God the source of all God's desires, all right judgments, all just works".
This time there is one word less, but I suggest that "good desires" can be sinful, whereas "holy desires" cannot. A "good desire" could be that you wanted a very good dinner and possibly to eat too much of it.
Incidentally, the Book of Common Prayer makes it mandatory to pray for the Sovereign: the alternative Communion Rite A, Series 3, says only that the President may pray for the Sovereign. These contrasts really were taken at random, and if I were to continue we should be here all through the night. All the quotations I have used from 1662 are just as understandable, if not more so, on a London housing estate as the Alternative Service Book.
The second point is on the correctness of this Bill. In column 868 of the debate on the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure on 14th November 1974, the then Archbishop of Canterbury said (col. 868):
"It is not a measure for the disestablishment of the Church, nor a step towards separating the Church of England from the Crown".
Therefore, as the Crown in Parliament is supreme in Great Britain, the archbishop was acknowledging the residual right of Parliament to discuss the worship and liturgy of the Church of England and to enact it if it so wishes. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor also admitted this. He said it was not a measure abolishing the Book of Common Prayer. He went on to say:
"It gives to the Book of Common Prayer a secure place which could be altered only by action of Parliament itself".
That surely implies that the most reverend Primate was then acknowledging the right of Parliament in the long run to alter and enact Bills for the Church of England.
The third of my points has been dealt with by the noble Duke, the Duke of Portland. I have known him for a long time. I believe that his father in fact became engaged to his mother at the urging of my great grandmother, who broke her parasol across his father's hack to make sure he "popped the question" on time. We think it is dubious whether the undertakings given in the 1974 debate have been fulfilled. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London then said (col. 941):
"I think I can speak on behalf of those who sit on these Benches when I say we should do our best to see in our dioceses that where there are people who love and want to use the 1662 Prayer Book every effort will be made to provide for them".
My Lords, has it? It has been shown by several speakers that in seminaries and theological colleges—
660
the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford agreed—the Book of Common Prayer has not been used properly. If we thought those undertakings had been carried out I do not think there would have been a need for this debate today. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, and I shall support him in the Division Lobby.
12.18 a.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, it is now my turn to add my congratulations to my noble friends the Duke of Portland and Lord Dacre. I find little more to add to the praise that has been given to them, except to say that they have received so much encouragement, and will obviously receive even more, that they are both certain to come back and speak often in your Lordships' House.
It gives me great pleasure to support this Bill which my noble friend has introduced. It has already been given some prominence in the press, and the arguments put forward by noble Lords and right reverend Prelates have provided a valuable airing of views. In fact I have altered quite a lot of my notes to ensure that I am not too repetitive.
I have one suggestion to make to my noble friend as a possible amendment should this Bill manage to reach further stages. Clause 1(2) contains the words:
"…if there is more than one morning service, at the principal morning service at the parish church."
Nowadays the principal morning service is a celebration of Holy Communion. It is often referred to on the notice board in such terms as "Parish Communion" or "Family Communion". Invariably it is a service of about one hour's length with music. Personally, I should be very happy to attend a full sung Communion, according to the Book of Common Prayer. I should like to have the Matins sung again with the Te Deum, with the lovely chants. But will the Te Deum be in the right place? However, a once a month switch, from whatever liturgy a parish church uses regularly, may raise problems for the choir and those in charge of the music. A Holy Communion celebration in the early morning at about 8 a.m. could be arranged without difficulty, and perhaps my noble friend could arrange an amendment on those lines at a later stage. I shall probably be talking to him about it later on.
As an example, I quote what has been happening at my own parish church, St. John's, Notting Hill, for the last year or so. As a result of a good majority of the PCC favouring it, the rector arranged that the 8 a.m. celebration of the Holy Communion on the first Sunday of each month would be according to the Book of Common Prayer. At times, the variation known as Series 1 was used, but that provided us with the Collect, Epistle and Gospel, according to the Book of Common Prayer, and much of the Prayer Book liturgy that was familiar. The scheme has been a great success and has proved popular.
At present, this church is in the throes of an interregnum, because the rector has been promoted, most deservedly, to be Dean of Peterborough. But this very last Sunday, 5th April, the clergyman who celebrated at 8 a.m. gave us the full 1662 treatment. We had the Ten Commandments and the prayers for the

