Sitting of 14 April 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    GREATER MANCHESTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Read the Third time and passed.
    GREATER MANCHESTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

      Standing Orders (Private Business)
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): In moving the amendments to Standing Orders, I am happy to be able to reassure the House that they are not as formidable as they look. They are all of a technical or drafting nature. The amendments to Standing Orders 156B, 220 and 221 are consequential on changes in the law made by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. The amendments do no more than preserve the status quo. The other amendments to Standing Orders 39, 174 and 231 are intended to clarify or to bring up to date those orders.
      Mr. Speaker: In order to save the time of the House, I shall put the six motions together.
      Ordered,
      That Standing Order 39 (Deposit of copies of bills at Treasury and other public departments, etc.) be amended as follows:
      Line 16, leave out 'Somerset House'.
      134
      That Standing Order 156B (Clause to be inserted in Bills authorising expenditure affecting grants under enactments relating to local government) be amended as follows:
      Line 9, leave out from 'for' to end of line 12 and insert.
      'the purpose of determining the aggregate amount of rate support grants under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland, as the case may be'.
      That Standing Order 174 (Time and manner of taking private business) be amended as follows:
      Line 15, after 'motion', insert
      '(other than a notice of motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means)'.
      Line 29, leave out from 'down' to end of line 32 and insert
      'shall be distributed as nearly as may be proportionately between days allotted to the business of supply and other days on which government business has precedence'.
      That Standing Order 220 (Greater London Council (Money) Bills) be amended as follows:
      Line 2, leave out '29' and insert '29A'.
      Line 5, leave out from 'to' to end of line 6 and insert
      'borrowing and lending by the Council and prescribed expenditure of the Council'.
      Line 70, at end add:
      '(3) In this Order and Standing Order 221 (Limitation of power of committees on Greater London Council (Money) Bills) references to prescribed expenditure of the Council are to be construed in accordance with paragraphs 25A, 25B and 29A of Schedule 2 to the London Government Act 1963'.
      That Standing Order 221 (Limitation of powers of committees on Greater London Council (Money) Bills) be amended as follows:
      Line 4, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 5 and insert 'the London Transport Executive or any of their wholly-owned subsidiaries any power involving prescribed expenditure of the Council'.
      That Standing Order 231 (Presentation of petition for Bill under section 1(4) of the Procedure Act) be amended as follows:
      Line 2, leave out from 'which' to end of line 3 and insert
      'a representation under section 1(4) of the Procedure Act would be required'.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
      Ordered,
      That the said amendments be printed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Rosyth Dockyard (Safety)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the general safety provisions at Her Majesty's dockyard, Rosyth.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Keith Speed): The safety arrangements at Her Majesty's naval base, Rosyth, are subject to regular inspections and I am satisfied that in general they are satisfactory. Shortcomings in the procedures for the control of a radioactive source in the health physics department and some minor weaknesses in other areas have, however, been identified and are being corrected.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister recognise that he needs to be rather more forthcoming to the House and to those outside on this and other aspects of safety? Will he consider asking the Health and Safety Executive to conduct a review of safety and security at the base?
    Mr. Speed: The Health and Safety Executive's accident prevention advisory unit has recently completed an independent and wide-ranging review of the dockyards to assess both their health and their safety performance. The inspectors have visited Rosyth and I expect their report very soon. I understand that they have not identified any major weaknesses or shortcomings.
    Sir Frederick Burden: Is my hon. Friend fully satisfied that the same conditions have been examined at Chatham dockyard, that there is no cause for any alarm, and that the regulations are absolutely perfect?
    Mr. Speed: I am never satisfied that regulations are absolutely perfect. However, I can confirm that the Health and Safety Executive is carrying out, or has carried out, a similar survey at Chatham dockyard. I shall be studying its report in due course. Again, I understand that there are no major weaknesses. I do not wish to be complacent about Chatham, Rosyth or any other dockyard.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is there any danger from the radioactive unit that went missing recently? Has it been replaced in the dockyard and is the apparatus operating normally, as it was formerly?
    Mr. Speed: We believe that there is no danger, but until we really know where the missing unit is, that is difficult to say. We believe that it is still inside the dockyard, in the inner core, but we really do not know. The only danger would be if it were very close to a person outside. We believe that on the whole that is not now a danger. Other sources are being used in the dockyard for test purposes and they are now under strict regulation and control in the light of the findings of the recent review.
    Mr. George Robertson: Is not the story of the missing isotope a remarkable one—that a radioactive unit can go missing for weeks in a high-security establishment? In view of the obvious and serious public concern, are not the public and the House entitled to more information and more reassurance than has presently been given in what is basically a handful of written answers?
    Mr. Speed: With respect, I received the report of the board of inquiry, which is about five or six inches thick, only this week. I shall go up to Rosyth later today. I hope to reassure the public as much as I can. So far, the source has not yet been discovered. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the lessons which have been learnt from the disappearance are being taken to heart. Remedial action has already been taken by the port admiral and by the general manager.

    Civil Service Dispute
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent recent defence exercises and similar activities have been affected by the dispute in the Civil Service; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott): The selective action by non-industrial civil servants has hindered some defence activities, but neither training exercises nor essential operations have been interrupted.
    Mr. Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend be assured that whatever the consequences in increased disruption, his decision to send in the Navy to service the Polaris submarine "Resolution" will be supported by the vast majority of people in this country, who find it intolerable that the nation's defences should be put in jeopardy by the action of self-seeking civil servants? As the traditional loyalty of the Civil Service can no longer be relied upon, what action will my right hon. Friend take to safeguard the defence interests of this country for the future?
    Mr. Nott: I assure my hon. Friend that there are no circumstances whatsoever under which we would allow the defence, including the deterrent capacities, of this country to be adversely affected in any way by such an industrial dispute. I do not wish to discuss the difficulties surrounding the dispute, but up to now they have not in any way affected operational capability in any area. I can assure my hon. Friend on that point.
    Generally speaking, we can rely on the loyalty of our civil servants. I would not wish it to be felt that I do not have the highest praise for the great loyalty shown by the Civil Service to Governments of all kinds.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting that the Russians may nip in while the civil servants are on strike?
    Sir Frederick Burden: They nipped into Afghanistan.
    Mr. Allaun: Putting aside that nonsense, would not acceptance of a 7 per cent. wage increase, when the cost of living is rising by 12·5 per cent., mean a reduction of 5·5 per cent. in the civil servants' living standards?
    Mr. Nott: The people of the United Kingdom are well aware, even if the hon. Gentleman is not, that there is a great threat from the ambitions of the Soviet Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) said, the Russians nipped into Afghanistan. There was a danger that they might nip into Poland. If the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) believes that the Soviet Union will sit back while we allow our deterrent guard to slip, that belief is misconceived.
    Mr. Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he has said will be welcomed by responsible Members on both sides of the House and that his reaffirmation that our

    137
    deterrent will be maintained will be welcomed by many of those who are on strike? Is he aware that his affirmation of the loyalty of the Civil Service as a whole will again be welcomed by all hon. Members?
    Mr. Nott: I thank my hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. James Lamond: If the Secretary of State is serious in his recommendation of the loyalty of the Civil Service—if he means that, and wants to show it—why does he not approach his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and tell her that two-thirds of those civil servants receive less than the national average wage and that all they are asking is that the Government go round the table and arbitrate on the claim which has been placed before them?
    Mr. Nott: When one considers the settlements being made in the private sector now, one sees that this year's offer to the Civil Service is perfectly fair and proper. On this occasion it is not for me to go into the details of the present negotiations. However, the Civil Service knows well that the Government are prepared to consider with the representatives of the civil servants the long-term arrangements for Civil Service pay. With regard to the present claim, the Government's offer is reasonable and proper in the circumstances of the economy.

    Cruise Missiles
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will enter into negotiations with the United States Government with a view to increasing the extent of British control over the use of cruise missiles.
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied as to the effectiveness of current arrangements for consultations between the United Kingdom and the United States of America before any cruise missiles deployed in the United Kingdom can be fired.
    Mr. Nott: I am entirely satisfied with the existing arrangements, which have applied to United States nuclear forces based in the United Kingdom for many years. Those arrangements have been made clear to the House on several occasions.
    Mr. Cryer: Do not those arrangements mean that there is no dual key system and no right of veto by the British Government over the use of cruise missiles? Does that not make the United Kingdom subordinate to American foreign and defence policy and mean that this country will be placed at risk? Is not the real position demonstrated by the reports of the resolutions of UCATT, the builders' union, for the East and West Midlands council, that it will be opposed to any work on the bases for cruise missiles, in the united determination and hostility to the missiles coming here and turning the United Kingdom into a parking lot for United States nuclear weaponry?
    Mr. Nott: The House knows that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the matter. I assure him that no one is subordinate to anyone else. NATO is concerned with the collective defence of the West and with the maintenance of our freedoms in this country. The Soviet Union has greatly modernised its whole range of long-range theatre nuclear weapons. It is essental for the maintenance of peace that we also modernise our long-range theatre nuclear weapons. The arrangements have not changed in
    138
    any way since the end of the war, when they were agreed between the then Labour Government and the United States.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister accept that if he is completely satisfied with those arrangements he must be easily satisfied? He says that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is deeply worried. Has he not noticed that any demonstration against nuclear armaments now is always massive and that those demonstrations are becoming bigger? Does he not realise that a vast number of our people know that out of about 500 missiles we shall have about 170 or 180, and that there is deep feeling that the people who will decide to fire those missiles are not in this country but in the Pentagon?
    Mr. Nott: I know that in the last war, before nuclear weapons were used, 50 million people died. I am also as sure as I possibly can be that the nuclear deterrent has maintained peace in Europe for the last 30 years. No Conservative Member would gamble away peace with unilateral renunciation of a deterrent which has worked.
    Mr. Trippier: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that the deployment of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom does not increase the likelihood of a nuclear attack, but decreases it? Will he reaffirm that the main aim of Her Majesty's Government is to preserve peace? Will he ensure that in all future publications which originate from his Ministry on the nuclear threat, the word "peace" is given the greatest possible emphasis?
    Mr. Nott: I agree with my hon. Friend, who is exactly right. The purpose of the deterrent is to maintain peace. The idea that we have nuclear weapons with which to fight a war is an absurdity. That is not part of NATO's strategy and never has been. NATO is a defensive alliance concerned with the maintenance of peace. That is precisely what we are all concerned about in these difficult matters.
    Mr. Jay: Can the Secretary of State say whether the proposed talks between the United States and the Soviet Union on the control of long-range theatre nuclear weapons will be held and, if so, when?
    Mr. Nott: Talks have taken place already. As the right hon. Gentleman knows well, the Soviet Union was unwilling to have talks on the subject until it was assured that we were proceeding to modernise our weapons. As we are continuing with the programme for the deployment of long-range theatre nuclear weapons, I believe that the Soviet Union will wish to continue arms control negotiations, and we shall join in the process. We believe that the nuclear arms race is madness and want to stop it, but we shall not do so by unilateral renunciation of weapons that have maintained the peace.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As the headquarters of the United States 3rd Air Force, which is responsible for the deployment of cruise missiles, is in my constituency, may I tell my right hon. Friend how welcome he was at Lakenheath on his visit with the United States Secretary of Defence? Does he recognise that although the United States Air Force could, with the British Government's permission, operate in time of need out of its own resources in the deployment of cruise missiles or other operational deployment, the civil servants' actions place it in particular difficulty? Will he therefore consult the United States Air Force about the problems that it could confront?
    Mr. Nott: I was delighted with my most interesting visit to Lakenheath with Secretary Weinberger. Everything that we found was most encouraging. The part that the American forces play in this country is vital in the defence of freedom, and we should be grateful for it. If my hon. Friend is referring to the civil servants' disagreement over pay negotiations, I am sure that if there are problems they can be resolved. I was not aware that there were particular difficulties at Lakenheath, so perhaps my hon. Friend can send me details or speak to me later.
    Mr. John: Does the Secretary of State recall that the acceptance by the European NATO powers of cruise missiles was on the specific basis that talks would take place between the United States and the Soviet Union? In view of the American Administration's remarks about detente being dead, is he satisfied that talks are being pursued with sufficient urgency—as much urgency as the deployment of cruise missiles?
    Mr. Nott: At the NATO meeting in Bonn last week, Defence Ministers discussed the question, and it was reaffirmed that the deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles must proceed alongside arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union. The position has not changed, but it needs two to conclude a successful negotiation. Arms control limitation and satisfactory verification will not work unless the Soviet Union is prepared to play its part.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest figures available for the proportion of the defence budget spent on nuclear weapons; if he will seek to reduce this proportion; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nott: Our nuclear forces have made and are continuing to make an essential contribution to deterrence and, therefore, to peace in Europe. Over the last decade, these forces have taken up, on average, under 5 per cent. of the defence budget.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the Secretary of State agree that whatever the arguments about defence expenditure, expenditure on nuclear weapons is wasteful and dangerous, as he admitted in reply to the previous question when he said that they were unusable? Because of the Polaris replacement programme and cruise missiles, does he agree that over the next few years the proportion of the budget used for nuclear weapons will rapidly increase?
    Mr. Nott: That is not the case. In the peak spending period for Trident in the late 1980s it is likely to take rather more, as Trident will take about 5 per cent. of the total defence budget, but that is not greatly different from the proportion that nuclear capacity has taken in the past. I do not agree that such expenditure is wasteful or dangerous. Anything that maintains peace is welcome, and nuclear deterrence has helped to maintain peace.
    Mr. Onslow: When my right hon. Friend was in Washington did he find that Americans of all parties unanimously agreed that if we went back on our decisions to acquire Trident or to allow cruise missiles to be
    140
    stationed here it would be regarded as a virtually fatal blow to the Atlantic Alliance? Does he draw any conclusions from the fact that so many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches seem anxious that we should do just that?
    Mr. Nott: The widespread view in the United States and among our European allies is that when the Soviet Union is deploying one new SS20 missile per week and is far ahead of us in the modernisation of its long-range theatre nuclear weapons, to abandon the strategic independent nuclear deterrent that we have had for many years would unsettle the entire Alliance.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Secretary of State again confirm that he believes that a localised tactical nuclear war is an absurd concept? As peace depends on a balance of nuclear weapons, does he believe that peace is in the balance?
    Mr. Nott: A localised tactical nuclear war is absurd. Any nuclear exchange would be madness. The purpose of nuclear deterrence is to prevent a war and not to fight one. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends below the Gangway cannot understand that simple point. The policy has succeeded under all previous Governments. Why should we abandon it now?
    Mr. Mellor: With the Labour Party's enthusiasm to reduce expenditure on atomic weapons and to increase education expenditure, does my right hon. Friend believe that it expects the Russians merely to challenge us to a game of general knowledge?
    Mr. Nott: I do not know that I can entirely follow my hon. Friend on that point, but, if it is any consolation to the Opposition, let me say that had nuclear weapons never been invented we might—I emphasise "might"—be living in a safer world. However, they cannot be disinvented, and we have to deal with the situation as it exists.

    Procurement
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage in terms of value of defence procurement in 1980 was made in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Nott: My Department's expenditure with British industry amounted, at forecast outturn prices for 1980–81, to some £4·1 billion in 1979–80 and some £4·5 billion in 1980–81. In cash terms, it is nearly £1 billion more than the previous year. As regards equipment expenditure alone, over three-quarters went to national contracts placed with British industry in 1979–80, and I would expect it to be of the same order this year.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department give preference to goods manufactured in the United Kingdom, even if it means a little extra cost? In particular, will he consider bringing forward the orders for boots and plimsolls from Bata and including Jetstream in an earlier part of the defence programme?
    Mr. Nott: I am slightly at a loss about the boots and plimsolls. If we put aside collaborative projects, which represented about 15 per cent. of equipment expenditure, we have placed only about 2 per cent. of total equipment expenditure overseas in the past few years, which is relatively slight. I will need notice of the hon. Gentleman's question about boots and plimsolls. I do not know whch ones he is referring to.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for a country such as ours, which relies upon all-volunteer Services, it is essential to make up for the small numbers in our Armed Forces by the very highest quality of our weapons systems? Will he, in this time of recession, do his very best in the year ahead to ensure that essential weapons programmes are not diminished?
    Mr. Nott: Year by year, since the Conservative Government came to office, we have been spending more with British industry, as my answer indicated. I cannot undertake that every programme now in research and development will go forward into production, because if that happened we should be bankrupt, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we shall do our utmost to protect and encourage the defence industrial base of this country. I can give an absolute assurance on that, because it is in the interests of all of us.
    Mr. Ford: I note the Secretary of State's answer. Will he now give an assurance that he intends to maintain the development and manufacture of Sea Eagle, in which we have an absolute world lead in guidance techniques and in which some 10,000 jobs are at stake?
    Mr. Nott: As I said in my statement on the current year's expenditure, we decided at that time to keep the present development programme for Sea Eagle going. That is the present position. I am well aware of its very great importance to British Aerospace dynamics. It will be considered, together with many other programmes, when we review all these equipment programmes over the next two or three months. I cannot say more than that at present.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some 650,000 people in this country are employed directly or indirectly in defence-related industries? Does he agree that it would be a major disaster if my right hon. Friend were to accede to the siren calls from the Opposition for a reduction in defence expenditure?
    Mr. Nott: The answer to that is "Yes".
    Dr. David Clark: With regard to Government procurement from the Royal ordnance factories and bearing in mind the fact that there have been 1,200 redundancies already this year in areas of high depression such as Birtley, Blackburn and Crewe, when may we expect the report from the study group set up to look at the work of the Royal ordnance factories, which we were led to expect would appear in February? Is the Minister aware that there is great disquiet in the ordnance factories due to uncertainty caused by delay in the appearance of the report?
    Mr. Nott: The report to which the hon. Gentleman refers was an internal Whitehall study of the position of the Royal ordnance factories. It is effectively prepared and ready, but I have not yet seen the final version. Until I have received and considered it, I cannot say anything about this matter. Nevertheless, I am well aware of the need to say something about the Royal ordnance factories, and indeed something about the dockyard report, as soon as we possibly can, to end uncertainty. That I undertake to do, but it cannot be for a few weeks yet.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Defence what categories of personnel are currently stationed in the British bases on Cyprus.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): The main elements of the Army in the sovereign base areas are infantry and armoured reconnaissance units and a small Army aviation detachment. The RAF has a helicopter squadron, a field squadron of the RAF Regiment and a hospital. Both Services also have headquarters, communications and support units.
    Mr. Cox: I note that reply, but is the Minister aware that the continuation of these bases, whatever the agreements may be, depends upon the good will of the Government and people of Cyprus? Will he therefore give a firm assurance that the bases will not be used in any role involving the rapid deployment force, about which we hear so much from the Prime Minister and President Reagan?
    Mr. Pattie: As my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal would be the first to tell the House, that is indeed the basis on which we continue to occupy what is, after all, sovereign territory of the United Kingdom. No official request from the United States has been received on the matter that he has raised.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is there any reason why the sovereign base areas should not be used by other NATO forces?
    Mr. Pattie: At present the sovereign base areas are used entirely for British forces. As there are no NATO bases elsewhere in Cyprus there would be no movement through those bases without prior consultation with the Cyprus Government.
    Mr. Christopher Price: As the commander of 9 Signal Regiment in Ayios Nicholas is one of the members of the British forces, can the Minister tell the House the exact nature of the smuggling and Customs charges that have been brought against him and are shortly to be heard at a court martial?
    Mr. Pattie: I am not aware of the details of that matter. If the hon. Gentleman tables a question or writes to me about it I shall have the matter looked into.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Have not the Cyprus Government and people shown great good will towards us and our position in those bases, which are indispensable to European defence and to the whole Alliance?
    Mr. Pattie: Yes, indeed, they have. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that remark.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of accidents to date involving Royal Air Force planes carrying nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Pattie: There have been no accidents involving Royal Air Force aircraft carrying nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Price: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that on 26 July 1956 a United States B47 nuclear bomber crashed

    143
    into a nuclear igloo at Lakenheath, in Sussex? Is he really saying that although the United States Government admit to 97 nuclear accidents since they have been stockpiling nuclear weapons, the record of the British Government is so remarkable that there has not been an accident of any kind?
    Mr. Pattie: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my original answer he would have heard me say that there had been no accidents involving Royal Air Force aircraft carrying nuclear weapons. He went on to ask about the United States aircraft incident at Lakenheath in 1956. That question was answered by my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State for Defence on 9 November 1979, when he said that no nuclear material had been involved in that accident.
    Mr. Bill Walker: In view of that answer, and bearing in mind that the Royal Air Force was the major nuclear deterrent for many years, flying round the clock, does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that there were no accidents says much for the way in which the Royal Air Force operates?
    Mr. Pattie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that.

    Trident Missile
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he remains satisfied that Trident costs can be contained within the billion figure already given and that the system can be delivered on time.
    Mr. Nott: As I said in the House on 3 March, last summer we put the cost of the Trident system at some £4½ billion to £5 billion. Closer estimating depends on studies still in progress and decisions not yet taken, for example, on the preceise size and characteristics of the submarine.
    Subject to these final decisions, I have no reason to doubt that the system can be delivered on time.
    Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State confirm that reports from the United States now suggest that costs are likely to rise by at least 10 per cent. and that the Americans themselves are in difficulty with their Trident programme and have not decided whether to go for a C4 or a D5? When shall we have definite statements on the type of Trident submarine that we intend to build and on when the updating of the estimates will take place?
    Mr. Nott: The problems affecting the United States nuclear submarine building programme are different from the situation here. Decisions are pending in the United States about the future missile system that might be used, but they are not directly relevant to us. As our memorandum said, we are planning to go forward with a Trident I missile system. We are, of course, interested in achieving the maximum commonality with the United States, and we are considering these matters as we go along.
    Mr. Churchill: As it will be at least 10 years before the British Trident system is deployed, is it not a matter of extreme concern that the British long-range theatre nuclear capability, which contributes 50 per cent. of NATO's capability in Europe, should be allowed to wither on the vine? Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider the matter once again?
    Mr. Nott: Because we consider the matter to be so serious we are fully supporting the deployment of cruise
    144
    missiles in this country. The Vulcan force might represent a large proportion of the long-range theatre strike force at present but I fear that beside the SS20 and the Backfire bomber, the equivalent Soviet systems, our systems are in the grossest need of modernisation. That is why we must go ahead with the cruise missile programme as soon as possible.
    Mr. Newens: Is the Minister saying that the increased costs suggested in the United States will have no effect on the cost of Trident in Britain? If he is not saying that, how does he expect any increased costs in Britain to be accommodated? Will not the percentage expenditure devoted to nuclear weapons have to rise considerably above the figure postulated?
    Mr. Nott: When I want to change the estimate of the cost of Trident from £5 billion I shall do so.

    Production Technology
    Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many individuals and how many establishments, under the control of the Ministry of Defence, are engaged in production technology and related research.
    Mr. Pattie: Many defence establishments, including the R and D establishments, the Royal dockyards and the Royal ordnance factories, undertake some work which might be included within the general spectrum of production technology. However, it would be difficult to identify with any precision the number of staff working directly on production technology from within the wide range of disciplines which might conceivably be applicable.
    Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the statistics show that Britain is spending only one-tenth of what is being spent in the United States, compared with 10 years ago when we were spending one-fifth of that amount? Since we have dropped from second to fourth in the league table, and since the programmes adopted by General Dynamics and Lockheed in the United States are expanding all the time, is there not an urgent need to discuss this matter with the Department of Industry, with a view to something better being done?
    Mr. Pattie: Yes, I agree. My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that discussions have taken place recently between the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Industry and British Aerospace.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Minister aware that the Marconi radar system factory at Bill Quay is largely under the control of the Ministry of Defence, in that it is dependent upon work on the Sea Wolf project? Will he give the workers at Bill Quay, including many of my constituents, an assurance that the Department will not go Dutch and thereby sacrifice hundreds of jobs on Tyneside?
    Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy has heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has plans for further reducing the garrison in Gibraltar.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Philip Goodhart): Army force levels in Gibraltar have remained constant for a long time.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am glad to hear that? I trust that they will remain so. Does that mean that the garrison and the people of that fiercely loyal territory have a remaining and key role in the defence of the West, under the NATO umbrella?
    Mr. Goodhart: That is true.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but will he confirm that, as the Navy and the RAF are part of that garrison, the present strength of the Services will be maintained so long as restrictions against the Gibraltar people are imposed?
    Mr. Goodhart: The forces will remain in position. When the border is open we expect that the surveillance unit of 11 will be withdrawn. Otherwise, the detachments will remain.

    Harrier Aircraft
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Defence what new co-operation is taking place with the United States Government to promote the further development of the Harrier aircraft.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is yet able to make a statement on the future of the Harrier.
    Mr. Pattie: During the recent visit to the United States by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, the United States Secretary of Defence confirmed that the United States Administration supported the development and production of the Harrier AV8B and that proposals were before Congress to fund it. In the light of those discussions we are hoping to reach decisions soon on the RAF's requirement for an improved version of the Harrier.
    Mr. Farr: The House will welcome that. What prospect is there of producing the supersonic VTOL aircraft by the mid-1990s?
    Mr. Pattie: I hope that it will be possible, when the decision to which I referred in my answer is made, to include some reference to the advanced programme.
    Mr. Adley: In view of the last half century's history of exploitation by the United States of the United Kingdom's aviation technology, when my hon. Friend reaches the decision will he please give top priority to maintaining an adequate research and development capability among the highly skilled people of Britain?
    Mr. Pattie: That is the importance of the advanced programme to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) referred.
    Mr. Snape: How does the Minister compare the relative merits of the British Mark V with the United States AV8B? Does not the British version use less fuel, and have better manoeuvrability, greater speed and payload and a longer range? Is it not about time that the Government decided to do what they always say they will do, and buy British?
    Mr. Pattie: Before the hon. Gentleman nails his colours too firmly to the mast he should be aware of the considerable industrial benefits that will accrue to Britain if we are part of a programme involving almost 400 orders.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today I shall have a meeting with the Prime Minister of Romania, after which I shall leave for official visits to India and countries in the Gulf.
    Mr. Foulkes: Before the Prime Minister flies off to India will she take time to read the impressive and revealing document produced by journalists on The Scotsman newspaper, which shows that the Thomson organisation is putting the future of that newspaper in jeopardy by refusing to invest in the maintenance of high journalistic standards, and that it has siphoned off profits from Edinburgh for a substantial number of years?
    The Prime Minister: I doubt whether I shall have time to read that before I go to India. No doubt the Thomson organisation has good reasons for doing what it is doing.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend consider today the role that capital investment could play in helping us to overcome the recession? Is she aware that some projects in the public sector, such as the electrification of the railways, could earn commercial rates of return? Is it not possible to find a way of financing such profitable projects by private capital?
    The Prime Minister: Many of us would like to devote a larger proportion of resources to capital investment, 'Out if that, too, is not to be a drain on the private sector it must be compensated for by a reduction in current expenditure. We cannot spend money on current expenditure and still have it available for capital expenditure.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady look afresh at what was said by the Home Secretary yesterday about the terms of reference of the inquiry into the Brixton disturbances? In the light of her statement yesterday that she does not consider that unemployment is a primary cause of such difficulties, does she not think that the matter should be investigated by the inquiry?
    The Prime Minister: The terms of reference that my right hon. Friend announced are very wide. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard Lord Scarman on the radio at lunchtime today. I gather that he thinks that they are wide enough for everything into which he would wish to inquire to make good his duties.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady go further, particularly as she went much further on television last night, when she was prepared to commit herself to the proposition that high unemployment was not a primary cause of such troubles? According to the reports in the Daily Mirror today—there is no need to laugh, because people should face it—half of the unemployed people between the ages of 16 and 19 in Brixton are coloured.

    147
    How does the right hon. Lady think that the country will have a chance to inquire into these matters? Will all the questions of how unemployment affects the situation really come within the scope of the Scarman inquiry?
    The Prime Minister: The terms of reference give Lord Scarman sufficient scope to inquire into anything that he may wish to in connection with the riots that took place in Brixton. During my interview last night I was asked a straight question and I gave a straight answer. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand it.
    Mr. John MacKay: Before my right hon. Friend leaves today will she accept the congratulations of most people—except those who really play for the other side—on deciding to arm and re-store the "Resolution" by means of naval manpower?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing those congratulations. The defence of this country must not be put at risk by the actions of a very small minority.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: On her long flight to India, will the Prime Minister reflect on the result of last week's Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election? Does she agree that if election to Westminster had been by proportional representation the result might have been very different?
    The Prime Minister: There were two candidates. The answer is "No, Sir".
    Mr. Langasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lang: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all hon. Members will wish to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on nominating six new Labour peers? Does she agree also that, in addition to a need to strengthen the membership of the other place, there is a need to entrench its very existence against those who might seek to undermine and destroy that vital part of our parlimentary democracy?
    The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition made a request that I understood. I was happy, for once, to be able to agree to one of his requests. The other place is not in any danger from Conservatives Members. Those who wish to entrench its existence, or even that of a strong Second Chamber, should vote for our continuance in office.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the Prime Minister take time today to reflect on her views about the connection between unemployment and events in Brixton over the weekend? Is she not aware that some areas in inner London are seriously deprived, have a high incidence of unemployment and have appalling housing? Surely those factors cannot be divorced from the situation afflicting so many young blacks.
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman considers that unemployment was the only cause of the riots, I disagree with him. If he considers that it was the main cause of the riots, I disagree with him. Nothing that has happened with regard to unemployment would justify those riots. Lambeth has about the largest housing investment allocation in London, amounting to about £40 million this year. A large amount—about £9 million—is being spent on the partnership scheme. In addition, about 1,200 council houses have been vacant in Lambeth for more than a year.

    International Year of Disabled People
    Mr. Freudasked the Prime Minister in what way she proposes to contribute to the International Year of Disabled People.
    The Prime Minister: We have paid particular attention to the needs of the disabled in the last two Budgets, putting up the mobility allowance by 65 per cent. since we came into office and doubling the tax allowance for the blind. We are taking a large number of other initiatives to mark the International Year, and I will arrange for a full list to be placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that as her contribution to the International Year of Disabled People—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] Will she give an assurance that services to the handicapped will not diminish as a result of the recession? For the sake of brevity, will she say either "Yes" or "No"?
    The Prime Minister: I have just given a reply that indicates that in some respects provision has increased.
    Mr. John Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the disabled people who work in the Enham Alamein factory in my constituency of Winchester are grateful, because they owe their entire working existence to the Government's lenient and compassionate attitude towards the survival of their factory?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. The Government were able to undertake some public purchasing deliberately to help the disabled. We were glad of the chance to do so.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that her reply is only a half or a quarter truth? Since she came into office the severely disabled have been badly hit. The Prime Minister should tell the House that supplementary benefit discretions, invalidity benefit, social services and the Manpower Services Commission's provision for the disabled have been cut. The right hon. Lady does not seem to appreciate the severity of the impact of those cuts on the disabled. Will she undertake to read some of the many letters that have been received by the voluntary organisations?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the amounts spent on the health services and on social security benefits he will find that they have increased in real terms. In addition, in the last Budget we were glad to be able to double the income tax allowance for the blind. That is a real gesture in this International Year of Disabled People.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Before my right hon. Friend leaves on her journey—which I hope will be enjoyable and

    149
    successful—will she take time to discuss with the Home Secretary the problem of the disabled and elderly who were seriously affected by last weekend's disturbances in Brixton? Will she ensure that they are being properly looked after?
    The Prime Minister: Many people in Brixton were seriously disturbed by last weekend's disorders. Almost all of them—with the exception of those involved—were delighted that the police did not withdraw but fully and bravely carried on their duty to restore law and order to the area.

    Engagements
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Chapman: As my right hon. Friend flies towards the Orient will she take stock of the growing feeling that our rating system is unfair, illogical, undemocratic, inadequate and out of date? At the very least, will she concede that the Government should bring forward a consultative paper giving all the possible options? In that way, a national debate could take place and perhaps a consensus could be reached about an alternative to the present iniquitous impost.
    The Prime Minster: I agree with my hon. Friend's description of the rating system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering the options. None of them is easy. We would consult before making any changes. I shall take into account my hon. Friend's remarks about a consultation paper.
    Mr. Flannery: Will the Prime Minister turn her mind once again to the subject of unemployment? There is so much of it that her mind should be permanently on it. Does
    150
    she realise that since last week's Question Time—when there had been no fewer than five lobbies on unemployment in about five days—the great steelworks of Hadfields, in Sheffield, has announced that it is about to close? Is the right hon. Lady aware that once again there is a lobby outside the House of about one-fifth of the Hadfields' work force, who want to know what will be done about the private sector? Last December the Secretary of State for Industry told Members of Parliament for Sheffield constituencies that he would do nothing for the public sector but that he would do something for the private sector. Private sector firms are closing all over the country.
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman standing up for the private sector. Perhaps we could stand up more for the private sector if we were having to spend a little less on the public sector. In the steel industry we are trying to form a number of companies into what is called Phoenix II, which is part British Steel Corporation and part private sector companies, such as Hadfields, with a view to its eventually coming into the private sector. That would be a great advance on the present situation.

  House of Representatives, Pennsylvania
  Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received from the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Pennsylvania a motion that it has passed celebrating the 300th anniversary of the founding of the State of Pennsylvania and noting with pride its connections with this country.
  I shall put a copy of the documents in the Library. I have written to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Pennsylvania wishing that House well in the future.

American Textiles (Imports)
Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the failure of Her Majesty's Government to take effective action against subsidised man-made fibre and textile imports from the United States and the resulting closure of the Roe Lee mill, Blackburn, with the loss of 320 jobs."
Imports of man-made fibres and products, clothing and textiles, have increased in some sectors by seven times over the past 18 months, as United States producers enjoy a wholly unjustified and unfair competitive advantage over all European producers, because of the way in which the prices of natural gas and oil are held down by regulation in the United States.
We have raised this subject repeatedly in the House. On 15 December 1980 the Minister for Trade announced that there would be negotiations, on behalf of the Government, by the EEC Commission with the United States Administration. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), the Minister said:
"If the initiative fails, we have open to us a range of options under Article XIX of GATT and elsewhere. We would consider those in the light of any failure."—[Official Report, 15 December 1980; Vol. 996, c. 49–50.]
In the four months that have followed it is plain that there has been a major failure and breakdown of those negotiations. Yesterday the Minister for Trade made an announcement about the failure of those negotiations. I cannot quote what was said, because Hansard was printed backwards on that page. However, I have read it in the mirror in the cloakroom outside. The Minister for Trade said that he would not take further action, despite the breakdown of those negotiations.
The importance of the matter is that the continuing failure of the Government to take effective action against United States imports is leading to a haemorrhaging of the textile and clothing industry—especially those sectors that
152
use man-made fibres and textiles. One example—this is a sorry tale—is the Carrington Viyella factory, in my constituency, known as the Roe Lee mill, which has announced its closure with a loss of 320 jobs. It is a double tragedy, for although the factory went on short-time working earlier in the year it went back to full-time working about a month ago. It has all the orders that it can cope with, but it cannot meet competition from the Americans on price.
Unless there is urgent Government action to halt or stem the flood of imports, the man-made fibres industry will bleed to death. Hon. Members who doubt that should be aware that there has been a 50 per cent. drop in output of man-made fibres in one year.
The time has come for firm Government action and for an end to the smooth talk and honeyed words of the Secretary of State for Trade and his colleagues. The Opposition demand that the matter should be debated forthwith.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss
"the failure of Her Majesty's Government to take effective action against subsidised man-made fibre and textile imports from the United States and the resulting closure of Roe Lee mill, Blackburn, with the loss of 320 jobs."
I listened, as the House will have listened, with deep concern to what the hon. Gentleman said about the fibre industry and the textile industry in general. The House is aware that I do not decide whether this important matter is to be debated. I merely decide whether it is of such a character that it must be debated tonight or tommorow night. The House has put that restriction upon me. It has also put a further restriction on me that I do not give reasons for my decision.
I listened with care, but I must rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Imprisonment of Prostitutes (Abolition)
3.35 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the term 'common prostitute' in law; to abolish sentences of imprisonment for soliciting offences; and for connected purposes.
Prostitution is said to be the oldest profession in the world. I have always doubted that, because I thought that it vied with politics for that definition. Someone has pointed out to me that the dividing line between the two is not always clear. I am also aware that journalism is the third oldest profession, inasmuch as someone is required to spread the word. I suspect that I should not be introducing the Bill if there were more women in the House.
My Bill does two things. First, it proposes to remove the term "common prostitute" from the 1959 Act. Secondly, it proposes to abolish imprisonment as a sentence, except where fines are not paid, where the normal law applies.
The term "common prostitute" condemns a person before her case has been heard. It was well intentioned in the first instance. The phrase goes back to the Wolfenden committee's inquiries, which many hon. Members will remember better than I do. In effect, the phrase makes conviction more likely, because it means that a woman appearing in court is charged with being a common prostitute before she has pleaded guilty or not guilty to an offence, even though she may never have appeared in court in her life before. The charge is based on the assumption that a woman has been cautioned by the police prior to arrest.
I do not think that there is a similar situation under any other law. For example, if someone is warned about stealing he is not brought to court and charged with being a common thief before being convicted. The offence is unique in that respect. A male prostitute is covered by a different Act, and the term "common prostitute" is not used.
The charge of soliciting—soliciting is the offence; being a prostitute is not an offence—should stand or fall on its merits and not on a person's being described as a common prostitute before she pleads guilty or not guilty.
The purpose of the second part of the Bill is to abolish imprisonment. The reason is that it is not now regarded by many people as an appropriate sentence for soliciting on the streets. To some extent this is demonstrated by the figures. In 1978 only 214 people—214 women—were sentenced to imprisonment. The vast majority are already dealt with by fines, conditional discharges, probation, and so on.
The all-party penal affairs group in Parliament said in its report:
"We recommend that any nuisance caused by soliciting should be dealt with by legislation dealing with public nuisance generally. No one should normally be convicted of such an offence without evidence having been heard from a person to whom a nuisance has been caused."
In saying that, the report puts the emphasis on the person who alleges that a nuisance has been caused. That is important, because it brings out the question of double standards. A woman soliciting for prostitution on the streets will, generally speaking, cause relatively little offence to passers-by. There are exceptions. But a man
154
looking for a prostitute may cause a great deal of offence. He may be kerb crawling, he may be stopping women who are not prostitutes, and so on. But he will not be charged. Even if he were, in extreme circumstances, to be charged with causing a nuisance it is extremely unlikely that he would be sent to prison.
It is, therefore, an exceptional sentence to impose on women in this position. It is interesting to note that the Police Federation, the prison governors, probation officers, social workers, lawyers and the National Council for Civil Liberties all agree that imprisonment is an inappropriate sentence in cases such as this. I can think of no better way to reconcile such diverse groups as the NCCL, the Police Federation, lawyers and others in unity than an issue of this kind.
The double standards between the customer and prostitute need to be borne in mind.
Street prostitutes often solicit for short-term economic gain, to deal with an immediate financial crisis. It might be done in order to pay the, rent or to avoid having the electricity or gas cut off. These are immediate financial crises, and we need to bear in mind that people live in a different world from that of the 1920s and 1930s. People living in a multi-storey block of flats are dependent on electricity or gas for their heating. They can no longer go out and collect wood from a nearby forest, light a fire and keep themselves warm in that way. They either have to pay their electricity and gas bills or go without lighting and heating.
It is obviously, therefore, sometimes a matter of short-term economic gain. In such circumstances people are often caught, because they solicit in the local area, where they are seen, warned and eventually arrested. It is also true that women arrested in such circumstances have multiple social, economic and emotional problems. They are not organised for their soliciting in the way that some people are.
One of the reasons why I have no fears that soliciting for prostitution would dramatically increase if the Bill were to become law is that it is possible to be a prostitute legally and not get into serious trouble. It is possible to see in shop windows advertisements for "French lessons with variations". I am not sure whether the EEC has issued any directives concerning French lessons and what is requited as a minimum standard. I am sure that if we were to carry out research in that respect: we might find one or two surprises.
Children are taken into care when a mother who is a single person is sent to prison for this offence. That, again, is not a desirable step.
My Bill sets a fine of up to £25 for a first offence and £50 for a second offence. The reasons for that are obvious. At the very least, the danger is that the women will pay the fine out of money that would otherwise be used to pay the rent, the electricity bill or the gas bill. At the very worst, she will simply go out and solicit again in order to pay the bill. I remember a case in which a woman told me that she had increased her price. When customers complained she said "You roust blame the magistrate".
My proposals will not only help the Treasury Bench to keep down inflation; they will keep people out of prison and cut public expenditure. Indeed, rumour has it that the Ministers on the Treasury Bench are fighting each other in order to get the Bill made law before the end of the

155
Session. I urge the hon. Members to vote for the Bill today, for reasons of natural justice and for the welfare of the community as a whole.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Matthew Parris, Mr. Charles Irving, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. Christopher Price, Mr. A. W. Stallard, Mr. John Wheeler, Mr. Frank Dobson, Miss Janet Fookes, and Miss Jo Richardson.

Imprisonment of Prostitutes (Abolition)
  IMPRISONMENT OF PROSTITUTES (ABOLITION)
  Mr. Clive Soley accordingly presented a Bill to abolish the term "common prostitute" in law; to abolish sentences of imprisonment for soliciting offences; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 June and to be printed [Bill 118].

Transport Bill (Allocation of Time)
Mr. Albert Booth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns the motion in the name of the Leader of the House and the amendment to it in the names of my hon. Friends and myself.
When the Bill left the House it did not have within it any clause relating to the subject of seat belts. It has returned from the Committee stage with such a clause—a limited clause, namely, clause 27. We have sought, through the Business Committee of the House, to reach an agreement with the Government that would enable new clause 3, which is also concerned with seat belts, to be debated within the guillotine timetable.
May I ask you for your guidance whether, in view of the change in the scope of the Bill that has occurred between its leaving the Chamber on Second Reading and coming back here, it would be in order for the House, on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends and myself, to determine whether it wishes to consider the wider subject of seat belts in that context?
Mr. Speaker: I am unable to accept the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) because the House has instructed me that I have to put the Question forthwith, under Standing Order No. 43, and I have no choice in the matter. But if the debate is conducted in such a way that the subject is reached it will be possible for the House to discuss the matter of seat belts, which I know is of considerable interest to a large number of right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr. David Ennals: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a new clause, signed by 126 right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House. Do you not feel that the House would bring itself into disrepute if on this occasion it were not to vote one way or the other on an issue that has been before the House eight times, and on which the House has voted three times by an overwhelming majority? Would it not be to the great disadvantage of the House if it were not to vote on it, quite apart from the interests of about 500 people a year whose lives could be saved by the wearing of seat belts?
Mr. Speaker: We are now using debating time. I hope that the House will be able to reach the subject.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has made a speech that was not relevant to the motion, which should be put forthwith. There are other arguments that could be put on the subject. I could have pointed out that my right hon. Friend was a Minister for many years and did nothing about the question. Am I to be allowed to debate the fact that when these Ministers are in power they do nothing and that as soon as they leave office they want to put the world right? I could have obtained 300 signatures had I wished to do so.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the first time that the hon. Gentleman has come to my aid. I am deeply grateful. The Question is, That the report from the Business Committee be now considered.
Mr. Robert Adley rose——
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is only holding up the business.
Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a procedural point. I shall not enter upon the merits of the argument about seat belts. A timetable motion for the Bill was agreed by the House. Subsequently, as the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) said, this new item appeared——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seeks to pursue a matter on which I have already ruled.
Question agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Report [6 April] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Fowler.]
Report considered accordingly.
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and agreed to.
Following is the report of the Business Committee:
That—

(1) the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be New Clauses, Amendments to Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 to 14, Schedules 2 to 4, Clauses 15 to 18, Schedules 5 and 6, Clauses 19 to 22, Schedule 7, Clauses 23 and 24, Clauses 25 to 28, Schedules 8 and 9, Clauses 29 to 35 and Schedules 10 and 11 and New Schedules;

(2) the proceedings on the day which under the Order [9 March] is allotted to consideration and Third Reading shall be divided into the parts shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of that Table.

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

New Clauses.

5.00 p.m.

Amendments up to the end of Schedule 1.

6.30 p.m.

Amendments up to the end of Schedule 4.

8.00 p.m.

Amendments up to the end of Schedule 6.

9.30 p.m.

Amendments up to the end of Clause 24.

11.00 p.m.

Remaining proceedings on consideration.

—

Third Reading.

1.00 a.m.

Orders of the Day

  Transport Bill
  [ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  Transport Bill
    New Clause 16

      Road humps
      '(1) The provisions of Schedule (Road humps) have effect with respect to road humps.
      (2) This section and Schedule (Road humps) come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument, and different days may be so appointed for different purposes.'—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.52 pm
      The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This clause, together with the associated new schedule, deals with the matter of road humps—an important though minor road safety feature which the Government hope will be introduced on to appropriate roads in the reasonably near future. They are sometimes called sleeping policemen.
      Road humps are raised ridges across the road designed to keep the speed of traffic down to a speed suitable for a particular road. The kind of road humps that we have in mind, being on the public highway, would be strictly controlled. Regulations would need to specify the height, dimension and signing, to make sure that no accidents were mused by motorists coming unexpectedly upon humps and no damage was caused to vehicles by unauthorised humps of a strange shape or size. The Government are satisfied, in the light of research carried out, that, on suitable minor roads, road humps can have a beneficial effect on the speed of traffic and hence on road safety. The kind of road for which they are most appropriate is the small back-street side road, often used as a short cut in rush hours, through residential areas where traffic speed ought to stay down to 30 mph. A properly constructed road hump will make sure that this happens.
      There have been experiments with road humps on roads since section 17 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 empowered the Government to install them on an experimental basis. Several road humps were installed and were successful, but because the legal powers to lay them were so limited the road humps had to be dug up and removed and the road surface reinstated after the experimental period. This caused some protest. In the areas where they had been laid they tended to be popular with local residents and with motorists.
      Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), whom I see in his place, introduced a Private Member's Bill that would have enabled road humps to be laid lawfully by local authorities and by the Secretary of State throughout the country. The Bill passed through all its stages in this House and had reached a late stage in another place when an amendment was moved
      158
      which this House had no time to consider. My hon. Friend was extremely unlucky not to be able to get his Bill on the statute book.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and for Faversham (Mr. Moate) tabled amendments in Standing Committee to achieve the same purpose. The Government accepted them and promised to bring forward on Report drafting amendments to make sure that the wording of the legislation complied with the Highways Act 1980, a consolidation measure that has arisen since my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central introduced his Bill, to make various alterations designed to satisfy some of the critics—particularly in another place—who were worried about some details last year.
      The long new schedule contains the correctly drafted provisions. It also makes sure, that, unlike last year's Bill, there is no question of depressions being installled on roads. There will be only humps, elevated from the road. Humps will be installed only by local authorities on roads subject to a speed limit of 30 mph. In certain cases, approved humps can be put on private highways.
      The effect of the clause will not be drastic. I do not think that many humps will be installed. Some local authorities are eager to install them in suitable places. When installed, so long as they follow the prescribed requirements that my right hon. Friend will lay down in regulations they will be treated as part of the highway and not as unlawful obstructions.
      Mr. Barry Henderson: I like very much what my hon. and learned Friend proposes. Will this provision apply in Scotland?
      Mr. Clarke: Yes. Part of the new schedule expressly applies the law to Scotland. It has been felt safest to set out a whole separate enactment of the schedule in terms appropriate to Scottish law. I trust that it will be as beneficial there as here. I commend the new clause.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will local authorities be liable to meet the costs, or will the Department of Transport meet the costs? I am concerned about what costs will be involved. This has not been mentioned by the Minister.
      Mr. Clarke: The local authority would meet the cost of any road hump that it wanted to be installed. It would be part of the authority's ordinary transport budget. The cost of a hump is a few hundred pounds. The local authority would have to weigh up, within its transport budget priorities, whether the case for the hump was justified. No extra expenditure by the Government is contemplated.
      Mr. Roger Stott: The Under-Secretary of State pointed out that the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) tried to bring forward a Bill last year which fell because of a procedural wrangle. We indicated from the Opposition Benches in Committee that we had no objection to the proposals. We still have no objection. I am glad to see that the Government have removed "depressions". That was a minor point of contention.
      The clause, as it stands, has the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. To facilitate progress and to enable the House to debate a more serious issue, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be brief in discussing the clause.
      Mr. Anthony Grant: I intervene only briefly to express my pleasure that the Government have seen fit to bring this provision within the Bill. A great deal of time was spent last year on my Private Member's Bill, for which I had all-party support. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and hon. Members representing all parties supported it. Indeed, the previous Labour Administration were in favour. It was an all-party measure designed to encourage road safety.
      It was a great pity that because of difficulties in another place the Bill became bogged down and I was unfortunately pipped at the post. It is good news that the Minister, with the considerable help of my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and for Faversham (Mr. Moate) in Committee, has brought forward this proposal.
      I was startled by the response from the public, who were very much in favour of my Bill when it was going through the House and received some degree of publicity. I was invited to see experimental road humps that had been placed in roads. Residents expressed to me their delight about their effect in slowing down traffic, about improved amenities and increased safety—all factors that have been borne out statistically by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. Those people were horrified when I had to tell them that at the end of a year, unless the law were changed, the road humps would have to be dug up. This was a ridiculous state of affairs and an absurd feature of the law. I am glad that the Government have bitten on the bullet and intend to put this proposal permanently on the statute book.
      The new clause will cut down noise and nuisance. It will be welcomed by residents. It is a power that local authorities should possess. They do not need to exercise the power; it is voluntary and permissive. No one is forcing the authorities to do anything. According to researches, 52 per cent. of drivers favour road humps. I am delighted that, although I am not responsible for the new clause, a small measure that I started has come to fruition.
      4 pm
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) on having got part of his desires almost met.
      I intervened during the Minister's speech because I wanted to know where the money was to come from. Like all Ministers, he said "Well, it is only a few hundred pounds." Of course, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, he uses the phrase "only a few million pounds".
      Local authorities are always being told "It is only a small amount. It is only a few hundred pounds". However, this is like the question of the cost of living. Almost daily, a Minister who has just returned from the Continent of Europe says from the Dispatch Box that this or that is going up in price—"but it is only 1 per cent." But why should local authorities have to meet this cost out of their local funds?
      The hon. Member for Harrow, Central said that local authorities will decide whether they want to introduce humps. He said that it is voluntary. I remember the day when seat belts were a voluntary matter, but now everyone is trying to make wearing them compulsory. What happens when it becomes compulsory to have these humps? This is where the thin end of the wedge, or of the humps, comes
      160
      in. Start it gradually, bring it in voluntarily, introduce it for a few hundred pounds, and having got the councils hooked, start making it compulsory and start loading them with a lot of expense.
      I do not want my council to be loaded with a lot of costs. I do not want Conservative Members who have been complaining about rates rising to have to explain to their constituents that the rates have risen again because some councils that want, for one reason or another, to put in some humps find that a few hundred pounds have to be found.
      Sir Ronald Bell: It is not just the cost that will rise. The hon. Member might reflect that it could be the humps that rise, too, because as people get used to the idea they will want them higher and higher in order to make the traffic in their neighbourhood slower and slower.
      Mr. Lewis: The hon. and learned Gentleman, rightly as always, is well on the ball—or well on the hump. Perhaps he will go into more detail on that aspect. I do not want to delay the House in any way. I merely wanted to deal with the question of the cost. I am concerned about costs.
      When the Government are introducing legislation which will cost the taxpayer money, either directly through the national Exchequer or indirectly through local rates, I do not mind whether they do it in such a way that Members can get at them on the Floor of the House. I am then happy about it. [Interruption.] Hon. Members laugh, but a number of local authorities are, as we know, prolific spenders. They can spend money like water. We then find that the ratepayer has to pay.
      Mr. Anthony Grant: There is something called local elections. If a local authority were outrageous in its expenditure on road humps, which is very hard to conceive, the remedy of the electors would be in their own hands. It would be to change the local authority.
      Mr. Lewis: Like me, the hon. Gentleman is very old in the tooth, and he very well knows that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) once said, a week is a long time in politics. We all know that what happens today is often forgotten tomorrow. One cannot expect local people to remember that the hump from which they have been suffering for 10 days, 10 weeks or 10 months is all due to the actions of the local authority. The point is that this could not happen but for the Government. My point is that I want to stop the Government doing this and to stop the House giving them the right to do it, unless the Government pay the full costs.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing the beginning of his speech. That is my loss, because I do not know what he said.
      There is a lot to be said in favour of road humps. However, now that we are in the EEC I should have thought that this was the sort of issue on which individual member States would be very unwise to make their own decisions as to how they should go forward. I should have thought that it would be sensible to wait until Brussels has made a decision about the sort of humps that we should have throughout the Community, so that we do not have to to go forward and spend this money, about which the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned. Let us wait until we have a decision from Brussels and we can all do the same thing.
      Mr. Lewis: I do not know whether I should be in order in dealing with that matter, Mr. Speaker. I suppose that it would be in order, because it concerns the hump. I am surprised at the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I have no confidence in the Common Market. He appears to have confidence in it. The present Government waste money, but there is no possibility of their wasting money to the same extent as the Common Market wastes it. If we left this matter to the Common Market we would have a far greater waste of money and far more expenditure than would be necessary.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Getleman's instinct at the beginning was a good one. If I were him, I should leave the Common Market and return to English, Welsh and Scottish humps.
      Mr. Lewis: I am not so sure, Mr. Speaker. I agree with you about the first matter, but I am not sure whether I should not ask the Minister a further question about the cost. If, as he says, local authorities would have to pay these few hundred pounds—we all know that the few hundred pounds will turn into a few thousand pounds and eventually a few thousand pounds will turn into a few hundred thousand pounds—should we not ask the Common Market for subsidies?
      That is a point that I had not thought of previously. It could well be in order. If my local authority wanted to get the hump, or to put up humps, would it be in order in asking the Common Market to help with the costs? If that were so I might consider supporting the proposition—because any money that I can get out of the Common Market, I am happy to get, in any way possible. However, I am not sure that local authorities will be able to do this. I think that what would happen would be that the local authorities would have to pay. If the Minister is all in favour of this proposition he ought to say "I shall see to it that we shall meet the costs from the Exchequer."
      Mr. Matthew Parris: Is it not more likely that under some potential future common hump policy our taxpayers would end up paying for the construction of humps across the Channel?
      Mr. Lewis: I think that Mr. Speaker would have the hump if I developed that point too far. I shall speak to the hon. Member outside later. He has a point. The cost is said to be only a few hundred pounds. I am making a serious point.
      Mr. Barry Sheerman: You do not have a serious point in your head.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Such remarks are addressed to me, and that is a little exaggeration. Being Welsh, I am accustomed to exaggeration, so we shall let the matter pass.
      Mr. Lewis: I would not dare to think of accusing the Chair in such a manner.
      I am worried about this matter. If the Minister would care to come with me today, tomorrow, or any day of this week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Now."]. Yes, now. Within half an hour of travelling around the London boroughs he would find potholes as big as the Dispatch Box in almost every street. There are big potholes which have existed for months on end. Local authorities claim that they cannot afford to put matters right because they do not have the necessary money. These potholes are dangerous to the blind, the sick and the disabled, and they are dangerous
      162
      to motorists. I am not talking about the question of the control of the boroughs, or whether it is Westminster, Islington or Lambeth. In all of these boroughs, as I have seen myself, there are huge potholes. If we are to have safety measures—I agree that we need safety measures—surely these potholes ought to be repaired. The Minister has done nothing about that matter.
      Mr. Marlow: I am sorry to intervene again, but the hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, did not answer my question. If we were to go ahead and build our own road humps, is there not a risk that we should have to replace them later with a Eurohump? The money would be spent twice.
      Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman should take up the matter with Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker is in the Chair. As the hon. Member knows, Mr. Speaker is never wrong, and he has ruled that I cannot deal with the matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, much as he thinks he is right, the occupant of the Chair can never be wrong, just as he can never be silly or stupid.
      Mr. Robert Rhodes James: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
      Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that motion at this stage.
      Mr. Lewis: I cannot deal with the issue raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North because Mr. Speaker said that it would not be in order for me to do so. I can discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman later—perhaps in the Lobby, or even in the bar where we could have a few drinks and become inebriated. We could not do that in the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not deal with the matter now.
      We must watch public expenditure and ensure that it is cut to the bone. I sound like the Prime Minister or the Government. I have been listening too much to the Government and their supporters talking about cuts in public expenditure. The Government must do something to reimburse local authorities on a 100 per cent. basis. Otherwise councils will not build road humps. If road humps are not built, the local inhabitants will be unable to do anything about it—other than perhaps throwing the council out at the next election. I hope that the Minister will say that as the sum involved is only a few hundred pounds he will guarantee that the Treasury will foot the bill.
      Mr. Iain Mills: I am grateful to be called, Mr. Speaker, because it is important to make some procedural and detailed points about the new clause on road humps.
      I congratulate the Under-Secretary on taking an unusually short time. That should be recognised, in view of the undercurrents in connection with the new clauses and the possibility of discussing new clauses later I note also the extremely short time taken—most honourably—by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott). That underlines the fact that both sides of the House want a short discussion on the matter today.
      I moved the amendment on road humps in Committee and I believe—perhaps supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), who discussed road humps in endless detail on previous occasions—that those who are knowledgeable about road humps are happy

      163
      to accept the Government's dictates and changes. That is demonstrated by the fact that we have had the shortest speeches for a long time on both sides of the House. There is absolute agreement, therefore, that road humps in the form presented today are acceptable. Any further detailed debate that is not reckoned to be substantial to the nature of the clauses can be interpreted by people inside and outside the House only as delaying the measures that will allow further new clauses to be debated later.
      Mr. Peter Fry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rarely raise a point of order, but on this occasion I feel that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) are such as to inhibit discussion on this important clause. I seek your guidance, and hope that those of us who want to debate road humps will not be browbeaten or prevented from putting forward our points of view.
      Mr. Speaker: This debate did not start until about 3.50 pm. That is enough of an answer about an early decision on any question of a closure.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) is wrong. The Chair never limits debate when it believes that there has not been adequate debate. There is never a chance of debate being restricted, because the Chair ensures that we get fair play. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest otherwise.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but in the interests of fair play I am interrupting him so that I may call the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills).
      Sir Ronald Bell rose——
      Mr. Mills: I shall not give way. I shall be brief, and I have no intention of being discourteous to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). I hold him in considerable regard, and I believe that what he said is important. I accept what he says about public expenditure. I was not talking about his speech; I was saying that it would be a shame if the debate on road humps were to inhibit further discussion on measures which other right hon. and hon. Members feel are important. Perhaps I may be forgiven for saying that in Committee the pressures put on those Members were considerable. I do not wish to inhibit the House by saying that I agree with the Government's decision on the amendments originally tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central and myself in Committee. They have taken away the depression from road humps. That might lighten the lives of some hon. Members, and even reduce any feeling that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West might have that public money could be spent on depressions instead of humps. Thus, any expenditure on road humps would be positive.
      Restriction to the 30 mph limit is in line with the guarantee that the Government gave in Committee. It is therefore welcome to those who believe that the road humps new clause is a small but serious measure.
      I conclude by apologising—if apologies are needed—to any right hon. or hon. Member for my earlier remarks. However, I sincerely and earnestly believe that road
      164
      humps have now reached a satisfactory conclusion, and it would greatly benefit the reputation of the House and right hon. and hon. Members if we were to allow this debate not to preclude any further discussion on other important issues.
      Mr. Sheerman: In Committee I put my name to the amendment on road humps. Local authorities are not forced to have road humps, but they are able to introduce them if they so wish, after a complicated procedure. The Secretary of State will have to consent to the scheme.
      I accept that hon. Members have every right to discuss amendments and that we must remember that there are many amendments to discuss before 5 o'clock. There is a difference between genuine concern about road humps and the genuine concern that is felt by Members on both sides of the House that the behaviour of certain hon. Members, even though within the letter of the rules of the House, brings the House into disrepute because of the tactics being used. The road humps debate is being used to try to stop the majority of the House from having its say on issues that are important to the nation.
      Mr. Fry: That surely is what the Opposition are always trying to do—stop the majority of Members from having their say. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Opposition do not have a valid point to make? Surely any point of view, even though it is a minority point of view, is entitled to be put.
      Mr. Sheerman: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. However, we know that some things are within the letter of our rules, some things are within the spirit of our rules, and some things are dishonest in any institution, and bring the House into disrepute. I believe that some hon. Members are now doing that.
      Mr. Robert Adley: I shall be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant). I had the pleasure of serving on the Committee that considered his Bill. He will agree that the House owes a debt to Mr. Chris Heaps, who was one of the prime movers behind the proposal and motivated some of us to do something about it.
      There are some questions to which I would appreciate answers from my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary. I support the new clause, which is a small but important measure, which gives people some control over their own environment. I understand that one of the main differences between the proposals before us and those in the original Bill dealing with road humps is that the current proposals restrict the construction of humps to roads on which there is a 30 mph limit. That is a pity, because humps would be relevant on many country roads.
      On the vexed question of highway authorities, I moved an amendment to the original Bill to give district councils as well as county councils the right to initiate the process of creating road humps. The amendment was rejected, but will my hon. and learned Friend consider, in the powers that he is taking in the Bill, direct representations to him from district councils as well as from county councils?
      Will my hon. and learned Friend also tell us whether he is prepared to consider representations from local groups who may be prepared to finance the construction of road humps in their localities? There are many instances where small groups of local people would be willing to do

      165
      that, because they would consider the cost involved a small price to pay for the improvement of their environment.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) mentioned the 30 mph limit. Great problems are caused in my constituency by roads that run through villages that are not long enough to be approved for speed limits of 40 mph or 30 mph. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary will remember that road humps could be used as a means of enforcing speed reduction in such villages.
      What guidance will be provided to local authorities from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory? As far as I can see, there is nothing that lays down what sort of hump will be relevant to what sort of speed level. Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that guidance is provided, and will he place the greatest emphasis on road humps in terms of speed enforcement?
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As I may not have the opportunity to reply to the debate, may I point out, on the fundamental point raised by my hon. Friend, that the nature of the road humps—the size, signing, location, and so on—will be tightly controlled by regulations? The new schedule that is a substantive part of the road humps provision includes a regulation-making power.
      There can be no question of having endless local variations, or not controlling their size, and so on. All the TRRL's experience will be reflected in the regulations and the only humps that will be lawful will be those that comply with the detailed regulations that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will provide.
      Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for that intervention, but is my hon. and learned Friend giving consideration to experimenting with road humps to enforce a 40 mph speed limit as well as a 30 mph limit? Will he also consider road humps as the answer to the problem facing villagers that cannot get speeds limits, for whatever reason? Humps would slow traffic to the point where residents do not continually have to cross the road in peril of their lives, as is the case in Woolhampton, in my constituency, because they are unable to get a speed limit from the county council or the Department.
      Mr. Fry: I am a member of the RAC's public policy committee, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) introduced his Bill I may have caused him slight annoyance by objecting. I should make it clear that I do not object to the principle of road humps, but the RAC and I feel that it raises important questions of public expenditure.
      We do not have a limitless amount of money. Local budgets are severely restricted. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) raised an interesting and important point about local groups financing the construction of road humps. Most of us know that the areas to which road humps are ideally suited are residential estates that are used as short cuts by traffic that races through with no regard for the safety of young children. That is a particular problem on open-plan estates, where there are no fences to keep the children in.
      There is such an estate at Irchester, in my constituency. Last weekend I received a deputation from residents who were anxious to have road humps constructed at the
      166
      entrance to the estate. I had to explain that the Bill was not yet law and that there was an added difficulty because the county council had to find the necessary finance.
      I am satisfied that residents of many estates would have no difficulty in raising money to provide road humps. They cannot take the decision on their own, because it is important to have a standard form of road hump and we cannot allow those that will cause more accidents than they prevent, but I hope that the Government have not closed their mind to the idea that there should be an injection of private capital, if I may use that phrase to my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary, because that would be in the interests of those who will be most affected.
      I hope that we shall not have to wait for individual local authorities to make up their minds, because much could be done by local people in the cause of road safety.
      Mr. Adley: As the Government encourage that principle in the NHS, would not the Department of Transport be well advised to follow that example?
      Mr. Fry: Indeed. I would take it a step further and use the analogy of preventive medicine.
      The ideal time to consider the provision of humps is when the outline of a new estate is being discussed with a developer. Consultation could take place at that early stage, and that might stop the development of estates where many parents are fearful for their children's future.
      On many new estates there are often few children in the early years. It is only after two or three years that children come along, and therefore thought is not always given to road humps as a road safety measure when estates are being planned.
      I support the new clause, but the proposal needs more thought and more impetus, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State needs to embrace the political philosophy that we are trying to extend in other areas.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's comments about private capital, and I should like him to go into more detail on that. Is he suggesting that we should appeal to the financiers and entrepreneurs of the City of London? Is the money to come from local residents? Many of my constituents are going to prison because they cannot pay their present rates. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be easy to operate on an estate, but does he propose that in other areas someone should go round with a hat to each resident?
      Mr. Fry: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but the point that I was trying to make was that where a road hump was not likely to be provided, because of shortage of cash, local residents could club together if they wished. I further tried to point out that perhaps the developer of a new estate should bear the cost of providing road humps. I accept that there are areas where the local residents could not finance the cost, and in those circumstances it would be the responsibility of the local authority.
      I put all these points with great seriousness to my hon. and learned Friend, and I hope that he will reply to them before this debate is concluded.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I noted the speed with which my hon. and learned Friend introduced this measure and the speed with which the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr.

      167
      Stott) replied, and I was somewhat alarmed when my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) seemed to be saying to the House that this was a matter of sufficiently little importance for hon. Members not to be justified in debating it.
      Mr. Iain Mills: Would my hon. Friend allow me to correct his misapprehension? I said that I hoped that this small but important measure would not preclude the discussion of any other new clauses, and I put forward for his attention the fact that this matter had been debated both in this House and in another place at some length.
      Mr. Lawrence: I accept completely what my hon. Friend has so charmingly said to reduce the effect that his opening words might have had upon me, because I certainly felt them to be somewhat intimidating.
      Although road humps may seem to some hon. Members in this Chamber to be less important than some of the other matters to which I hope that we shall come, such as the question of motor-cycle helmets, the RAC, which is one of the most responsible organised bodies, if not the most responsible one, for motorists in this country, views the question of road humps with great seriousness. For this reason, we might have thought from the speeches that we have heard so far from those who are anxious to get this road hump measure on the statute book that nobody who had spoken in favour of the new clause was actually a motorist.
      Road humps, particularly if they proliferate in the sort of regions that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) was intimating they might, would be a great inconvenience to motorists. While the interests of road safety may weigh substantially in their favour, the fact that we are introducing in this House a measure which will greatly inconvenience motorists is something that we must take seriously and must consider fully.
      Mr. Anthony Grant: Following that line of argument, perhaps my hon. Friend will explain why the researches of the Road Research Laboratory, where humps have been installed, revealed that no less than 52 per cent. of motorists who were polled were in favour of the humps.
      Mr. Lawrence: That raises a whole new question that I would rather not go into. All I can say is that I have repeatedly driven over humps in the area in which I live and have never once been polled. If I had been, I would have said exactly what I thought of the humps that I had been over.
      Sir Ronald Bell: Would my hon. Friend not consider the probability that the motorists polled were exactly those who lived in the immediate neighbourhood, because my experience, and, I imagine, that of most Members of Parliament, is that everybody wants a tight speed limit in the immediate neighbourhood of his home and no speed limits anywhere else. The same probably applies to road humps.
      Mr. Lawrence: I am sure that, as so often with what my hon. and learned Friend says, that is absolutely right.
      Mr. Michael Brotherton: If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) says, 52 per cent. of the motorists polled were in favour of humps, that means that 48 per cent. were against them.
      168
      With the statistical imprecision of polls, would that not show that the result was totally insignificant and probably wrong?
      Mr. Lawrence: It certainly shows that the matter is one concerning which the country is not entirely of one mind and is therefore something that we ought to consider, at any rate in a reasonably short debate, raising the matters that concern us most.
      Mr. Gary Waller: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that the poll which has been referred to was in relation to some particular road humps. Motorists were asked if they were in favour of those road humps, and not necessarily road humps in general. While it is reasonable to suppose that many would favour road humps in general, if they proliferated and there were a large number of humps, some motorists might have a different view from that which they expressed in relation to the small number of road humps allowed under the experiment.
      Mr. Lawrence: That raises the spectre of a number of over-enthusiastic local authorities round the country deciding that because Parliament thought road humps were so important a contribution to road safety they should put up road humps wherever the local residents complained about the traffic going along their roads. The thought that we might have in this country thousands of towns and cities and tens of thousands of villages going about the business of building road humps might raise a question in the minds of the millions of motorists who might be inconvenienced.
      Mr. Adley: I know that my hon. Friend has given a great deal of thought to the question of road humps and that his mind is not on anything else in the Bill. If he is so concerned about the convenience of motorists whose views, presumably, from what he is saying, he thinks should override anyone else's, would he also agree that pedestrian crossings and traffic lights are a frightful inconvenience to motorists and that we should do nothing to look after the interests of those who live locally and might want to cross the road?
      Mr. Lawrence: I do not think that it is necessary to take any argument to a logical conclusion that is absurd. I have never argued that pedestrian crossings are wrong or that we should not have them, in the interests of road safety, and I am not doing so now. I am not even arguing now that we should not have road humps. I am merely saying that the question of road humps is an important matter upon which a number of issues need to be clarified in the minds of the public. We are legislating here on behalf of the public, not on our own behalf or in accordance with our own biases or predisposed views. We are legislating for the people that we represent and I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) that many people that I represent will be greatly inconvenienced by a massive proliferation of road humps wherever they want to drive and wherever residents in a particular area feel it necessary to put them.
      One of the reasons why I feel strongly about this question of road humps—I hope that my hon. Friend will give me credit for having a mind that is able to embrace not only the subject of road humps but also other matters that may arise, such as crash helmets, which I hope that

      169
      we shall come to shortly—is that I drive a car and have some friends who live in a road where road humps have been built.
      One question which I think needs to be answered by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary—because he is learned he is in a particularly good position to answer it—is exactly what powers or rights the motorist has who goes over a road hump which has been built too high, or is a little too wide, or whose dimensions in some way cause damage to his car or injury to the people who are in it.
      Some of the road humps I have been over have been of a quite exaggerated size; presumably they have had the approval of somebody in the road transport section of the local authority who has said that the road humps are properly of this size and height. Exhaust systems on cars are very expensive these days and it is not always easy to avoid not only the expense but the waste of time involved in having repairs done after driving along roads with road humps which certainly hitherto have been of a rather exaggerated size.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: I disagree with the hon. Member on the prnciple but I ask him to turn to something which was put to me—against my views, incidentally. The question of exhausts and their cost is perhaps not so vital, but I was told by a motor engineer that one of the great dangers—this was probably not put to the 52 per cent. of motorists in favour of humps—is that going over humps persistenly can damage the steering of a car and the person driving does not know that the steering is damaged.
      Damaged steering is far more dangerous than a damaged exhaust system. If an exhaust system falls off a car, the poor owner has to foot the bill. He is more likely to knock down a child because he does not know that his steering has been damaged than because his exhaust system has been damaged. Will the hon. Gentleman develop that angle?
      Mr. Lawrence: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not take long to develop it. I am grateful to him for raising it. I was about to mention other parts of a vehicle that are damaged by road humps. The modern car is a piece of delicate and expensive machinery. Many other parts may be shaken and ruptured, apart from steering and exhaust systems. The expense thereby created is substantial.
      What remedy does the motorist have in circumstances in which a properly approved road hump causes damage or injury when a car is passing over it at a not excessive speed?
      What are the powers of supervision of local authorities that respond to the proper concern of local residents who are worried about speeding vehicles? Very often we, as Members of Parliament, receive complaints from residents about young people on motor bikes. What supervision is expected to come from what centralised organisation to ensure that before road humps are put on any road there is a positive need for them in the interests of road safety? I foresee local councillors throughout the country saying, "If this is what the local resident wants and if he feels that we should be doing something to protect his residence, road safety in the area and the safety of children, we shall install them." That is not good enough, because it may be that the humps about which I am complaining——
      Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you guide the House on the issue of Members' interests when they make speeches on matters on which their interests might bear? At the beginning of a speech should an hon. Member make a declaration of any remuneration that he receives from outside bodies that might be connected with the legislation that we are discussing? What is the rule on that?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): An hon. Member would use every discretion that he has in dealing with such matters as those to which reference has been made.
      Mr. Brotherton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the convention of this place that right hon. and hon. Members always declare any interest that they may have? Is it not possibly a slur by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) on my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) to raise the issue on a point of order?
      Mr. Lawrence: I do not take it as a personal slur. However, as the issue has been raised I shall deal with it. I am a paid-up member of the RAC. As such, I suppose that I have some interest in ensuring that that body's request that the issue of road humps should be properly considered—it is one on which it feels quite strongly—is carried to a sensible conclusion. That is one of my interests.
      Secondly, from time to time I have the good fortune to be instructed by those who run foul of the traffic law. I suppose that it is conceivable that if there are road humps that encourage some lawbreakers to infringe the speed limit or to go against the provisions of this proposed legislation I might have some financial interest. It will not have escaped the House that the tenor of my speech is that we should be careful before we proliferate humps that will provide me with more work, In the circumstances it is difficult to conceive why the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) should think that I am speaking——
      4.45 pm
      Sir Ronald Bell: Does my hon. Friend have a retainer from any particular road hump?
      Mr. Lawrence: I am beset by questioners.
      Mr. Anthony Grant: Has my hon. Friend considered that the passing into law of the Bill might in this respect give him less work? All researches show that accidents are reduced as a result of road humps. My hon. Friend may have an interest because he may have less work as a result.
      Mr. Lawrence: If my practice were concerned with negligence or accidents there would be much merit in what my hon. Friend says. The reality is, alas, that my practice is much more modest than that.
      It is concerned with the defence of those who have allegedly offended against legislation of the sort that we are proposing to introduce by means of the Bill. My hon. Friend's argument is not as good as mine. If I have a financial interest in defending anyone, I am speaking against that interest in calling for caution with road humps.
      The only other matter that I ought perhaps to declare——-I normally do so and it normally bores my hon. Friends, but as I am invited to declare my interests I shall do so—is that I have the great honour to be president of the National

      171
      Association of Approved Driving Instructors. It is an honour that I have enjoyed for a number of years—indeed, ever since a former distinguished Member of this House ceased to hold the equivalent position in the organisation that existed previously. It is a position that I much enjoy holding because it brings me into contact not only with many small business men, whose interests, as the House knows, are a preoccupation of mine, but with road safety. If the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East has some devious or sinister fears about that position I assure him that it is one which I hold in honorarium. I think that I have replied to the hon. Gentleman, who believes that I may not have disclosed one of my interests. I have laid my interests bare. My overriding interest lies in road safety and good sense in considering the motorist.
      I was proposing to ask my hon. and learned Friend what responsibility, what powers, and what facilities are available to ensure that the Government supervise local authorities that in an excess of zeal may be minded to protect themselves from any criticism on the ground of road safety by proliferating the introduction of road humps in many roads, whether they have speed limits of 30 mph or more.
      I, too, have villages in my constituency, some of which are very lovely. I have tried hard, sometimes with success but, alas, not always, to have 30 mph speed limits imposed in these villages. A motor cyclist might hurtle through a village such as Newborough, in Staffordshire, and hit a road hump which he has not seen either because he is too bad a cyclist, because the light is out, or because the warning light is not good enough. That thought fills me with horror. It is one thing for villagers who are aware of the speed of traffic passing through to take care as they cross the road and another thing for motor cyclists to hurtle through and cause themselves sometimes the most atrocious accidents on hitting something in the road that they did not foresee.
      It is a matter of concern for road safety that there should be proper and adequate supervision by a central and respected body to ensure that the type of road humps that cause such injury or damage do not proliferate throughout the country.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Who does the hon. Gentleman think will do the supervising? Will it be the Government or a Government Department? A huge Department recently carried out a census which omitted entire villages. It costs us £50 million a year to have an Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. A census is carried out once every 10 years. If Government Departments cannot do their jobs, how can the hon. Gentleman be sure that anything that this Government or any other Government do can be relied upon? Surely we could not rely on a Government to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests.
      Mr. Lawrence: I shall not be tempted to take up the line that the hon. Gentleman tempts me to take. I am anxious to come to the conclusion of my speech and to allow those of my hon. Friends who wish to speak on this subject to make their contributions.
      My third point concerns the whole question of cost. It has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), who, in a distinguished other guise, represents us on the RAC. The RAC is concerned about costs, and rightly so. For many years, it has
      172
      conducted a campaign which draws to the attention of motorists the fact that although vast sums of money are levied from the motorist in taxes, little is spent on the improvement of our roads. It has been a perennial cause of concern in the House that our roads are not receiving as much money as they should for maintenance and improvement. That problem will grow increasingly as the vehicles which carry heavy cargoes cause more and more damage to the existing stock.
      Mr. Brotherton: My hon. Friend is in error if he is seeking to argue that all the money raised in taxation by the motorist should be spent on the roads. Would it not be equally effective to say that all the money raised from the smoker should be spent on the smoker? It is silly to argue for hypothecated taxation. On reflection, does not my hon. Friend agree that he is wrong if he seeks to pursue that argument?
      Mr. Lawrence: I am not seeking to pursue the argument on the lines along which my hon. Friend has tempted me to go. I am resisting much temptation this afternoon in the interests of getting on.
      The point which my hon. Friend makes is, as always, valid, but I am making a different point. The RAC is concerned at the cost implications when "grossly inadequate"—that is its phraseology—resources for essential road construction and improvement are being denied. I do not entirely accept such criticism because I know how hard my hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport are going about their business of trying to provide adequate resources for the expensive business of road maintenance.
      However, the fact remains that today, on the question of road humps, we are legislating for another item which will have substantial cost implications—not only the cost of constructing the humps but the cost of modifying them when there are too many complaints and actions from local authorities. That will inevitably happen, as it has happened hitherto. There are also cost implications of insurance claims and everything else which may follow.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough rightly referred to what I know is deeply in the RAC's mind—that perhaps we should consider an opportunity for local residents who feel strongly about the need for humps to be asked to make a contribution towards their cost.
      Mr. Percy Grieve: No.
      Mr. Lawrence: My hon. and learned Friend says "No". He is knowledgeable about those matters.
      Mr. Grieve: Surely my hon. Friend appreciates that in most of our inner cities there are rat-runs through numerous residential streets. Would not the use of road humps in such streets prevent the appalling nuisance and danger to local residents which are caused by traffic passing through at high speed?
      Mr. Lawrence: I do not dissent from that. No doubt, I would be enthusiastic for some of the residents in my area to have them. However, I am saying that if the cost implications are considerable there should be some provision whereby local authorities can say to residents that if they want the road humps they can pay for them—or at any rate they can make a substantial contribution towards them so that the general fund which would otherwise be used for the construction of road humps might be used more widely for the improvement of roads

      173
      in any area. An argument may develop concerning the two sides of the interest in residential road humps. Those who do not want road humps would want some improvement in the general structure of the road in a particular area.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis rose——
      Mr. Lawrence: I must resist the final temptation, if the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) will allow me to do so.
      I have raised three important points with the Minister, not just because I say that they are important but because the RAC, which represents millions of motorists in Britain, thinks that they are important and should be discussed, and dealt with on Report. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to give some reassurance not only to me and to those whom I represent but to the many motorists who feel—as the RAC feels—that there will be much inconvenience and cost and possibly some danger in having road humps and that that must be set in the scale on the other side of the undoubted value to road safety of having such impediments enshrined in legislation.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I know that my reply cannot close the debate. I apologise to any of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are still seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No doubt they will take advantage of any time which I leave before our timetable motion requires the debate to end.
      One or two points have been raised. I shall probably leave one or two queries unanswered in the minds of the hon. Members who have spoken, most of whom have been in favour of road humps. Therefore, if our short debate leaves any doubts in the public mind, I should make clear one or two matters.
      The humps will usually be installed by the highway authority. The only people empowered to construct them will be either the highway authority or the Secretary of State. In fact, the Secretary of State is unlikely to make much use of his powers, which will be used only if there is thought to be a need for further experiment in new forms of humps or new types of road. Therefore, the highway authority will install humps and in most cases that authority will be the county council.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) asked about the role of district councils. District councils are not highway authorities. The House would not wish to duplicate the powers of the different tiers of local government in highway matters. However, there is nothing to stop a district council putting a proposal to its county council and inviting that council to construct such a hump, ideally on the sort of road described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) as a rat-run through a suburban area, of which a district council may be aware.
      There is nothing to stop a group of local residents, such as a residents' committee, offering to put up the money for a road hump which they want. The cost is estimated to be between £700 and £800 in each case. If the county council can be persuaded to exercise the powers which we propose to give it, there is nothing to prevent it accepting a donation towards the cost of such a hump.
      I shall make this point clear, as doubts have been expressed. We are not talking about a proliferation of all sorts of locally designed, irregular humps. The humps which we have in mind have been well tested by the
      174
      Transport and Road Research Laboratory. There were no proven cases of damage to vehicles arising from those humps. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) said, they were popular with motorists and residents. The motorists who responded to the questionnaire were asked where they lived. Only 3 per cent. of those responding were receiving the benefit, as local residents, from the humps on the road. No one had an accident, suffered damage or objected to the humps. Those humps were welcomed.
      Regulations will be drawn up which will tightly confine the size, nature, signing, and so on of the road humps. There will be a standard pattern which can be adopted by local authorities. If they wish to adopt the pattern the local authorities will have to advertise their intention to do so and they will have to consult the local police and such other people as the regulations will prescribe. The regulations are subject to the negative procedure, but they could come before Parliament and they could be annulled by the House if any hon. Member tabled a prayer against them. Therefore, once the draft regulations are produced they will be subject to the scrutiny of the House in the usual way.
      I believe that the regulations will be welcomed, as most right hon. and hon. Members have said. We are not introducing a proliferation of humps but merely an opportunity for a modest number to be put in suitable places.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) wanted to know about the position on non-30 mph limit roads. Under the Bill as drafted the Secretary of State would have power to install humps on any road, but only for experimental purposes. We do not envisage any such experiments at the moment. Local authorities would be confined to roads already subject to the 30 mph limit. I hope that that commends itself to the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, it is all very well desiring to restrain the speed of vehicles on remote country roads or through small villages, but if a road hump were encountered on a derestricted road a serious accident could be caused if someone were travelling recklessly and fast.
      I fear, therefore, that my hon. Friend's villagers and others who want speed limits will have to satisfy the highway authority that the limit is justified before the road hump can be installed to back it up.
      Given those reassurances I hope that the House will agree that it is a popular and desirable measure and that the time has come to correct a long-standing anomaly.
      Mr. Lawrence: Can my hon. and learned Friend answer my point about accidents and injury?
      Mr. Clarke: So long as humps comply with the regulations, they will not be an unlawful obstruction in the road; they will be part of the highway. Therefore, the highway authority would be responsible for damage only——
      5 pm
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am now required under the terms of the resolution to which the House agreed today to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 1