661
Royal Family. It was beautiful and the congregation, which at 8 a.m. on the first Sunday of each month is somewhat larger than on most other Sundays at that time, showed considerable appreciation.
I have merely quoted an example from personal experience, but I have good reason to know—and I certainly know from what I have heard this evening—that the Book of Common Prayer continues to be loved and its use is desired. It would be more than tragic if its use by the Church of England failed. If the 1928 version is preferred, then let it be used. It is a valuable alternative. But the 1662 Prayer Book, even if the language may seem strange, is a foundation to be preserved. We have already seen such changes in the Church of England liturgy in recent years, that for many people over the age of 40, some aspects are hardly recognisable. We have seen the coming of Series 1, 2 and 3, with new translations or interpretations of the Bible.
I looked at one today to make sure that I had not misheard it. There was the lovely parable of the prodigal son and the phrase, "He began to be in want" had been changed to "He began to feel the pinch". That made me wince. There is a feeling that all is change. Some feel that it is all geared to the young.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, said that the young are being attracted by Cranmer's Prayer Book. I certainly hope that that is true. However, if they are being attracted to church by the other liturgies, then that is not to be despised, because the people who are young now will be the core of worshippers for future decades. But there is a danger of alienating those who were reared in the traditions of the 1662 Prayer Book, with the exquisite use of the language and the opportunities for quiet moments in the services, when the worshipper can indulge for a moment or two in a short, private prayer. Modern liturgy seems to me—and I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong—to provide almost restless activity. Must those who have been faithful worshippers in the past suffer by losing the liturgy that they know and love?
There is also the danger of losing the traditional names that we know. Take, for example, the Sunday that we know as Septuagesima. The alternative prayer book calls that the ninth Sunday before Easter. In the commentary to the alternative services it is explained that Septuagesima is not mathematically correct. That is perfectly true. But is it just a case of an estimate being slightly miscalculated, that Easter is nearly 70 days away? No. I say that the very word "Septuagesima" tells us that the cheerful and celebratory Christmas cycle is now finished and that the long and exciting Easter cycle is starting. But it also gives a warning that Lent is approaching and that we must make our preparations for it.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made great praise of Cranmer. I know that it is difficult to find somebody or some persons of such similar genius, but if we can—and I do not think that it is absolutely impossible—it could be of inestimable value for centuries to come. Until we do find such people, let us keep and cherish that work which Cranmer began in the sixteenth century and which was perfected in the seventeenth. My noble friend the Duke of Portland in his maiden speech mentioned Shakespeare. I say that the prayer book equally is
662
part of our national heritage, as much as Magna Carta.
12.27 a.m.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, together with other noble Lords I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Dacre of Glanton and the noble Duke, the Duke of Portland, on important and helpful maiden speeches. I am sure they will speak frequently in your Lordships' House, and equally to our profit. I was convinced—that is to say, I agreed strongly with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. I was unconvinced and I disagreed profoundly with the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I happen to believe that the Church of England has been, and remains, the church of the people of England. It is not a sect. It happens to be the national Church. I would resist strongly any attempt to disestablish that Church. I believe history shows that from time to time God turns his face against his people, but history also shows that from time to time God turns his face back towards his people. I do not despair that the church once again might turn itself into the Church of all the people of England.
When I hear these liturgical discussions which have been going on now for practically the whole of my adult lifetime I cannot help feeling that those who engage in liturgical discussions are very similar to those who engaged in the discussions which must have taken place on the bridge of the "Titanic" as it sailed towards the iceberg. We have been told time and time again that if we adopted Series 1 or Series 2 or Series 3, the churches would once more be packed with young people. The simple answer is that they are not. All this liturgical experiment and liturgical reform has not for one moment turned the tide of atheism and agnosticism in favour of the Church of England.
What we have seen is that the state would not allow the Church of England to pull down some of its principal glories; namely, the cathedrals and parish churches of which it is privileged to be the guardian. But the state also said that the Church of England would not be allowed to tear up the Book of Common Prayer, of which it is also the guardian. The Book of Common Prayer is not something which is supposed to repose upon a shelf in a muniment room. As was said by one noble Lord, the Book of Common Prayer's value lies in its use. That was quite clearly expressed in the Concordat between church and state in 1974.
It is perfectly clear that that Concordat has in fact been torn up. I was the only layman present at a conference of clergy where a celebration of Holy Communion in the 1662 rite was conducted, because it happened to be in a Royal Chapel. We came back and the clergy jeered and sneered. I do not mean that they just condemned it; they fell about with most unholy laughter at what they said was this incredible old-fashioned rubbish that they had had to listen to. I speak literally of the way they were behaving.
The point is that the adoption of all this Civil Service English has not convinced the people on the housing estates that they should come back to church. The people on the housing estates are still staying away from church with all this new liturgy. There is no reason to suppose that the old liturgy would drive even more people away from the Church. The old liturgy itself has