      RAILWAYS BOARD'S POWERS OF DISPOSAL
      Mr. Albert Booth: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 2, at end insert
      "'Subsidiary" in this subsection shall not be deemed to include British Rail Engineering Limited.'.
      The object of the amendment is clear. It is to keep British Rail Engineering Ltd. strictly within the scope of British Railways and the British Railways Board and to remove the ability that the Bill would confer on the Minister to instruct the board to sell the engineering subsidiary or to prevent British Railways from seeking the consent of the Minister to sell the subsidiary.
      I make it clear that British Railways has, to the best of my knowledge, at no time suggested to the Government that it would wish to dispose of BREL. The amendment is merely a fall-back if we do not succeed in defeating the Bill or at least securing a wider amendment to prevent BR from ever being forced to sell subsidiaries.
      BREL employs 36,000 people and has 13 workshops. Under the Bill, a number of those jobs and workshops could be at risk. The workshops' income rose from £178 million in 1975 to £378 million in 1979. Although they are largely geared to the highly specialised needs of BR, that has not prevented them from building up a considerable and worthwhile trade, when not fully utilised in supplying BR's needs, in building trains and wagons for other railway systems. BREL has built up a substantial export business. In the last financial year for which there are records, over £30 million came from sales to private customers, mainly overseas. It is an important and thriving business, mainly concerned with supplying the specialised needs of BR, but also supplying other railways throughout the world. Its current order book, which stands at about £50 million, includes orders from the Swiss and a number of African railways. In our economic position, we should not sneeze at that income or put it at risk.
      BREL is a public business that has been improving its productivity substantially. In its last operating year it achieved a 10 per cent. increase in output, with an increase of only 2 per cent. in staff. In the previous year it increased productivity by 9 per cent.
      In considering an amendment to a Bill, the first part of which is largely taken up by the Government's obsession with denationalisation, the House should realise that BREL has close links with many private sector manufacturers. Considerable parts of the private sector involving railway wagon and locomotive manufacture depends on arrangements with BREL. About 70 per cent. of new rolling stock components used by the subsidiary are purchased from the private sector and even 50 per cent. of the repair work involves purchases from the private sector.
      The subsidiary has developed excellent production facilities. Last Friday I had the pleasure of visiting the Horwich works in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott), and I was particularly impressed by the foundry capacity that has been developed. It is probably the finest in the world.
      It is notable that before the Bill was introduced no hint was given that it would cover BREL. The Tory manifesto certainly gave no hint that British Rail subsidiaries would be involved in denationalisation. At that time the National Freight Corporation was the only transport organisation to be denationalised.
      176
      The subsidiary provides a vital service to the British Railways Board. By taking only the contracts that it can cope with without limiting its service to BR, it earns money for the country through private sales while sustaining BR's capacity at a lower unit cost than if the workshops stood idle when not required to meet peak demands. In private hands, the company would not do that. Private management would gear to the troughs rather than the peaks of BR demand and keep for BR only the capacity that it could not continually fill with private work. Sale could also delay the investment programme, limit the capacity of the most profitable operation of existing facilities and jeopardise jobs and BR's income brought in by the service.
      The Secretary of State says that he has no current intention to sell BREL. I hope that he will consider the many propositions for railway investment that would involve the subsidiary in a considerable amount of work. If he has no current intention to sell he does not need the provision in the Bill. If in future he has a serious case for selling BREL, he can then bring it to the House. We pressed him on the matter on Second Reading and in Committee, and he had no case to deploy. Therefore, we should pass the amendment to make a Bill which is causing concern to all in the public transport business a little less repulsive.
      Mr. Harry Cowans (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). Apart from those dedicated Members who sat through the Committee stage, all of the Conservative Members seem to have belted off somewhere. As that is the nature of this place, I suppose that we must simply go on.
      The purpose of the Bill is to hive off assets to private enterprise. Let us start the book at the first page. The railways were originally run by private enterprise companies. Those companies saw the wisdom of having their own workshops not only for building stock but for day-to-day heavy maintenance. So even under private enterprise the wisdom of owning the wherewithal to carry out maintenance and to experiment in building stock was foreseen. The Minister now says that private enterprise was wrong to do that, yet he is seeking to give British Rail Engineering Ltd. back to private enterprise. The analogy is similar through all the hiving-off provisions in the Bill.
      Let us imagine what could happen. BREL does not carry out only major work. It does not build only locomotives and carriages. It also carries out heavy maintenance jobs. Its works are strategically placed across the country. That is no accident. It grew out of the old companies, which sited works within each region for the benefit of those private enterprise companies. They saw that it would be wrong to place maintenance and new stock needs with an outside monopoly. Yet that is what the Bill could do. There has been nothing in the Minister's words at any stage to deny that. Indeed, it was only through cross-questioning that it was forced out of the Government that BREL was to be considered as one of the subsidiaries. Never has there been a commitment from the Minister that if he sold it he would sell it entirely.
      Private enterprise started these works and placed them in strategic places, but that will be undone and the railway will be in a very ambiguous position. It will no longer be able to get the service that it now receives from BREL. Inevitably, if BREL becomes a private company its first

      177
      commitment will be to the company. Undoubtedly it will look more and more to exports. It will not want the small jobs in the maintenance schedules. Its work load will not be geared to British Rail maintenance interests.
      5.15 pm
      In the past, engines and carriagework have been built by private enterprise. Most of that work went overseas. Frequently the companies concerned did not want to know about British Railways. That is why private enterprise saw the wisdom of the present system. Yet the Minister is now turning his back on that and on all that he advocates in his philosophy. He is saying that that system is wrong and that he will prevent British Rail providing for its own needs. They will be placed in the hands of people whose interest is not guaranteed to serve British Rail. This will do a vast disservice to British Rail, quite apart from destroying jobs. Even if it were decided to sell these assets piecemeal, British Rail's costs would inevitably be higher if it sought to use its own engineering services, because the work would have to be taken longer distances than at present. That would inevitably raise the cost of the works retained by British Rail. As a result the works might have to close and there would eventually be a monopoly, which I assume the Minister is against. He believes in free enterprise. Yet British Rail would be held by that monopoly and could do nothing about it if this power were to remain in the Bill.
      The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): First, I appreciate the concern of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and the hon. Member for Newcastle Upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans), which was also expressed in Committee.
      I shall try to set out the background. The board's powers of disposal under clause 1(1) are deliberately drafted in general terms. They are not confined to specific subsidiaries because the Government and the board wish to open the way to the introduction of private capital into parts of the board's undertakings other than the four businesses mentioned if this first exercise is a success. We listed the first four businesses as Sealink, Hovercraft, hotels and non-operational property. But we think that it would be short-sighted to circumscribe the board's powers at this stage and so prevent it from taking opportunities which may later arise. It is on those grounds that we oppose the amendment.
      There is nothing sinister in the potentially wide application of the powers in clause 1 or, indeed, the equivalent powers of direction in clause 3. The policy concerns the subsidiary companies of the railways. It does not concern the main rail system. Therefore, the suggestions that were made in Committee that this concerns the railway network are not valid. Moreover, the keystone of the Government's policy is our desire to provide in agreement with the board. Whatever other disagreement there may be between the two sides of the House it should be acknowledged that the Government have sought the agreement of the board. It is no secret that we have approached the problem from different points of view and have come to an agreement upon it. It is the board, operating through the holding company, British Rail Investments Ltd., which is taking the lead in making proposals and carrying them through. I would expect those proposals to take several forms.
      Mr. Booth: In view of what the Minister has said about the Government seeking agreement with the board, will he
      178
      confirm that the board at no time suggested to him that it wanted an arrangement which would provide for the sale of BREL? That is the point of the amendment.
      Mr. Fowler: The future of BREL is currently a matter of discussion between the Government and British Rail. The British Railways Board certainly wants improvements in British Rail engineering. frankly cannot remember at this stage whether we have discussed the issue of private investment. Certainly I think that there is nothing between us on the fact that we want improvements in British Rail engineering and in the company itself.
      Perhaps I may develop the argument a little further. It is really the board operating through its holding company, British Rail Investment Ltd., which is taking the lead in making proposals and carrying them through.
      I expect the proposals to take different forms. I do not want to constrain the board in any way in its opportunities to improve the performance of any part of the industry in which it is interested. The key which I invite the board to use is the attraction of private capital. We should consider whether that possibility could be usefully applied to BREL.
      I want to discuss that with the board for several reasons. The first reason is that which the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness gave—that BREL is a large business. It has 13 works scattered round the country and employs over 35,000 staff. In 1979 its turnover was £387 million. The bulk of the work is for the Railway Board, but some work is also done for overseas railways. BREL's work load is of two types—the new construction of locomotives, rolling stock and other railway equipment, using a significant proportion of bought-in parts from the private sector, and the heavy maintenance of locomotives and rolling stock.
      BREL is unique among Western European railway equipment manufacturers in that it is owned by and has a near-monopoly of supply to its national railway. It seems reasonable for the Government to want to take a fundamental look at that arrangement in association with the Railways Board to see whether the present organisation of the industry can be improved and made more cost-effective in the board's interest, and whether as a major manufacturing industry it can play a bigger part in terms of exports and export orders.
      The potential export market is enormous. However, without a strong and competitive home market United Kingdom manufacturers will continue to be at a disadvantage in a fiercely competitive international market. The opportunities for larger earnings and wider employment must not be ignored.
      Nothing is more important than that we should contain the costs of the railway system so that we have the best and most cost-effective industry. There cannot be any doubt or debate about that. The issues are important and we are examining them.
      Clearly the issues will require a great deal of thought. We want to examine ways of improving the opportunities for the whole railway equipment industry—not only BREL but the private sector manufacturers—so that they can compete in the home and overseas markets. For the board there could be advantages in an arrangement which effectively gives it alternative sources of supply from which it can choose the best buy. There could be questions

      179
      about the structure and funding of at least parts of BREL. That is where the powers in the Bill might be brought into play.
      We must exchange views with the board. I give the House a categoric assurance that there is absolutely no question of having reached conclusions on the subject except about my objective, which is clear. It is to produce a stronger, more efficient and more prosperous industry with a larger effective market round the world, which I hope will be to the benefit of the Railway Board and of Britain's export performance.
      I hope that the House will agree that it would be folly at this stage to close off the access of powers which could in some circumstances help to secure that objective. That would be the effect of the amendment, and I ask the House to reject it.
      The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness said that we had attempted to conceal our interest in giving BREL access to private investment. When I made my statement to the House last July, and in the exchanges which followed, I said that I would want to examine BREL's position. I repeated that on Second Reading and in Committee. There is no shift of policy. However, I emphasise that we have not come to conclusions.
      The right hon. Gentleman asked about railway investment. I understand the concern about that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that will benefit both BREL and the private sector. In that, as in all the other aspects of the Bill, we are trying to develop our policies in co-operation and agreement with the British Railways Board. I advise the House to reject the amendment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman listened to my remarks and will be reassured by them.
      Mr. Stott: I listened with interest to the Secretary of State. Later I shall criticise some of his remarks. We must place on record what the Opposition feel about the proposals generally. Since the Government were elected they have introduced legislation the purpose of which is to sell off the profitable parts of publicly owned and financed industries. In some cases they claim that they have a mandate from the electorate. In other cases we believe that they have no such mandate.
      The Government are introducing legislation the effect of which is to rip-off the profitable parts of public enterprise, left, right and centre. I refer to British Aerospace, British Airways, British Telecommunications, the postal services and British Rail subsidiaries. The language used is always the same. In the last two years we have examined legislation containing sweeping enabling powers. Powers are being given to Secretaries of State which were hitherto unknown.
      The Telecommunications Bill states:
      "The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Corporation, direct the Corporation—(a) to dispose of any part of its undertaking and any assets held by it."
      The largest business in Europe is being dictated to by the Secretary of State for Industry.
      This Bill states:
      "The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Railways Board, give directions to the Board requiring them … to exercise their powers under section 1 of this Act".
      That clause contains provision for the board to divest itself of profitable assets.
      180
      We have argued long and hard against the Bill's provisions. We do not see any point in selling off valuable assets when British Rail needs a massive injection of public funds to sustain its rail network.
      The Government may claim that the subsidiaries in question are somewhat peripheral to British Rail's main business. We reject that. Hotels, ships, hovercraft and ports are essential elements in an integrated transport system. Another subsidiary, British Rail Engineering Ltd. is the subject of this Bill. In Committee we tabled amendments to protect the named subsidiaries. However, if this Bill is enacted the Secretary of State will have the power to instruct British Rail to sell parts of BREL. He will not have to make any reference to Parliament other than, perhaps, a statement of his intentions.
      5.30 pm
      The Secretary of State cannot say that BREL is peripheral to British Rail's business. BREL is an integral part of the business of British Rail. Its work force, including those in my constituency who work at the Horwich plant, are members of the railway family. It is inconceivable that one of the world's finest and largest railway businesses should find itself denuded of its engineering workshops by ministerial proclamation. This amendment is an attempt to prevent the Secretary of State from doing that.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) outlined the general performance of BREL. This year's annual report and accounts make clear that BREL is a profitable organisation, which contributes immensely to the well-being of the main rail network. As the Secretary of State pointed out, last year its gross income was £387 million. BREL has 13 workshops. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) said, the plants are strategically placed throughout the regions and employ 36,236 people. The company has a fine record of productivity and of an interface with the main rail network. Therefore, the importance of BREL to British Rail's overall position is clear.
      I accompanied my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness to BREL workshops in Horwich, in my constituency. About 2,500 people are employed there. I venture to suggest that most of them voted for me. Therefore, I feel, with some pride, that I may speak on their behalf. As my right hon. Friend said, that company has one of the most modern foundries in the world. Productivity is good and the work force is keen to win business and to do a good job. Castings at the Horwich foundry could amount to as much as 42,000 tonnes per annum.
      The Secretary of State could issue a diktat to the British Rail Board to the effect that it should sell part of British Rail Engineering Ltd. Throughout our debates in Committee the Secretary of State and the Minister implied that the Government would prefer to sell the subsidiaries as a whole. What will happen to the 13 companies that comprise BREL? If they are sold off as a package and are frightened, at least two—and perhaps three—of those under private ownership will close almost immediately.
      I have it on good authority for the manager of BREL at Horwich, Mr. Christopher Shepherd, that if BREL were to be sold to private enterprise British Rail's main line business would suffer. Private enterprise would not be able to cope with the orders. BREL has a low unit cost output

      181
      to British Rail. It manages to cater for the peaks and troughs of the business. If that integral part of British Rail were sold to private enterprise simply in order to satisfy some prejudiced view, it would only prove detrimental to British Rail. Therefore, BREL should not be included in the Bill and should not be considered for sale. That is why we have tabled the amendment.
      Mr. Parris: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, under private ownership, BREL would be unable to do what it now does under public ownership?
      Mr. Stott: I do not wish to go into detail, because we are under a guillotine and other important amendments must be considered. However, my right hon. Friend and I visited BREL on Friday. We discussed this matter thoroughly with the manager for more than an hour. Having listened to his remarks, we are convinced that if BREL were sold to the private sector it would not be able to cope with the demand that British Rail places on its engineering workshops. Even today, BREL is suffering because it cannot get the parts that it requires from private enterprise. That is one of its main bones of contention.
      Mr. Cowans: Surely the answer is that BREL is an integral part of the business of British Rail. The Minister emphasised exports, but not maintenence. If the Secretary of State sold BREL it would be like a bicycle dealer with a small repair shop and staff, sacking his staff, selling the stock and hoping that someone else would supply him so that he could repay the bank. If BREL was sold to private enterprise, maintenance would not be the private firms's major concern. It would be able to diversify and do other things. However, at present BREL is an integral part of the railway industry and is geared to meeting the needs of British Rail. It exports when it has the capacity to do so.
      Mr. Stott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. He has spent all his life in the railway industry and speaks with great authority in the House. I cannot add to or detract from anything that he said. However, the Government may wish to pursue their doctrinal approach and their war of attrition against publicly owned enterprises. They may claim that they have a mandate to do so. They may even claim that that is the wish of the majority. So be it. BREL was not one of the named subsidiaries that was dealt with in Committee. Nevertheless, the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to trigger off the mechanism that would enable him to sell BREL. We have tabled an amendment to prevent him from doing that.
      If the Secretary of State wishes to sell BREL he should come before the House with another Bill and argue his corner. He should not have sleeping powers that could be used at a future date. We have never seen the like of such powers before. This Secretary of State and many others hold enabling powers to flog off almost the entire public sector. We have had enough of that. That is why we have tabled the amendment and that is why we shall divide the House.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 287.

      Division No. 155]

      [5.39 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Adams, Allen

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Allaun, Frank

      Ashton, Joe

      Alton, David

      Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

      Anderson, Donald

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      182

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Beith, A. J.

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Hardy, Peter

      Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Bradley, Tom

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Haynes, Frank

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

      Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

      Buchan, Norman

      Home Robertson, John

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

      Homewood, William

      Campbell, Ian

      Hooley, Frank

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Howells, Geraint

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      John, Brynmor

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

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Cook, Robin F.

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Cowans, Harry

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

      Kerr, Russell

      Craigen, J. M.

      Lambie, David

      Crowther, J. S.

      Lamborn, Harry

      Cryer, Bob

      Lamond, James

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Leighton, Ronald

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Litherland, Robert

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

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

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Deakins, Eric

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      McElhone, Frank

      Dempsey, James

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Dewar, Donald

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Dixon, Donald

      McKelvey, William

      Dobson, Frank

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Dormand, Jack

      McMahon, Andrew

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McNally, Thomas

      Dubs, Alfred

      McNamara, Kevin

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McTaggart, Robert

      Dunn, James A.

      McWilliam, John

      Dunnett, Jack

      Magee, Bryan

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Marks, Kenneth

      Eadie, Alex

      Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

      Eastham, Ken

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

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

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

      Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

      English, Michael

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Field, Frank

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Fitch, Alan

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Fitt, Gerard

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Flannery, Martin

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Morton, George

      Ford, Ben

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Forrester, John

      Newens, Stanley

      Foster, Derek

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Foulkes, George

      Ogden, Eric

      Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      O'Neill, Martin

      Freud, Clement

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Parker, John

      George, Bruce

      Parry, Robert

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Ginsburg, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Golding, John

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Prescott, John

      Graham, Ted

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      183

      Race, Reg

      Stoddart, David

      Radice, Giles

      Stott, Roger

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Straw, Jack

      Richardson, Jo

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Tilley, John

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Tinn, James

      Robertson, George

      Torney, Tom

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Rooker, J. W.

      Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

      Roper, John

      Watkins, David

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Weetch, Ken

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Welsh, Michael

      Rowlands, Ted

      White, Frank R.

      Ryman, John

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Whitlock, William

      Sever, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Sheerman, Barry

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Williams, Sir J.(W'ton)

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Woodall, Alec

      Snape, Peter

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Soley, Clive

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stallard, A. W.

      Mr. Donald Coleman and Mr. James Hamilton.

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Chapman, Sydney

      Alexander, Richard

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

      Alison, Michael

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Ancram, Michael

      Cockeram, Eric

      Arnold, Tom

      Colvin, Michael

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Cope, John

      Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

      Cormack, Patrick

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

      Corrie, John

      Banks, Robert

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Critchley, Julian

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Best, Keith

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Dover, Denshore

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Blackburn, John

      Durant, Tony

      Blaker, Peter

      Dykes, Hugh

      Body, Richard

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Eggar, Tim

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Elliott, Sir William

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Emery, Peter

      Bowden, Andrew

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Eyre, Reginald

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Bright, Graham

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Brinton, Tim

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Brittan, Leon

      Farr, John

      Brotherton, Michael

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Buck, Antony

      Forman, Nigel

      Budgen, Nick

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Fox, Marcus

      Butcher, John

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Fry, Peter

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      184

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mellor, David

      Goodhart, Philip

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Gorst, John

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Gow, Ian

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Moate, Roger

      Gray, Hamish

      Monro, Hector

      Grieve, Percy

      Montgomery, Fergus

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

      Moore, John

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Grist, Ian

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Grylls, Michael

      Mudd, David

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Murphy, Christopher

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Myles, David

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hannam, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Newton, Tony

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Normanton, Tom

      Hawkins, Paul

      Onslow, Cranley

      Hawksley, Warren

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Osborn, John

      Heddle, John

      Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

      Henderson, Barry

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Hill, James

      Parris, Matthew

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Hooson, Tom

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Hordern, Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Porter, Barry

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Jessel, Toby

      Raison, Timothy

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Renton, Tim

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rhodes James, Robert

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Knox, David

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Lamont, Norman

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Lang, Ian

      Rossi, Hugh

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Rost, Peter

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Lee, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Loveridge, John

      Shersby, Michael

      Luce, Richard

      Silvester, Fred

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Sims, Roger

      McCrindle, Robert

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Smith, Dudley

      MacGregor, John

      Speller, Tony

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Spence, John

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

      Sproat, Iain

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Stainton, Keith

      Madel, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Major, John

      Stanley, John

      Marland, Paul

      Stevens, Martin

      Marlow, Tony

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

      Mates, Michael

      Stokes, John

      Mather, Carol

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Tapsell, Peter

      Mawby, Ray

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Tebbit, Norman

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      185

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Waddington, David

      Thompson, Donald

      Wakeham, John

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Walker, B. (Perth )

      Tilley, John

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wall, Patrick

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Waller, Gary

      Trippier, David

      Walters, Dennis

      Trotter, Neville

      Ward, John

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Watson, John

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Booth: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—
      '(3) Where by consent of the Secretary of State under section 1(2) or by direction of the Secretary of State under section 3(1) British Railways sell more than 50 per cent. of the shares in any one of their subsidiaries, British Railways shall not be held to be in control of that subsidiary for the purpose of public sector control of British Railways External Financing Limit.'.
      The purpose of the amendment is to prevent any British Rail subsidiary from being maintained within an external financing limit set by the Government after 51 per cent. or more of the shares in that subsidiary have been sold. The external financing limit control on many nationalised industries has been a cause of grave concern and a cause of problems. It has made it almost impossible to plan an effective investment programme.
      This concern has been expressed recently by the TUC nationalised industries committee, and previously by the chairmen of the nationalised industries, who have set up a study group which has considered different ways of financing nationalised industries.
      On amendment No. 1 the Secretary of State chose to stress that he was seeking to proceed, as far as possible, by agreement with the British Railways Board. Therefore, it is my judgment, from the information that I have from those running the subsidiaries of British Railways, that there is no possibility of proceeding by agreement if the Secretary of State is to insist on keeping those subsidiaries under an external financing limit set by the Government after they sold 51 per cent. or more of their shares.
      The basic reason why some members of the management of British Rail subsidiaries have gone along with the idea of privatisation is that they believed that it was the only way open to them to escape from what they thought were the impossibly tight limits being set for them by the Government under the external financing limit arrangement.
      The major aim, therefore, of the British Railways Board, in dealing with the four named subsidiaries—when they agreed with the Government that it would be worth while, if there were no other way to get outside the external financing limit, to sell a private interest in the subsidiaries—was to escape that form of control. I believe that they were led to understand, or were caused to understand, that in order to escape the external financing limits, which they thought were impossibly inhibiting the development of their businesses, they would, first, have to operate without public sector guarantees. That was made clear to them and I think they understood it.
      They understood that they would be unable to retain a majority of the directorship of a subsidiary if they were to be outwith external financing limits. They also understood that any contracts that existed between British Railways and a subsidiary once it had been sold off to the extent of 51 per cent. or more would have to be contracts that were in such a form that there would be clearly defined liabilities as between British Railways and their ex-subsidiaries. I say because we are talking about subsidiaries in a way that would not be recognised by the definition of "subsidiary" under the Companies Act. Clearly, these bodies will be more than 51 per cent. privately owned and, therefore, not subsidiaries in the normal sense of the word.
      However, since the Bill has commenced its proceedings through the House there have been growing suspicions, confirmed in Committee, that the Government are going
      188
      to set much tighter limits upon the sale of British Railways' subsidiaries before they will release them from the external financing limit.
      In Committee, when we probed this matter, the Under-Secretary made it clear that it would not be enough for them to sell 51 per cent. and, when we pressed him further, that it might not be enough for them to sell 60 per cent., or sometimes even 70 per cent. He said it depended upon how the shares were distributed, and it would also depend upon the British Railways Board being able to demonstrate that it had virtually lost all control or influence in the running of a subsidiary before it might be released from the external financing limit.
      British Rail is so urgently in need of money that it may already have spent considerable money and management time in seeking to arrange sales of its subsidiaries on assumptions that it quite fairly made about the nature of this legislation—assumptions that have now proved to be wrong. The only way to underline the justifiable case that BR subsidiaries, or ex-subsidiaries, should be able to operate outside the EFL is by agreeing to the amendment.
      As it is at the moment, the subsidiaries compete with one another and with the board for the limited amount that is available in borrowing to British Railways. If a subsidiary borrows £50 million more for investment, that is £50 million less for the main board to invest in main line operations. They compete with one another, they compete with the board, and they are desperate for access to outside capital.
      If the Government insist that the conditions of having access to outside capital is that British Railways must sell off some part, or even a majority holding, it is only reasonable that they should be allowed to proceed with that development in the same way as any private business would be allowed to proceed with a development had it sold out a 51 per cent. holding in part of its operation. It would be free to develop its loan arrangements with the agreement of the 51 per cent. or more of its private shareholders, or such directors as they had elected.
      Unless this is carried out, what we are engaged in in the Bill is little more than a public asset-stripping operation that will not assist the British Railways Board or its subsidiaries in any way whatsoever, and can aid only those who have been enabled to buy in on extremely favourable terms—terms that could be achieved only because the British Railways Board has been hog-tied in its arrangements.
      In the remaining 30 minutes it is impossible to try to debate intelligently all the outstanding important amendments that are to be dealt with under the guillotine motion. Therefore, it is not my intention to press the matter to a vote—not that my hon. Friends and I do not feel very strongly about it; we feel extremely strongly, but we feel that it would be quite wrong to spend a quarter of an hour in Division time that would prevent our going on to one more of the important issues in view of the impossible constraints set upon us by the guillotine.
      6 pm
      Mr. Peter Snape: I shall be brief because, like my right hon. Friend, I wish to say a word on the next amendment. It seems to me that the Government's case, as they will put it forward in rejecting the amendment, will be their general argument that a majority private stake is necessary to permit investment in the subsidiaries to escape the PSBR net and a more specific

      189
      argument in relation to Sealink, which I hope we shall deal with later, namely, that a successful flotation of shares can occur only with a minority BR holding or, indeed, with none at all.
      One thing that puzzles my union—the National Union of Railwaymen—and that also puzzles the chairmen of the British Railways Board—and, I have no doubt, other members of the board—is the difference in the way that BR subsidiaries are being treated in terms of PSBR compared to other publicly owned industries—for example, British Airways. I mention Sir Peter Parker deliberately because, of course, not only is that gentleman the chairman of the British Railways Board; he serves on the board of British Airways, and I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies to the amendment he will do something to dispel the aura of mystery and doubt in Sir Peter Parker's mind as well as assuring Opposition Members that he knows what he is doing.
      When the Civil Aviation Bill was debated in the House on 19 November 1979 the key sentence, in col. 39–40 of Hansard, in terms of British Airways, was:
      "the airline will no longer be subject to statutory financial targets, nor will it be subject to cash limits."—[Official Report, 19 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 39–40.]
      As a railwayman, I have to say that if it is good enough for British Airways it is good enough for us, and the air of mystery that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary have created in respect of this aspect of the Bill concerns us all.
      Mr. Fowler: The amendment relates to an issue that we discussed extensively in Committee. What we have sought to explain to hon. Gentlemen and to the right hon. Gentleman is why it is necessary for the British Railways Board to relinquish effective control over its subsidiaries if these businesses are to enjoy the full freedom of the private sector and if their borrowing and investment is no longer to count against the board's external financing limit and investment ceiling.
      The object of the whole exercise is to seek to transfer these businesses to the private sector, where they can be free of the existing constraints of the public sector. There are two stages in this process. Once the board no longer holds the majority of shares in a business and can no longer control the composition of its board of directors, the company will cease to be a subsidiary within the meaning of the Transport Acts and the statutory controls in those Acts will no longer apply to it.
      However, even where the board holds a minority of the shares it is possible in some circumstances, depending on the distribution of the other shareholdings and the trading relationship, if any, between the board and the company, that the board would be able to exercise de facto control over the company, and in that case the company would still be classified to the public sector and its borrowing and investment would still be controlled by the board's external financing limit and investment ceiling. Also, of course, its borrowing would continue to count against the PSBR.
      The question whether the board is still exercising effective control of a company, has to be determined basically upon the facts of the particular case. The purpose of the amendment is to short-circuit this process by statutory means; in other words, to provide that once a board ceases to hold a majority of the shares in a business it shall no longer be deemed to control it, no matter what the reality of the situation is. Frankly, I do not think that
      190
      will do, because it is based upon the misconception of the nature and the purpose of the PSBR. The point is that the Government or Parliament: cannot merely decide what shall and shall not be held to count against the PSBR; that is a practical and factual definition, and markets will certainly start to look beyond the so-called definition and to the real facts of the matter, and they will start taking their own view of who is and who is not effectively borrowing on the Government's credit. That is the important point.
      After all, the nationalised industries effectively rely upon Government credit, and we are seeking to do something genuine—not to issue what is in fact a disguised form of gilts but to produce genuine private risk capital.
      However hard the Government try to pretend that the PSBR is defined in one way, the markets will see the truth of the matter, as markets tend to do. Interest rates or inflation cannot be altered just by juggling with the words. The external financing limit was not introduced by this Government; it was introduced by the Labour Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, and the rules on what counts against the EFL and against the PSBR are common to the previous Administration and to this one.
      The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) suggested that there was some misunderstanding of the position within British Rail. He thinks that British Rail has been misled, or is misled, about the position. In fact, the chairman of British Rail Investments, who, as I explained earlier, is the chairman of the holding company under the board, set out very clearly to the Rail Council the issues that are involved.
      He told the Rail Council that the two basic criteria for deciding whether an economic unit is in or out of the public sector are, basically, control and ownership, and that there had to be convincing evidence that the public sector had permanently given up control over board aspects of policy, such as capital investment and borrowing and pricing, before the business in question could be classified as being in the private sector. There is no hint of misunderstanding about that situation.
      The chairman then said that if British Rail retained 50 per cent. or more of the shares it would clearly be able to exercise control of the board of directors and, hence, would not satisfy the requirement that control must pass. He made the distinction—it is a distinction for which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snare) asked—between that situation and the situation of British Airways or the British Transport Docks Board. The situation with the docks board or with British Airways is that what we are talking about is a Government shareholding.
      It is one thing for the Government to say that they are not going to exercise control; it is another thing, with a 50 per cent. stake, for a nationalised industry to say that. That is the essential difference. But Mr. Bosworth, the chairman of British Rail Investments, went on to put exactly the point of the amendment. He said, "Suppose now that we retain 49 per cent. of the share capital. Although we could in theory be outvoted, the practical likelihood of that happening is very small. It is likely, therefore, that the Treasury would regard this not as a true surrender of control but, rather, as a device to evade the rule."
      Mr. Booth: Will the Secretary of State accept that what the board initially discussed with him was not ways in which it might surrender control? It was not interested in that. It was interested in ways in which it might get out with the EFL and relieve itself of a massive financial problem. It has never declared itself in favour of forfeiting control for the sake of doing that.
      Mr. Fowler: On several occasions I have tried to explain the matter to the right hon. Gentleman. He is fundamentally wrong. He is simply not accurate in his understanding of the British Railways Board provision. At the time that I made the statement the board knew perfectly well—I did seek to explain the position in Committee and in reply to the agreed questions that were to follow in the House of Commons—that if the business was to escape public sector controls and go into the private sector, control had to pass. That has always been understood by the chairman of British Rail. No purpose is served by the right hon. Gentleman's continuing to put the point and say that it was not understood by them.
      Further, the chairman of British Rail Investments, which holds the subsidiary companies, has now set out the position to the rail unions. It is that position that I am seeking to summarise. It completely demolishes the right hon. Gentlemen's argument that no one understands the position.
      Mr. Snape: If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept what my right hon. Friend says, will he accept from me that at a meeting between the British Railways Board and the NUR within the last year—a meeting at which I happened to be present—senior officers of the board assured my union—the major union in the railway business—that a holding of approximately 30 per cent. would be sufficient to retain control of these subsidiaries. Will he take that from me? That is what they told us.
      Mr. Fowler: I take what the hon. Gentleman says as stating the facts of the situation and of the meeting that he attended, but the point is that I am sure that there was no misunderstanding of the position at the time the agreement was reached between the Government and the board. I emphasise that we came to this situation from different points, as the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of the railway industry, knows. There was negotiation, we sought to reach agreement, and we reached agreement.
      What was basic to that agreement was that in order for a business—or part of a business—to go from the public sector and gain the advantages of the private sector, control had to pass.
      Mr. Bosworth's statement of the situation is an outstanding statement, made directly to the Rail Council and to the rail unions. It is by far the clearest statement that has ever been made on this subject. Mr. Bosworth said:
      "As the retained shareholding becomes less, the strength of an argument that we really have abandoned effective control becomes greater. At 40 per cent., for example, there must be quite a strong likelihood that the BRB could be outvoted if most of the other shareholders so desired, and provided that we were not seeking to exercise control in other, more subtle ways, it is hoped that the Treasury might be convinced that we really had surrendered effective control."
      He went on:
      "Thus our aim must be to enable the businesses to escape from the PSBR and this means surrendering effective control. At the same time, where practicable we want to retain a continuing stake in the businesses, and a voice in their affairs, and we shall need to ensure that future railway requirements are fully safeguarded."
      192
      The right hon. Gentleman asked when it was said. It was said in March, at a meeting of the Rail Council.
      Mr. Booth: Long after Second Reading.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Fowler: Certainly it was long after Second Reading; there is no dispute about that. But there is considerable dispute if the right hon. Gentleman seeks to say that there is a misunderstanding about the position now. There is certainly no misunderstanding on the part of the board and I hope that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the unions. Everyone has been open about the position. Basically, it means that control must pass. But of course it also means that the British Railways Board can keep a substantial stake, if that is its desire, in the new company that is so formed.
      I hope that with that account of the situation the right hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Booth: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 36, at end insert
      'Where any matter concerning the sale of a British Railways subsidiary has been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the Secretary of State shall not direct the Board to sell this subsidiary, or part of it, if he has refused consent for a sale or a merger by British Railways of another subsidiary operating a competing service'.
      The object of the amendment is to prevent the Government from forcing the British Railways Board to sell a subsidiary that has been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission where the Government have refused the board consent to sell or merge a subsidiary that is running a competing service. By the time the Bill has been enacted at least two British Railways Board subsidiaries could be affected by the amendment. British Rail's work on a merger proposal for Seaspeed Hovercraft Services is currently delayed by a Government decision to refer its merger proposal to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—a delay that may make it extremely difficult for it to carry through its financial plans for its hovercraft services, at least for the next couple of years.
      In the case of Sealink—British Rail's shipping and ferry service—the board is working to achieve a profitable position again, following a very hard year in 1980, when few people made a profit from operating in the Channel. It has had a proposed bid by European Ferries—the company chaired by the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden)—referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission before a bid has even been considered by the British Railways Board—in fact, even before a detailed bid has been received.
      The Government, by these two references, have certainly raised the fear that they will force British Rail to sell Sealink—providing that is cleared by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—and hold up the development of British Rail's own plans for the merger of British Hovercraft Services in order that whoever privately owns Sealink will be in a strong position to monopolise cross-Channel services. To force British Rail to sell Sealink at this time would virtually ensure a distress sale. There is no doubt that the few profitable years before 1980 would mean that it would take a year or two to put itself back into a profitable position in which it could consider reasonable bids.

      193
      Furthermore, it will take time for British Rail to get its new ferries into operation—ferries, incidentally, that were built in British shipyards; we have no certainty that ferries built by a privately owned Sealink will be ordered from British shipyards—and to bring the service up to its full profitability and be the best saleable proposition.
      British Rail needs to know—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us tonight—when the Secretary of State will clear its proposal for hovercraft, whether that service will be in the Channel, and under what arrangements.
      Without such a safeguard against a Channel monopoly we could be in a situation in which there will be a private monopoly on the Channel, with no public holding whatsoever. It could be completely sold out, with no guarantee of maintaining the cross-Channel link between the railway networks of this country and of France. These are my grounds for moving the amendment.
      Mr. Snape: It is true that on most clauses there is a wide ideological gulf between the Government and the Opposition, but it is equally true that the Government have valid reasons for advancing their proposals in other clauses. In a previous amendment the right hon. Member pointed out that as his party regarded competition as the be-all and end-all for British Railways engineering, and as private enterprise should be allowed to compete in these markets, the Conservative Party, having stood for enterprise and competition, was justified in its proposals.
      I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to eat his words on this clause. He knows that if the Monopolies and Mergers Commission decides to allow the European Ferries bid for Sealink to go ahead one private company will control about 80 per cent. of the total cross-Channel traffic. The competition that exists at present between Sealink and European Ferries will be dead. The advertisements for European Ferries that are to be seen on television represent competition that arose only fairly recently. Six or seven years ago the English Channel was widely regarded as the most expensive stretch of water in the world. Over the past few years there has been intense competition for the available traffic, and fares have fallen dramatically. No one believes that that dramatic fall in fares will continue if European Ferries is allowed a virtual monopoly of the cross-Channel services, which is what it will get.
      My right hon. Friend rightly stated that Sealink has an honourable record in having its ships built in the United Kingdom. Over the past 20 years, of Sealink's 32 vessels currently in operation no fewer than 21 have been built in British shipyards. As to the competition, which does not look as if it will last much longer, European Ferries has never once placed an order with Harland and Wolff. I am surprised that some of our Ulster neighbours, who always protest that they are concerned about prospects in Northern Ireland, are not here to support the Opposition in this matter.
      During its entire history European Ferries has never placed an order with Harland and Wolff. Lloyd's Register of Shipping shows that European Ferries has ordered no vessels from United Kingdom shipyards in the past 10 years. Over the past decade it has placed its orders with West Germany, Holland and Denmark.
      The Townsend car ferries vessel, which so proudly entered Cherbourg during last summer, during the French fishermen's blockade, playing "Land of Hope and
      194
      Glory"—"Viking Venturer"—was built in Aalborg, in Denmark. The ship that immediately followed it into that port, also playing "Land of Hope and Glory" was built in Bremerhaven; so perhaps "Deutscheland Uber Alles" would have been a better anthem for that ship to play.
      We all know the reasons behind the Government's very fast referral of this bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. As our Sunday colour supplements tell us every week, the Prime Minister is a great admirer of the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden). It is not surprising that the right hon. Lady should be a great admirer of that hon. Gentleman because, unlike the majority of Conservative Members, the hon. Member for Dorking has actually worked for his living. The Conservative Party professes to be the party of business, but business experience appears to be remarkably lacking in many Conservative Members. The Prime Minister has expressed her admiration for the hon. Member for Dorking and her desire to see his success amply rewarded. The fact that his success in private enterprise should be rewarded by the plundering—I choose my word carefully—of one of the State's assets is little short of disgraceful.
      Those of us who were here in the last Parliament well remember legislation such as the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, when we fought long and hard throughout the night to preserve these assets on behalf of the State. We were then told by the Tories that these measures amounted to virtual confiscation of privately owned undertakings. Now the boot is on the other foot with a vengeance, in the form of Sealink.
      I told the office of the hon. Member for Dorking that during the course of the afternoon I intended to refer to his bid. I quite understand the reason for his absence—he is detained in a Committee of the House. All that I can say about the hon. Member is that he reminds me at least of the villain in H. G. Wells' book "The Autocracy of Mr. Parham"—Sir Blasted Bussy Bussy, Buy-up-the-Universe Woodcock, of whom it was said:
      "He's the sort of man who buys up everything. Shops and houses and factories. Estates and pot houses. Quarries. Whole trades. Buys things on the way to you. Fiddles about with 'em a bit before you get 'em. You can't eat a pat of butter in London now before he's bought and sold it. Railways he buys, hotels, cinemas and suburbs, men and women, soul and body. Mind he doesn't buy you."
      That is what H. G. Wells said about the villain in that book.
      All those sentiments could well be applied to the hon. Member for Dorking, for, not satisfied with his shipping company, a television station, a garage and various other businesses, he now seeks to strip the State of one of its assets. The National Union of Railwaymen, like the National Union of Seamen, will do its best to see that he does not get away with it.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the question of the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) and his possible buying up of public assets, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred, can we have a ruling from you whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Dorking to take part in the Division'? In my experience on a local authority before I became a Member it would have been inconceivable for a local authority member to take part in a vote on a matter in which he had a great, or even a small, financial interest. I should like a ruling on the question whether the hon. Member for

      195
      Dorking, or, indeed, any of his hon. Friends who have a financial stake in this matter, can properly take part in the Division.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): That is a hypothetical question. I have no idea who is going to take part in any Division, or, indeed, if there is going to be a Division.
      Mr. Fowler: I shall reply rapidly to this debate. I hope that there will not be a Division on the amendment. I think that the right hon. Member for Barrow in Furness (Mr. Booth) regarded it as a probing amendment.
      We have taken the view that over the years Sealink has undoubtedly suffered from being within the public sector; it has lacked management attention and it has been deprived of investment. We believe that the future will show little or no improvement, because the board intends to concentrate its scarce available resources on the railways. The board and the Government agree that giving Sealink access to private capital is the only sensible solution. The board hopes that a general flotation of Sealink shares on the stock market will be possible. Obviously, that is something that the Government would welcome. If, on the other hand, the board wants to decide on some other means, it is up to the board. The one point that I wish to emphasise is that the board is in the lead, and it is for it to make proposals.
      European Ferries announced some months ago that if the board offered for sale shares in Sealink it would like to acquire a controlling interest. However, no bid has actually been made. European Ferries has merely said that it hopes to make a bid at an appropriate time. It is very much a matter for the board of British Rail. Last month, on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade referred the proposed bid——
      It being half past six o'clock,MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [9 March] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 299.

      Division No. 155]

      [5.39 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Adams, Allen

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Allaun, Frank

      Ashton, Joe

      Alton, David

      Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

      Anderson, Donald

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      182

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Beith, A. J.

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Hardy, Peter

      Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Bradley, Tom

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Haynes, Frank

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

      Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

      Buchan, Norman

      Home Robertson, John

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

      Homewood, William

      Campbell, Ian

      Hooley, Frank

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Howells, Geraint

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      John, Brynmor

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

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Cook, Robin F.

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Cowans, Harry

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

      Kerr, Russell

      Craigen, J. M.

      Lambie, David

      Crowther, J. S.

      Lamborn, Harry

      Cryer, Bob

      Lamond, James

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Leighton, Ronald

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Litherland, Robert

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

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

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Deakins, Eric

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      McElhone, Frank

      Dempsey, James

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Dewar, Donald

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Dixon, Donald

      McKelvey, William

      Dobson, Frank

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Dormand, Jack

      McMahon, Andrew

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McNally, Thomas

      Dubs, Alfred

      McNamara, Kevin

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McTaggart, Robert

      Dunn, James A.

      McWilliam, John

      Dunnett, Jack

      Magee, Bryan

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Marks, Kenneth

      Eadie, Alex

      Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

      Eastham, Ken

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

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

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

      Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

      English, Michael

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Field, Frank

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Fitch, Alan

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Fitt, Gerard

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Flannery, Martin

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Morton, George

      Ford, Ben

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Forrester, John

      Newens, Stanley

      Foster, Derek

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Foulkes, George

      Ogden, Eric

      Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      O'Neill, Martin

      Freud, Clement

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Parker, John

      George, Bruce

      Parry, Robert

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Ginsburg, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Golding, John

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Prescott, John

      Graham, Ted

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      183

      Race, Reg

      Stoddart, David

      Radice, Giles

      Stott, Roger

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Straw, Jack

      Richardson, Jo

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Tilley, John

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Tinn, James

      Robertson, George

      Torney, Tom

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Rooker, J. W.

      Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

      Roper, John

      Watkins, David

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Weetch, Ken

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Welsh, Michael

      Rowlands, Ted

      White, Frank R.

      Ryman, John

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Whitlock, William

      Sever, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Sheerman, Barry

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Williams, Sir J.(W'ton)

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Woodall, Alec

      Snape, Peter

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Soley, Clive

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stallard, A. W.

      Mr. Donald Coleman and Mr. James Hamilton.

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Chapman, Sydney

      Alexander, Richard

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

      Alison, Michael

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Ancram, Michael

      Cockeram, Eric

      Arnold, Tom

      Colvin, Michael

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Cope, John

      Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

      Cormack, Patrick

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

      Corrie, John

      Banks, Robert

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Critchley, Julian

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Best, Keith

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Dover, Denshore

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Blackburn, John

      Durant, Tony

      Blaker, Peter

      Dykes, Hugh

      Body, Richard

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Eggar, Tim

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Elliott, Sir William

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Emery, Peter

      Bowden, Andrew

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Eyre, Reginald

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Bright, Graham

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Brinton, Tim

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Brittan, Leon

      Farr, John

      Brotherton, Michael

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Buck, Antony

      Forman, Nigel

      Budgen, Nick

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Fox, Marcus

      Butcher, John

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Fry, Peter

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      184

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mellor, David

      Goodhart, Philip

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Gorst, John

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Gow, Ian

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Moate, Roger

      Gray, Hamish

      Monro, Hector

      Grieve, Percy

      Montgomery, Fergus

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

      Moore, John

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Grist, Ian

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Grylls, Michael

      Mudd, David

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Murphy, Christopher

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Myles, David

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hannam, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Newton, Tony

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Normanton, Tom

      Hawkins, Paul

      Onslow, Cranley

      Hawksley, Warren

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Osborn, John

      Heddle, John

      Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

      Henderson, Barry

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Hill, James

      Parris, Matthew

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Hooson, Tom

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Hordern, Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Porter, Barry

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Jessel, Toby

      Raison, Timothy

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Renton, Tim

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rhodes James, Robert

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Knox, David

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Lamont, Norman

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Lang, Ian

      Rossi, Hugh

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Rost, Peter

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Lee, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Loveridge, John

      Shersby, Michael

      Luce, Richard

      Silvester, Fred

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Sims, Roger

      McCrindle, Robert

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Smith, Dudley

      MacGregor, John

      Speller, Tony

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Spence, John

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

      Sproat, Iain

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Stainton, Keith

      Madel, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Major, John

      Stanley, John

      Marland, Paul

      Stevens, Martin

      Marlow, Tony

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

      Mates, Michael

      Stokes, John

      Mather, Carol

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Tapsell, Peter

      Mawby, Ray

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Tebbit, Norman

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      185

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Waddington, David

      Thompson, Donald

      Wakeham, John

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Walker, B. (Perth )

      Tilley, John

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wall, Patrick

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Waller, Gary

      Trippier, David

      Walters, Dennis

      Trotter, Neville

      Ward, John

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Watson, John

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Wells, Bowen

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wheeler, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Wickenden, Keith

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wilkinson, John

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.

      Williams, D.(Montgomery)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Division No. 156]

      [6.30 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Canavan, Dennis

      Adams, Allen

      Cant, R. B.

      Allaun, Frank

      Carmichael, Neil

      Anderson, Donald

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

      Ashton, Joe

      Cohen, Stanley

      Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

      Coleman, Donald

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Cook, Robin F.

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cowans, Harry

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Craigen, J. M.

      Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

      Crowther, J. S.

      Bradley, Tom

      Cryer, Bob

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

      Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Buchan, Norman

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

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

      Campbell, Ian

      Deakins, Eric

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      196

      Dempsey, James

      McMahon, Andrew

      Dewar, Donald

      McNally, Thomas

      Dixon, Donald

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dobson, Frank

      McTaggart, Robert

      Dormand, Jack

      McWilliam, John

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Magee, Bryan

      Dubs, Alfred

      Marks, Kenneth

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

      Dunn, James A.

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

      Eadie, Alex

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Eastham, Ken

      Meacher, Michael

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

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

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

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      English, Michael

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Field, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Fitch, Alan

      Morton, George

      Fitt, Gerard

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Flannery, Martin

      Newens, Stanley

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Ford, Ben

      Ogden, Eric

      Forrester, John

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Foster, Derek

      O'Neill, Martin

      Foulkes, George

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Parker, John

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Parry, Robert

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      George, Bruce

      Pendry, Tom

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Ginsburg, David

      Prescott, John

      Golding, John

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Race, Reg

      Graham, Ted

      Radice, Giles

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Richardson, Jo

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Hardy, Peter

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Robertson, George

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Haynes, Frank

      Rooker, J. W.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Roper, John

      Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Home Robertson, John

      Rowlands, Ted

      Homewood, William

      Ryman, John

      Hooley, Frank

      Sandelson, Neville

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Sever, John

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      John, Brynmor

      Skinner, Dennis

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Snape, Peter

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Soley, Clive

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Kerr, Russell

      Stallard, A. W.

      Lambie, David

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Stoddart, David

      Lamond, James

      Stott, Roger

      Leighton, Ronald

      Straw, Jack

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Litherland, Robert

      Tilley, John

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Torney, Tom

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Watkins, David

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Weetch, Ken

      McElhone, Frank

      Wellbeloved, James

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Welsh, Michael

      McKelvey, William

      White, Frank R.

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      197

      Whitlock, William

      Woodall, Alec

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Williams, Sir T.(W'ton)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)

      Mr. James Tinn and Mr. Allen McKay

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Winnick, David

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Durant, Tony

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dykes, Hugh

      Alexander, Richard

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Alison, Michael

      Eggar, Tim

      Alton, David

      Elliott, Sir William

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Emery, Peter

      Ancram, Michael

      Eyre, Reginald

      Arnold, Tom

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

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

      Farr, John

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Banks, Robert

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Beith, A. J.

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Forman, Nigel

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Best, Keith

      Fox, Marcus

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Freud, Clement

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Fry, Peter

      Blackburn, John

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Blaker, Peter

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Body, Richard

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Bowden, Andrew

      Goodhart, Philip

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Gorst, John

      Bright, Graham

      Gow, Ian

      Brinton, Tim

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Brittan, Leon

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Gray, Hamish

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

      Greenway, Harry

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Grieve, Percy

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Buck, Antony

      Grist, Ian

      Budgen, Nick

      Grylls, Michael

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Butcher, John

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hannam, John

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hawkins, Paul

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hawksley, Warren

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

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Heddle, John

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Henderson, Barry

      Cockeram, Eric

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Cope, John

      Hill, James

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Corrie, John

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Hooson, Tom

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Hordern, Peter

      Critchley, Julian

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

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Howells, Geraint

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Dover, Denshore

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      198

      Jessel, Toby

      Proctor, K Harvey

      Johnson Smith Geoffrey

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Raison, Timothy

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rees-Davies, W R

      Kimball, Marcus

      Renton, Tim

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Knox, David

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Lamont, Norman

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Lang, Ian

      Roberts, M (Cardiff NW)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Rossi, Hugh

      Lee, John

      Rost, Peter

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      St John-Stevas, Rt Hon N

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Loveridge, John

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Luce, Richard

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shersby, Michael

      MacGregor, John

      Silvester, Fred

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Sims, Roger

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M

      Skeet, T H H

      McNair-Wilson, M (N bury)

      Smith, Dudley

      McNair-Wilson, P (New F'st)

      Speller, Tony

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Spence, John

      Madel, David

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Major, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Marland, Paul

      Sproat, Iain

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Stainton, Keith

      Mates, Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mather, Carol

      Stanley, John

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Mawby, Ray

      Stevens, Martin

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stewart, A (E Renfrewshire)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Stokes, John

      Mellor, David

      Stradling Thomas, J

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tapsell, Peter

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Monro, Hector

      Thompson, Donald

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Moore, John

      Thornton Malcolm

      Morris, M (N hampton S)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B heath)

      Mudd, David

      Tnppier, David

      Murphy, Christopher

      Trotter, Neville

      Myles, David

      van Straubenzee, W R

      Neale, Gerrard

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Nelson, Anthony

      Viggers, Peter

      Neubert, Michael

      Waddington, David

      Newton, Tony

      Wakeham, John

      Normanton, Tom

      Walker, Rt Hon P (W'cester)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Walker, B (Perth)

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Osborn, John

      Wall, Patrick

      Page, Rt Hon Sir G (Crosby)

      Waller, Gary

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Walters, Dennis

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Ward, John

      Parris, Matthew

      Watson, John

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Wells, Bowen

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Wheeler, John

      Pawsey, James

      Whitney, Raymond

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Pollock, Alexander

      Wilkinson, John

      Porter, Barry

      Williams, D (Montgomery)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Wolfson, Mark

      199

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at half-past Six o'clock.
      Amendment made: No. 5, in page 3, line 43, at end insert—
      '(5) In section 4(5) of the Railways Act 1974 (duty of Board to include certain information in the annual report made under section 4), after the words "1962 Act", in paragraph (b), there are inserted the words "section 3 of the Transport Act 1981".'.—[Mr. Fowler.]

    Schedule 1

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTING SECTIONS 1 TO 3
      Amendments made: No. 9, in page 28, line 21, leave out 'and'.
      No. 10, in page 28, line 22, at end insert
      '; and (c) subsections (1) and (3)(a) of section 5 of the 1962 Act.'.—[Mr. Fowler.]
      Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you confirm that on page 407 of "Erskine May" there is a paragraph about votes on matters affected by a personal pecuniary interest? I understand that the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) has not voted. It was absolutely right that he should not have done so, because he has a direct pecuniary interest. You did not rule earlier in response to a point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The hon. Member for Dorking has set an important precedent, especially when the Government are hiving off undertakings. Any Conservative Member who has a pecuniary interest must follow that precedent.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) did not vote, and so what I said earlier was correct. I said that it was a hypothetical question; it remains a hypothetical question.

    Clause 6

      THE FINANCIAL STRUCTURE
      Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move amendment No. 11 in page 5, line 17, at end insert—
      '(5) The Secretary of State shall give directions to secure that if a majority of the total nominal value of the shares are sold there shall be voting and non-voting shares and that a majority of the voting shares are retained by the Secretary of State'.
      We now move to part II, which deals with the hiving off of another important public asset, the British Transport Docks Board. The amendment is designed to draw attention to the widely held view on the management and trade union side of the industry that the Government intended to hold a majority share in this company. In Committee it became clear that that was not as plain as many had thought, and a great deal of attention was directed to the words used by those who had been party to the understandings reached in discussions with the trade unions and the BTDB. The amendment expresses our view that if we are to go along the road of denationalising—"privatising", as it is called—the Government's original intention, as expressed on Second
      200
      Reading—to hold a majority shareholding—should be maintained for the life of the Government and not, as is now suggested, for a short period. We are utterly opposed to this proposed course, but here we are dealing with amendments to a Bill designed to privatise the British Transport Docks Board.
      6.45 pm
      The idea that there should be a State majority holding is not simply part of the Opposition's ideological view that we should retain control. I would argue that case if it were necessary, but it is the Government's declared objective to maintain a majority shareholding. On Second Reading in January the Government made it clear that there was no lasting commitment to the principle of a majority shareholding. It was only in Committee that the Government attempted to justify the view that they had no commitment to hold a 51 per cent. share even temporarily.
      Reading through the statements made in the press by Ministers and others, and by the trade unions, one sees that the Government's reason for maintaining a 51 per cent. holding was their desire to retain a happy mix of ports. Indeed, that reflected what was said in earlier debates, and it was certainly the understanding of the position that the trade unions gained from their meetings with the management of the BTDB.
      We all know that the BTDB has a mix of highly specialised and general cargo ports, large and small, and that the group is successful, particularly in view of the crisis now facing the docks industry. The advantage of having a happy mix is that one is able to carry those ports having a difficult time because of a decline in a certain type of traffic. My own port of Hull is an example. In such a mix, some ports will be making a profit while others are having a less fortunate time. We readily accept the happy mix argument, but we do not think that such an arrangement should be limited to 12 months or 18 months, or two years. It is an arrangement that should not be broken. As I understand it, the Government themselves accept that argument for the selling of the first 49 per cent. of the shares.
      The other reasons for retaining control are connected with the associated legislative problems and having a holding company so that it is easier to make acquisitions without going through the statutory obligations. This is what is known as the Felixstowe formula. We have heard of the influence of European Ferries. This is another example of the influence of the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden). Felixstowe was the only example of a holding company taking over a public asset that was maintained by statutory provisions. That example has been copied on a grander scale for the BTDB.
      Another reason that the Government gave for wishing to retain a majority was that they wanted to prevent control going to organisations whose interests might be the breaking up of the company itself.
      All those are legitimate reasons why we believe that the Government should continue to maintain a majority share. I now come to what we find controversial. On Second Reading the Government said that they wanted to keep 51 per cent. for longer than the short term that is now indicated—12 months, or whatever it is. Presumably, what determines the Government's view of the amount of time required is how successfully the first tranche of 49 per cent. is sold. Presumably, the Government will then consider whether to sell some part of the remaining 51 per

      201
      cent. As this is the acquisition of money by the sale of public assets, and as the Treasury clearly desires to acquire more and more money, the Government must be under pressure to sell anything that makes money, and this is a demonstration of that policy.
      But I am bound to say that we should put on record here, as Sir Humphrey Browne, the chairman of the British Transport Docks Board, made clear in his minutes to the trade unions on 26 March meeting—I will not quote them because they have been quoted on a number of occasions in Committee—it was made clear, and it certainly seemed to be the view of the unions involved, that the Government would hold their 51 per cent. share, and certainly it was not necessarily envisaged that that would be for a short time.
      Therefore, on 14 February, after the Second Reading debate, and certainly after the meeting of March 1980, when the Minister often said that his Second Reading speech came after March 1980 and therefore that was the more relevant statement to take into account—perhaps they decided to get some form of co-operation with the unions. To a certain extent that seemed to be achieved. As earlier, with the British Rail assets, they were convinced that one could acquire control with 30, 40 or 50 per cent., in the case of the BTDB they thought that their interests would be protected with a 51 per cent. holding, but that clearly has not been so. At any rate, it is our judgement that that will not be so.
      What is more relevant is the fact that the paper that was circulated from the British Transport Docks Board on 14 February to all Committee members made it quite clear. It said that
      "the Board welcome the Government's assurance of a 51 per cent. interest as an ultimate safeguard against the domination of a single port user. Domination would be damaging to the business and to port users generally."
      That is a very clear statement why the board thinks that 51 per cent. should be retained. We feel that those interests are better served by keeping its assets in public ownership, but we think that it is a far better proposition to keep a 51 per cent. shareholding rather than a minority shareholding.
      That, basically, is our position. We are confirmed in that when one bears in mind the fact that the Government's intention—indeed, the purpose of this guillotine—is to rush the Bill through with the express purpose of obtaining money as quickly as possible. That is what the guillotine is about. It is nothing to do with filibusters. It is about how quickly we can get the Bill through before the summer, so that the prospectus can be launched to to the market and the money can be acquired. There is no doubt on the Labour Benches that that is the intention of the Minister. In all honesty, he probably admits to that as a policy—that the Government would sooner have the money in their pocket as quickly as possible, rather than hang about.
      But I think it is clear—it is the view of many Labour Members looking at the various papers that have been exchanged between the BTDB, the Government and the unions—that the trade unions were clearly under the impression—as we were—that the Government meant to retain a majority shareholding. We think that the justifications put forward by the Minister for retaining the 51 per cent. are right, and are not limited by a time factor alone. We readily accept that the Government cannot give a time factor beyond their own period of office, but the Government are saying that they give a commitment of less than that. There will be only a 12-month period before
      202
      the 49 per cent. is sold, and then we shall embark upon the second tranche of selling involving the 51 per cent. that remains in the hands of the Government.
      Whatever proportion the Government decide to release, the first dilemma will inevitably arise from the fact that if the company wishes to raise money and the Government are not prepared to assist, and will offer only the prospect of a further share issue being agreed to, it will water down the proportion of shares held by the Government, certainly if they are voting shares. So even the 51 per cent. is not necessarily guaranteed if the Government do nothing. There is no guarantee unless the Government say "We will not allow any more than 49 per cent. of the shares of this company to be acquired by private interests."
      That is the view that we hold. We have expressed it in regard to the shares here and we have said that in the nomination of those shares it should be made absolutely clear that the majority of the shares will be retained by the Government.
      In conclusion, I would say that our concern is not only over action about minority interests, as we saw in the case of the Liverpool affair—though we will come to that on a later amendment. The possibility is that there will be a subsidiary development, which could lead to a break-up at the ports. I have received a letter from the Minister about the point that I raised in Committee, on the question whether it was possible for a port authority to go in with another holding company, separate off one of the docks and set up a separate port company.
      We fear that that may happen. The Minister admits that that is a possibility, though he does not feel that it would interfere with the docks scheme. I suggested to him that if he did that he would be lighting a powder keg. I am bound to tell the Minister that his assurance is not very comforting, seeing that he has already brought before the House a Bill that directly intervenes in the scheme system by differentiating between the various redundancy schemes. No one any longer believes that he will not interfere with the scheme, whatever his declared intentions are. But no doubt we shall have opportunities to debate those points at later stages, after the recess.
      Our amendment is clear. We believe that if the Bill is accepted in its present form it will mean the denationalisation of the British Transport Docks Board. The provision requiring the Minister, on his own judgment, to retain a majority shareholding is there for the security of the maintenance of these 19 ports. We feel that that is necessary to the life of the ports, and therefore we seek by the amendment to make sure that the Government do not intend to back down on their promise. We are moving the amendment tonight to correct the position.
      Mr. James Hill: We went into this problem of the 51–49 per cent. shareholding several times in Committee, so there is no reason to suppose that the debate will go on for overlong this evening.
      In the Second Reading debate I said that both the British Transport Docks Board management and the unions were speaking as one in their inclination in favour of a maximum spread of shares into as many hands as possible, and in Committee my hon. and learned Friend gave me hope that if he gave a very favourable share issue scheme to employees in the ports it could well come out of the 51 per cent. Government holding. I was perfectly satisfied

      203
      with that, because I think that the flotation will be a tremendous success if as many hands as possible end up owning shares.
      To my mind, the dangers that are being spread by the Opposition—that there may be some vile person who will get hold of large blocks of these shares, or may even form some consortium to hive off a port—would become as dust, as it were, if the shares were spread as thinly as possible throughout all those who are interested in shipping, and particularly the employees in the 19 ports.
      I said in Committee, and I say it again tonight, because I would like further confirmation—though he virtually confirmed it on the Transport (No. 2) Bill the other evening—that when my hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend sit down to work out the flotation scheme for the shares—and there will obviously be a very involved discussion—the allocation of shares to the work force may follow very much the line adopted in the British Aerospace flotation, when the shares were on offer for sale to the public at between 48·37 and 50 per cent. of the issued ordinary shares of British Aerospace.
      The scheme there was almost a reward for the success that British Aerospace had had, and I hope that there will be equal reward for the success that the British Transport Docks Board—now Associated British Ports—has had. It has done remarkably good trading, showing incredibly good profits. Consequently, we should like to think, certainly on the Government side of the House, that a favourable employee share scheme can be evolved.
      I remind my hon. and learned Friend—I believe that he has the figures in front of his eyes now—that all eligible employees of British Aerospace are being offered 33 free shares, worth about £50, under the British Aerospace share ownership scheme. In addition, the Government arranged for a total of approximately 2 million shares to be made available to eligible employees for the purchase at the offer price. For each share purchased the employee will receive another free share, up to the maximum of 600 shares per employee, subject, of course, to scaling down if the total applied for exceeds the number available.
      7 pm
      To put the matter in a nutshell, there was a £50 bonus for good results, plus an incredibly generous one-for-one free offer, and I think that the flotation for British Aerospace was an enormous success. It was over-subcribed, I believe, something like four or five times. If my right hon. and learned Friend gets this flotation right, clearly this, too, will be a tremendous success.
      The doubt that has cropped up in many people's minds arises from the fact that the whole of the structure—the flotation—has of necessity to be done after the Bill is enacted. I understand that. It is not much good setting up a flotation scheme if we are not sure that the Bill will be accepted by both Houses of Parliament. The other evening my hon. and learned Friend gave me the strong impression that the thoughts that I have reiterated, perhaps too often, were useful.
      If we respect the work force and want to involve it, and if we do not want consortia to take over, or one shipping company virtually to dictate the entire policy of 19 ports, this is the most painless and equitable way of dealing with the flotation.
      204
      The amendment tinkers with what, after all, will be a matter of consultation when the flotation is made. Once the Bill becomes an Act, the less interference with the market place and the mechanism that must switch into operation, the better. At this stage it is essential to have the minimum of Government intervention. We are to have this 51 per cent., or perhaps a little less, if the share issue is generous to the employees. I repeat that to my mind employees mean everyone who obtains a livelihood from the 19 ports. Then the public would not feel that the docks labour force meant a restricted number of people.
      In the case of Southampton, where there are 1,700 stevedores, I should like to think that all the ancillary workers within the port, probably numbering 4,000 or 5,000, would be eligible not only for the free share issue of £50 but for the one-for-one free issue if they were prepared to put their money into their own place of work. I am sure that most of them will, and that the flotation will be an enormous success.
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: As someone who was not a member of the Committee, I want to say a few words on the matter, and also to ask a few questions.
      If we are to sell the shares in the British Transport Docks Board, I agree that the first priority for such sale should be the people who work in the docks, be they dockers, stevedores, or ancillary workers. A substantial part of the shareholding should be allocated to them. I am not sure that the British Aerospace scheme is a particularly generous one. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) appeared to consider the scheme full of generosity. A £50 gift of shares to each employee does not seem generous. I should like to see that amount substantially increased if there is eventually to be a sale of shares, which clearly there will be.
      I read in my local newspaper that there is to be a free gift of shares, but I do not know whether an official announcement has been made. I have tried to find out whether the Minister made such an announcement. The newspaper says that there is to be a £50 allocation of shares to each port employee, plus a one-for-one scheme after that. Perhaps the Minister will tell me when he announced the scheme. I hope that the Minister will not go back on it now, because once such a scheme has been announced—indeed, once it has been read about by all my port employees—if the Minister goes back on his announcement it will cause the Government a great deal of trouble.
      I assume that some have prior knowledge of these matters and that the scheme will go through. I hope that a minimum of a £50 gift and then a one-for-one scheme will be carried out. I should like to see a better scheme than that. I hope that when the Minister replies—
      Mr. Hill rose——
      Mr. Mitchell: I shall not give way. I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman when he was speaking, so perhaps I may continue.
      I know that in a sense this matter arises on the next amendment, but one of the big fears of both employees and management is that no one group gets hold of the BTDB. If a shipping companies' consortium, which is dealt with in the next admendment, or any other group could obtain a large enough block of shares it might be able to direct

      205
      and influence policy. That would be a dangerous situation. If a large finance company bought a large block of shares it could direct the operations of the ports.
      I submit that it is essential that in the British Transport Docks Board we have a professional management. We may query its decisions from time to time. All of us have done so. Nevertheless, on balance the BTDB has good professional management. I should not like to see that management unduly influenced by outside commercial interests. I hope to hear an assurance on that issue.
      I have two technical matters to raise. If we are to have, as I understand is to be the case, according to the Press, the employee participation scheme, does that come out of the 51 per cent. or out of the 49 per cent? Does it come from the 49 per cent. available to everyone, or is it the Government's intention to take it out of the 51 per cent?
      Secondly, will the employee participation shareholding be a voting or a non-voting shareholding? If it is to be a voting shareholding, there is a strong case for it. To have voting shareholders consisting of those who actually work inside the industry will mean that we are moving slowly towards the idea of worker participation or even worker control of the industry. I suspect that the shares to be held by employees will not be granted a vote.
      I therefore ask the Minister, first, is there to be an employees participation scheme, as announced in my local newspaper? What is the scheme to be? Is it to be similar to the miserable British Aerospace scheme, or will it be a better scheme? Will the shares be voting or non-voting, and will they come out of the 51 per cent. or the 49 per cent?
      Mr. Cowans: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). He made great play about having a good story, and he implied that he should tell that story. I remind him that Hans Christian Andersen had a number of good stories and continued to tell them, but they were all fairy tales. When I listened to the hon. Member, I was reminded of those fairy tales, because every worry that he had was still inherent in spite of the nod from the Minister on the Front Bench. Nods do not remove fears. It is quite possible to have a workers' share scheme with non-voting rights which gives the workers very little control over their own destiny.
      Amendment No. 11 was dealt with adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), because it sought to retain the 51 per cent. There is, however, another aspect of that. If the hon. Member for Test cares to cast his mind back over the reports of the 60 or so Committee sittings he will recall that there were great deliberations concerning the fact that, having retained 51 per cent., the Government, via the Minister—these great upholders of the taxpayer's purse, these watchers over the public interest and over the taxpayer's money—were not even going to put in directors.
      Therefore, it follows as night follows day that even though 51 per cent. of the shares is retained, the tail will wag the dog in the sense of the other, private capital, because directors will not be put in to have their say. The fact that directors will not be put in means that there will be virtually no control, although lip service is paid to the fact that there will be a 51 per cent. retention.
      Mr. Stanley Cohen: May I take up the point about the people who describe themselves as
      206
      watchdogs of the public purse? Apart from the Minister, there are merely four hon. Members present on the Government side who, one might say, are in the position of being watchdogs. In an important issue like this one would have thought that on both sides of the Chamber—although we on this side have the greater representation—more hon. Members should be taking an interest.
      Mr. Cowans: My hon. Friend adds even greater validity to my point. At least, those few hon. Members are listening, but if directors are not put in there will not be anyone who can listen. It is Conservative Members who are supposed to be looking after the taxpayer's purse and concerned about public expenditure, yet when they have the opportunity they do not put directors in to safeguard that interest. That is the morality of the situation.
      Amendment No. 11 seeks to go further than my hon. Friend, because it refers to
      "a majority of the voting shares"
      being
      "retained by the Secretary of State".
      I am well aware that the retention by the Secretary of State of the voting shares does not make him go along with our ideas, because he has already said that he will not put any directors in. He wants the private sector—the minority shareholder—to run the business. If he does not exercise his right with the 51 per cent. of voting shares we shall see clearly where the blame lies. It is important that we should recognise this and even more important that people outside should be aware of the paper-thin case that the Minister makes for keeping the 51 per cent. but not exercising control. The constituents of the hon. Member for Test and of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Mitchell), the people who work in the industry, will be keenly interested in the fact that the 51 per cent. holding will give no control whatever.
      There is nothing in the Bill to prevent any person from buying up the remainder. It would have been more appropriate if those who are so worried that they are shedding crocodile tears about the workers in the industry had exerted their influence to make the Government undertake their obligation and put in directors. The private interests could buy up the minority holding, and because directors are not put in those private interests will be in charge.
      Perhaps at last, after a long period, we might by some quirk of fate touch the Minister into saying that he will put in directors and will exercise his obligation to the House and to the country to look after the money and watch over our interests while he retains the 51 per cent.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I wish to say a few words about the amendment and the clause. It is obvious that once again, by their stealth, the Government are stealing the plums from our nationalised industries on every possible occasion. The clause does not say that they will take over all the docks throughout the country; they will take over only one or two. That is the implication. The best will be taken over. Those that are not too good will be left for nationalised industry to look after.
      It is obvious what the Government are doing for their friends. In every Bill that comes before the House affecting the nationalised industries they are making certain that they can take away from those industries the

      207
      subsidiaries and parts that it is worth while for private enterprise to run because they can be profitable. That is the ultimate determination of the Government in almost every sector of the nationalised industries, and here we get it again, in this case with the docks. It is disgraceful. It is suggested that the Secretary of State will retain a 51 per cent. holding but that there is to be no responsibility on the part of the work force about how the docks are to be run.
      The country is suffering from bad relationships between management and the work force. There is nothing that we can expect from the Government that will encourage improved industrial relations. Why do they not seize every opportunity to improve industrial relations in the docks? It is because they are not interested. They think of turning over the plums to private enterprise so that their friends will make a profit, and the rest of the industry does not matter. Hon. Members on the Government side may smile when I say that, but it is disgraceful that on every possible occasion the Government seek to take away from the nationalised industries the most profitable sectors.
      What guarantee shall we have? If the shares are sold to a company, possibly to a multinational company—[An Hon. Member: "Tiny Rowland."]—which takes over, what power will the Secretary of State have? What worries me is how the Secretary of State decides what is to happen. I do not think that he will have any power to decide. He will make certain that this section of the docks will be run solely by private enterprise, no matter who it is or to whom it belongs, and, therefore, the rest of the docks which are not profitable will be the responsibility of the State, so that the Government can denigrate nationalisation in every possible instance. They are doing it on every occasion when a Bill involving a nationalsed industry comes before the House.
      I would not have spoken, but this sort of thing is direct proof that the Government are looking after a section of our society and are not too troubled about society as a whole. In my opinion they ought on every occasion to try to make certain that we improve the relationship between management and the work force so that we can have greater efficiency and greater production, and a more efficient running of our industries. But here, once again, they make certain that we carry on with our present method, which really is a disgrace to our nation. Industry in this country is probably the worst run of all the industries of Western European nations.
      I will say no more, but I hope that the Government will make certain that the amendment is not agreed to, and that they return to a more reasonable attitude towards the dockyards.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a minute or two, but there is one question that I want to put to the Minister. First, I support the hon. Members for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) and Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). If there is a workers' shareholding scheme in this I am all for it, but it has to be spelt out, and we would like to know tonight, if possible.
      Is it possible for Associated British Ports to purchase the holdings of British Rail port authorities that are covered by clause 2? I am very concerned about what may happen to places like Fishbourne, in the Isle of Wight, if
      208
      it happens to get sold off to somebody who is very bloody-minded. It is important that Sealink services and, for that matter, any shipping line, should have good relationships with the ports to which it is delivering its passengers and its goods. If these are hived off in all sorts of different directions some very odd things may happen, and the people who will suffer will be the local residents—the consumers, so to speak—who will be taken to the cleaners. I should like to know whether that transaction is possible.
      Apart from that, I welcome the idea that there is to be a scheme; I hope that there will be a scheme and that the dockyard workers and everybody in Southampton and the other ports will have a chance to own shares.
      Mr. Sheerman: I appreciate that the Liberal Party is interested in workers' participation and schemes for share ownership, but does not the hon. Member agree with me and with other Opposition Members that if we are going to have workers' participation we should not con the workers? It has to be a meaningful share participation; not just the ownership of shares, with no real participation in the work of the company. The participation should include a voice on the board. At the moment we see a large amount of Government participation that calls itself participation but provides no power on the board, and nothing but paper share-ownership.
      Mr. Ross: I share the hon. Gentleman's views. That is why I asked for the position to be spelt out when the Minister replied. I feel that the 51 per cent. holding by the State is probably right, but I can be converted on that.
      Mr. Hill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that every shareholder should have exactly the representation that his shares entitle him to? If 2 per cent. are sold to employees their representation should be the same as that of any other shareholders with equal amounts.
      Mr. Ross: I have never held shares in my life, so I am not an expert on the subject. All that I am trying to say is that it must be a meaningful block that goes to those workers, and they must be given the opportunity to purchase. If they do not take up the shares I accept that that is their fault, but it must be a large enough block, it must be well advertised, and the workers must know what their opportunity is.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We covered the 51 per cent. point frequently in Committee. I have to begin by saying that I dealt with it often enough in Committee for our position to be clear. Throughout there has been clarity about our policy towards the British Transport Docks Board.
      First, on the point raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), we recognise that the British Transport Docks Board has been a highly successful business and that it has a well balanced collection of ports at the moment. There is no intention whatever of breaking up or disrupting the present business. We achieve that in the Bill by ensuring that it re-emerges as a new entity—the new statutory corporation to be known as Associated British Ports. That will remain one business. It will be the obvious successor to the British Transport Docks Board and will be a statutory corporation, with all its powers and duties set out in the Bill. Our first aim was not in any way to break up or damage the present successful track record of the board.
      The second aim was to denationalise the company in order to obtain for it the advantages of the private sector,

      209
      which at the moment it is denied. I know that we do not have time this evening to go over the full ideological debate. There is a gap between us. I am not able to understand why sections of the Labour Party regard it still as such a shibboleth that major trading undertakings of this kind should be nationalised within the State sector. There are limitations so long as companies remain in the public sector, because of ministerial involvement in key decision-making, and there are also limitations because of the Treasury controls over access to private capital for investment and for other purposes that do not date merely from this Government but that in their present form were introduced by the Labour Government in 1976 and that will inevitably be exercised by any Government over the private sector.
      So, in order to denationalise this company and to make it take on the character of a private sector company henceforth, we are making Associated British Ports, the statutory corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of a Companies Act holding company. That holding company will be set up on the appointed day by the Secretary of State, but the denationalisation will come when he sells—we hope later this year—49 per cent. of his shareholding in the company. He will sell only 49 per cent. of his shareholding, but at that point the company will become a private sector company, because we have made it clear that although he will continue to retain a 51 per cent. holding he will not appoint directors and he will not seek to exercise control; it will be a dormant holding following the precedents of British Petroleum and other companies in the past.
      The 51 per cent. is merely the holding that the Government will retain, and the retention of that 51 per cent. does not affect the basic position of the holding company, which is that control over the company will pass from my right hon. Friend and the Government to the private sector investors who acquire an interest.
      At the moment, the precise timing and form of that flotation or sale of the shares has not been determined; we hope to get on to it in the reasonably near future but I am not at the moment in a position to announce exactly when we will produce the prospectus, or how we will dispose of the 49 per cent. interest. However, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), and also the hon. Members for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and other hon. Members that the Government are favourably disposed to the idea of employee shareholdings.
      The major flotation that has occurred so far in this Government's policy of denationalising and giving these great trading companies access to private capital is the flotation of British Aerospace. I cannot commit myself at the moment to say that if we float later this year we shall follow exactly the British Aerospace pattern, but that flotation itself was a Government-inspired and controlled flotation. Certainly, we welcomed the opportunity to give employees the chance to participate in the company in that flotation, and if the opportunity occurs with the British Transport Docks Board we would obviously prefer to do that.
      I am talking at the moment about the disposal of a 49 per cent. interest in the holding company. If, when we dispose of that interest, it proves practicable to do so, within that 49 per cent. I would hope that a reasonable and acceptable shareholding scheme for employees can be devised.
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Minister saying that he has not decided at this moment to give a £50 free shareholding to each port employee? My local newspaper reported that he had so decided. Is he now telling me that he has not yet decided that?
      Mr. Clarke: I am saying that we have not decided that. I do not read the Southampton newspapers with the regularity that I should. I have not given any interviews to the Southampton newspapers, either. What I can say is that we would hope that, if it proved possible, there would be a generous and reasonable employee shareholding scheme when the flotation took place.
      The British Aerospace shareholding scheme has proved to be perfectly well worth looking at. That was Government flotation. It was the first company in the held in terms of denationalisation. If there is an employee shareholding scheme, as I hope there will be, it is not the case that employees will, have a lesser quality of shares—non-voting shares as opposed to voting shares, for instance, which was the fear expressed by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans). The rules applying to employee shareholdings specify that one should not have a particular category of shares confined to the employee with different voting rights as compared to other shareholders. We would expect that any employee shareholding scheme, if it proved possible to set one up, would provide participation absolutely on a basis of equality with other shareholders.
      7.30 pm.
      Mr. Cowans: The Minister has raised an important point. As he is a member of the legal profession, I could not ask anyone better to answer this question. In a hypothetical case, whilst the Government own 51 per cent. of the shares in the holding company and do not put in directors, if the holding company breaks the law who is responsible, given the fact that the Government are the largest shareholder, at 51 per cent., even though they do not exercise their option?
      Mr. Clarke: I will not go into hypothetical questions about what would happen if the company breaks the law. Normally, if a company breaks the law that company is liable, and directors who took an executive role in any criminal or unlawful acts may well be liable, but the shareholders are not liable to find themselves in the dock for any unlawful activities on the part of the company.
      Given the track record of the British Transport Docks Board, I do not think that the prospects of its breaking the law should loom large in our discussions this evening. In fact, it is likely to be a responsible and successful business. I have already said that if employee shareholdings come in, as I hope they will, we shall not have a separate category of non-voting shares for the employees.
      The amendment deals with the question of voting and non-voting shares. No final decisions have yet been taken about the financial structure of the holding company when it is set up. Subsection (2) gives the Secretary of State wide powers to determine the financial structure when it is created, and we expect that a mixture of shares and securities will be created to meet the needs of the moment and, in particular, the needs of the holding company and the needs of the flotation.
      Non-voting shares are now rather unpopular. It is not very often that one gets them in the private sector. Again,

      211
      we have not determined the final financial structure, but I think that I would not be going too far if I said that I should be surprised if we had any non-voting shares at all when we set up the holding company on the appointed day later this year. It is more likely that we shall have one category of voting share only. We would dispose as soon as reasonably possible of 49 per cent. of whatever shares are eventually created.
      I would make it clear, as I tried to make it clear in Committee, that for the forseeable future we accept that we have undertaken to retain 51 per cent. My right hon. Friend has an understanding with the British Transport Docks Board—an understanding that has been transmitted to the work force—that the present policy of the Government is to retain 51 per cent. It shows our continuing confidence in the business. It will help to ensure continuity, and so on. I understand that the assurance has been generally welcomed by both sides of the docks industry.
      Where we differ from the Opposition—we differ again on the amendment, which is merely a fresh way for the Opposition to put their point—is that we are not undertaking to bind our successors for all time. It is not that we are planning at any early stage to start moving on and selling off any of our 51 per cent. In all the explanations that I have given I recall no occasion on which I have indicated that after, for instance, 12 months we might be moving on to sell a second tranche of shares.
      As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, that is not our present intention. At the moment our plans are to retain 51 per cent. for substantially longer than 12 months. As I said on Second Reading, there is no special merit about the figure 51 per cent. It is quite unnecessary to bind our successors, and we certainly do not want rigid statutory rules laid down. If the flotation is a success, I visualise that in a few years' time everbody on the British Transport Docks Board will be totally relaxed on the question of how great an interest the Government want, and nobody will see the tremendous idealogical problems and political fears that are now being expressed by the Opposition.
      However, other circumstances might arise in which any Government—this Government or any successor Government—did not want to retain 51 per cent. Let me cite examples that I have already given. Let us suppose that the new company wishes to raise capital by offering a rights issue to its existing shareholders. The Government of the day may not wish to take up such a rights issue, and inevitably their 51 per cent. holding will drop. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Test is always pressing, a situation may arise in which the Government wish to impose or enlarge the employee shareholding scheme. It may well be that any such later improvement will come out of the Government's 51 per cent. holding, as opposed to the 49 per cent.
      We do not wish to bind our successors. We see no need to do so. We see no need for statutory requirements. It is our policy to retain 51 per cent. for the foreseeable future, but the 51 per cent. will not be used by my right hon. Friend in such a way as to exercise control over the company. It will be a private sector company, free from ministerial controls and from Treasury restraints over access to capital. Nevertheless, it will be a statutory corporation essential to the British ports and will be the
      212
      natural successor to the British Transport Docks Board. I believe that it will have the success that the BTDB had in the past. In fact, I believe that the possibilities of success are improved by the policy change we are putting forward. The fears in the docks are groundless. I hope that this debate has helped to clarify the position and make it clear that arguments about 51 per cent. are particularly wide of the practical point.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 293.