663
been the faith and the language of a large proportion of the English people, and particularly of that large proportion of English people who do not very often go to church. But God is not only interested in those who go to church regularly, or the clergy; God is interested in those who do not go to church; who perhaps only go to church for baptism and for marriage and for burial. But that is what the Church in this country historically has been about and I should have thought that the time has come when we should say, and say openly, to the bishops that what they have been doing in the last 20 or 30 years in the name of the Church has done a great deal of damage to the cause of Christianity in this country and for that reason, with all its imperfections, I shall support the noble Lord in the Lobby tonight.
12.32 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I do not expect that I am the only Member of this House speaking in this debate tonight who has a feeling that this is where he came in. But the one all-important difference for those of us who took part in a similar debate three years ago is, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has reminded us, the publication of the long-awaited Alternative Service book five months ago, and the opportunity which has given many parishes up and down the land to consider afresh the pattern of their worship in 1981. This is the really significant thing that is happening, as many clergy and laity would testify, without anguish or distress.
I, for one, am much encouraged by the care and the imagination with which many local congregations are undertaking the review of the pattern of their Sunday worship. The growing point in the worshipping life of the Church today in every sort of parish is what is called the family service, which in many places has the largest attendance of the week. Few of them have ever been based on the Book of Common Prayer, but quite a number are now being based on the Alternative Service book and I believe that slowly and gradually we are recovering that most precious thing in the life of England and of the Church of England—common prayer.
As a diocesan bishop who has had the oversight of 200 parishes for over 20 years, I can assure your Lordships that the recovery of common prayer, involving in many places a mixed diet of authorised services, old and new, is one of the reasons why the mood of the Church of England has been described recently as "strangely confident".
I wish the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and other noble Lords who have spoken could have been with me in a church, which I consecrated in 1966, on a housing estate on a recent evening when I baptised 10 adults and confirmed 75 others in a congregation where over 300 took their Communion and every member of the congregation had a copy of the Alternative Service book in his hands—no pamphlets for them.
Perhaps even at this late hour one workaday bishop, albeit the one who was once chaplain to the fifth Marquess of Salisbury, can be allowed to testify to your Lordships that the growing partnership of bishops, clergy and laity which we call synodical government has accomplished more in the realm of liturgical renewal, the revitalising of the ordered
664
worship of our parishes, than it has in almost any other sphere. Consistently and regularly over a 15-year period the three houses of bishops, clergy and laity, after extensive consultation with the parishes, have voted by the requisite two-thirds majority in each house for the alternative services, and for them to co-exist with the services of the Book of Common Prayer.
In the 1978 debate I told your Lordships that in 251 places of worship in my diocese the 1662 Communion Service was used in 177 churches, while what we then knew as the Series 2 and 3 services were in use in 243 churches. I have no reason to think that those figures are very different today. But, in their visitations this May my three archdeacons are making a point of asking questions about it in every parish. It is too soon—it is only five months since it was published—to assess the use of the Alternative Services Book, but I hope to do that myself in a year or two. But in such ways I believe my colleagues and I are being true to the undertaking we gave in 1974.
I am quite sure the promoters of this Bill are concerned for the good of the Church of England and for the promotion of sincere and true worship in our parish churches. I cannot believe that their Bill will do other than cause division locally and disruption nationally. If 20 members of the Social Democratic Party in your Lordships' House were allowed to write to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and request that on one Wednesday afternoon a month their Lordships should depart from the programme arranged through the usual and proper channels to discuss what a small minority dictated, I am sure your Lordships would laugh it out of court.
This House works well and for the most part happily because it is based on a partnership of those who, despite their differences, work together for the good of the whole House. The partnership of bishops, clergy and laity in Synod, and of incumbent and lay people in a parish, are of equal importance for the good ordering of the life of our Church and of the worship of Almighty God. I hope your Lordships will do nothing to put that partnership in peril.
12.39 a.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I take advantage of the beneficent custom of this House by which Members are allowed to jump in in the gap before the answer to the debate. First, let me tell the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester that that is exactly what we, the Social Democrat Members of this House, shall do, and I do not believe we shall be laughed out of court. But at the moment I do not speak for my Social Democrat colleagues, but, as all other noble Lords from the lay benches have spoken, for themselves alone.
Once upon a time in our schools English was taught and religion was taught, and they both had their roots in Cranmer. Now communications skills and comparative religious studies are taught, and they both have their roots in Cranmer. If you change the teaching in the schools, but if life and the reality of our language continue to be rooted in the same place, no very great harm is done. But if you change the teaching in our schools and you change also the roots of life and teaching in language and religion in the Church, it may be that more harm is done than anybody could conceive.

665
I think that this Bill is absurd. It is absurd for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. It is administratively absurd: 20 is a meaningless number. It is legislatively absurd to "plonk" down meaningless numbers affecting congregations which may range between 25 and 2,500. That is all wrong.
I do not expect this Bill in anything like its present form to come through into the law of the land. But this Bill represents a type of protest, a type of groundswell, a type of movement of feeling that things are going wrong and that the heart of our language and our culture, to say nothing of our faith, because we differ in that, is being attacked. Look at the Bar of the House. How often do we see the Bar of the House populated as it now is at twenty to one in the morning? In the House of Commons this evening an identical Bill was passed by 150 votes to 130 and I understand that 100 of the 130 in the minority were members of the Government. This does not happen every day.
Let me put one other point which is perhaps a personal one, although not so personal. All of us in this House and in the House of Commons live by speaking. Many of us live also by writing. I am a writer by trade. I know that every time I turn a good sentence, whether in print or speaking—and I suspect the same is true of most other writers and speakers—I get it by an echo either from the Authorised Version, or from Cranmer, or from Shakespeare, or occasionally from Alexander Pope, and sometimes from naval slang. If one takes away any one of these, then those who are using, continuing and making the English language are deprived of part of the rock out of which they hew the continuation of that language. All of the marble sculptures of the Italian Renaissance, from Michelangelo onwards and long before, were taken from certain mountain tops around Carrara.
I think that writers, speakers, actors, philosophers and anybody who uses language may feel that, if the authorised version and Cranmer go out of the common stock, it will be as if the top of the Carrara Mountains had been blown up with some kind of a social A-bomb. For that reason, ill-framed as I think this Bill is, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, will pursue his Bill and put it to the vote, and I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and pursue the matter in Committee.
12.44 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the list of speakers says the "Lord Chancellor (by leave)". I promise that if that leave be given I shall not abuse that leave. I should like to congratulate the two maiden speeches. The noble Duke—if I may begin with him—has been, if he will allow me to say so, a friend of mine on and off since 1940 when for a brief moment we worked together. I have long admired, both as a friend and as an observer, the varied intellect and immense intellectual versatility of the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, to whom I owe one apology. I had momentarily forgotten that he had migrated from my old university, where he was something more of a flying buttress than a pillar of the Church, to another place of learning where he has become the keystone of the corner inside the building.
666
To that extent I owe him an apology. However, on the other hand, I warmly endorse the welcome which has been given to both noble Lords, and I hope that we shall hear them on a number of various occasions again in the future.
I hope that the Bench of Bishops, whom I felt at times to be slightly isolated in this debate, will get one message absolutely plain, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, will get it from me too. No one in this House doubts the passionate attachment of the laity of the Church of England, and nor do I, personally, doubt that of the clergy or the episcopal bench to the Book of Common Prayer and to the genius of Cranmer. I would not have said, as did my noble friend Lord Salisbury, that he died for his own book; he died for the reformed religion, which is a rather wider concept.