      Division No. 157]

      [7.37 pm

      Abse, Leo

      Field, Frank

      Adams, Allen

      Fitt, Gerard

      Allaun, Frank

      Flannery, Martin

      Anderson, Donald

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Ford, Ben

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Forrester, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Foster, Derek

      Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

      Foulkes, George

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

      George, Bruce

      Bradley, Tom

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ginsburg, David

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Golding, John

      Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Graham, Ted

      Buchan, Norman

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

      Hardy, Peter

      Campbell, Ian

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Canavan, Dennis

      Haynes, Frank

      Cant, R. B.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Home Robertson, John

      Cartwright, John

      Homewood, William

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hooley, Frank

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

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      John, Brynmor

      Cook, Robin F.

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Cowans, Harry

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Craigen, J. M.

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Cryer, Bob

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Kerr, Russell

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Lambie, David

      Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lamond, James

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

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

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Deakins, Eric

      Litherland, Robert

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Dempsey, James

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Dewar, Donald

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Dixon, Donald

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Dobson, Frank

      McElhone, Frank

      Dormand, Jack

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Dubs, Alfred

      McKelvey, William

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Dunn, James A.

      McMahon, Andrew

      Dunnett, Jack

      McNally, Thomas

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      McNamara, Kevin

      Eadie, Alex

      McTaggart, Robert

      Eastham, Ken

      McWilliam, John

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

      Magee, Bryan

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

      Marks, Kenneth

      English, Michael

      Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

      213

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Sever, John

      Meacher, Michael

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Mikardo, Ian

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Skinner, Dennis

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Snape, Peter

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Soley, Clive

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Newens, Stanley

      Stoddart, David

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Stott, Roger

      Ogden, Eric

      Straw, Jack

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      O'Neill, Martin

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Tilley, John

      Parker, John

      Tinn, James

      Parry, Robert

      Torney, Tom

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Pendry, Tom

      Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Watkins, David

      Prescott, John

      Weetch, Ken

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Race, Reg

      Welsh, Michael

      Radice, Giles

      White, Frank R.

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Richardson, Jo

      Whitlock, William

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Williams, Sir T.(W'ton)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Robertson, George

      Winnick, David

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Woodall, Alec

      Rooker, J. W.

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Roper, John

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ryman, John

      Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. George Morton.

      Sandelson, Neville

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

      Alison, Michael

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Alton, David

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Ancram, Michael

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Arnold, Tom

      Buck, Antony

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Budgen, Nick

      Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

      Burden, Sir Frederick

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

      Butcher, John

      Baker, Kenneth(St. M'bone)

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Banks, Robert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Beith, A. J.

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Chapman, Sydney

      Bendall, Vivian

      Churchill, W. S.

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

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

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Best, Keith

      Cockeram, Eric

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Colvin, Michael

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Cope, John

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Blackburn, John

      Corrie, John

      Blaker, Peter

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Body, Richard

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Critchley, Julian

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Dover, Denshore

      Bright, Graham

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Brinton, Tim

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Brittan, Leon

      Durant, Tony

      Brotherton, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      214

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Eggar, Tim

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Emery, Peter

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Loveridge, John

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Luce, Richard

      Farr, John

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      McCrindle, Robert

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      MacGregor, John

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Forman, Nigel

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Fox, Marcus

      Madel, David

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Major, John

      Freud, Clement

      Marland, Paul

      Fry, Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Mates, Michael

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mather, Carol

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mawby, Ray

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gorst, John

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Gow, Ian

      Mellor, David

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Gray, Hamish

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Greenway, Harry

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Grieve, Percy

      Miscampbell, Norman

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

      Moate, Roger

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Monro, Hector

      Grist, Ian

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Grylls, Michael

      Moore, John

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mudd, David

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Murphy, Christopher

      Hannam, John

      Myles, David

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Neale, Gerrard

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hawkins, Paul

      Neubert, Michael

      Hawksley, Warren

      Newton, Tony

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Normanton, Tom

      Heddle, John

      Nott, Rt Hon John

      Henderson, Barry

      Onslow, Cranley

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Osborn, John

      Hill, James

      Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Hooson, Tom

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Hordern, Peter

      Parris, Matthew

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

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

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Howells, Geraint

      Pawsey, James

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Penhaligon, David

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Pollock, Alexander

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Jessel, Toby

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Raison, Timothy

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Renton, Tim

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Knox, David

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Lamont, Norman

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Lang, Ian

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Lee, John

      Rossi, Hugh

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Rost, Peter

      215

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Trippier, David

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Trotter, Neville

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shepherd, Richard

      Waddington, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Wakeham, John

      Silvester, Fred

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Sims, Roger

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Smith, Dudley

      Wall, Patrick

      Speller, Tony

      Waller, Gary

      Spence, John

      Walters, Dennis

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Ward, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Watson, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Stainton, Keith

      Wells, Bowen

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wheeler, John

      Stanley, John

      Whitney, Raymond

      Stevens, Martin

      Wickenden, Keith

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

      Wilkinson, John

      Stokes, John

      Williams, D.(Montgomery)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Tapsell, Peter

      Wolfson, Mark

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thompson, Donald

      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Mr. Robert Boscawen.

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 13 in page 5, line 44, at end insert—
      '(9) Directions given by the Secretary of State under this section to Associated British Ports or the Holding Company shall be in writing.
      (10) The first report prepared by the directors of the Holding Company under section 157 of the Companies Act 1948 after the appointed day shall contain a statement of every direction given by the Secretary of State under this section.'.
      This amendment has been tabled following an undertaking that I gave to the Standing Committee. It will ensure that all directions given under the clause will be in writing and will be printed in the annual report of the company.
      Mr. Prescott: We appreciate that the Minister has adopted what we suggested in Committee, although our amendment there was somewhat indefinite, and was too narrowly directed. The Minister told us then that the Bill covered other powers and directions that the Minister would be prepared to cover in the annual report. Presumably, he will have information about these directions and their consequences, because there is considerable power to change the capital structure and status of the company, and the power to be exercised before the annual report is published. In those circumstances, much of the information about the directions will presumably be embodied in the prospectus of the company when it is launched.
      I should like to discuss the quality of the information to be included in the annual report. In Committee we were concerned with the Government's interpretation of the appropriate time for flotation. In the last debate we discussed the question whether it should be within 12 months and whether the second tranche should come a little later than that. We shall wait to see what happens. Here we are concerned with the situation when the
      216
      Government's desire to sell off assets and acquire money conflicts with the company's commercial judgment. I am addressing myself to the British Transport Docks Board, but the principle is relevant to the British Rail companies and their subsidiaries, where similar considerations may arise. Directions given to these companies are also to be published in annual reports.
      I am here concerned with a matter that is directly a question of principle. The management concerned may wish to sell shares 12 months or even two years later than the Government propose. Clearly, the timing will be reflected in the price of the shares and the value of the company. The financial package involved in the selling of shares at the end of this year or next year may be less in the interests of the company than selling in two years, because of the earning possibilities of the company and the other factors that were mentioned in Committee.
      If it is the view of the company, presumably backed by its accountants, that to float the company at this stage or to be forced to accept financial arrangements at this stage is against the best interests, and that considerably more benefit would be derived by acting in 18 months, will that view be recorded in the annual report, so that the taxpayer may judge? Such a difference might be considerable. A subsidiary might even lose money by acting now rather than in 18 months. The Minister will recognise that that principle is applicable to all the subsidiaries being considered for privatisation.
      Mr. Cowans: I do not want to detain the House, and I appreciate that the Minister has moved the amendment in response to what was said in Committee, but there is one item that concerns me. The Bill refers to the first report that is prepared by the directors of the holding company, but what of the subsequent reports? If the Minister can clear that up I shall be satisfied with the amendment.
      Mr. Clarke: We are talking about the first annual report, because we are talking about directions given under the clause by my right hon. Friend and they all relate to the new financial structure of the holding company. They are all directions given upon the creation of the company. Therefore, we expect that they will all have been used, as it were, before the first annual report is prepared. The amendment is to ensure that all these directions are in writing and that they are published in the first annual report.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was right to say that by that time the information would be of limited interest, because it would have already appeared. We expect that the flotation of the company will take place reasonably quickly after the appointed day when the holding company is created. If a flotation occurs, a prospectus will have to be issued, and that will contain full information about the financial structure of the company and the directions under which it is operating. That prospectus will contain more valuable information than the annual report could.
      With that explanation, I hope that the House will accept that the amendment implements our undertaking in Committee and goes rather further than the amendment that the Opposition then moved.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked me to deal with another and more serious point. He asked what would happen if there were differing judgments about the best timing of the flotation. I do not think that

      217
      that is likely to arise, particularly in the case of the British Transport Docks Board. On the appointed day the holding company will be wholly owned by my right hon. Friend. We are talking about the time at which he will sell 49 per cent. of the shares in the company.
      The main interest in the safeguarding of that sale of 49 per cent. is the taxpayer rather than the British Transport Docks Board. We are talking about the value that will be obtained from the sale. Therefore, my right hon. Friend will be responsible primarily to the House and the general public for ensuring that he gets the best return on the sale of the shareholding. I can assure the House that we are of course mindful of the interests of the taxpayer and that it is our intention to create a company of a set financial structure and to choose the timing of the flotation in such a way as to get the best possible return for the assets for the taxpayer. With British Rail subsidiaries there could be conflicts of interest. We expect that British Rail Investments Limited will time the flotation so as to get the best return for its assets. On the other hand, it understands as well as we do the need for rapid progress on this policy. We would make directions only if it failed to make that progress. I have no doubt that it would choose an early but best time to get the best value for its assets, because its interests are also affected and it wants the maximum return of funds to British Rail.
      I have dealt with this matter rather more shortly than the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East did, and I hope that the House, given that assurance, will now accept the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 7

      CONSTITUTION OF ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS, ETC.
      Mr. Prescott: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 5, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      '(3) The Board of the Holding Company shall consist of two directors appointed by the Secretary of State and not less than 3 and not more than 11 determined by the Holding Company.'
      We made it clear, earlier that the directors ought to be
      appointed to the board, and this amendment reflects that wish. The Minister cited the precedent of British Petroleum, but he seems to have missed the fact that BP has directors appointed by the Government.
      The principle of the amendment is clear and I shall not develop the argument. We feel that there should be representation on the board and that the formula should be similar to that for BP. We share that view, apparently, with the Secretary of State for Employment. This therefore seems to be an amendment that the Government could accept.
      8 pm
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: When the arrangements for British Petroleum were set up in the First World War there was concern about foreign naval or military policy implications which led to two Government directors being appointed. Important though the affairs of Southampton, Hull and other docks are, there are no great foreign policy or defence interests involved. At present we are not minded to appoint directors. We do not think that the public interest requires them. It would be a private sector company, not controlled by the Government, and would have considerable advantages from that arrangement.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:
      The House divided: Ayes 209, 300.

      Division No. 158]

      [8.00 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Adams, Allen

      George, Bruce

      Allaun, Frank

      Ginsburg, David

      Anderson, Donald

      Golding, John

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Gourlay, Harry

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Graham, Ted

      Ashton, Joe

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Hardy, Peter

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Haynes, Frank

      Bottomley, Rt Hon k.(M'b'ro)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Bradley, Tom

      Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Home Robertson, John

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Homewood, William

      Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

      Hooley, Frank

      Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Campbell, Ian

      John, Brynmor

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Cant, R. B.

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cartwright, John

      Kerr, Russell

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Lambie, David

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

      Lamborn, Harry

      Coleman, Donald

      Lamond, James

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Leighton, Ronald

      Cook, Robin F.

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Cowans, Harry

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Craigen, J. M.

      Litherland, Robert

      Crowther, J. S.

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cryer, Bob

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Cunningham, Q. (Islington S)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Davidson, Arthur

      McElhone, Frank

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      McKelvey, William

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

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Deakins, Eric

      McMahon, Andrew

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      McNally, Thomas

      Dempsey, James

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dewar, Donald

      McTaggart, Robert

      Dixon, Donald

      McWilliam, John

      Dobson, Frank

      Magee, Bryan

      Dormand, Jack

      Marks, Kenneth

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dunn, James A.

      Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Meacher, Michael

      Eadie, Alex

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Eastham, Ken

      Mikardo, Ian

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

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      English, Michael

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Field, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Flannery, Martin

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Newens, Stanley

      Ford, Ben

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Forrester, John

      Ogden, Eric

      Foster, Derek

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Foulkes, George

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Palmer, Arthur

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Parker, John

      219

      Parry, Robert

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Stoddart, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Stott, Roger

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Prescott, John

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

      Race, Reg

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Radice, Giles

      Tilley, John

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Tinn, James

      Richardson, Jo

      Torney, Tom

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Wainwright, B.(Dearne V)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Watkins, David

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Weetch, Ken

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Rooker, J. W.

      Welsh, Michael

      Roper, John

      White, Frank R.

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Whitlock, William

      Ryman, John

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Sandelson, Neville

      Williams, Sir T.(W'ton)

      Sever, John

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Woodall, Alec

      Snape, Peter

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Soley, Clive

      Spearing, Nigel

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Mr. Walter Harrison and Mr. George Morton.

      Stallard, A. W.

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Alexander, Richard

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Alison, Michael

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Alton, David

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Chapman, Sydney

      Ancram, Michael

      Churchill, W. S.

      Arnold, Tom

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

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

      Clegg, Sir Walter

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

      Cockeram, Eric

      Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)

      Colvin, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Cope, John

      Banks, Robert

      Cormack, Patrick

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Corrie, John

      Beith, A. J.

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Bendall, Vivian

      Critchley, Julian

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Best, Keith

      Dover, Denshore

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Blackburn, John

      Durant, Tony

      Blaker, Peter

      Dykes, Hugh

      Body, Richard

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Eggar, Tim

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Elliott, Sir William

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Emery, Peter

      Bowden, Andrew

      Eyre, Reginald

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Bright, Graham

      Farr, John

      Brinton, Tim

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Brittan, Leon

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Brotherton, Michael

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Forman, Nigel

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Buck, Antony

      Fox, Marcus

      Budgen, Nick

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Freud, Clement

      Butcher, John

      Fry, Peter

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      220

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Marlow, Tony

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Mates, Michael

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mather, Carol

      Goodhart, Philip

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mawby, Ray

      Gorst, John

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gow, Ian

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Mellor, David

      Gray, Hamish

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Greenway, Harry

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Grieve, Percy

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

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

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Grist, Ian

      Moate, Roger

      Grylls, Michael

      Monro, Hector

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Moore, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Hannam, John

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mudd, David

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Murphy, Christopher

      Hawkins, Paul

      Myles, David

      Hawksley, Warren

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Nelson, Anthony

      Heddle, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Henderson, Barry

      Newton, Tony

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Normanton, Tom

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Nott, Rt Hon John

      Hill, James

      Onslow, Cranley

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Osborn, John

      Hooson, Tom

      Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

      Hordern, Peter

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Parkinson, Cecil

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

      Parris, Matthew

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Howells, Geraint

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Pawsey, James

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Penhaligon, David

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Pollock, Alexander

      Jessel, Toby

      Porter, Barry

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Raison, Timothy

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Rathbone, Tim

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Renton, Tim

      Knox, David

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Lamont, Norman

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Lang, Ian

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Lee, John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Rossi, Hugh

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Rost, Peter

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Loveridge, John

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Luce, Richard

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shepherd, Richard

      MacGregor, John

      Shersby, Michael

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Silvester, Fred

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Sims, Roger

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

      Smith, Dudley

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Speller, Tony

      Madel, David

      Spence, John

      Major, John

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Marland, Paul

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      221

      Sproat, Iain

      Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

      Stainton, Keith

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Stanley, John

      Wall, Patrick

      Stevens, Martin

      Waller, Gary

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Walters, Dennis

      Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

      Ward, John

      Stokes, John

      Watson, John

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Wells, Bowen

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Wheeler, John

      Tebbit, Norman

      Whitney, Raymond

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wickenden, Keith

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Thompson, Donald

      Wilkinson, John

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Williams, D.(Montgomery)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Trippier, David

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Trotter, Neville

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

      Viggers, Peter

      Waddington, David

      Wakeham, John

      Queston accordingly negatived.
      It being after Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [9 March] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Eight o' clock.

    Clause 13
      TRANSFER OF FUNCTION OF HOLDING COMPANY
      Amendment made: No. 16, in page 9, line 19, after '7(1)', insert 'and (4)'.—[Mr. Fowler.]
    Clause 14
      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SS. 5 TO 13.
      Amendment made: No. 17, in page 11, line 10, after 'are', insert 'beneficially'.—[Mr. Fowler.]
    Schedule 4

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTING SS. 5 TO 13
      Amendment made:No. 18, in page 41, leave out lines 31 to 35 and insert—
      '(2) Section 92(9)(b) of the Finance Act 1972 (restriction on surrender of surplus advance corporation tax) and section 28(2) of the Finance Act 1973 (restriction of group relief) shall not apply to the Holding Company as the parent company of Associated British Ports.
      (3) Payments by Associated British Ports under section 11(1) of this Act shall be treated as dividends for the purposes of the enactments relating to corporation tax.
      (4) The vesting on the appointed day in the Holding Company of powers in relation to Associated British Ports shall not be regarded as constituting a change in the ownership of Associated British Ports for the purposes of section 483 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (restriction on carry forward of loss relief) or section 101 of the Finance Act 1972 (restriction on carry forward of relief for advance corporation tax).'.—[Mr. Fowler.]

    Clause 15

      DISSOLUTION OF NATIONAL PORTS COUNCIL
      Mr. Prescott: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 11, line 25, leave out 'determine' and insert
      222
      'alter in accordance with the provisions of this section.'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 20, in page 11, line 30, leave out from 'person' to 'and' in line 31 and insert 'shall be altered accordingly'.
      No. 21, in page 11, line 37, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      '(2) The Order made by the Secretary of State under subsection 1 of this section shall require the National Ports Council to maintain such facilities as are required to provide him with an independent assessment of the financial, organisational and manpower problems facing the British Port' s Industry.'
      Mr. Prescott: We have in these amendments the essential principle of difference between the Government and the Opposition about a centralised authority. The clear intention of the Bill itself is to abolish the National Ports Council, a central authority that was recommended by the Rochdale inquiry into the docks industry in 1962–64, and a central agency that was implemented by a previous Conservative Administration.
      Our view—it is as well to make it clear, as it is relevant to the arguments that we are putting forward for a National Ports Council to be retained in some form—is that we have always believed that there should be a National Ports Authority—that is, a central agency with teeth and power to be able to implement the functions and roles that we would give to it and, indeed, as was envisaged in the Rochdale inquiry when it recommended a centralised authority.
      We were defeated in Committee on that amendment. Whilst it was at the early stages of the guillotine procedure, I think that we did at least take sufficient time to indicate why, in those circumstances, we felt that a national ports authority was an essential part of the ports industry. Not only was it relevant to the period of the 1960s and, indeed, the 1970s; it is becoming increasingly evident that it is absolutely relevant to the 1980s, and possibly beyond that.
      It is not necessary for me to put forward arguments about the National Ports Authority. It is simply for us to address ourselves to the amendments that are before the House this evening, the purpose of which is to retain in some form the National Ports Council. The clause to which we address our amendments deals with the apparent requirement of the Government that on the appointed day the National Ports Council shall cease its functions.
      The rest of the clauses in this part of the Bill require cooperation from the people involved in achieving the rundown and the abolition of the National Ports Council and the transfer of some of its functions statutorily to the Government themselves, or, indeed, the transfer of some of the other industrial activities that it has been involved in to a similar body, presumably to be set up by the ports industry itself and financed in a similar way to the National Ports Council, though no doubt it will be a cheaper body. Presumably the levies will be less. We shall wait to see whether that is the case.
      8.15 pm
      We have recognised that the Government's intention in the clause is to abolish the National Ports Council, but we suggest that by adopting the amendment it will be possible for the Minister, by means of a statutory instrument, instead of announcing the end of the National Ports Council to announce that some activities of the council shall cease and others shall continue.

      223
      Presumably one could do that. It is not a happy way of dealing with the matter, but this is the vehicle on which we have decided to hold our debate this evening. Perhaps one could say that the Minister, if he so wished, could keep the statutory functions that he has decided to retain for himself, namely, the appeals in regard to dues and ships' charges—another subject that we shall be discussing on a later amendment—harbour reorganisation schemes, and, indeed, even the investment decisions that will have to be submitted to the Minister to deal with these matters.
      The requirement for the investment of £3 million is interesting. I think that the Minister has ignored the National Ports Council recommendation to him that the limit that he should impose for the review of such investments should be £2 million. It is interesting that he has chosen to make it £3 million, because out of the 13 or 14 investment projects last year only four came to more than £3 million. Clearly this is one way of reducing the work load that he intends to impose on his civil servants.
      Unfortunately—this is one of our arguments for a separate body to make a judgment about these matters—while attempting to lighten the load he is missing some very important investment projects that will determine the flow of traffic and trade in our ports, with consequential effects on a ports industry that, on balance, is only 35 per cent. used. We have a capacity for about 1,000 million tonnes and only 350 million tonnes are going through, with a direction in trade one way or another, either through specialisation in containerisation or, indeed, through the preference of some owners together deciding to use one port, with consequential effects upon others, which means that that investment decision determines not only the trade flows but, inevitably, the possible economic problems that the ports of Liverpool, London, Bristol and elsewhere will be faced with. We do not think that that is a particularly wise move, but we understand why the Minister wants to limit the amount of resources that he has to make the assessment.
      What we are doing is reducing that amount of assessment. It is a matter of judgment whether it is better done by the National Ports Council or the Civil Service. I am bound to say, from my reckoning, that the National Ports Council, whose judgments I have not always agreed with, is better placed to provide a continuity of assessment in situations of that kind.
      Our amendments are therefore designed to retain the National Ports Council in some limited roles. If the amendments are accepted the Minister will have a chance to reconsider the role of the council and perhaps a more limited function for its activities. Clearly, one of the most important ones could well be the maintaining of an advisory role to the Minister himself. Indeed, I think that he is nodding to my assessment that the limited resources that he has available to him in the ports directorate—if that is what it is called—of his Department are a factor in determining what scale of investment should be considered.
      If that is so, I think that in those limited circumstances the National Ports Council, if maintained in an advisory role, would be of very great assistance to the Minister in assessing the future ports problems in terms of finance, organisation and manpower, which clearly the ports are presently plagued with, and have been for the last decade or so.
      224
      We recognise that the Minister would not wish to maintain the present powers of the National Ports Council—the limited statutory powers that it has had—such as the right to be consulted before going to the Minister. If he wishes to reduce them, so be it. It is not a choice that we would make, but our amendments would allow him to decide whether the council, in some form or other, should be retained, and certainly, perhaps, be able to do some of the things that it does at present.
      In the circumstances I suggest that the council has an important rôle, because we foresee a crisis situation developing in our ports industry. In Committee and on Second Reading there was clear evidence of a realisation by the Secretary of State that all is not well in the ports industry. The right hon. Gentleman finds that he must make a reassessment of the policy objectives that he stated when he first took up the office of Secretary of State.
      I do not intend to reiterate the "brave new world" statements made by the right hon. Gentleman at that time, but by his firm pronouncements that he believed the less intervention the better, as he processes the various pieces of legislation he will probably feel that that is the best advice. The reality, however, is that he cannot stay out of these matters. The problems of the ports of London, Liverpool and Bristol are of such a nature that he is bound increasingly to intervene. While he may have said that he had no intention of intervening in these matters, he is being increasingly dragged into them.
      If that is the case—and legislation before the House shows clear evidence of such intervention—he will have to make judgments. In those judgments he will be assisted by the Civil Service. No doubt the Civil Service gave him advice in respect of his first piece of legislation. He may not have taken the advice of his civil servants. He clearly did not take the advice of the National Ports Council, hence the mess that he is getting himself into now.
      I do not know what the right hon. Member's civil servants' advice was, but presumably he acted on it when we had the London Bill. The Opposition told him then that within a short time he would be bringing in a Bill for the port of Liverpool. Right on cue, just before Christmas, there was money to extend the loans to that port and to extend its operations. Now we have a Bill involving hundreds of millions of pounds to deal directly with the problems of Liverpool and London. No doubt when we discuss that Bill there will be other ports which, we may equally predict, will have similar problems, to which the Secretary of State will have to address himself.
      We now live in a more realistic climate, and the Minister recognises that. The former ports policy was subjected to a crisis in the 1970s, when the former hon. Member for Yeovil, Mr. Peyton, did exactly the same thing, and rapidly made a U-turn. We have witnessed the same here.
      The Minister now has constantly to refer to various types of management consultant bodies, or accountants. In the case of London, the Labour Government did the same. They went to accountants—Peat Marwick Mitchell and Co., and Price Waterhouse and Co. The Minister therefore has to go to accountants who do not carry out a six-months' survey. In the case of London, the firm is still surveying the matter, and in Liverpool the firm will continue. The reason is that the financial disciplines that each Secretary of State hopes to impose on port authorities require regular checking. Unless the Minister is prepared to use his civil servants to that end he has to rely on a highly specialised

      225
      group of people. No doubt they have specialised skills in respect of the port industry to meet the charge that they have taken on. In those circumstances the Minister is actually going to the private sector's National Ports Council, or to accountants, to give him advice.
      When the Minister considers the matter, and particularly when he brings forward his statutory instruments, we hope that within 12 months he will find it wise to keep on some of the people in the National Ports Council, who presumably may find jobs with the accountants whom the Minister will have to employ to assist him with the problems of various ports. Clearly he will need advice, not only on investment decisions but in respect of the entire issue of dock redevelopment schemes to be embarked upon by the Department of the Environment. Manpower problems, too, will be considerable.
      I submit that it is worth putting on record the fact that when we see the decline in manpower in this industry, from 130,000 in 1966 down to 76,000 in 1976—which is a 45 per cent. decline—and with a further decline of 30 per cent. envisaged by 1985, the Government will certainly need advice on the problems. I hope that the Government will act on advice, because in the measures which they proposed for intervening on the labour scheme, which everyone thought was sacrosanct and would not be interfered with, the Government' actions interfered to such an extent that when I visited Aberdeen last week I found the dockers on strike. We warned the Minister that that would happen if he sought to have first-class and second-class dockers in respect of redundancy schemes.
      The Minister went ahead, and he did it without taking advice. He did not talk to the port employers. They had the shotgun marriage that we had. We were delighted to have five minutes in the Secretary of State's room. He must have been dashing around all afternoon from what I saw of the various parties talking to him in the hour or two that he had. He was a very busy man. I am surprised that he found five or 10 minutes for us. That is not consultation. The industry's protests must be as evident to the Minister as they are to us. If that is the type of consultation that the industry may expect from the Secretary of State in respect of these explosive political and economic problems—which will put considerable burdens upon it—the industry's view is that it will be left with a higher level of redundancy payments. Many who have withdrawn their redundancy payments will not accept them as the minimum.
      In that area alone, advice is much needed. The Minister cannot seek consolation from the fact that the industry itself will give that type of advice to him. He needs independent advice which does not conflict with the interests of individual ports. If he asks the ports to achieve a greater level of efficiency and productivity, he will be asking the port industry to be critical of some of the ports in its own trade association, identifying those that are more efficient than others. Frankly, it will not happen, because trade associations do not work like that. The National Ports Council did so. It gave a proper assessment of these problems. Efficiency and productivity problems are relevant matters for all of us to consider. In the matter of advice, it is important that they should be considered. When we know the low price paid for the National Ports Council we see that this is a bit of ideological business, motivated by Mr. Polanski, who wants to make his contribution from the Department of Transport to the
      226
      ending of quangos. But he is making us less well off, because the advice will not be as independent, objective or full as I believe the Secretary of State needs in the troublesome waters that he will face in the future concerning the problems in the port industry.
      The future problems are well spelt out in the National Ports Council's annual report, which was given to the Minister. This report was prepared in 1978 for the former Labour Secretary of State. There are great warning signs to the coming problems.
      For the Minister today to divest himself of qualified advice, on which he can rely and from which he can make a judgment and which has been proved by time, is to make himself weaker and less able to deal with the problems. If the Minister accepts the amendment he will have time to rethink the situation and possibly come back to the idea of retaining the National Ports Council in an advisory rôle, as he does with the accountants and management consultants. He is asking them the same questions as he should ask the National Ports Council.
      8.30 pm.
      Mr. Fowler: Some of the comments legitimately made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) in introducing the amendments were raised on Second Reading of the Ports Bill. Doubtless they will be raised again in the Committee proceedings on that Bill.
      I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the abolition of the National Ports Council is an important issue. The three amendments reflect the divergence of view between the Government and the Opposition concerning ports policy. That is also a point that the hon. Gentleman made. The Government are firmly of the view that the time is now right for a transfer of responsibility for the future of the ports industry to the industry itself. The ports should have as much freedom as possible to determine their own future, and managements must have full responsibility for their own actions. The ports, in particular those around the country, have for a long time been urging me to relieve them of unnecessary controls. It is probably a unanimous voice coming from the ports industry. They have urged me that the time has come to abolish the National Ports Council, and that, of course, is what we are doing in the Bill.
      In contrast to that, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, who has great knowledge of the ports industry, offers a number of other proposals. In Committee he offered the idea of a centralised national ports authority, but he has not developed that this evening. The objective of the amendments, which appears to be much more limited, is to provide the Secretary of State for Transport with independent assessments of the problems of the industry. However, I do not believe that those even more limited powers and the even more limited role for the National Ports Council are necessary.
      I should like to explain why we believe that the time has now come to abolish the National Ports Council. When the council was set up in 1964 it had a number of major tasks to perform. It followed, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Rochdale Committee of 1962, and the council has successfully implemented and further developed many of the recommendations of that committee. At least some of the credit for the fact that the ports industry is in a much fitter state than it was in 1964 must go to the council. In particular, it has formulated and, in conjunction with the industry, implemented an

      227
      important programme of port amalgamations and a programme of reconstitution of harbour boards. It has played a major part in the introduction of a commercial approach to ports charging and it has assisted the industry by providing statistics and forecasts and by carrying out and promoting research.
      However, it does not necessarily follow that the continued existence of the council represents the best means of securing the further improvements which are still necessary in the ports industry. There is no dispute between the hon. Gentleman and myself that further improvements in the industry are needed. The problems facing the ports are particularly concerned with the adaptation to technological change and are, of course, made considerably worse by the recession. Some ports, notably London and Mersey, have surplus manpower, and all of them need to strive continually to increase efficiency and productivity.
      The Government's view is that the problems are clear enough to the ports authorities. There is no need to have a definition of that. But it is only port managements which can take action to put those problems right. It is not a matter of advice to the Secretary of State. Still less, if I may say so, is it a matter of a national ports plan based on the unproven assumption that someone else knows better than the ports industry what is good for it. It is really now a matter of the ports facing up to their problems in the knowledge that the responsibility lies with them.
      Of course, we all want a range of ports around the country which are capable of handling the nation's trade. We all believe that they should be efficiently organised and managed, that they should make the best possible use of economic resources and that they should impose the smallest practicable charge on their customers. But the Government, in seeking to put those objectives into effect, would set three conditions for achieving them. The first is that the customer should basically choose which port he wants to use. It is the decision of the customer which should determine how much trade each port gets and, ultimately, which of the ports should prosper and which should not. Secondly, there should be the maximum practicable competition between the ports, because this best serves the interests of port users and of the country as a whole. I simply do not believe that the alternative of greater control is likely to lead to more efficient, more responsive or cheaper services for the customer. Thirdly, the ports must have freedom to settle their own future. Therefore, the Government are seeking to withdraw as much as possible from detailed interference in the industry, and in future they will concentrate on longer-term and major structural issues.
      The Bill does not remove from me my responsibility for ports policy. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East pointed out, I shall retain the powers which I need to carry out major functions, one of these being the requirement under the 1964 Harbours Act for approval to major port investment. Again, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, I recently increased from £1 million to £3 million the level below which schemes do not need approval. The exact figure is a matter of balance and judgment, but I judge that that is about the right figure.
      I have retained control over investment to ensure that development takes place only where there is a demonstrable need for it, where a customer is ready to use
      228
      it and where the investment shows a satisfactory rate of return. But, of course, I do not use this power to direct investment to specific ports or to stifle the proper competition between them.
      I shall also be taking over a limited number of the council's functions—it is important that this should be understood—which I consider are necessary to the Government's changed role. The main ones are the statutory duty to decide objections by port users to ship, passenger and goods dues levied by port authorities and the collection of a streamlined range of statistics to support the statutory responsibilities. At the same time, the industry itself, acting in particular through the British Ports Association, is taking over some of the council's work. As from 1 April, the British Ports Association became responsible for research and training, and it is currently considering exactly what its role should be in collecting and publishing statistics on behalf of the industry. I am pleased that the BPA is actively engaged in strengthening and enlarging its organisation to perform this new role. The Government look to the association to disseminate advice and good industrial and commercial practices throughout the industry generally.
      The council has pointed out, and the Government recognise, that there are still areas of the industry where improvements are required, notably in reducing surplus manpower, in developing facilities to take advantage of technological developments, especially in cargo handling, and in improving the overall efficiency and productivity of the ports. Some of these matters will need concerted action by the association, often in co-operation with port users.
      I should like to mention two examples, which are important. First, there have been discussions about taking forward work which has begun on measuring and comparing the way cargo is handled in the ports. Proposals for developing this work were agreed last year between the BPA and the port users' representatives, and it is in the national interest that this work is put in hand. Secondly, proposals were agreed last year for consultative machinery through which the BPA, the General Council of British Shipping, the CBI and the Freight Transport Association should collaborate. Again, I regard those as constructive steps, and I look forward to the machinery being established. These are examples of ways in which the industry is finding practical solutions more effectively than would be possible if it felt that it was being dictated to by another central body.
      We should not deceive ourselves by talk of independent assessment, which underlies the amendment. In my view, the problems of the industry are clear enough, and certainly I do not believe that they need research. What is needed basically is determination on the part of those responsible for the ports to deal with the problems. The Government will certainly continue to play their part, where necessary, but we are looking to the industry above all to shoulder a greater responsibility than it has hitherto been able to do, especially on financial and organisational matters. I do not deny that there is a challenge facing the ports, and a challenge, let me stress, facing the British Ports Association.
      The Government have responded to the request of the ports and the association to give them the authority to deal with the industry's future and its needs in its own way. But there is, I believe, no room for a National Ports Council sitting on the sidelines charged simply with providing a

      229
      settlement. Manpower issues at national level are in any case mainly the responsibility of the National Dock Labour Board, and the amendment could create an element of dual responsibility. Finance, organisation and manpower go to the heart of running the ports. I believe that these are matters for which the ports themselves must be responsible. It is their industry, and it is for them to determine their future. We remain convinced that the policies of the Opposition would simply reduce the service to port users and reduce competition between ports, and I believe that they would frustrate sound port investment.
      I have tried to set out to the House the background to the abolition of the National Ports Council. It was set up in 1964. It has done some good work over the years but basically we do not believe that it is required in the years ahead. What we also recognise, however, is the increasing responsibility and challenge which we have now given to the ports industry and to the British Ports Association. Therefore, I certainly stand by the policy in the Bill. On these grounds, I advise the House to reject the amendments.
      Mr. Prescott: The Minister has spelt out how he feels that the ports industry will not progress. As he said, we are in disagreement on the fundamental approach to these matters. We have heard some very kind words. It seems that fine words rather than good judgment still prevail with the Secretary of State. His fine words are that the customer should be right and should choose where he goes and that the ports industry knows what is in its best interests.
      I suggest that the Minister should read what the various reports have said about the industry. From well before Rochdale, going back to well before the war, they have unfortunately always condemned the judgment of the industry in looking after its interests, and Governments have had constantly to intervene. It was a Conservative Government who brought in the National Ports Council in the early 1960s. It was a Conservative Government in the early 1970s who strengthened the council. It is the present Conservative Government who are deciding to abolish it in the teeth of the increasing problems facing the industry.
      It may sound fine to say that the customer should choose where he goes, but in reality what is the Minister saying in that judgment? We have a ports industry in which only one-third of its capacity is used. Even with the greatest leaps and bounds in world trade, we cannot envisage its capacity being increased to anything more than 50 per cent. It would be optimistic to hope to achieve that. That means that companies will play off against each other ports which are desperate for any business that they can get. The reality is that the price will fall rapidly in all those ports, and everybody will be fighting to get whatever marginal traffic he can.
      8.45 pm
      The logic of the Minister's argument was that the customer should pay and the Government should determine what ports should survive, because in their competitive philosophy the ports would have to be efficient. The successful ones will survive and the unfortunate ones will decline. That is a simple enough analysis, because it is affected by all sorts of trade, from East to West, as we said in Committee, and from West to East.
      Even if what the Government say is true, why is the Minister bringing Bills before the House for hundreds of millions of pounds to rescue some of the country's big
      230
      ports? It is because the Secretary of State cannot face the reality, as the previous Minister could not face the reality, of letting these ports collapse. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State went much further and was prepared to bankrupt the company. At the end of the day, however, he had to rush in with bits of legislation to correct the situation, and one of those changes was the strengthening of the National Ports Council to prevent those problems happening again.
      The history is very well written about management's ability to make proper decisions. I hope that the ability of management has improved, but I noted that one of the latest reports of the National Ports Council pointed out that the ports industry had fewer levels of specialised management in its management structure than any other industry of which it was aware. That remark related to today, not to 10 or 20 years ago. That is the judgment of the National Ports Council. If that is the case and if one is relying on the decisions of the management in such circumstances, it looks as though the public assets involved in this situation are likely to move further and further into problems.
      There are many other points that I could make in view of the statement by the Minister about his future ports policy. However, in thinking about our debate in the next Committee it is useful for the Minister to have spelt out his views at this stage of the game, and I appreciate his having done so. I think that he is very wrong and that we shall pay the price for it in our ports development
      Perhaps my final observation should be that the day when we finished in Committee was the day when the Dutch announced the setting up of a national ports council. We often look to Europe for advice, but in this case we were well ahead of them. Just as we were getting rid of these things, the Continentals were saying "The British are on to a good thing there. They have admitted that the National Ports Council has done a hell of a good job." Now, we are saying that we will abolish it while our Continental friends are adopting the very central agency that they thought had been most useful in bringing about the considerable changes that have taken place in the industry.
      In the course of our debates, as has been pointed out to me by the National Ports Council, there was discussion of the National Ports Council's role in regard to supporting the Bristol port authority investment. We thought that the council did not support it to begin with but did so eventually. I am told that it supported it completely throughout the stages. I am bound to say that I think that the judgment was wrong, whether the council supported it before or afterwards.
      I have said on earlier occasions that I have not always agreed with all the judgments of the National Ports Council, as, indeed, the Minister himself has said. It is not necessary for us to accept its judgment, but it is necessary for us to accept and to understand the advice that is given to us and make our own judgment, whether we consider that the advice is right or wrong.
      In view of the guillotine situation, we do not intend to press the amendment but wall move on to the next stage of the amendments.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member asking to withdraw the amendment?
      Mr. Prescott: Yes. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 6
      AMENDMENTS OF THE HARBOURS ACT 1964
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 58, line 25, at end insert—
      AMENDMENTS OF THE HARBOURS ACT 1964

        'Ship, passenger and goods dues and other charges
        8.—(1) After section 27 there is inserted—
        "Combined charges
        27A.—(1) Where a harbour authority have power, whether by virtue of section 26 of this Act or any other statutory provision—

        (a) to levy ship, passenger and goods dues or equivalent dues; and

        (b) to make other charges,
        the authority may, subject to the next following subsection, make a combined charge, that is to say, a single charge referable in part to matters for which ship, passenger and goods dues or equivalent dues may be levied and in part to matters for which other charges may be made.

        (2) A harbour authority may not make a combined charge in any case where—

        (a) the person who would be liable to pay the charge objects to paying a combined charge; or

        (b) a number of persons would be jointly and severally liable to pay the charge and any of them objects to paying a combined charge;

        but without prejudice to the power of the authority to make separate charges in such a case.
        (3) A person may not object under subsection (2) above to the payment of a combined charge in pursuance of a prior agreement between that person and the harbour authority.
        (4) In this section—

        'equivalent dues' means dues exigible in respect of things other than ships for entering, using or leaving a harbour, including charges for marking or lighting the harbour; and

        'harbour authority' has the same meaning as in section 26 of this Act.".

        (2) In section 30 (duties with respect to keeping of lists of charges, etc.) after subsection (4) there is inserted—
        "(5) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to combined charges within the meaning of section 27A of this Act.
        (6) References in this section to the dues of charges exigible by an authority or Board are references to the amount exigible where no composition agreement applies and no specially agreed rebate is allowed.
        (3) In section 31 (right of objection to ship, passenger and goods dues), at the end of subsection (1) (charges to which the section applies) there is inserted "other than combined charges within the meaning of section 27A of this Act; and references in this section to the rate at which any such charge is imposed are to the amount where no composition agreement applies and no specially agreed rebate is allowed".'.
        This amendment was foreshadowed in our Committee debates. It has been brought forward by the Government to clarify the position when port users wish to appeal against their ship, passenger and goods dues in ports. It arises as a result of representations which have been made to the Government and which were made to all members of the Committee on behalf of waterways users and others who are very concerned about the appeal rights that exist in the case of ship, passenger and goods dues. Some of them wish to see appeal rights extended to cover cargo handling charges also. They were able to impress us to the extent that we accepted that there was confusion and doubt in present practice. This is a useful occasion on which to clarify matters.
        A list of ship, passenger and goods dues has to be drawn up and under section 30 of the Harbours Act 1964 the harbour authority has to make those dues available for inspection. Section 31 of the 1964 Act also gives a right of appeal against those dues to the National Ports Council. That right of appeal has been retained, but under the terms of the Bill the appeal is transferred to the Secretary of State.
        I listened to the case put forward for extending the appeal rights to cargo handling charges generally. It certainly is the case that the practice has changed since 1964. Since that time the port authorities have themselves become major employers of stevedores. They have acquired quite a lot of warehousing facilities also, and with the growth of containerisation and with technical change in the industry the practice has arisen of port users having to look to the port owner for cargo handling charges as well as the traditional dues. The practice has also arisen of ports making combined charges to their users, which comprise not only the goods, passenger and ship dues on the one hand but cargo handling on the other.
        We resisted the idea of extending the powers of appeal to cover cargo handling, largely because it would be inconsistent with the policy of the Bill. The policy of the Bill, as has been underlined on another feature by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is that the Government believe that there is a limit to the extent of useful Government involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the ports. Certainly, we do not wish to see the Government involved in the commercial side of the ports business and in any way fixing cargo handling charges or anything of that kind.
        We also feel that if a right of appeal were granted to users against the cargo handling charges imposed by port authorities, it would give rise to an anomaly, because no right of appeal is contemplated concerning the cargo handling charges made by private stevedoring companies. Therefore, we were not very happy about a situation in which we would be giving a right of appeal against the cargo handling charges by the statutory bodies but no similar right of appeal against the private bodies.
        We were also concerned that if we gave a general right of appeal it would be possible for major users of ports, in theory at least, to enter into commercial agreements for the charges that they were paying and then to seek to reopen them afterwards by exercising a statutory right of appeal and trying to get the bargain adjusted in their favour by going to the Secretary of State.
        I am trying to condense an argument which we had in Committee. We went over it, and I hope we satisfied the Committee that the Government did not feel it right to extend the existing appeal provisions. On the other hand, we are quite content to leave such appeal provisions as there are extant and to transfer from the National Ports Council to the Secretary of State the duties of hearing the appeals.
        The question then arose of the combined charges and the way in which some people felt that the rights of appeal against the dues were being frustrated when combined charges were levied, because it was impossible to disentangle the dues in respect of which there could be a right of appeal from the cargo handling charges in respect of which there was not a right of appeal. That seems to us to be a problem, because there has been an increasing

        233
        practice of imposing such combined charges when a ship enters a port and wishes to have its cargo handling done by the port authority as well.
        I make it clear that we do not disapprove of the combined charges practice. In many cases it is perfectly satisfactory to the port user and to the port authority and it may be a perfectly sensible way of charging. There can, however, be occasions when it is impossible for the user to disentangle the dues against which he might wish to exercise his rights of appeal.
        Therefore, the amendment makes it clear that harbour authorities indeed have the power to make a combined charge, combining the dues and the cargo handling and any other charges. On the other hand, they do not have the right to make a combined charge where the port user objects to the combined charge, which means, in effect, where the port user asks for a separate identification of the dues element. We are therefore providing that the port user will be able to require that the dues element is identified separately. That will make sure, therefore, that the rights of appeal can be exercised and will not be frustrated by modern charging practice.
        That, of course, does not go the whole way. I am sure that it does not entirely satisfy hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, and it will not satisfy some of the waterways interests either. For our part, however, we are content that it would not be right for the Government to go beyond that. There is a distinction between the dues charged for conservancy and maintenance functions, almost by way of a tax, imposed on each owner whose vessels enter a port, and the cargo handling charges, which are a matter really for commercial arrangement, bargaining and negotiation. We are therefore content for the appeals machinery to be confined to the dues. We hope that the amendments will clarify the dues charging arrangements, enabling them to be identified separately and, thereby, making sure that the appeal provisions can be used in practice by users.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) pressed me on this, as did the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I hope that they accept that we have responded in part to their request and that what we are proposing is certainly an improvement to the Bill as it originally stood.
        Mr. Prescott: We would be churlish not to welcome what the Minister has presented for us this evening in regard to complaints about the appeals concerning dues and charges on ships. We put forward an amendment, and I think that it was supported to a certain extent by the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), bobbing in and out of the Committee, though we do not have even that advantage this evening.
        I think that the proposal that is being put forward by the Government goes at least some way to assist people who have serious argument about the charges that are imposed by a port authority. We must recognise that what we are doing in the Bill is strengthening existing port authorities in regard to the extra functions which they may have in being able to have road haulage and agency firms and such matters which heighten the fears concerning, I would not say a monopoly situation but perhaps an oligopolistic kind of situation, as The Economist seeks to call it. Nevertheless, it is a matter of some concern, and I think that when an aggrieved person whose business may depend
        234
        upon entry through a port may be charged something against which he has no appeal, injustice is likely to be perpetrated.
        Living in the areas of the British Transport Docks Board and the port of Hull., I well know the feeling and the possibilities of getting people like Sir Humphrey Browne to recognise any kind of rational argument in these areas. Indeed, I cannot believe that the Secretary of State has achieved this without some considerable argument behind the scenes with the personalities involved in the British Transport Docks Board, because presumably, as a large authority that is involved in this situation, it has been faced constantly with the combined charge situation being the normal development in the docks industry—that is, where people might rent a pier or take the whole situation of an operation of one part of a port. I can think of many examples in my own port area where it is a contracted price and no difference is made between the various dues that will apply. It is one charge
        The most common example used by people in these cases is that of the container box, which is a good example. The charge is on the box, but inevitably the charge includes an element relating to dues and goods. They pay a proportion of that. I shall address my remarks simply to the dues argument. We pressed in Committee for charges to be included. I think that in regard to the dues it is a welcome move.
        There will be a requirement now on a port authority to identify the differences in the charges, and they can be quite considerable. It is no coincidence that I and a number of North Humberside MPs, of both parties, have had to meet various employers in our cities who were very concerned about the dues. It was nothing to do with labour charges; it was simply the dues themselves. They gave us a table for the unloading of the same ship at different ports.
        The differences are quite considerable. For example, for the same ship of a registered tonnage of 2,000 tons discharging chemicals, in Hull the figure was £6,220, in Immingham it was £5,420, in Middlesbrough it dropped to £1,736, in Ipswich it was £1,736, in Sheerness £7,800, in Liverpool £4,160, in Glasgow £3,480 and in London nearly £5,000. That is simply on dues. Those are the charges that the port authority itself assesses as a charge to be imposed for the services that it provides. As the Secretary of State said, that can make a customer decide to go where it is cheapest.
        These port dues tend to reflect the amount of investment and the interest rates, and the time of that investment will be reflected in the dues. A port of some considerable investment in the last few years will be carrying a quite considerable levy. Therefore, good investment does not necessarily mean that one will reap the benefit of it if the total charge to bring the system through one's port is excessive, which is the matter of concern. I think the House will agree that those differences are quite considerable. Also, the two British transport docks boards on the Humber itself have considerable differences, quite apart from those of other port authorities in other regions of the country.
        That is one example where, clearly, there can be a grievance about such charges. I think that at least the Minister tonight has made it a little easier to identify the problem and then to be able to seek the possibility of getting an appeal to the Secretary of State now that he has taken on that function from the National Ports Council once the Bill has been passed.

        235
        9 pm
        I presume—perhaps I was not listening carefully enough to the Minister—that in the contractual arrangements discounted rates will apply. Will the ports be expected to show the various discounted rates even in contract agreements? I do not see the necessity for it, because that, I assume, is two people in contract negotiating a contract with the port authority, and I presume that they are equal partners to the contract, and in the main I presume that the authority will not be unnecessarily expected to spell out what the port due is and what the other charges are.
        This was an argument that the Minister put later in relation to charges. He felt that if people were in that situation who had already had a contract agreement and charges were disputed through this appeal system and a judgment was made, the whole business of the contractual arrangement would be challenged, because it would be felt that the charges imposed were found to be unfair by the Secretary of State.
        In that case a contractual relationship between the two would—he was implying—be affected by what agreement was arrived at out of the decision reached by the Secretary of State on an appeal to him that these charges were unfair, because presumably that is the basic complaint that people would be making to him about that matter. Therefore, I wondered what the position was in regard to those contract situations.
        There is one other point that the Minister did not mention, and I do not know whether it applies in this case. The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe followed on some of the points that I have made about this, where the port authority is also the conservancy authority. In those circumstances charges are imposed upon ships that may not come into the expected port but go on to another area. In those cases, will those conservancy charges be for appeal? Presumably such charges will be imposed.
        I did not find a great deal of complaint about the right of an authority to impose charges on small boats going down the rivers. I said in Committee that I thought that to be a legitimate charge, but I wonder about that now, particularly as the National Waterways Transport Association had made it clear to us in letters received in Committee that it felt that since this was now going to be a private body it did not feel that a private body should be in competition with it, in that sense, directly to control the conservation charges to it and therefore affect its transport.
        That would be the complaint of those who have wharves down the Trent. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether the conservancy charges would allow a possibility of appeal.
        Finally, the main issue about appeals is the one that the Secretary of State and the Minister have heard from us in regard to Hull. We shall now have the right to appeal against charges that may be imposed by the dock authority for dues. That is clear. The Minister has now made it clear that that is so and that they must provide the differences so that people can make a judgement.
        Unfortunately, the charges are equally important. I point to the charges imposed on the Hull fish dock. The Minister will know that all the Members of Parliament for North Humberside, of both parties, came pressing on him the judgment that had been arrived at by the British Transport Docks Board to impose a charge level eight or
        236
        nine times the level in Grimsby. There was a considerable difference for the same ship unloading the same cargo. The judgment by the board was
        "Because you have not got as much fish now, you have been kicked out of Iceland, and you have got nothing off the Community, we are now saying that we must get everything out of the two ships that come into the harbour instead of the 100 ships that used to come."
        Clearly, no fish authority and no industry could possibly survive with such penal charges. It is when a port authority decides to take that action that we really are in difficulties. In this case, if there are charges other than the dues that are coming into the wharf, there will be no appeal against the port authority closing down this port.
        By "closing down" I do not mean closing it, emptying it of water and filling it in; that requires statutory permission. I mean that labour is not provided to open the gates and that vessels that come in are no longer serviced.
        I am bound to tell the Minister that despite the brave attempts made by all involved—labour and management—to secure a fish landing facility in Hull, we now face considerabe dangers, with the delay in the agreement yet again, of the BTDB moving in and seeking to achieve the policy that it sought to achieve some while ago, which will now be made much easier if it is a private organisation—a point that will not be lost on Sir Humphrey Browne; not that he took much notice of directions from the Secretary of State, as I understand it, which meant that the only influence that one had was to try to build up some kind of public pressure. One hopes that that will continue to be so.
        If the Minister had accepted our amendment to include charges it would have been easier for a community to argue the case that it was necessary for that community to maintain a fish landing facility, because Hull without a fish landing facility is not a fishing port. That is the reality, and if that decision is not profitable to the British Transport Docks Board it cuts off all the other industries that depend on access to that port, and a fishing facility. We look with considerable apprehension at what will happen if Sir Humphrey Browne is able to levy charges higher than those realised in other fishing harbours and is able to secure the end of a fish landing facility in Hull.
        We give Sir Humphrey fair warning. We will not accept it. We will do everything that we can to stop it. I am sorry that the Minister did not accept our arguments to include charges, because then we would have appealed to an independent board to make a judgment whether the decision was right and proper in regard to the charges that have been imposed and that have brought about the present situation.
        In the final analysis, as the inquiry on the appeal on charges in Grimsby showed some years ago, the controversial inflationary accounting adopted by the British Transport Docks Board was a policy not pursued by any other companies; it was a policy that discriminated against BTDB ports and affected the fishing industry particularly. In that case the National Ports Council upheld the appeal of the industry, but the Minister, while now making it clearer, has not made it easier.
        If the Minister had accepted our amendment about charges we would have been in a better position to fight to retain Hull's fish landing facilities, which we intend to do. We will not accept any dictat that Hull's fish landing facilities will close, but we have been denied the possibility of an independent body to check the operator

        237
        making a decision that is commercially advantageous to him but that sounds the death knell to a fishing port like Hull.
        We welcome the amendments that the Minister has put before us tonight, but we are sorry that he has not gone so far as to include the charges.
        Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman asks about the extent of the dues in respect of which the harbour authority will be under a duty to publish lists and in respect of which a right of appeal will exist. We are not altering sections 30 and 31 of the Harbours Act 1964 in that respect, so the ship, passenger and goods dues will remain the only charges subject to appeal. I believe that does not extend to the conservancy charges imposed by a harbour authority, which also has a conservancy duty in respect ships that pass through on their way to another port. If I am correct in that, and such dues are at the moment not appealable under section 31 of the 1964 Act, nothing in the Bill will make them appealable.
        We are preserving the previous rights of appeal but we are not extending them in any way. We are also making it clear that the duty to list charges and the rights of appeal against them do not extend to combined charges. On the other hand, where dues are charged that are subject to a composition agreement or a specially agreed rebate, which was another question asked by the hon. Gentleman, such dues will not be liable to the Harbours Act 1964 and the appeal procedure as revised here.
        If one looks at the amendment one sees that it states, in subsection (6):
        "References in this section to the dues of charges"
        actually provides that where a rebate is contained it is not liable to the listing duties and the appeal charges. We are talking about straightforward dues; we are talking about the case of a port user who objects to having a combined charge, when the dues are identified and can be appealed against to the Secretary of State.
        Those dues that can be appealed against vary widely from port to port, as the hon. Gentleman said, but that reflects the differing costs that have been incurred for the maintenance of channels, quays, lights, and so on, for which these dues are properly charged, and in exercising his appeal function the Secretary of State will continue to act in the same way as the NPC has, and will seek to make sure that they bear a reasonable relationship to the costs imposed on the port authority for maintaining the various sorts of necessary hardware of the port.
        The hon. Gentleman expressed regret that we had not extended the provision to cover charges generally, and he cited the problems that the fishermen of Hull have been having with BTDB as an example showing that an appeal procedure might have helped. As I told him about 12 months ago, when we discussed on the telephone the charges for a particular fishing boat, the BTDB was already being allowed by the Government to exercise its own commercial judgment and its own commercial freedom; there was no ministerial direction on Sir Humphrey Browne and the board then. They were to charge a set rate for an Icelandic vessel trying to put into Hull. It was, in fact, in response to public pressure and at the request of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that an agreement was satisfactorily achieved. Given the future of the docks business and the highly competitive and commercial nature of the industry, that seems to us the most satisfactory way of resolving these problems.
        238
        The charges for cargo handling, goods storage, and so on, are part of a highly competitive business. Each of the British ports is in close competition—sometimes fierce competition—with the other British ports. Even in the Humber, where the BTDB are the owners of the four major ports, there is still to some extent competition between the different ports, although it is all within the same ownership, and it is not the case that the BTDB provides all the cargo handling labour in all those ports. My recollection, off the cuff, is that in Hull most of the stevedoring is now provided by the BTDB, but that is by no means the case on the south side of the Humber. There are still private providers of stevedoring and cargo handling facilities with whom the BTDB are in competition, and competition for those essentially commercial services has always been relied upon in the past. There is no existing appeals machinery, and it seems to us the best safeguard for port users in the future.
        Having said that, we have not gone the whole way. We accept the need to clarify the appeal rights in respect of dues, and I am glad that the amendment is welcome to that extent, at least.
        Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 19

      DISQUALIFICATION FOR REPEATED OFFENCES
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 13, line 38, at end insert
      '(or, where a range of numbers is so shown, a number falling within the range)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 44 and 45; amendment No. 23, in schedule 7, line 28, column 3, leave out '6' and insert
      'not less than 2 and not more than 10 at the discretion of the court.'.
      and Government amendments No. 46 and 47.
      Mr. Clarke: We now go in for an abrupt change of subject. We are into the motoring law part of the Bill, dealing with the changes to the totting-up system that the Bill makes. There was a general welcome on Second Reading and throughout the Committee proceedings for the broad changes that we are making.
      We are moving away from the present system where three endorsements for any traffic conviction within three years can give rise to a risk of disqualification to a system whereby endorsements will acquire a given number of points reflecting the seriousness of different traffic offences, and it is when the requisite number of points has been achieved that a motorist will face the risk of disqualification.
      We believe that this is a more effective way of dealing with the persistent offender against traffic laws. At the same time, it is much fairer to the motorist, because he runs the risk of losing his licence only when he has persistently offended to the extent that he has run up a serious traffic record. A clear distinction is made between the motorist who may have three comparatively minor traffic infringements within the set period and the motorist who has three, or even just two, serious infringements within the same period.
      The appropriate schedule sets out a range of suggested points penalties. It is part II of schedule 7, showing

      239
      offences varying from "reckless driving", which shows 10 points, to "failing to comply with conditions of licence" which acquires only two points. "Carrying passenger on motor cycle contrary to section 16" acquires only one point. It is when 12 points have been acquired within the period of three years that the risk of losing the licence occurs.
      9.15 pm
      In fixing the number of points for varying offences we used as guidelines the average level of fines imposed by magistrates' courts over recent years, because that gave us a ready way of judging the seriousness which those charged with hearing cases tended to attribute to different types of traffic offence. When we drafted the Bill we suggested fixed points penalties in each case, and did not leave ay discretion to magistrates in respect of the number of points to be imposed once an offence had been proved or admitted.
      One reason for not including an element of discretion was that we thought that if discretion was left to magistrates' courts in each case the result would be an inevitable inconsistency between courts in different parts of the country. This could give rise to a feeling of unfairness among motorists. We felt, too, that if discretion was left to magistrates many motorists in routine cases in which they were happy to admit their guilt would feel the need to go to the magistrates' court to argue for the lowest number of points possible. They might also, if dissatisfied with the points imposed, go on appeal to a higher court to try to have the number revised. The resulting work load on the courts would be insupportable and would get in the way of the serious criminal and traffic business that magistrates' courts have to transact.
      In Committee, however, we faced arguments from hon. Members on both sides about the complete lack of discretion proposed. Those arguments concentrated on two offences in particular, namely, "failing to stop after accident" and "failing to give particulars or report accident". Although, when we drafted the Bill we were minded—and I gave the reasons in Committee—to put forward fixed penalty points for those offences, having listened to the arguments and considered the matter further we accept that those offences include a wide range of situations. They range in seriousness from a minor bump in traffic, at one extreme, to a hit-and-run accident in which a victim is left dying or bleeding in a ditch at the other.
      Therefore we felt that it would be right to give a band of points to magistrates' courts, leaving it to them to choose the appropriate points to be imposed, on endorsement, for either of those offences. These amendments, taken as a body, set out the Government's proposals. For "failure to stop after accident" we suggest a band of points from five to nine, and for "failure to give particulars or report accident" we suggest a band of points from four to nine.
      I hope that the effect of these suggestions will enable magistrates' courts to reflect the seriousness of the offence in which someone has been left injured. As I said in Committee, we should expect, in the most serious cases in which someone has literally been left in a ditch by a hit-and-run driver, that if the driver is caught and prosecuted for, among other matters, failure to stop after an accident,
      240
      he is more likely to run the risk of immediate disqualification. It is open to the magistrates' courts to impose such a penalty rather than any range of points.
      Up to nine points, the system will enable magistrates to endorse a licence and impose a serious points penalty in the worst cases of failing to stop, whereas they could come down to five points in a case of failure to report, or down to four points when the case was a more minor one.
      Fears were expressed in Committee that there could be insignificant cases of accidents in which a serious penalty for failure to report or failure to stop was inappropriate. As I then pointed out, if someone has an accident and does not know that he has been in an accident, he cannot be guilty of either of these traffic offences. In every case that comes before the courts we are dealing with people who know perfectly well that they have had an accident and, despite that, have gone on either without stopping or possibly without reporting it.
      In the absolutely trivial case the police have a discretion not to prosecute at all, but even the case that involves merely damage to a vehicle tends to be a serious anti-social act. To hit a parked car, for instance, and drive off without leaving one's name and address is dishonest and antisocial. It leaves somebody else to handle, with his insurance company, liability for damage that is not his fault. The motorist who drives off without stopping is avoiding his responsibilities and saving himself money at someone else's expense.
      We therefore felt that it was not proper, even in the case of failure to report—which is dealt with by amendment No. 47—to go down below four points at the lower end of the scale. If we went below four points we would be inviting the magistrates to impose a less serious penalty than is imposed now for this offence. The discretion that we have given tends to take the upper level up rather than the lower level down. We think that to be right because, as I said, these cases are anti-social. None is completely trivial or insignificant. At the least, they are dishonest. There is concern about the growing number of hit-and-run offences, failure to stop, and failure to report. The police and many other people feel that it reflects in part the consequences of the breathalyser law that more and more people tend to race off without stopping after an accident, because they know that they are over the breathalyser limit and they seek to avoid the more serious penalty that follows from a breathalyser offence.
      Mr. Dan Jones: The Minister spoke eloquently on what the Government intend to do in case of an accident. I humbly suggest that the Minister has left out one important point. What happens if the accident occurs as a result of a defect in a car?
      Mr. Clarke: All types of offences can be raised, not least the fact of not complying with the construction and use regulations. That in itself carries three penalty points under the schedule. Other consequences follow if the owner of the vehicle is driving with the knowledge that he has a defect in the car. Various traffic offences may be committed if a driver knowingly does that, and plainly insurance liability will arise, too.
      What we are talking about in respect of the amendments is accidents of any kind, whatever has been the cause of them. If a motorist is involved in an accident that causes injury to the property of a third party, or personal injury,

      241
      it is the driver's duty to stop and to report the accident. We are talking about the penalties to comply with that offence.
      We have accepted the case for discretion on these offences. The discretion that we have tended to give is to enable magistrates to impose more serious penalties than they used to in the past. We feel that that is right, because these are, at best, anti-social offences. Sometimes, as with attempts to avoid the breathalyser law, they are serious offences. I am sure that magistrates and responsible members of the public will welcome the fact that magistrates are given more powerful penalties to impose when a serious case comes before the courts, although the case might not qualify for immediate disqualification.
      Mr. Stott: The Under-Secretary of State indicated that we have now moved from the more party political contentious issues embodied in the Bill to an issue that is equally important but less of a party political nature. We are debating a road safety measure for the first time in a number of years.
      On the Second Reading the Opposition complained that this road safety measure should not have been tacked on to the end of a contentious and politically divisive Bill. The Government, in their wisdom, however, saw the need to bring these measures forward. Therefore we have to debate the issues on their merits.
      The Under-Secretary is right. We spent a good deal of time in Committee examining the proposals. At the time I indicated that I thought that the new proposals in schedule 7, as they related to a totting up of a number of points until 12 points were reached, when a person was automatically disqualified, probably constituted a better way of dealing with road traffic offences than was the case under the old regime. The way in which the original Bill was drafted, however, meant that several of my hon. Friends and, indeed, hon. Members on the Government side, were concerned about the allocation of points for particular offences. I am grateful that the Minister and the Government have actually taken on board and understood the feeling that emerged during the Committee. I see the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) nodding. He will recall that in Committee we had a long debate about whether magistrates ought to have discretion with regard to the awarding of points for failing to stop after an accident.
      You may not be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there was a tied vote in Committee and the Government won the vote only by virtue of the fact that the Chairman of the Committee voted, as he does normally, with the Government. However, I am pleased to see that the Minister has taken on board the valid points that were made during that debate. It was a constructive debate, in which the points were fully aired, and we had the benefit of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), who was a magistrate. I do not see him here this evening, but he made several good speeches on this issue, drawing on his experience as a working magistrate in the courts and indicating to the Committee that it would be beneficial to magistrates to have a certain amount of flexibility when awarding penalties for failing to stop and failing to give particulars or failing to report an accident. Therefore, I am pleased to see that the Minister has taken these points on board and rewritten the Bill to incorporate the general will of the Committee as it was expressed when we were debating these issues.
      242
      The Minister will no doubt be aware that we tabled an amendment—amendment No. 23—which was not selected. It is an identical amendment to the one that we tabled in Committee. I now see the reason why that amendment was not selected. Clearly, in the Bill the Minister has taken care of the points that it raised.
      Finally, I confirm one point on which the Minister laid a certain amount of stress—the question of failing to stop after an accident. This, I regret to inform the House, is a problematical offence. Only this afternoon, in relation to a further amendment, which the House will be debating a little later, I spoke to Mr. Roger Birch, who is the chief constable of Warwickshire and chairman of the Chief Constables' Association. He informed me by telephone this afternoon that the offence of failing to stop after an accident is growing. It is rather distressing to find that this kind of offence is taking place and that people are failing to stop and failing to report if they have an accident. Therefore, the House and magistrates generally ought to deal seriously with this offence, and I am pleased that this evening the message will go out to everyone concerned that Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the increase in the number of offences that are taking place and that people who fail to report or fail to stop after an accident will be dealt with severely.
      Mr. Michael Brown: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to speculate why people fail to stop and to comment on the fact that we were speculating in Committee that the reason was that they had been consuming alcohol.
      Mr. Stott: The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) is absolutely right. We were speculating in Committee on the inordinate increase in the number of accidents that were reported where people failed to stop. One of the reasons that was contemplated during the Committee proceedings was that these people had consumed alcohol and that if they had stopped they would have been breathalysed by the police and thus have been liable to an automatic disqualification if their blood alcohol level was over 80 mg per 100 ml. That is a real problem.
      There are later amendments that will allow the House, if it so wishes, to debate the merits of the breathalyser or the police powers as they relate to the breathalyser, but that is one of the real problems with people who fail to stop after an accident. They think to themselves that if they report the accident or get caught by the police they are between the devil and the deep blue sea—either they are done because they have failed to stop or they have been drinking and will therefore get a harsher penalty, so the best thing to do is to bolt for home and avoid the odious consequences of being breathalysed.
      I think that it is absolutely right that this offence should be treated as a serious offence. The points awarded—between five and nine—are about adequate for the kind of offence that we are talking about, backed up by the additional strengthening in the Bill that the Minister has included a little later.
      The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that that is one of the reasons why we felt it necessary to demonstrate that this kind o f offence, and the increase in this kind of offence, ought to be stamped on very hard indeed. It is a pleasure to tell the Minister that the Oppostion welcome the Government amendments and will certainly give them a fair wind.
      Mr. Parris: I, too, welcome these Government amendments. It is a tribute entirely to the power of advocacy of my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary rather than to the strength of his case that he succeeded in defeating the amendment that I moved in Committee. I honestly think that my hon. Friend could have argued that any measure from Christmas trees to consular services was so intrinsic a part of this package of measures that the entire Bill would stand or fall with it and he would have been able to convince the Committee of it.
      We have gone through the arguments for giving the courts discretion and there is no need to go through them again. The changes proposed by the Government are entirely sensible. Some of my hon. Friends and Members of the Opposition who supported me in moving my amendment in Committee may feel a little unhappy that the discretion given to the courts is generally a discretion in the upwards rather than the downwards direction. I am a little unhappy about that, but not very. The point is that the principle of discretion has been introduced and it will be up to the Minister, on the evidence that he gets from the courts and the police in the future, to decide how the discretion should be applied and whether the range should be altered. We now have the principle of discretion, and I welcome that.
      This totting-up system was, even as initially proposed, a great improvement on what had gone before. This small but important refinement further improves that system, and I am glad that the Government have changed their mind.
      Mr. Waller: In congratulating my hon. and learned Friend on accepting the arguments that were put forward in Committee, may I ask him whether any guidance will be given to magistrates on their discretion? As he said, there is a danger that different courts in different parts of the country will exercise their judgment in different ways. It is not possible at any time to avoid this entirely, and we know that as far as the generality of traffic offences is concerned there is a difference between the way in which courts in London and, say, in the North-West of England exercise their discretion in respect of fines and the power to use disqualification.
      It is not possible entirely to avoid differences, but will any guidance be given to magistrates so that in relation to different kinds of offence—for instance, driving away without reporting an accident—they can exercise their discretion fairly.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I first thank the House for the way in which it has received the Government amendment. I acknowledge that it was a straightforward change of mind by the Government compared with the case that I originally put in Committee, and it was the result of reflecting on the obvious views of the Committee and the arguments that were then put forward. This means that at the very least all those hours that we all put in on the Standing Committee were not spent in vain, because we now have made quite a significant amendment to magistrates' courts powers.
      The answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) is that in this field, as in all others, it would not be right for the Government to start giving clear directions to magistrates about the kind of penalties that they might
      244
      impose. Parliament lays down a range of penalties and magistrates are there to exercise their judgment about the appropriate penalty to reflect the seriousness of each case.
      The Magistrates' Association publish guidelnes for benches throughout the country, and sometimes benches in a particular county will draw up their own guideliines. Here, however, we are not talking about the level of fines. There is such a range of seriousness, for instance, in failing to stop alter an accident, that this is an area in which magistrates will have to apply their own judgment.
      It is because of that range of seriousness, and because of the scope for responsible judgment, that the Committee prevailed upon the Government to put in discretion at all. The system is not in any way adversely affected by the change. It gives rise to the possibility of more flexibility in some offences in future, due to the powers in the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) said, and I am glad that at no stage has any hon. Member expressed doubts about the underlying policy.
      The points basis for endorsing is undoubtedly an improvement on the present crude system of one endorsement for any offence, whatever its seriousness. It is fairer to the motorist, but it also gives an opportunity of reflecting properly the more serious traffic offences when they are committed regularly by offenders who flout traffic laws. I trust that after hearing our debate the amendment will prove acceptable to the House as a whole.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 44, in page 13, line 42, leave out 'could' and insert 'would'.
      No. 45, in page 15, line 25, after 'offence', insert
      '(or, where a range of numbers is so shown, alter that range)'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Schedule 7

      POINTS TO BE ENDORSED
      Amendments made: No. 46, in page 62, line 28, column 3, leave out '6' and insert '5–9'.
      No. 47, in page 62, line 29, column 3 [Schedule 7], leave out '4' and insert '4–9 '.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 62, line 35, column 3, leave out '1' and insert '2'
      This amendment has been tabled by the Government in direct response to arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) in Committee. He pointed out an anomaly in the Bill as drafted, between the one point that we proposed to impose where someone was convicted of refusing to submit to a test of eyesight and the two points imposed for "driving with uncorrected defective eyesight." They both sound unusual offences. They are not common, but arise basically when a driver drives either without wearing his spectacles or when his eyesight is so defective that it is time that he went to an optician to have his eyes tested and acquire spectacles.
      As the Bill stood, the provision gave rise to the possibility that someone who was stopped in circumstances that led the police to question his eyesight would realise that he was better off if he refused to take an eyesight test than if he admitted that his eyesight was defective and had a penalty imposed. On the other hand, it is almost certain that anyone who refuses an eyesight test

      245
      is offending even more seriously than the average case, because he must know almost certainly that he will fail the test if he agrees to take it.
      The amendment proposes, therefore, that two points should be imposed for either offence. My hon. Friend has done the House a service by pointing out an inconsistency that certainly needed correcting.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 23

      PROVISIONAL LICENCES AND DRIVING TESTS
      Mr. Booth: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 17, line 30, at end insert—
      'In section 88(4) of the 1972 Act the following words are inserted:—
      "(c) a motorcycle for a period longer than the period prescribed for the holding of a provisional licence for a motorcycle under the regulations made under section 81(1)(d).".'.
      Under the clause the Secretary of State is taking power to refuse to renew a provisional licence to a motor cyclist who has not taken and passed the new two-part motor cycle test introduced by the Bill.
      In Committee the Under-Secretary made it clear that it was the Secretary of State's intention, if this part of the Bill is passed unamended, to use this power to ban any motor cyclist who has not passed his test within two years of first taking out his provisional licence. The right hon. Gentleman intends to ban him from driving for at least a year.
      This is a new form of penalty—a riding ban, a ban on having a licence, not for having committed any crime but for having failed a test, or to have taken a test. It is unjust and inequitable, because it is proposed to apply this form of penalty to one type of vehicle user only. I shall explain later that, strictly, it does not apply only to those vehicles.
      If tonight we were dealing with a part of the Bill that proposed that everyone who sought to ride on a provisional licence for any type of vehicle should, if he failed to pass the test within two years, be banned from driving for a period, at least it would be equitable as between all types of vehicle user. The freedom to choose which type of vehicle he or she should learn to drive is one with which the House should not interfere. I hope that the great proponents of individual freedom who grace the House of Commons Benches will support the amendment.
      What makes the proposal even more unjust is that there is a type of person who, under the Bill, will be allowed to drive the same type of motor cycle as a person who has a motor cycle provisional licence, and who will be able to go on riding the motor cycle without ever being required by the law to take the test. I refer to a person who has a car driving licence. People who have a car driving licence will be able to hold that they can use it as though it were a provisional motor cycle licence and have no need to take the test.
      If any hon. Members have their driving licence with them, and happen to have it merely as a result of having passed a test for one type of vehicle, namely, a car, they will see that the licence bears the words:
      "This licence has the effect of a Provisional Licence to drive motor vehicles of all other groups".
      Mine also has a D and an E on it, so mine indicates that I have passed the motor cycle test as well. I therefore have no personal interest. I declare a lack of personal interest
      246
      in the carrying of my amendment, as I would not be required to take a test as a result of the amendments being passed.
      The effect of the amendment would be to place the car driver using his car driver's licence as a provisional motor cycle licence under exactly the same legal obligation to take the new two-part motor cycle test as anyone who had obtained a provisional motor cycle licence. I know that hon. Members who have not addressed themselves to this problem before must be surprised, or even astounded, that the Government should introduce such a draft provision.
      In fairness, I should regale the House with the three reasons given by the Government in Committee for having this provision. Their first reason was that a car driver must have some road experience and therefore should he able to go on driving a motor cycle irrespective of how many times he fails the motor cycle test.
      The second argument adduced by the Government was that car drivers are not like motor cyclists. They are prone to take tests and therefore they should not be put under the same restriction. The third argument—this will not come as a surprise to some of older Members, because they have heard earlier Conservative Ministers advance it—was that if they were to treat all road users equally in this respect it would involve Government officials in a great deal of work. The officials would have to write to all car licence holders to tell them that henceforth they could not use their licences indefinitely as motor cycle provisional licences.
      I think that all the Government's arguments can be answered easily. As to the one about their experience, as an ex-motor cyclist, if I can put it that way, I first question whether the experience of driving a car is necessarily a suitable experience to qualify one to drive a motor bike, but I do not hang my objection to the Government's using this argument on the basis of motor cycle experience. If a car driver, by virtue of having passed a driving test, has the advantage of road experience, it should make it that much easier for him to pass a test on a motor cycle, so that is no reason for excusing him from taking a test.
      9.45 pm
      On the second argument, that a motorist is more likely to take a test than is a motor cyclist, in this case it will be no hardship for him to be put under the same requirement as motor cyclists to take the motor cycle test.
      As to the third argument, I am quite fascinated at the proposition that we should not amend the Bill to treat motor cyclists and car drivers equally when they learn to ride a motor cycle, merely because it would mean that a number of officials employed by the Department of Transport would have to write to people. If we were to reject all legislation that required officials in Government Departments to send people any sort of documents or messages, or regulations, we would pass a great deal less legislation. I cannot think that the House regards that as a satisfactory sort of reason for carrying forward, in this Bill, this quite unjust and inequitable proposition.
      The proposal rides roughshod over considerations of equality of treatment or justice to motor cyclists. Such a proposition put forward in respect of car drivers would be rejected as quite unfair and unreasonable. Therefore, I hope that the House will pass the amendment tonight and offer some elementary redress against the provision that is by any test monstrously unequal in its treatment of citizens on the basis of the vehicle on which they choose to learn to ride.
      Mr. Fry: I first declare an interest as an adviser to the Motor Cyclists Association, which has made representations to my hon. Friends on this particular subject. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has done the House a service by putting forward the amendment tonight, because he has highlighted something that has tended to be forgotten during the passage of the Bill, except perhaps in speeches from my Back Bench colleagues.
      There is a danger in the legislation that the Government are considering. They appear to be singling out motor cyclists to try to make some kind of example of them. I am aware of the number of accidents that young motor cyclists have. I am aware of the need for training; indeed, the industry itself has done a tremendous amount to try to encourage training, and it is bringing forward substantial amounts of money in order to make that possible. But there is a growing feeling—I detect it in my own postbag, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is receiving letters, too—that many motor cyclists fear that they have been picked upon and, even though the accident statistics are worrying, in view of the enormous increase in motor cycles they are by no means as bad as they would be if all motor cyclists could be tarred with the brush of being irresponsible or totally untrained.
      My objection to the form that the amendment is taking is that far from correcting that viewpoint it compounds it. I would much rather that the right hon. Gentleman had moved in the other direction and tried to instil slightly more reality into the proposals that are in the Bill at the moment.
      For example, as I understand it, the prohibitions upon the issue of a licence do not apply to mopeds. I should have thought that if we are going to have this kind of change in the law it should at least be continuous right through the range of two-wheeled machines. I feel that the Government have not made it clear why they are not including mopeds when we know perfectly well that many particularly untried riders use these as their first way of getting on the road.
      Is my hon. and learned Friend absolutely satisfied, and can he give a guarantee, that the period that a motor cyclist will have to wait before gaining a test will be reasonably short? Over the past few years we have all heard numerous complaints about the long delays in the testing of all kinds of road vehicles, and if the Government are going to say to a certain group of people who want to go on the road that after a certain date they will not be able to use the machines that they have purchased with their own money, there is a strong obligation on the Government to ensure that at least people can take and retake a test within a reasonable period.
      That is the kind of case that the industry wants put to the Minister. The industry has behaved in a responsible manner. It does not want to try totally to alter the legislation that is being put forward; it wants to try to see that the terms of the legislation are applied in a way that is realistic and does not appear to be designed purely to victimise motor cyclists.
      I know that my hon. and learned Friend does not wish to do that, but there is a danger of the Government's action being interpreted in this way and that is why, although I cannot endorse the terms of the amendment, I thank the right hon. Member for having put it forward tonight.
      Mr. Parris: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). The present proposals for dealing with provisional motor cycle licences are inequitable and they will not work in practice; they will cause an immense amount of trouble if my right hon. Friend decides to invoke them, and I am not sure that he will.
      The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) proposes that as this inequity applies only to motor cyclists on provisional licences and does not apply to motor car drivers using their motor car licences to drive motor cycles, the inequity should be extended to cover motor car drivers. I do not think that by extending an inequity so that it covers every class of person one necessarily promotes equity, and for that reason I cannot support the amendment. I understand the spirit in which it was raised and I wish that we had an opportunity to discuss the wider issue of provisional motor cycle licences.
      Mr. Waller: I think that my hon. and learned Friend has done a great service to the cause of road safety and to the future of motor cycling in putting forward the changes that are included in the clause. The alterations and the course that he is embarking on is extremely imaginative, and deserves every possible success.
      I do not intend to repeat the arguments that I put forward on this point relating to the length of time that a provisional licence holder can ride before he passes a test, because I spoke on this at great length in Committee, but I would like to associate myself with the viewpoint expressed by my hon. Friends and to say that this is the one flaw in what is a good clause. I hope that when the length of time that is to be put forward is considered my hon. and learned Friend will give consideration to the arguments that have been expressed and will endeavour to ensure that this aspect of the new clause is as fair as possible to motor cyclists.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I suppose that I ought to be happy that my critics are divided amongst themselves. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) believes that he has identified an injustice. He therefore suggests that that injustice should be extended to other car drivers. That is not a view that commends itself to my hon. Friends, but I will tackle the serious point that everybody is making.
      Obviously, there are hon. Members who are not altogether happy about the requirements that we are proposing, for which clause 23 paves the way, whereby a holder of a provisional motor cycle licence will have two years within which to pass the second part of the new two-part Department of Transport test arrangements, and if he does not pass that test within two years there will be a year within which he is not able to ride motor cycles at all before he can have a provisional licence once more.
      Doubts are being expressed about this two years on, one year off system, as some people have called it, although I hope to satisfy the House that, looked at as it will work in practice, it is not a new ban or a new penalty. It is actually a commonsense road safety measure.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: I understood the Minister to say that if a motor cyclist did not take the test within two years he could be banned for a year. We all know of the gross maladministration and neglect of Swansea, the computer and the hon. and learned Gentleman's Department, which