None the less, I believe that the clear message from this House has been our passionate attachment, both to the language of the Book of Common Prayer and to its primacy of place inside the worship of the Church of England; although I would venture to criticise the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his last remarks. We have not legislated about the Authorised Version for a long time, and we have not legislated about the various bits of the mountain or, indeed, about Shakespeare. If Shakespeare depended for his future upon legislation, I rather doubt whether he would last very long.
The question to which I have to address my mind—and I shall do so in very few words—is the question of the constitutional propriety, not of the Book of Common Prayer, which is entrenched in the Synodical Measure and which Parliament has seen to be entrenched, but of enacting this Bill about this subject. The Bill is a Bill which says that at the principal morning service in the Church of England a minority of 20 have the right once a month to impose their will upon the majority. This seems to me to take away from the Church of England precisely what Parliament chose to give it in 1974. When I say "seems to me", I would not be speaking at all if I had my own way, but I am speaking on behalf of the Government in order to express the Government's view.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, said that I was biased. In a sense I am; I am a Member of the Government and I was ordered by my colleagues to be the person to convey the Government's view to the House. I hope that I did so without offence I certainly did so with complete conviction that I am right. I think that it would be a disaster if this Bill were passed, and I do not yield to anybody in my admiration for the Cranmer book. Having said that, I hope that I have not abused my trust—four minutes is about right.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, the hour is very late and what matters much more than any words from me are votes for the Prayer Book, which is perhaps a bigger issue than any of us in the Chamber. I should like to thank all those who have taken part in this debate, in particular the maiden speakers, the noble Duke, the Duke of Portland, and the noble Lord, Lord Dacre of Glanton, of whom I am just as much an admirer now as I was at Oxford. Without any more ado, I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.
12.50 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Bill shall now be read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 17.

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Mersey, V.

Airedale, L.

Milverton, L.

Barrington, V.

Monson, L.

Beswick, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Boardman, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Moyne, L.

de Clifford, L.

Onslow, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Portland, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Robbins, L.

Gainford, L.

Romney, E.

Glenamara, L.

Salisbury, M.

Greenway, L.

Sudeley, L.—[Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Vaizey, L.

Kennet, L.

Waldegrave, E.—[Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Avon, E.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.—[Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Rochester, Bp.

Denham, L.

Sandford, L.

Durham, Bp.—[Teller.]

Sandys, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seear, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Hampton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  PARLIAMENT SQUARE: CONTROL OF HEAVY TRAFFIC
  PARLIAMENT SQUARE: CONTROL OF HEAVY TRAFFIC