      249
      for about three years did not know whether they were coming or going. They could not answer letters, let alone get the thing going. If a motor cyclist is able and willing to take the test but, because of the gross maladministration and neglect of the Department, finds that because he did not get his test within the two years—not through his fault, but through the fault of the Department—must he stand down for 12 months?
      Mr. Clarke: The performance of Swansea is greatly improved compared with what it was. The level of complaints reaching me about Swansea is certainly very much less than arose from Swansea a few years ago. Secondly, the booking of driving tests is no part of Swansea's responsibility in any event. It is done by the local driving test officers. Therefore, Swansea will not have a hand in this. I shall return in due course to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) about the length of time that people have to wait for tests where they are being booked.
      As I have said, I appreciate that a feeling has been expressed to hon. Members by some of the motor cycle interests that the motor cyclist is somehow being persecuted, singled out and not understood by the Government in producing their road safety proposals. That is not the case. We have no intention whatever of discriminating against motor cyclists. We have no feelings of disapproval whatever towards motor cycling as a hobby. We are motivated only by concern about the terrifying accident figures that are being experienced in this country, particularly among young, inexperienced motor cyclists.
      The first point that I should like to make is that all our measures are directed only at the beginner who is in the process of acquiring an expertise and road sense to go safely on the road. The experienced motor cyclist, including the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, who has passed his motor cycle test, will not be affected or inhibited by any of our proposals.
      There was a case, however, for looking at the motor cycle area again because, although my hon. friend the Member for Wellingborough was quite right when he said that there is increased motor cycle usage, which in part leads to higher accident figures, the present accident record of the motor cycle is far worse than for other vehicles. It is a more dangerous and exposed vehicle and requires a given level of expertise to manage it. Other things being equal, it is estimated that it is roughly 30 times more dangerous to ride a motor cycle on British roads than it is to drive a motor car. The unfortunate results are that more than 1,000 people are being killed each year in motor cycle accidents, and something had to be done to try to decrease that very large-scale loss of young life.
      Mr. Sheerman: May I make this point to the hon. and learned Gentleman? He knows very well that I consider compulsory training off the road before someone takes a bike on to the road to be essential today. I support the amendments that are before us this evening, but what worries me and worries many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, is not only whether this is a practical suggestion but the question of enforceability. There is growing evidence of young people ignoring the regulation. If their licences are taken away, they will still drive. That is the problem. We do not want a generation of young
      250
      motor cyclists, who could not care less about the law in any respect, being on the road and free-wheeling without a licence.
      Mr. Clarke: The question of enforceability applies when it comes to driving without a licence generally. Obviously, penalties follow people are discovered to be driving without a licence. The arrangements which we are proposing are no different from the existing arrangements which apply when the police have to enforce the law and detect people who are riding unlicensed on the roads.
      Let me answer the points made about balance and singling out motor cyclists. All that we are trying to achieve in the case of motor cyclists is that most of them will move as quickly as is reasonably possible to get to the standard required to get through a Department of Transport test.
      In getting up to that standard and getting through the test, we also want most of them to have some kind of skilled training. We think that this is the best way of improving their safety on the road fairly quickly and the best way of getting them up to the required standard.
      10 pm
      Under the present arrangements, car drivers do not need any inducement to do either thing. Car drivers, driving on provisional licences, are required to be accompanied at all times by qualified drivers. That leads most provisional licence-holding car drivers to seek to get through their tests as quickly as possible in order to have complete freedom to use their cars and to go on the roads unrestrained. No such requirement can be imposed on motor cyclists. We cannot make requirements that they should have a qualified licence holder on the pillion all the time because in many cases that would increase the danger of inexperienced drivers. In practice, we also find that car drivers go for professional training. About 95 per cent. of car drivers who present themselves for a test have gone to a school of motoring, often paying substantial fees to a driving instructor to get themselves up to the required standard.
      No one knows what proportion of motor cyclists go for any kind of training course. The best "guesstimate" is that only about 15 per cent. of new riders do so. Far too many rely on picking up the skill for themselves, with a few tips from friends on the road.
      Our arrangements therefore propose inducements for the beginner motor cyclist to take a course of training and, within a reasonable time, to reach a standard required to pass the present Department of Transport test. The new arrangements will comprise two parts of a test. Both parts will have to be passed within two years. This is intended as an inducement to the sensible motor cyclist to get through the two tests as quickly as possible. The first part will be a new simple test of road handling off the road on a large flat area. It will usually be carried out by approved training organisations. The sensible motor cyclist, proceeding to get up to the full licence within the two years that the regulations permit, will, I trust, take the commonsense approach and get in touch with an approved training organisation as soon as possible. That training organisation will put him through a course designed to take him through the first test. We also hope that motor cyclists will undergo training designed to take them all the way up to the Department of Transport test, which will have to be taken within two years if our regulations are made.
      Mr. Fry: Will my hon. and learned Friend address himself to the young person who passes the car test first and then goes on to ride a motor cycle without any form of training? Is he not in almost as great danger as the present motor cyclist who has no training?
      Mr. Clarke: It is true that the arrangement will not apply to someone who holds a full licence to drive a car, a motor tricycle—the Reliant-type vehicle—or a moped. It is the apparent anomaly to which the amendment draws attention that if one has a full licence for one of those vehicles one will be able, as now, to ride a motor cycle with a provisional licence and no time limit will be imposed. The only new limitation that the Bill will impose on full licence holders for a car, tricycle or moped is that they will be confined, probably from October 1982, to the new, smaller size, learner motor cycle and will not be able to go beyond it unless they get through a full Department of Transport test.
      The right hon. Gentleman indicated the arguments that I used in Committee. Although they do not appeal to him, they still strike me as sensible and defensible reasons for our proposals. Someone who holds a full licence on a car has gone through the full Department of Transport test. More than that, before actually presenting himself for the test he will have ridden round with a qualified driver accompanying him for a considerable time, acquiring ability in the handling of a car and actually acquiring experience of road conditions, road craft and familiarity with traffic. Although passing the Department of Transport test entitles him only to go for a provisional licence for a motor cycle, he is in a different category from the total beginner, who does not have a full licence for anything and chooses to get a provisional licence for a motor cycle for what may be his first excursion in any kind of powered vehicle on the road.
      Mr. Sheerman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that his hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) gets to the heart of the problem? I believe that many of the recommendations and much of the Bill are to be applauded in terms of motor cycle training and the new two-part test. However, the crunch issue is that nothing that is proposed in relation to the novice rider who is most likely to be among the 1,100 young people killed, nothing that the Bill provides or suggests, will make any difference to the young man or woman getting on a motor cycle and driving on the public roads and killing himself or herself. The crucial time is the first six months. That is when such people generally get killed.
      Secondly, if the Minister is right in saying that the provisional licence is built into a driving licence for a car, together with roadcraft and all the other things—I quite agree about that—that does not get over the central anomaly that the Government have failed to tackle—that is, that the most dangerous form of transport on our roads today is the one that is most available to young people.
      Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman says that he is on the same point as my hon. Friend for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), but in fact he is on a totally different point, and is arguing quite the opposite argument from that which my hon. Friend has been putting forward. I was dealing with the point of the amendment which my hon. Friend was also dealing with, which is why we are proposing a slightly different treatment for the holder of a full car licence, full
      252
      motor tricycle licence and full moped licence. I was pointing out the distinction between someone who has got himself all the way through the necessary road experience and the Department of Transport test in one of those vehicles, and then decides to go out as a provisional licence holder on a motor cycle. I was talking about the difference between that person and someone who is a total beginner and does not have a full licence for anything.
      Mr. Sheerman rose——
      Mr. Clarke: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes again, let me move on from the point that he is raising, which is beside the amendment. As I recall, he was alone in Standing Committee in feeling that we should not allow anyone to go on to a road at all on a motor cycle until he had had some form of compulsory training. Although I understand the motives that led the hon. Gentleman to that view, and that he is convinced that compulsory training is required off the road before anyone is allowed forth, that would be a very dramatic change from the present system. That change would not be supported by any of the training organisations.
      We believe that the package that we are proposing, which, as I say, amounts to inducements to go in for training—inducements that will lead people, within the two years that we propose to require of them, through the part 1 test of road handling off the road, on to the part 2 test, the Department of Transport test, in the hands, we hope, of a training organisation—will be a drastic improvement. It is not necessary to go as far as the hon. Gentleman says.
      Mr. Sheerman: May I correct the hon. and learned Gentleman on something?
      Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman for the last time.
      Mr. Sheerman: All right—for the last time. Perhaps I may correct the hon. and learned Gentleman. I was not the only person in the Standing Committee who thought thus. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench were with me on that matter, as he should recall. Also, I should like to point out to the junior Minister that Kawasaki, a major Japanese importer of motor cycles into this country, does not believe in this two-part test but believes that compulsory training off the road is essential. Graham Chatham, the biggest dealer in Scotland, believes that it is a death certificate unless we train young men and women off the road previously. There is tremendous cumulative evidence. It is wrong to suggest that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I on the Front Bench were the only people who perceived the problem and were willing to act in a dramatic manner in order to stop these deaths.
      Mr. Clarke: I am sorry that I had forgotten one of the comparatively rare occasions when the hon. Gentleman was in accord with his own Front Bench on the question of motor cycle safety. I am extremely impressed by this demonstration of solidarity this evening. The speech that introduced the amendment was complaining that the Government were persecuting motor cyclists, and the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government are not going far enough in restricting the ability of motor cyclists to go on the road until they have had some form of training. If the

      253
      amendment builds a bridge between them, I am impressed by it to that extent, but I do not think that it has a great deal else to commend it.
      I hope that I have explained the reasoning behind the policy. Of course, the policy will get into difficulties if delays in getting bookings for driving tests mean that the two years operate as a penalty, even for responsible motor cyclists who are trying to get through both parts of the test and cannot arrange the tests in time. We are taking only a regulation-making power. We could adjust the time. The Government are merely being frank and saying that the present intention is wo years on and one year off. That is our intention because we are succeeding in minimising the delays in booking Department of Transport tests. We inherited enormous delays throughout the country because the recruitment of driving examiners had not kept up with the demand. We therefore exempted recruitment of driving examiners from all restrictions on recruitment of Civil Service staff into our department. We are building up a growing corps of driving examiners, and the average waiting time for tests is coming down satisfactorily, although serious problems still exist in the metropolitan area.
      We shall not introduce the new two-part testing system until January 1982. If present trends continue, delays will have been reduced even further by that time. It will be two years after that, of course, before the first people will lose out if they fail the test. So we are talking about early 1984. The first part test should be carried out by raining organisations, and by that time the Department of Transport will be able to satisfy the demand for the second part tests without unreasonable delay.
      Mr. Fry: In parts of the country where there is a disproportionate waiting time, will my hon. and learned Friend's Department make every effort to ensure that there is standardisation of waiting lists before the regulations are put into effect?
      Mr. Clarke: There is nothing to stop people from applying for a test outside the area where they live. People who live in the metropolitan area would be well advised to consider towns just outside the area. However, that is only a short-term expedient. The idea is to get waiting lists down to an acceptable level throughout the country, and we are devoting particular attention to the London metropolitan area, where the worst problems now occur. Clearly, we shall try to get examiners up to the necessary standards in places where at present we are not meeting the demand.
      Sir Albert Costain: In my area there can be a delay of up to six months. If a person fails a test and cannot book another test within the period because an examiner is not available, does he have to wait a year, even though it is not his fault?
      Mr. Clarke: It will be necessary for the motor cyclist to book a test within the relevant period and get through it, but if he gets a provisional motor cycle licence and realises that he has two years in which to pass both hurdles the sensible motor cyclist will get on with the first part by getting in touch almost immediately with the training organisation that can take him through the course as soon as possible to allow him time for two or three shots at the full Department of Transport test. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman).
      254
      People who apply common sense and judgment to the proposals will get themselves on to a training course early on and tackle the course within the two-year limit that we are laying down. We are confident that the training organisations will come forward and obtain approval for the part one tests and satisfy the considerable demand. We are also confident that by 1982–84 we shall be able to satisfy the demand for the second part tests without unreasonable delay.
      I am in no doubt the desirability of the package, because something is needed to make young motor cyclists pass tests and to get rid of the present unfortunate practice whereby too many motor cyclists carry on for ever on L-plates without any serious intention of passing even the present Department of Transport tests. The needs of the situation are sufficient to justify this regulation—making power, and I commend it to the House.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Booth: The amendment has enabled us to range over a number of the practical difficulties that arise from the motor cycle provisions of clause 23 and some of the resentment and discrimination that arise from the clause, as well as some of the wider injustices. I make no complaints; I referred to some of them in introducing the amendment. But I ask Members of the House, before voting, to consider not why that issue is related to clause 23 but the very simple and direct purpose and effect of the amendment. All that the amendment does is to impose upon one group of people who ride around on motor cycles with one type of provisional licence the same requirement as is placed upon another group who ride around 'with L-plates with another type of provisional licence.
      The Under-Secretary of State gave the game away in his final sentences. He said that what we want to do is to stop people riding around indefinitely with L-plates. That is exactly what the Bill fails to do, because once a person has a licence for another category of vehicle he will be able to ride around indefinitely with L-plates on a motor cycle. What I and my hon. Friends have done, perhaps unwittingly, in tabling the amendment is to achieve the Under-Secretary's purpose by saying that if regulations are made preventing one group from riding around indefinitely with L-plates, no other group shall escape; they will all be required to take the test within the same period or face a ban. It does not deal with all the injustices and inequities, but it removes one which, on the Under-Secretary's own submission, is an important one and one which the Government are seeking to deal with in the Bill.
      Mr. Sheerman: I should like to add to that, because this is something about which I feel very strongly. The Under-Secretary made a very unfair point in suggesting that I have been voting out of unison with my colleagues on many occasions. This is a non-party part of the Bill, and on two or three occasions, on drinking and driving I differed from my own Front Bench, which I think was a quite reasonable stance to take. At times, all men of goodwill on the Committee voted together.
      What this amendment has done for the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary is to clarify their minds beautifully. We must cut through all the verbiage in the Bill. The intention, surely, was to produce proposals that would prevent 1,100 young men and women being killed on motor cycles. This is the most dangerous form of transport on public roads. It is 30 times more dangerous

      255
      than any other. The Under-Secretary said this very quickly, and this is becoming a habit. I noticed at Question Time today that there was talk of expenditure of £5 billion instead of the real figure in thousands of millions. It is 30 times more dangerous to drive a motor cycle than to drive any other form of transport. It is a death licence for a young son or daughter to get on to the road and be killed.
      In the old days it was the traditional diseases that killed—polio, cholera and all the illnesses that came from bad sewerage systems, bad water and other such things. The good, sensible parents had their children inoculated against those diseases. The Opposition say, and we have some support, however muted, from the Government side, that the essential objective of the Secretary of State must be to stop 1,100 young men and women being killed every year, but his proposals will not achieve that objective.
      We must change the system that allows young men and women to buy a shiny black and chrome motor cycle on their sixteenth birthday and zoom off to the funeral parlour. The Bill will not prevent that. We must train youngsters off the road before they get on to the road. Everything that the Under-Secretary said about the training of car drivers reinforces my belief that he has failed to meet the central problem.
      The Budget, with its 20p a gallon on petrol, will drive more young men and women—indeed, middle-aged men and women—on to two-wheeled transport. The result will be more deaths, and we cannot afford that loss of talent, potential and manpower. The Bill was an opportunity to save those people. That opportunity has not been taken, and that is why I support the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:
      The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 286.
      Question accordingly negatived.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 18, line 19, at end insert—
      '(7) In section 85(2)(b) of the 1972 Act (fees for driving tests) after "such amount as may be specified in the regulations" there is inserted "or, in such cases as may be prescribed, specified by such person as may be prescribed".'.
      This is a minor and technical Government amendment, covering a defect that has been discovered in this part of

      259
      the Bill. It concerns the arrangements that we are proposing to make for the new part 1 test, which will usually be carried gut by authorised testing organisations. We have already issued a consultation document to people interested in those matters, setting out the sort of criteria that we shall set down for organisations that wish to carry out the test and suggesting the nature of the test itself. We have made it clear that our present intention is that the fee for the part 1 test will be set at a level chosen by the approved organisation.
      We have discovered that without an amendment to the law it would not be possible to do that. Therefore, the amendment provides the necessary powers to enable those approved testing organisations to set their fees when they carry out part 1 tests on our behalf.
      Mr. Sheerman: We had a lengthy and revealing debate on the matter in Committee. The Government told us a great deal about how they envisaged part 1 of the test being organised and who would have permission to run it, but I am not sure how the Government organisation will be involved and who will set the fee.
      Does the amendment mean that the Government are offering to train a certain number of people? Perhaps the parallel with the lender of last resort does not apply, but where a potential motor cyclist cannot get anyone to train him it appears that the Government will offer a scheme at a certain fee. Does the amendment enable the fee to be set at any level, a prohibitive level, or an average level?
      Mr. Clarke: The Department of Transport will carry out some part 1 testing, and for the purpose will probably use our heavy goods vehicle driver testing sites, of which there are about 60. A person will be able to book a part 1 test with the Department, but we shall not offer training. A test facility will be available only for people who choose to come direct to us and pay our fee.
      The Secretary of State will set the Department's fee. We have not yet decided exactly what it will be, but it will follow the usual practice of recovering the cost to the taxpayer and the Department of the testing arrangements.
      We expect that the bulk of learner motor cyclists will seek to take the part 1 test with approved training organisations. We have set out our first thoughts about the basis upon which organisations will be able to qualify for our approval—the criteria and standards that we shall expect them to meet.
      Where the part 1 test is conducted by an approved training organisation it will be left to that organisation to set its fee for the test. In practice, I suspect that many will include the test fee in the fee for the training course that they require the applicant to go through before arriving at the standard necessary to take the test. The amendment merely ensures that it will be lawful for the approved training organisations to set their fees in that way.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 25

      NEW PROVISIONS AS TO OFFENCES RELATING TO ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
      Mr. David Ennals: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 18, line 43, leave out 'reasonable' and insert 'any'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
      No. 27, in page 18, line 43, after 'is', add
      'committing or may be about to commit'.
      No. 31, in schedule 8, page 64, line 48, leave out
      'reasonable' and insert 'any'.
      Mr. Ennals: We are ahead of schedule. We should at this time be dealing with seat belts. The public will consider it extraordinary that we are not able to debate an issue on which we know there is a majority in the House and in the country, includiing all the arguments put forward by the medical lobby and motoring and safety organisations. The new clause is sponsored by 126 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is disgraceful that we are not allowed to debate it.
      The amendment is a further attempt to clamp down on drinking and driving. I remember Jackie Stewart writing to The Times in February this year saying:
      "There can be no more fundamental crime than a driver causing injury or death where alcohol has impaired the driver's judgment and ability."
      The House knows that an alarmingly high proportion of road accidents occur where one of those involved has drunk to excess. Indeed, in more than half of the serious accidents, when tests are taken it is seen that one person involved has drunk over the odds.
      We are now dealing with the circumstances in which a police officer may insist upon a breath test. Mr. G. W. R. Terry, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, and Dr. P. A. B. Raffle, chairman of the transport committee of the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention, both of whom were members of the Blennerhassett committee on drinking and driving, recently expressed their
      "concern that much of the debate on the power of the police to require breath tests has been clouded by the use of emotive phrases which do not bear examination … it does not help to use expressions such as 'we are not yet ready for random testing in a democratic society'. In the first place, the committee did not recommend random testing. Its report specifically states that random testing would be wasteful of resources."
      I, too, oppose random testing. I believe that it would be wrong for policemen to be able on any occasion to stop a driver whom they had no cause to believe had committed or was about to commit an offence. That would be an infringement of civil liberties, apart from which it would be using the resources of the police in what I believe would be an improper way. Mr. Terry and Dr. Raffle continue:
      "The only question is whether to allow the police to use their trained power of observation and their discretion to require a test when they think it appropriate, or whether it is possible in any logical manner to limit that discretion by statute."
      I submit that the inclusion of the word "reasonable" fetters that discretion, which I believe should be left to the police officers themselves. We are opening the way to a lawyers' paradise arguing about what is or is not a reasonable cause. We have seen so many cases on other subjects in which the definition of what is or is not reasonable has taken many hours and cost thousands of pounds in the courts.
      If a policeman has any cause to believe that someone has committed or is about to commit an offence, he should be allowed to use the discretion that he is trained to use. Let us take a simple case. If a policeman sees a man stagger as he gets into his car, is that a reasonable cause? No doubt some hon. and learned Members here would say that that was not a reasonable cause, because the man might have a headache, he might have a limp, as I do, or he might have tripped over a brick, or whatever.

      261
      If we are serious about clamping down on drinking and driving, terms such as "reasonable" should not be written into the legislation. Mr. Terry and Dr. Raffle further state:
      "With the appalling number of casualties due to drink and driving and a steady erosion of the effectiveness of the present law, surely a more logical and reasoned view should prevail. It is not the responsible motorist who need fear the use of these powers. He or she will be the first to benefit if casualties are reduced by keeping the driver who drinks to excess off the road."
      Do we believe that the policeman should be allowed discretion, or are we to put him at the mercy of the lawyers and make him fear that unless he has a profound and certain reason he will be challenged?
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Fowler: I have been listening with attention. The right hon. Gentleman appears to believe that what he proposes in the amendments concerns breath tests, the administering of them, and the power of the police to stop drivers. The amendments relate to the powers of arrest, which are not the same.
      Mr. Ennals: I believe that a policeman should have power to arrest if he has cause to believe that a man or woman has committed or is about to commit an offence. That applies to breath tests and general arrest.
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: I thought that the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) was against the "sus" laws. He appears to support "sus" on wheels.
      Mr. Sheerman: I support the amendment after much consideration. We did not consider it in Committee. I am convinced that it has all-party support. Any strengthening of the law to make drinking and driving an unacceptable habit must be applauded. The most frightening statistic is not that of the number of drivers caught drinking and the levels that they measure in the breath test but the figure for motorists and motor cyclists killed between 10 pm and 3 am who in post mortem are found to have high levels of alcohol in the blood. That is the frightening statistic. That is how we know that drinking and driving cause so many deaths on the roads.
      We must reduce the number of such deaths. We must try to be more bold, more definite and—some would say—more draconian. Perhaps we must be more draconian because of the commercialism which surrounds the glamour of drinking and suggests that one should drink as much as one can in order to become virile and a man. Perhaps a great deficiency of our Chamber is that hon. Members do not watch enough commercial television. Those of us who see commercial television are appalled at the brewing industry's attitude to drinking and driving. I shall give one example of a pernicious advertisement that is relayed time and again on a commercial television channel. It concerns something called the "Guinness supporters' club". We may smile. It is a humorous advertisement. It may capture our imagination. It is a very slick and well-done advertisemen——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the amendment concerns drinking and driving, not television.
      Mr. Sheerman: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will bear with me for a moment. I shall explain why the amendment is necessary. I am trying to
      262
      balance a firmer legislative resolve against the pressures that exist outside the House, which force people to believe that it is acceptable to drink and drive.
      I used the example of the "bottle of Guinness supporters' club" because recently I objected about it to the Independent Broadcasting Authority. The advertisement shows a gentleman lying underneath a milk float because he cannot get it to work. He is then pictured going down to his local pub and imbibing several bottles of the magic potion, Guinness. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) knows, and as John Havard, secretary of the British Medical Association rightly said during a "Man Alive" programme on the greatest epidemic of our times—a great programme on road safety—alcohol is an anaesthetic. Getting into a car after drinking is like getting into a car after having had an anaesthetic in an operating theatre.
      Regardless of that fact, after the man has replenished himself with Guinness, the advertisement shows him revitalised. His mechanical abilities appear sharpened. The advertisement does not show that many deaths and injuries on the road and in industry are caused by drinking. Immediately, the man mends the milk float. At the end of the commercial he disappears down a country road driving his float at a rate of knots. The amendment represents a legislative corrective. We should adopt a firmer attitude towards drinking and driving in order to counterbalance the dereliction of duty that leads advertisers to encourage people to drink and drive.
      Mr. Lawrence: My remarks will be brief. The contributions made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) and the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) have brought me to my feet. They demonstrate their manic and obsessive attitude towards this area of legislation.
      The amendment seeks to delete the word "reasonable". It seeks to allow police officers to take action that might not be reasonable. That is absurd, because I have heard the right hon. Member for Norwich, North speak most creditably and strongly on the subject of "sus" and civil liberties. This amendment contradicts that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) said, the amendment represents a sort of "sus" on wheels. It seeks to take away a restraint that exists when a police officer considers whether to arrest, or to take action under the criminal law. It would remove a restraint on the police to behave in a responsible, ordinary and objective way.
      The second example was given by the right hon. Gentleman. He said that he wished to see no random testing. But once one applies the subjective test and takes away the objective test, one is closer to random testing than at present.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree with the proposition that under the amendment the court will be required to consider whether there is a cause? That implies an objective test. The court will be obliged to consider whether a reasonably-minded constable, faced with the circumstances, would come to the conclusion that there was a cause. That being so, we are back to all the problems that the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) posed.
      Mr. Lawrence: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no merit in removing a word such as "reasonable",

      263
      which is the ordinary word employed by the courts, and placing upon the courts the temptation to reconsider the meaning of "cause" in the context mentioned by my hon. Friend. The whole thing is nonsense. It is not necessary to point out that it is nonsense, but it underlines the whole attitude of the Opposition throughout this legislation.
      Mr. Fry: I do not want to speak at length, but we should consider the two amendments together. They drastically change what I regard, as a layman not a lawyer, as the common-sense attitude to this part of the Bill. If we remove "reasonable" and insert "any" and add
      "committing or may be about to commit"
      we are, in effect, considerably extending the right of arrest.
      I ask the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) whether that is the intention. We want to stop those people who might be tempted to drive with an undue amount of alcohol in their blood, but surely we do not want to introduce possible aggravation between the motorist and the police. I know that in the time that he has been a spokesman on this subject, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has always been aware of the tender area of relationships. Therefore, because it is a considerable departure from what was intended and from the common-sense attitude among motorists and others, I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will resist the amendments.
      Mr. Fowler: First, in reply to the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) no one is disputing the need to tackle drink-driving. That is why we have introduced legislation. It is agreed on both sides of the House that that is a problem to be tackled. The Government are tackling it for the first time in 15 years.
      If the intention is to introduce amendments concerned with the application and administration of breath tests, the amendments are proposed to the wrong part of the Bill. We debated that in Committee. The amendments were then tabled to the correct part of the Bill—paragraph 7(1) of schedule 8. Amendment No. 31 has been tabled to paragraph 7(5)(a). We are dealing there not with the kinds of restrictions and regulations with which a policeman should be concerned before he administers a breath test but with the powers of arrest.
      11 pm
      It is absolutely right to expect the police to have reasonable cause to suspect that someone has committed an offence before they arrest him. I do not think that the wording suggested by the Government imposes an unnecessary or restrictive provision on the police. The Bill is an improvement on the existing legislation because it treats both offences, impairment and excess alcohol, in the same way. It enables the police to arrest on reasonable grounds of suspicion of an offence, whether under section 5 or section 6 of the 1972 Act. I understand that it has been welcomed recently by the Police Federation.
      Amendment No. 27 would extend the power of arrest to cases where a person may be about to commit an offence. I think the House would agree that that is draconian in the extreme. I agree with the argument that we all want to do what we can to stop people from committing drinking and driving offences because of the
      264
      dangers involved, but most people genuinely and objectively looking at that amendment would say that it takes the powers far too wide. Anyone who happens to have been drinking and happens to have his car key with him could, under this provision, be arrested, no matter how much he protested that he had no intention of going anywhere near his car.
      I cannot believe that it was the intention of either my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) or the right hon. Member for Norwich, North to go as far as that, but that is what has been tabled by them. It is not unreasonable for the police to wait until such a person is starting his car before they stop him on suspicion of impairment. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend, whose name appears first on the amendment, might agree in the light of my remarks, that it would be right to seek leave to withdraw it at a suitable stage.
      On the general point concerning random tests—or what the Blennerhassett committee described as unfettered discretion—I recall that an amendment to give the police unrestricted power to test was debated extensively and rejected by one of the biggest majorities in the Committee, by 14 votes to 4. One of the reasons for its rejection, and one of the reasons why the Government are opposed to this kind of proposal, is that nothing is more important than that we should ensure good relations between the police and the public.
      Nothing is more important in that area than having good relations between the police and the motorist. It was one of the crucial aspects pointed out by the 1962 Royal Commission on the police. I do not believe that those relations will be improved if motorists find that they are being stopped without good cause. I do not believe that the present powers of the police are unduly narrow or hinder them in the performance of their duty at the Christmas or New Year periods.
      I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern about improving the deterrent effect of the law. In my view, the law will be improved not by giving the police wider powers to test but by increasing the level of police enforcement. One of the central aims of the Bill's proposals is to help the police in this respect by improving the procedures, so that they spend less time in the police station and more time on the road enforcing the law. We are at one on that.
      We have sought in the Bill generally to cut the procedures. We have made other improvements, but I do not believe that we should go to the extent of having random tests. Even if I believed that we should do that, I would still have to advise the House that the amendments before it are simply not the way to achieve it. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree, on reflection, to ask leave to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Adley: Because of the speed at which we are rushing ahead with the Bill, I apologise for not hearing the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), who is my co-partner in this proposal. I did, however, hear the speeches of my right hon. Friend and one or two that preceded it. I accept that the amendment is not necessarily in the right place, but my right hon. Friend will understand the problems of those who, at this stage of the Bill, feel that it is better to debate an imperfect amendment or an amendment that is not necessarily in the right place rather than have to fume over an unselected amendment or an unselected new clause.

      265
      I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind if I try to answer one or two of the points that he has made. I assume that all hon. Members agree that drunken driving is undesirable and that we should aim for its reduction or prevention, The questions that arise are how this should be done and what is the social cost involved. The answer to the first question is the objective of the amendments. The cost is the point of contention.
      My right hon. Friend's contention is that the social cost in terms of relations between the public and the police would outweigh the social advantages to be gained by the reductionin drunken driving that the amendments might produce. That is matter of opinion that cannot be tested until put into operation. I would, however, submit that the chief constables of Warwickshire, Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire and many more would disagree with my right hon. Friend. They do not share his fears that the proposals for random testing or preventive testing would have the effect that he suggests.
      I do not believe that the extra power granted to the police would be abused. This view is shared by the chief constable of Dorset, who maintains that the Road Safety Act has lost its impact and is no longer the deterrent that it used to be. The chief constable is concerned about the Bill's provisions relating to the motorist and the police officer who may be a trespasser. His argument is that while the Bill was originally designed for the protection of the motorist who arrives home, the possibility of a wider interpretation, such as of a farmer going into his own field to claim that the police were trespassing, is a potential problem in the Bill that has not been adequately considered.
      The Bill as it stands will be a paradise for lawyers such as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who, I know, is interested in this aspect. I recognise that there are differing views. I maintain that the view of the police about their powers is not clear. Is it, therefore, any wonder that the view of the public is less clear?
      If the House makes a clear decision—it will clearly not do so tonight—in favour of increasing the powers of the police randomly to test people, such as those coming out of pubs, where they may have reason to suspect drunken driving, this will have a powerful deterrent effect. Parliament has a duty to make its voice heard on this and other controversial matters of road safety. We are here to do what is right and not simply what is popular.
      I am prepared, in view of the remarks of my right hon. Friend, to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, because as he says—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask leave to withdraw the amendment, because he did not move it.
      Mr. Adley: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am prepared to accept the proposal of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North if he seeks to withdraw the amendment. I maintain, however, that sooner or later we have to deal with this problem.
      Mr. Stott: The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) have allowed the House, in spite of the imperfection of their drafting of the amendments, to debate a very serious issue. Not since 1967 has the House had the opportunity to examine the
      266
      issue of drinking and driving as it relates to the breathalyser. Those of us who were fortunate enough to be members of the Standing Committee spent considerable time dealing with this problem. As I indicated to the Committee, I read the debates in the House in 1967. The debates that we had six weeks ago on this issue were almost an action replay of what took place in the same Committee Room 15 years ago.
      There were differences of opinion on both sides. They were not political differences. They were individual differences as to whether the police should be given greater powers than they had. Hon. Members who were present at that time will recall that Mrs. Castle, in her original Bill, proposed that the police should have provision for random testing. The word "random" was removed at the request of the House because hon. Members reckoned that that would be a very provocative act. Therefore, the House had its way and removed that word from the Bill.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling): Quite right.
      Mr. Stott: The Patronage Secretary informs me that that was quite right at the time.
      Mr. Martin Stevens: The question that those of us who oppose the amendment would put to the hon. Gentleman is this. Can he suggest, as he appears to be suggesting, that there should ever be an occasion when we should give a police officer the right to arrest a citizen without reasonable cause? It is as simple as that.
      Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman has the advantage of having heard me in Committee. I do not believe that I have said anything from the Dispatch Box to lead him to that conclusion. I was merely indicating that the amendments give hon. Members an opportunity to express a view on a very serious issue. I think that the difference between the position in 1967 and our position now is that we have 15 years over which to look back to assess the effectiveness of the legislation.
      It is true, as the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and others have said, that when the earlier Bill became an Act and the legislation began to bite, the deterrent effect of the breathalyser was very potent and it had a marked effect on people's drinking and driving habits. Regrettably, the statistics show all too clearly that that deterrent effect no longer exists. The original proposals were reckoned to save about 5,000 lives and 200,000 injuries annually. Regrettably, the latest Government statistics suggest an ever-increasing toll of death and injury and carnage on our roads because people are drinking and they are driving. The deterrent effect of the breathalyser has worn off.
      In the road safety section of this new Bill the Government have included some provisions which tidy up certain problem areas and assist the prosecution of drunken drivers. However, speaking for no one other than myself, I have to say that, like the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington, I do not believe that the Bill's provisions will tackle the problem. We need a much tougher and better defined power for the police to operate. I am convinced of that, having spent the Christmas Recess reading the Blennerhassett report. If hon. Members have not read that report, I recommend them to do so. Judge

      267
      Blennerhassett makes a very cogent argument for increasing the powers in order to stop what is becoming a major problem.
      Mr. Ennals: I agree with my hon. Friend that this part of the Bill needs to be tidied up. Surely time will come when we have a Bill that is entirely concerned with road safety and that deals with the fundamental issues of seat belts and drinking and driving in a way that is not possible in a Bill such as this, which deals with many other issues.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Stott: My right hon. Friend is correct. I said earlier that it was regrettable that there was a road safety element in a party political and contentious Bill. I hope that at some stage we can have a road safety Bill, so that the House will have an opportunity to debate that serious subject.
      I come back to what I was saying. We shall not resolve the problem unless there is a redefinition and a redetermination to introduce a deterrent effect into the law. The House of Commons makes the laws and we expect the police to carry out the laws that we make. However, we must be under no illusion about the outcome of those laws. The law that we are debating here is not working. Every year, 1,200 people are killed on the roads because of drinking and driving. Such drivers are a menace and a danger to innocent civilians.
      I want to give some statistics. In the latest Home Office survey of 1979, the number of people who were charged witht drinking and driving offences, with over 150 mg per 100 ml in their blood, totalled 29,420. The list and the chart which are available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, show that in all age groups from 17 to 60 the majority of people charged with drinking and driving have in excess of 150 mg per 100 ml in their blood. That demonstrates how dangerous the situation is. Moreover, those are only the people who have been caught and charged by the police. Goodness knows how many more are driving with the same amount of alcohol in their blood.
      Mr. Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend accept it is irresponsible of certain hon. Members to try to diminish the notion of protecting the rights of the individual, in talking about protecting the individual from being breathalysed? One can turn on its head the concept of the rights of the individual. I notice that the argument generally comes from hon. Members such as the hon. Members for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and Grantham (Mr. Hogg) who belong to that parasitic profession, the law, and who gain from the closed shop that deals in the greys, rather than the black and white areas. Does my hon. Friend accept that the rights of the individual also include the right not to be mown down by the drunken driver and the right not to have one's children mown down and maimed in that way?
      Mr. Stott: My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) is a courageous individual, who feels deeply and passionately about this matter. His care and concern have brought about significant changes in legislation to protect young children in cars. I am therefore willing to accept an intervention from him at any time, but I hope that brevity will prevail in his future interventions.
      268
      I have always considered myself to be a civil libertarian and I have always defended civil liberties, but clearly there must be definable parameters to those liberties. If the preservation of civil liberties means that drivers can continue to kill themselves and others on the roads it is time to reassess those liberties.
      The amendments are not satisfactory, and they may be withdrawn, but they have given us an opportunity to exercise our judgment and air our views on an important matter. I regret that the provisions of the Bill do not adequately tackle the problems of drinking and driving.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) should have thought fit to attack me without informing himself of my views. In fact, I am in favour of random tests—a position that I imagine would be adopted by the hon. Gentleman.
      The hon. Gentleman appears to have misunderstood the meaning of the amendment that he purported to support. During his rather lengthy recent intervention he said that those of us who opposed the amendment were in favour of letting drivers get away without random testing. But the amendment has nothing to do with testing. It concerns arrest without a warrant, which is a different subject.
      If the amendment were to achieve its objective it would remove all the fetters on the powers of the police to arrest. For the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), I find that wholly objectionable in principle.
      There is another objection, which I do not suppose has struck the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East. If we removed from the law all fetters on the right to arrest we would remove a remedy from aggrieved persons. If someone is unlawfully arrested he has a claim against the policeman. But if we remove all the fetters we shall deprive those who are unfairly arrested of all remedy. That is a lamentable proposition.
      I do not believe that the amendment, which is unjust, will achieve anything. It is put forward with the stated objective of curing some difficulties in the law and doing lawyers out of a brief. I am in favour of the latter proposition, but the amendment will not achieve it. The courts will never accept the view that a constable has cause to arrest simply on his say-so. The courts will say that the right to arrest will arise only if, objectively tested, there was sufficient cause to justify an arrest.
      That takes us back to the present situation: would a reasonably minded constable believe that there was a sufficient cause to justify an arrest? The amendment is a waste of time, and should not be supported.
      Mr. Roger Moate: The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) said that if an earlier proposition had been accepted we would probably now be discussing the question of seat belts. I endorse his remarks and record my view that had it not been for the procedural manoeuvrings of the Government, enthusiastically supported by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends below the Gangway, we would have been discussing a matter of considerable importance in the saving of life and the reductions of injuries.
      The Government have misused the guillotine procedures to curtail——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We must deal with the amendment. It has nothing to do with seat belts or misusing procedures.
      Mr. Moate: I was simply endorsing a point that had already been made by the right hon. Gentleman and had, therefore, been accepted as being in order.
      I think I have made that point effectively. Indeed, having agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in that respect, I had intended to disagree with the way he put forward the amendment. But then I heard the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who, on most matters of road safety, gets things completely and utterly wrong. He described the way that this had been proposed as manic. Frankly, I think that anybody who talks about the drinking and driving issue in those terms is totally misled and quite wrong in any of the arguments on road safety that he puts forward in the House. I suspect that my hon. Friend is not concerned with road safety in any shape or form. He is obsessed with libertarian considerations which have very little application to safety on the roads.
      I am concerned with reducing the injuries and the numbers of serious casualties on the roads and with the saving of life. My hon. Friend is not. The time wasted by him on this issue in earlier speeches is an indication of his obsession with quite the wrong point on this whole question.
      It seems to me that those who have supported the amendment have done a service to the House in raising the question of drinking and driving. I believe that in the Bill the Government have got it just about right. I believe that they have done a service to the country in introducing new breathalyser laws and that the new breathalyser machine, the new testing procedures and the proposals in the Bill will help considerably in reducing drinking and driving. The new breathalyser machine, which will have a considerable impact on the thinking of drivers, will be helpful.
      If, however, anybody thinks that that is the end of the story, if anybody thinks that that leaves the law in a satisfactory state, I think that he—and I am thinking particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton—is rather more manic than anybody else. How can it be satisfactory? I put it even to my hon. Friends who oppose the amendment, as in fact I do. How can they argue that it is a satisfactory state of the law that certain chief constables at certain times of the year can carry out random testing virtually without being challenged? How can they accept this and say that it is a reasonable procedure? Some chief constables can effectively carry out random testing, yet in other parts of the country certain chief constables say that they cannot do so.
      The law is clearly in a grossly unsatisfactory state, and it is clear that the Bill will not finalise the situation or leave it in a state that will satisfy public opinion for very long. I would say, however, that there is a limit to how much the public are prepared to accept at one go. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken the right step forward in tightening up the law and simplifying the procedures, and I believe that that will help, but we shall be back debating this issue in years to come, or, perhaps, months to come. That is why I think that a reasonable job has been done in raising the issue in this way.
      The law is rather more satisfactory as a result of a defeat inflicated upon the Government in Committee, for which
      270
      I am proud to say I voted. in that in future the power to stop somebody suspected of drinking has to be exercised by a policeman in uniform. This is also relevant to the appropriate schedule. It was quite right that we insisted that a policeman in uniform alone should have this power and that this constraint has been included in the Bill
      It seems to me that the amendment is wrong in suggesting that we should delete the word "reasonable". Even if this is done, it will still provide that a constable may arrest a person without a warrant if he has cause. Surely, he would still have to establish in court that he had cause to suspect that a person had been committing an offence. I do not think that the removal of "reasonable"——
      Mr. Grieve: Is it not plain that a cause that is not by definition "reasonable" is not a cause?
      Mr. Moate: The inclusion of "cause" requires a test of whether there is a cause. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said that this would remove the subjective cause and make it a more objective cause. That does not mean random testing as some have suggested.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Adley: If I gabbled earlier, may I repeat to my hon. Friend and my colleagues on the Front Bench that I recognise that the drafting of the amendment is far from perfect? The objective was to give the Chamber an opportunity to debate the issue. I hope that on that basis my hon. Friend will accept the defective drafting.
      Mr. Moate: I accept what my hon. Friend said. I believe that he and others who are responsible for the amendment have done a service to the House in giving us an opportunity to debate, perhaps in a brief and unsatisfactory way, random testing. It was right to raise the issue. There will be the need at some other time for a further and extensive debate. Those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Burton, have so irresponsibly condemned the amendment are wrong. I do not think that the amendment is right, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) has done a service to the House.
      Mr. Ennals: I hope that the debate has been useful. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and I tabled the wrong amendment in the right place or the right amendment in the wrong place. However, we have raised an extremely important issue which, I hope, will be considered in another place. The debate has revealed the inadequacy of the present law as it applies to testing and arrests. In all the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 8

      PROVISIONS SUBSTITUTED FOR SECTIONS 6 TO 12 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1972
      Mr. Stott: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 64, line 40, leave out from 'breath' to end of line 42 and insert
      'if the person is in his normal place of residence, unless the constable has reasonable cause to suspect that the person has peen involved in an accident; and for the purpose of this subsection "accident" shall have the same meaning as in section 25 of the 1972 Act.'.
      The amendment relates to a provision in the Bill which

      271
      "shall not be taken to authorise a constable to require a person to provide a specimen of breath while the constable is a trespasser in a place from which that person is entitled to exclude him."
      Serious doubts have been raised, especially among the Association of Chief Constables, which views the issue as the most important and serious in the Bill next to the non-implementation of the Blennerhassett report. This morning I spoke to Mr. Roger Birch, the chief constable of Warwickshire, who, in a letter to The Times, outlined his objections to this part of the Bill. I quoted to the Minister in Committee what Mr. Birch had written, namely,
      "If the clause becomes law a suspect driver impaired through drink, perhaps being pursued by the police after a non-stop accident, will be able to avoid the consequences of his action by taking refuge, for example, at his golf club, in his warehouse or even in his field if he happens to own one."
      The Bill has not been amended since its consideration in Committee. The Minister said that he would think about this issue in view of the power of the arguments, but it seems that he has done nothing about it unless he plans to take action in another place. The clause prevents a police officer from exacting a breath test upon a person who is suspected of drinking and driving if that person has committed an accident and has made a bolt for his golf club, his lock-up warehouse or his lock-up paper shop, or has sat in the middle of a field that he owns. The person would be able to treat the police officer as a trespasser and therefore refuse in law to co-operate and to supply a breath sample.
      I have already indicated that the crime of not stopping after an accident is on the increase. It is increasing because people wish to avoid being breathalysed. Therefore, they may go to their own homes. We are not suggesting that police officers should have the unfettered right to enter people's homes. We are saying that the law should not be drafted in such a way that it prevents a police officer from taking a breath test from someone suspected of drinking and driving and being involved in an accident.
      Indeed, in Committee I pointed out that the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland said that the question of trespass was somewhat suspect in Scottish law. It tells me that that expression has no definite meaning in Scottish law. We suggest that it should be defined in the Bill. Indeed, unless a constable forces his way into a building, the owner of the land in Scotland would have no right to exclude him. Thus, the exception would appear to be of limited application.
      I am waiting with bated breath for the Minister's response to what the Faculty of Advocates says about the drafting of this legislation. This is a worrying aspect of the Bill. I take seriously the exhortations made this morning by Mr. Birch. The police are concerned that their power will be limited and curtailed by the rather clumsy drafting at the end of paragraph 7(3) of the schedule. It is serious if police officers are prevented from carrying out their duty because someone can exclude them from places that he owns.
      In Committee the Minister said that he doubted whether a police officer could be excluded from a golf club on the ground of trespass. However, I am advised that that may not necessarily be so. I am informed that certain county prosecuting solicitors could make out a good case to prove that it was trespass. The Minister may say that case law already exists. He may cite the famous case of Morris and Beardmore. In that case, the police officer entered the
      272
      man's home, was asked to leave, refused to do so, and breathalysed the man. Case law has been build up around the argument whether or not that was trespass.
      I believe that a person's home needs to be defended in that respect. However, we should be able to take action if people are lucky enough to be members of golf clubs, or own any property, and use it as an excuse to break the law.
      The incidence of leaving the scene of an accident is increasing day by day. It is a serious offence, about which chief constables are worried. I therefore wait with bated breath to hear what the Minister says, because he told us in Committee that he would think about the matter seriously and try to do something about it.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: There were allegations in the previous debate that the Bill might create a lawyer's paradise. Although some hon. Members present may be attracted by such a vision, I suggest that that is precisely what it will not do.
      The previous legislation in 1967 was effective in its results for motorists, but as a result of its drafting it created considerable doubts and confusion in the courts as well as a great deal of litigation. Since 1967 it has been much in need of amendment. The purpose of dealing with drink-driving again in this year's Bill has been to remove many of those drafting errors and procedural difficulties, to simplify the law and to make it easier to enforce.
      Having said that, I must concede that the amendment touches on one of the trickier areas of drafting. It has been giving some difficulty throughout the progress of the Bill, but this provision is not an attempt to pave new ground, to create new law, or to set up fresh obstacles for the police; it is an attempt to clarify the law, building on the existing case law, particularly the case of Morris and Beardmore, to which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) referred.
      As it stands, the Bill has separated out the offence of driving with above the permitted level of alcohol in one's breath from all the technical procedures that go before the charge and the appearance in court. It will no longer be possible for someone to escape conviction by arguing about the technicalities that occurred when he was required to give a breath test, or the precise grounds upon which he was arrested, and other such matters. Many of the problems that we are discussing here will not in the end affect the likelihood of someone being convicted if there is clear evidence of some sort that he was above the prescribed limit at the relevant time.
      However, it is necessary in the Bill to lay down strict guidelines for, first, the circumstances in which the policeman should have the power of arrest and, secondly, the circumstances in which the policemen should be empowered to require a suspect to give a breath test. Those grounds are not confused, as was said in the last debate, but they are clearly set down in the schedule. We are concerned about the extent to which a policeman should have the right to require a suspect to give a breath test when the suspect is in his own home. That is what arose in the case of Morris and Beardmore.
      It was established by the courts that in that case, when a policeman followed a motorist to his home and when in the home was required by the motorist to leave, but refused to do so, and then purported to require a breath test, it was an unlawful requirement, because the policeman was unlawfully there as a trespasser. That is the present law.

      273
      So far as I am aware there is no pressure to change that, because most policemen accept that the Englishman's home should be inviolable, in the ordinary cases of being required to give a breath test. For instance, if one took out any restraints on the policeman's ability to require a breath test anywhere, in theory it would be possible for a policeman to follow a suspect home, because he had seen that person commit a minor moving traffic offence. He could claim that one of his rear lights was out, or something of that sort. He could insist on the right to go into the suspect's home and to require a breath test. No one wants that.
      On the other hand, serious doubts have been expressed by police forces and other people about the width of the words that we have used in that paragraph, and whether it might extend to protecting a suspect in places other than his own home. I make it clear that it is the Government's intention to confine the protection—if one can call it that—to a motorist to his own home. It is not intended to widen the exclusion of the police officer's right to other premises. If the present wording fails to achieve that I have no doubt that in another place the Government, assisted by their Lordships, will deal with that and make sure that the wording is put in order.
      I have followed the arguments made by the police. They have been reproduced to some extent by the hon. Member for Westhoughton. Mr. Birch has expressed fears of the sort described. Some of the fears are wider than is necessary. All that the Bill prescribes is that the suspect cannot be required to provide a specimen of breath, whilst a constable is a trespasser in a place from which that person is entitled to exclude him. That does not mean that someone would be entitled to exclude a policeman from a golf club of which he happened to be a member or from premises of any kind that he happened to have entered. On the other hand, a person may be entitled to exclude a policeman from remaining in his—the person's—own home and to render a policeman a trespasser in his home. It is intended that that should be covered.
      Other possibilities occur. It is arguable that someone would be entitled to exclude a policeman from his field or warehouse and render him a trespasser, but the number of cases in which the motorist will be able to speed away happily and leap into a nearby warehouse or field that he owns is limited. Nevertheless, I still concede that, because of the continuing dissatisfaction with the wording, we shall reconsider it. It is the intention to confine the exclusion of the policeman's right to the suspect's home. We trust that if it has not been achieved yet, the correct wording will be produced.
      11.45 pm
      The amendment raises one final point. The Opposition appear to be arguing that a person should be protected from the requirement to give a breath test in his own home except where he has been involved in an accident. I can see the attraction of that where a hit-and-run accident has occurred and the driver has fled to his home and insists on excluding the policeman so that he cannot require him to take a breath test, but accidents go much wider than that. Referring back to the debate about discretion on points, accidents can include a trivial bump between two cars, involving no more than slight loss of paintwork. Trivial cases would also be included.
      There are also drafting defects. The words "normal place of residence" will give rise to considerable difficulty
      274
      in certain cases if one tries to define them—for instance, the vistor who happens to be staying for the time being away from his normal home. I do not rely on any more drafting points.
      The Bill is not as defective as has been claimed. It seeks merely to confirm and to clarify existing case law. If by chance we have gone wider than we intended, that can be corrected in another place. We have not forgotten the undertaking that I gave in Committee. We shall consider the matter carefully.
      Mr. Stott: I am conscious that this is a difficult area. The Department's lawyers may need a little more time to consider our objections and those of the police. The measure can be tidied up in another place, after consideration, so in view of the Minister's undertakings, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Fowler: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 69, line 34, leave out '40' and insert '35'.
      The amendment carries out the undertaking given in Committee to change the prescribed limit for breath in the light of the new blood breath ratio that recent scientific work both here and abroad has shown to be more appropriate.
      The background is set out in the paper on breath analysis, which I made available in the Library last week. Breath analysis has been used in other countries for some years. There is a relationship between the alcohol in blood and in breath, as there is between alcohol in blood and in urine. The ratio is considered to be 2,000:1; which means that 1 ml of blood contains the same quantity of alcohol as do 2,000 ml of breath. The breath/alcohol concentration produced by a blood/alcohol concentration of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood—the current prescribed limit—using the ratio of 2,000:1 is 38 micrograms per 100 ml of breath. The Government decided, therefore, that the prescribed breath limit should be 40 micrograms. However, there has been a great deal of further scientific work on the relationship between the alcohol concentration in the blood and in the breath.
      In particular, the Home Office forensic science service has followed up data obtained from the field trials in which various breath analysis machines were tested. It is now clear that it is more appropriate to use a blood-breath ratio of 2,300 to 1. The breath alcohol concentration equivalent to a blood alcohol concentration of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood using this ratio is 35 mcg per 100 ml of breath. We are therefore proposing to change the prescribed breath limit to 35 mcg. This will ensure—I think that this must make sense, and this is entirely what it is about—-that all three prescribed limits, for breath, blood and urine, equate to each other and that a person will be treated the same whichever specimen he is required to provide.
      Mr. Waller: The amendment carries out an undertaking made to me in Committee when I proposed that the limit that had been established should be reduced. If the change had not been made and we had stuck to the original figure of 40 mcg, it might have been taken by some that the new limit was higher than that which previously obtained. It might therefore have been thought by some drinkers who intended to drive that they could have one extra drink and get away with it. The amendment ensures that that will not be the case and that we shall

      275
      continue with the same kind of limit as has existed up until now. I welcome the amendment put forward by my right hon. Friend.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 30

      NEW BASIS OF VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY FOR GOODS VEHICLES
      Mr. Booth: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 20, line 15, leave out from 'hundredweight' to end of line 41 and insert
      'shall be subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State subject to approval by a resolution of the House of Commons'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 34, in clause 31, page 22, leave out lines 3 to 11.
      Mr. Booth: The amendment has two purposes. The first is greatly to simplify what has become an unduly complex clause. The second is to urge the Minister to use the powers that he will obtain from the clause as amended in a particular way. I cannot believe that the Minister and the parliamentary draftsmen, when they set out to define a power in clause 30, ever thought that they would end up with anything as complex as this.
      First, the amendment is intended to define the factors which will be taken into account in determining the excise duty paid on heavy goods vehicles. Subsections (2), (3) and (4) depend upon the meanings of parts of tables in schedule 10. To discover the meaning of those various parts one has to turn to subsection (2), which defines for the purposes of the clause and the schedule to which it relates the gross weight and the train weight of a vehicle.
      At that point one might imagine that one has discovered how the provision operates. One then finds, however, that subsection (3) contains a power for the Secretary of State by regulation to

      "(a) substitute different definitions for those contained in subsection (2); and

      (b) require axles of such descriptions as may be specified in the regulations to be disregarded for all or any of the purposes of schedule 10."

      At the end of that long and complex process, the Minister has the power to define the factors which shall be taken into account when determining the rate of excise duty for heavy goods vehicles. The amendment replaces that complex mechanism by providing that the Secretary of State shall be able to make regulations subject to resolution of the House of Commons.
      There is much sense in the argument that the taxation of heavy goods vehicles should be determined by a number of factors, including the gross weight, but it must be done in a logical and intelligent way. The logical and intelligent way of taxing heavy goods vehicles is in accordance with the maximum gross weight at which they are used.
      The Armitage report concluded that the heaviest goods vehicles on our roads are used at the heaviest gross weights permitted by law, do the greatest damage to our roads and involve the greatest construction cost. Armitage found that they do not pay their true track costs. The lighter heavy goods vehicles sustain the track costs. Armitage also suggested that other factors could be taken into account in order to determine the cost of heavier goods vehicles on
      276
      the roads. That report also considered proposals for heavier goods vehicles, to which the Opposition are opposed.
      For the purposes of defining a heavy goods vehicle and the factors to be taken into account, the Government have made clear—this was one of the virtues of the debate in Committee—that they want to use the plated weights of vehicles. The plated weights are the maximum weights that vehicles are constructed to carry. One type of vehicle never carries the maximum plated weight. I refer to vehicles normally used by own-account operators to carry light goods such as empty tin cans, paper tissues, potato crisps, breakfast cereals and so on.
      Own-account operators sometimes buy high-volume vehicles capable of carrying greater weights than they require to cope with the high volume. That is sound commercial practice. However, if vehicles are to be taxed on the basis of a plated gross weight, that might cease to make sound commercial practice. It might be a financial incentive to have purpose-built vehicles which do not carry the same volume or have the same capacity.
      Therefore, if the Minister has the power—granted to him by the House—to make regulations determining the factors to be taken into account for the purpose of levying the heavy goods vehicle excise duty, he should use it to permit a down-plating or the putting on of a special plated weight for the purpose of taxation on vehicles that are used only for carrying specific types of light goods.
      12 midnight
      The evidence as to how far the gross weight or axle weight of a lorry is a factor in road damage is difficult for a layman to assess and difficult for some technicians to judge. However, there seems to be a consensus among experts that the damage done to roads at the practical axle weights at which heavy goods vehicles operate varies to the fourth power of the axle weight. If that is so, a lorry with a 10-tonne static axle weight maximum—as opposed to an 8-tonne static axle weight maximum—could increase the damage done to roads by two and a half times. However, the difference in static axle weights is not great. If there were two and a half times more damage to our roads we should have to pay massive bills in order to maintain reasonable standards of road maintenance.
      In Committee, an argument was adduced against this proposal. It was based on the difficulty of enforcement. In Committee it was held that it was relatively easy to spot someone in breach of plated maximum weight regulations, because a lorry would have to labour up a hill, with smoke puffing out of the exhaust. There are difficulties in enforcement. Highly specialised equipment would be needed. Alternatively, a Ministry of Transport inspector or a policeman would have to have the power to order the driver of such a vehicle to drive on to a weighing machine or bridge.
      Under sensible regulations, those who could operate down-plated vehicles would be mainly large own-account operators. Their names are emblazoned in large letters on their vans. They would be very worried about the possible damage to their reputations if they were taken to court for allowing their vans to be used to carry something other than the specific goods for which they had been plated. Therefore, there is no great difficulty about enforcement.
      In my constituency, Bowater—Scott has a modern tissue mill. It sends large vans out with tissue products. I cannot for one moment imagine that a manager of Bowater-Scott

      277
      would want to slip a few lead bars or heavy items into the bottom of a lorry in order to take advantage of a down-plating regulation. If he were caught doing that he would not be allowed to work either in the firm or in the industry. The industry has everything to gain from a sensible down-plating regulation and would take steps to ensure that it was not abused. It would not want to lose that advantage.
      The Government may create one or two undesirable situations. I have already mentioned that if a specialised vehicle that was designed for high-volume, low-weight goods was used second or third-hand for carrying more than that, it could constitute a danger. There should be no incentive to allow such vehicles on our roads.
      The other incentive would be for own-account operators to cease to be own-account operators and to turn their trade over to the hire and reward section. I do not want to speak against the hire and reward operators, but there is no evidence that own-account operators do anything other than operate their fleets as safely and efficiently as do hire and reward operators. There is evidence that some of those charged with breaches of traffic regulations are in the hire and reward section. We do not want to create either of those effects, but we want to simplify the clause without taking away any of the powers of the Secretary of State to produce proper regulations. We want him to use those regulations in a way that would make for sensible down-plating regulations.
      My view is broadly the view of the major organisations operating on the roads. I am told that the idea is supported by the Freight Transport Association. Hon. Members can judge that for what it is worth, but, irrespective of whether it is the view of major operators, it makes good sense to agree to the amendment. It does not detract from the Secretary of State's powers and it confers on him a power to make regulations in a way which would considerably benefit the industry.
      Mr. Fry: I had not intended to intervene until I heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). He touched on one or two important matters. It is a pity that Transport Bill debates on the commercial vehicle industry occur at some unearthly hour. It is unfortunate that that happens when we are due for a period of change. Deep thought will be required in carrying out the Armitage report proposals, if it is decided to carry them out.
      I shall listen with great interest to what my hon. and learned Friend will say. The right hon. Member has talked about own-account operators. Let us not fool ourselves. The people who will pay for that extra taxation will be the public, because the costs of running a vehicle which is more highly taxed than it otherwise need be will surely be passed on to the consumer. Thus, the public will not gain from the proposal.
      The right hon. Gentleman has made a case for the taxation of those vehicles to be put in a form that the House can consider, but not at this time of night at the tail end of a complicated Bill containing such a mass of complex proposals to be considered. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will reassure me. My initial reaction, however, is to welcome the amendment.
      We must move carefully in this matter. My hon. and learned Friend is aware that there is much concern in the country about the heavey vehicle and the most amount of taxation that it pays. There is a danger that he might be going into something that he might later regret and which
      278
      the House might wish to consider in greater detail. I hope that he will have an effective answer to the amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has made some interesting and telling points. In view of the importance of the matter and its present significance, that answer is required.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hope that I can rise to that challenge. The danger of being drawn into debates solely by speeches made by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) is that one can be drawn into error, as the right hon. Gentleman wrestles with the admitted complexities of this part of the Bill.
      I remind the House that the basic underlying purpose of this part of the Bill is, on the whole, popular, welcomed by most parts of the industry and the general public, and recommended by the recent Armitage report. The basic structure and rates of vehicle excise duty on lorries should be adjusted to ensure that the heaviest lorries pay tax that reflects the track costs that they cause to the general public.
      Vehicle excise duty on lorries at present is primarily aimed at raising revenue, but it is also aimed at producing a system whereby each class and weight of vehicle covers at least the track cost that it imposes on the general public. The present balance of taxation is unfair, in that many of the smaller vehicles are comparatively overtaxed and many of the heaviest vehicles are undertaxed when we compare the present rate of tax with all the evidence that we have about the damage that they cause to the roads, and hence the cost to the general public.
      The Bill is therefore designed to change the structure of the tax and pave the way for the final details and, most important of all, for the rates of tax to be determined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a future Finance Bill. All that the Bill does, in clauses 30 and 31, and schedule 10, which goes with them, is to change the structure of the tax in order to pave the way for the real change that will be made in a subsequent Finance Bill by my right hon. and learned Friend.
      It is not quite as complex as appears at first sight. What is proposed in clause 30 and schedule 10 is a three-tier arrangement. Vehicles below 30 cwt will not be changed by a change-over from unladen weight to gross weight. Vehicles above 30 cwt. will be altered in their liability to tax from the present basis—which is related to the unladen weight of the vehicle—to the gross weight of the vehicle plus its load.
      Vehicles above 30 cwt. and up to 12 tons will have their tax level determined with reference to their gross weight alone. Above 12 tons, up to the legal maximum, they will have their tax determined with reference to the gross weight, coupled with the number of axles, because in the heaviest vehicles it is the 'weight bearing upon each axle on the road that has the most direct relevance to the damage that they cause, and hence the track costs they cause. The Bill merely paves the way for that.
      Mr. Booth: I am trying to follow the Under-Secretary of State. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that the effect of tables 1 and 2 is to make the gross weight a factor in determining the rate of duty on all the vehicles covered by the tables. May I take it that the train weight of the vehicle, applied to the articulated goods vehicles in tables 1 and 2, is intended to be read as the gross weight of the vehicle—or what does train weight mean that is different from gross weight in these connections?
      Mr. Clarke: They are both defined in the Bill in clause 31(2). The gross weight is the maximum laden weight of the vehicle and the train weight of an articulated vehicle is
      "the maximum laden weight for the vehicle together with any trailer which may be drawn by it".
      The results are similar in both cases. One has to make sure with the articulated vehicle that one counts both parts of it. One is talking about the total weight of the vehicle, with its maximum permitted load. In the case of vehicles under 12 tons, the rates of tax are determined by that alone. Above 12 tons, the combination of the gross weight in the case of a rigid-axle vehicle, and train weight in the case of an articulated vehicle, and the number of axles, will also be taken into account. It is on that structure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will eventually impose the new form of tax and the new rates of tax that will reflect the track cost caused by each vehicle.
      The amendments seek to sweep all that away and to substitute for it a general regulation-making power that presumably will have to come back to the House at some later stage. I would be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman were able to demonstrate that that is the wish of the industry or of anybody else at present. Most people who are concerned with the industry understand the direction in which we are moving and the basis upon which we are setting up the new structure of tax in the Bill. To put it back in the melting pot, sweep away all the provisions of the Bill and just wrap it up in one general regulation-making power would take us back to square one and lead to total uncertainty on all sides about the form of vehicle excise duty for the future. It may be simplification, but it is simplification on so gross a scale, leaving the Bill giving no guidance about the future form and structure of the tax, that it would be counter-productive.
      12.15 am
      The second amendment seeks to remove the important provisions of subsection (3). Subsection (3)(b) will require us, if necessary, to disregard axles of certain descriptions in the regulations, to deal with the problem of the so-called lazy axle. One problem in taking axle weights into account for the heavier vehicles is that there may be a temptation to put on axles merely to increase the numbers and to have dummy axles and non-load bearing axles merely to reduce tax liability. It would be possible in regulations to prescribe the description of axles, to make sure that false, dummy or lazy axles could be used to get out of tax liability.
      More important, subsection (3)(a) enables the Secretary of State to substitute different definitions for those set out elsewhere in the Bill. This will enable regulations to be made, in the light of experience, for variations, or even to take in a down-plating arrangement of the sort that has been urged. This would involve repeal of a part of the Bill that could be used by the Secretary of State, or a future Secretary of State, to introduce an element of down-plating if that were eventually agreed by the Government with the industry. The amendment therefore tends to throw the baby out with the bath water.
      I shall not go over all the arguments that I used in Committee about the down-plating. I hope to satisfy those who did not serve on the Committee that the Government are happy to look at the matter. In his Budget my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer
      280
      increased vehicle excise duty but otherwise did not move towards the new system of taxation. The Government feel that some time has to elapse before one can make a change, because at the moment the road haulage industry is adversely affected by the terms and conditions of trade.
      Hon. Members are awaiting the result of the Armitage report and this House's decision on any proposals that come forward. We are also still carrying out some methodology on assessing the track costs of heavy lorries. It could happen that we shall revise our opinion about the burden between different classes of vehicle. All these matters will be borne in mind, together with the views of the industry, before we reach a final conclusion on down-plating. In Committee I did not seek to conceal that the Government are sceptical about voluntary down-plating, although we understand the motives behind it.
      One can see the apparent justice of the proposed change in the case of manufacturers of Weetabix, who have large-volume vehicles whose maximum plated weight will be related to the biggest weight that a vehicle of that size can carry, although in their day-to-day activities they will never get near it. It is arguable that they will be taxed to an extent that exceeds the damage caused to the roads. On the other hand, any system that relates taxation to gross weight will contain an element of unfairness. All our assessments of track costs—hence the structure of tax eventually imposed—will be based on averages, average uses and average loading for the various categories of vehicles.
      If we start to concede that those who manufacture and carry in their lorries bulky but light objects have a case, it will be difficult to face the arguments of those who cover less than average mileage with fully loaded vehicles, or those who fully load their vehicles for a few journeys a year but who, for most of the year, run vehicles part-empty or with lighter loads. There is bound to be a certain level of rough and ready justice in the final structure of the tax between individual operators and individual lorries.
      I have to repeat that there would be enforcement difficulties. What is suggested is that we go over to a system of voluntary down-plating, where the user will be able to specify the maximum weight at which he proposes to operate and for which he will be liable to tax. Reputable companies would play the game and would not run the risk of prosecution. It would be comparatively easy, however, to evade such a system. There would be a temptation to evade on the part of a user whose vehicles were occasionaly fully loaded but generally operated at a lower weight.
      It would be more difficult to detect over loaded vehicles visually on the road. An experienced examiner can tell when a vehicle is over loaded beyond its mechanical capacity. Under a down-plating system, he would have no means of realising while the vehicle was in motion that it was loaded above its tax liability.
      Therefore, in Committee I thought it fair to put forward all our reservations, because the position is that we still have to be satisfied that there is a case for down-plating. all that I am saying is that we are prepared to continue to consider it, particularly with the FTA and the other reputable bodies.
      All this can be dealt with by the House. The regulation-making powers that I have described under clauses 30 and 31 are all subject to annulment by resolution of either House. It would be possible to pray against them if the

      281
      regulations eventually got it wrong, or were unacceptable to any body of opinion in the House. They will not be giving Ministers carte blanche.
      Finally, on the really important matter, the rates and details will be the subject of a Finance Bill, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and the Treasury Ministers will have to answer in detail for the tax liability that, in the long run, they will seek to impose on the industry.
      Mr. Booth: The Under-Secretary has demonstrated the complexity of the mechanism that he has chosen to use in the Bill. When I asked him whether the train weight, as referred to in tables 1 and 2 of schedule 10, was the same as the gross weight, I understood him to say that it was not and that the train weight was as defined in clause 31(2)(b). But the train weight as defined there is the gross weight. It is the maximum weight of the whole of the articulated vehicle, with the maximum plated weight of the trailer that it takes—which is nothing more than the gross weight when checked by the same definitions as are used for the other parts of the table.
      As the Under-Secretary readily appreciates, those definitions can in any case be changed by regulation under clause 31(3). So the ultimate effect of the mechanism is that the final determination of the factors will be within the Minister's regulation-making powers. Therefore, the structure in the Bill ends up with virtually the same effect as our amendment, but it does it by a much more complex method. The regulations are subject to annulment in the Bill and would be subject to affirmation by the House of Commons in the amendment. That is the only significant difference.
      I credit the Minister and his officials at the Department of Transport with a capacity to define in regulations the factors that they would want to be taken into account in determining the excise duty to be paid by operators of heavy vehicles. That is the basis on which the amendment is put forward.
      On the argument about the down-plating, I can only say that if it were the problem of the lazy axle, the artificial axle where that had been installed, which led to this wording, that could be dealt with as easily in regulations as it can under the mechanism of the Bill.
      The mileage question is a red herring. If one wants to tax by mileage, the tax on derv probably relates more closely to mileage and load than anything else, because a vehicle carrying more load uses more fuel. Therefore, if one wanted to get at that sort of combination, the intelligent way to do it would be by a derv tax.
      However, in so far as the purported aim—I do not say "purported" to be insulting—of this part of the Bill is to relate the vehicle excise duty paid by operators of heavy goods vehicles to their gross weights or any combination of weight factors which would be laid down by a Minister in regulations, the amendment would achieve that more effectively than the Bill in its present form and it would give us scope for down-plating. If the Minister is convinced by our argument and if the proposition is accepted by the House, it will make for a more intelligent way of bringing that weight about, which will take into account the particular practices of own-account operators, which I hope will be welcome to the House.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 292.

      Division No. 160]

      [12.25 am

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Allaun, Frank

      Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

      Anderson, Donald

      Hardy, Peter

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Harrison, Rt Hon Waiter

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Ashton, Joe

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

      Haynes, Frank

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Home Robertson, John

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Homewood, William

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hooley, Frank

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Huckfield, Les

      Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

      Hudson Davies, Gwilym IE.

      Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Campbell, Ian

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Canavan, Dennis

      John, Brynmor

      Cant, R. B.

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cohen, Stanley

      Kerr, Russell

      Coleman, Donald

      Lambie, David

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Lamborn, Harry

      Cook, Robin F.

      Lamond, James

      Cowans, Harry

      Leighton, Ronald

      Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Craigen, J. M.

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Crowther, J. S.

      Litherland, Robert

      Cryer, Bob

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Davidson, Arthur

      McElhone, Frank

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      McKelvey, William

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

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Deakins, Eric

      McNally, Thomas

      Dempsey, James

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dewar, Donald

      McTaggart, Robert

      Dixon, Donald

      McWilliam, John

      Dobson, Frank

      Magee, Bryan

      Dormand, Jack

      Marks, Kenneth

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dunn, James A.

      Martin, M. (G'gow S'burn)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Maxton, John

      Eadie, Alex

      Meacher, Michael

      Eastham, Ken

      Mikardo, Ian

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

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      English, Michael

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Field, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Flannery, Martin

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Morton, George

      Forrester, John

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Foster, Derek

      Newens, Stanley

      Foulkes, George

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

      Ogden, Eric

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      George, Bruce

      Palmer, Arthur

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Parry, Robert

      Ginsburg, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Golding, John

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Prescott, John

      Graham, Ted

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Race, Reg

      283

      Radice, Giles

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

      Richardson, Jo

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Tilley, John

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Tinn, James

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Torney, Tom

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Robertson, George

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Watkins, David

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Weetch, Ken

      Rowlands, Ted

      Welsh, Michael

      Sever, John

      White, Frank R.

      Sheerman, Barry

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Whitlock, William

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Snape, Peter

      Winnick, David

      Soley, Clive

      Woodall, Alec

      Spearing, Nigel

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Stoddart, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stott, Roger

      Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Dean.

      Straw, Jack

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Chapman, Sydney

      Alexander, Richard

      Churchill, W. S.

      Alison, Michael

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

      Alton, David

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Ancram, Michael

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Arnold, Tom

      Cockeram, Eric

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Colvin, Michael

      Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

      Cope, John

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

      Corrie, John

      Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Banks, Robert

      Critchley, Julian

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Beith, A. J.

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dover, Denshore

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Durant, Tony

      Best, Keith

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Eggar, Tim

      Blackburn, John

      Elliott, Sir William

      Blaker, Peter

      Emery, Peter

      Body, Richard

      Eyre, Reginald

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Farr, John

      Bowden, Andrew

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Bright, Graham

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

      Brinton, Tim

      Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

      Brittan, Leon

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Brotherton, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Fox, Marcus

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Fry, Peter

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Buck, Antony

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Budgen, Nick

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Butcher, John

      Goodhart, Philip

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Gorst, John

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Gow, Ian

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

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

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Gray, Hamish

      284

      Greenway, Harry

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Grieve, Percy

      Moate, Roger

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

      Monro, Hector

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Grist, Ian

      Moore, John

      Grylls, Michael

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Mudd, David

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Myles, David

      Hannam, John

      Neale, Gerrard

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nelson, Anthony

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Neubert, Michael

      Hawkins, Paul

      Newton, Tony

      Hawksley, Warren

      Normanton, Tom

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Nott, Rt Hon John

      Heddle, John

      Onslow, Cranley

      Henderson, Barry

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Osborn, John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

      Hill, James

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Parris, Matthew

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Hooson, Tom

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Hordern, Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldfd)

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Howells, Geraint

      Porter, Barry

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Jessel, Toby

      Raison, Timothy

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Rathbone, Tim

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Renton, Tim

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Knox, David

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Lamont, Norman

      Rossi, Hugh

      Lang, Ian

      Rost, Peter

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Lee, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & w'loo)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shersby, Michael

      Loveridge, John

      Silvester, Fred

      Luce, Richard

      Sims, Roger

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      McCrindle, Robert

      Smith, Dudley

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Speller, Tony

      MacGregor, John

      Spence, John

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Sproat, Iain

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

      Stainton, Keith

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Major, John

      Stanley, John

      Marland, Paul

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Marlow, Tony

      Stevens, Martin

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Mates, Michael

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mather, Carol

      Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Stokes, John

      Mawby, Ray

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Tapsell, Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mellor, David

      Tebbit, Norman

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      285

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Wells, Bowen

      Trippier, David

      Wheeler, John

      Trotter, Neville

      Whitney, Raymond

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Wickenden, Keith

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Viggers, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Waddington, David

      Williams, D.(Montgomery)

      Wakeham, John

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wall, Patrick

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Waller, Gary

      Walters, Dennis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ward, John

      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

      Watson, John

      and Mr. Donald Thompson.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 32

      CHARGES FOR LICENSING OF CABS AND CAB DRIVERS
      Mr. Vivian Bendall: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 22, leave out lines 13 to 26.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
      No. 40, in page 22, line 19, at end insert
      'provided the annual charge does not exceed £2.50'.
      No. 41, in page 22, line 26, at end insert
      'provided the annual charge does not exceed £2·50'.
      No. 42, in page 22, line 34, at end insert
      'provided the annual charge does not exceed £60·00'.
      Mr. Bendall: The amendment concerns the licensed taxi trade in the Greater London area, and, indeed, in the provinces. Whilst one appreciates, in going back over the last two years, that the Government have been somewhat generous to the licensed trade in its increases in fares during that period, when looking at and analysing the situation over the last month or so it is true to say that the taxi trade, like many other trades, has had to suffer the increased cost of derv. Also, it is often not realised by many people that VAT is chargeable on derv for the taxi trade but that public transport—for example London Transport—which is in competition with the taxi trade does not pay VAT on derv.
      The taxi trade in London is an important and integral part of the transport system of this city and has been for many generations. It comprises a group of people who are proud of their heritage and achievements and of the service that they have given to this city over a great number of years.
      It is probably also not realised that the licensed taxi trade is in a somewhat different position from that of many others. The owner-driver in the licensed trade relies very much for the purchase of his vehicle on the sale of fleet cabs, which are run by large fleet operators. In this situation there are problems with regard to VAT, which means that the fleets now tend not to pass on their taxis to owner-drivers because they have to compete with London Transport, which has brought in a 25p fixed fare in outer London, which is welcome but is creating competition for the trade.
      It must be remembered that public transport is subsidised to a great degree. However, the Government propose in clause 32(1), (2) and (3) to increase charges to the taxi trade. In the metropolitan area of Greater London,
      286
      there lids been no cost to the licensed cab driver for his taxi-cab licence. I appreciate that the administrative costs in issuing licences to cabs and cab drivers are high and that costs are rising. However, to introduce a charge of about £35·50 per annum for a taxi cab licence when previously there was no charge will be a considerable burden for those who run fleet cabs in London.
      The driver's licence has remained at the low level of 15p since the middle 1800s. It is now to be increased to about £29·50 for three years. Will a driver who is approaching retirement be entitled to a rebate if he has to purchase a licence for three years when he has only a year to work before retirement?
      The story is different in the provinces. Last year, the cost of a driver's licence in Birmingham was £5 a year. It is to be increased to £7·50, a 50 per cent. increase. The vehicle licence was £25 last year and it is to be increased to £35. However, in Manchester the driver's licence was £12 last year and it will be £24 this year, an increase of 100 per cent. The owner's vehicle licence for the cab cost £33 last year and it will cost £100 this year.
      These are steep increases. It is difficult to understand why the increases are so large in the outer London areas, even taking account of inflation. As I represent a constituency in which there are many taxi drivers, I shall concentrate on London. Over the past few years the taxi trade has seen a gradual decline because of a lack of tourism. It has been welcomed in the House that Members of Parliament can now more easily get a taxi late at night than a few years ago. The taxi trade will have to endure extra increases in the immediate future against the background of a decreasing tourist trade and the increased price of derv.
      The black cab, which is used basically by the London trade but in certain other cities as well, is built by Car Body Vehicles, of Coventry, which is at present on a three-day week. Sales have been dropping. The components are supplied by British Leyland. The number of employees has dropped from about 1,400 to 400. In the first six months of trading this year the company's loss has been about £600,000.
      12.45 am
      The firm's second trading phase is always considered to be worse than the first. Therefore, it is important to preserve this firm of body builders so that it can supply the London taxi trade with the type of vehicle which it wants and prefers. Indeed, there are rumours that both Mitsubishi and Mercedes are working on a cab which would be suitable for London and the provinces. I would be sad if another British industry went out of existence as a result of foreign investment and trade.
      I ask the Government to look seriously at the situation as it affects the licensed taxi trade. I ask them to consider limits on the costs of licensing, in respect of both the driver and vehicle. They should consider spreading this large amount over two or three years instead of introducing it all at once. I ask my hon. and learned Friend seriously to consider the points that I have made, because the London taxi trade provides an important and integral part of the transport system of this great city.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Baling, Southall): Among my parliamentary tasks I have the duty of liaising with the Transport and General Workers Union and the taxi-cab trade. On these matters there are no differences between worker-drivers and those who work for proprietors.

      287
      The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) skilfully set out the position. Therefore, I shall not repeat the arguments. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was a member of the Committee. The difficulties of the licensed taxi-cab trade, as well as its apprehensions, were debated at some length during those proceedings, but I suspect that other hon. Members do not avidly read the Committee proceedings on such matters, especially when they involve a wide-ranging Bill such as this.
      Some of us are dismayed that the Secretary of State has introduced these proposals at a time when wide consultations are taking place. However, as they are in the Bill we must give them due consideration. I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's apprehension that the overhead costs, both to the workers and the proprietors, may be too steep, especially at a time when there is a decline in earning possibilities because of the contraction in the tourist trade.
      I want to see this tradition preserved. We should ensure that the Bill does not impair the opportunities of the taxi trade. In the previous Transport Act, the Government gave some aid to the licensed cab trade, whose fares are strictly controlled compared with the car hire trade.
      We felt a sense of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowan) for his amendment earlier, and to the Minister of State when he accepted that one way to aid the taxi drivers was to prevent the minicab or car hire trade from running around with illuminated roof signs, and so on, which might suggest that they were plying for hire.
      My sentiments would have been best expressed by the final amendment on the Order Paper, which may be eclipsed by the guillotine under which we have been placed by this very wide Bill, which includes the taxi-cab trade. I hope that we shall hear something from the Minister that is sympathetic and that shows the Department's sympathy. I hope that there will be reference to the charges. Inevitably, those must affect the fares in the declining market.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The taxi trade as a whole will recognise that it has had a fairly reasonable deal from the Government so far. My right hon. Friend made adjustments to its price levels the last time the fares were increased in London—adjustments that were acceptable and that redressed a long-standing grievance. As the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) fairly conceded, last year's Transport Bill, now the Transport Act 1980, contained measures for which the taxi trade had been pressing for some time. We included those measures. It is the intention of the Government to deal sympathetically with the taxi trade in its present difficult trading conditions.
      I met a deputation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) two days ago, when taxi drivers made representations about the part of the Bill, that affects them. They covered a wide area of their present grievances. Most are best dealt with in another context. Many of them will be faced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the consultation document that he proposes to issue shortly. It will deal with the whole matter of the law governing the taxi trade and the hire car trade.
      288
      It will put forward proposals for discussion, which might lead to some modernisation of the regulations and the terms and conditions of the trade.
      That is the right way to consider the problems of taxi drivers, and not the comparatively narrow issue of the licence fees, which are all that is covered by this part of the Bill. There is no intention in the Bill or in Government policy to discriminate against the taxi trade in any way. We are merely bringing the practice of charging for licences for taxis in line with the Government policy of charging for all other sorts of licences. Where Parliament prescribes a licensing system and where licences are issued either by central Government or by local authorities, it is the policy that the costs of that licensing system shall be recovered in appropriate fees from those who receive the licences. There is no intention of making a profit, and there is no element of tax. However, it is right that the trade and those who use taxis, and not the general taxpayer—including many people who make no use of the taxi system—should pay for the cost of licensing.
      It has not been possible to follow that policy for taxis so far because of outdated statutory restrictions on the maximum fees. The fees for London have not been changed since 1869. The fees for provincial cities, where the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act has not been adopted, have not been changed since 1847. They are farcically low.
      In London, no fee is being charged for the vehicle at the moment because of doubts about whether the legislation applies to anything other than horse-drawn cabs. For drivers, the levels have been fixed at 3s since the mid-1930s. The level is still 15p. The result is that at the moment the public carriage office of the Metropolitan Police is costing the general taxpayer about £¾ million each year. The present licence fees are recovering the princely sum of £1,500. With respect, that cannot be allowed to continue. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has confirmed that it will be open to the taxi drivers to recover it in fares from their passengers, because the new fees will be reflected in the new fare levels when they are next increased.
      However, the effect on fares will, I dare to suggest, be trivial. The extra cost involved is about ½ per cent. The generality of taxi passengers will pay for the taxi licensing system and they will benefit from the licensing and control of taxis. It will no longer be the general taxpayer who pays.
      I told my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North the other day of the likely fares in London, and he used my figures in his speech this evening. He will have observed that they are much lower than local authority fees charged outside London. The public carriage office of the Metropolitan Police is comparatively small, and carries out a serious task for the whole city. The Home Secretary will respond to respresentations about its cost.
      We are not imposing a new and onerous burden on the taxi trade; we are merely correcting a long-standing anomaly. I acknowledge that there are bigger problems. I accept the strength of feeling that lies behind my hon. Friend's speech and the views of this constituents, whom he brought to see me two days ago. It arises from other matters, such as their taxation liability, the importance of the law on hire cars and the state of the law on the licensed taxi trade, which are all matters that can be properly dealt with when the consultation document is produced and

      289
      when the general debate on the future of the trade is initiated by the Home Secretary. Our fees may be an irritant, but they are no more than that.
      I commend the provisions of the Bill to the House, and I ask my hon. Friend to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. It is a common-sense and comparatively minor change.
      Mr. Booth: The guillotine means that the House cannot debate the amendment that my hon. Friends and I have tabled.
      The London taxi trade is subject to stringent controls, requiring major annual overhauls for relicensing and quarterly inspections of individual cabs, in addition to random tests. Maintaining the standards set by the public carriage office involves the trade in considerable cost. If the office is freed from the present financial restraints, which would be the effect of the clause, the trade may face higher and most costly standards. The Government say that the trade can pass on the cost in higher fares, but the trade believes that if fares were substantially increased trade would fall off.
      The amendments are not the real solution. We need a mechanism to enable the Secretary of State to involve the trade in considering how to achieve higher standards before fees are increased. Taxi drivers, operators and owners cannot count for nothing in tightly controlled and regulated business. The standard of taxi operation required by law in London is probably higher than that in any other city in the world. The regulations are to protect the travelling public. If fees are to be increased, which will in turn increase fares and result in operating difficulties, the trade should be consulted. The trade is at one in wanting to be consulted before the Secretary of State makes decisions about driver and vehicle fees that affect the livelihood of drivers, owners and operators.
      I therefore feel that the narrow line of approach of the amendments will not provide a real solution to that problem. Had the Secretary of State, with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, been prepared to reach the long-awaited decision on recommendations of the Maxwell Stamp report, we might have had, either in this Bill or in a Bill produced by the Home Secretary, a series of proposals that would have enabled the House to do something other than free a Transport Minister——
      It being One o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [9 March] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment negatived.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at One o'clock.

    Schedule 11

      REPEALS
      Amendment made: No. 36, in page 79, line 42, column 3 at beginning insert 'section 17.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Amendment made: No. 37—New Schedule—

      ROAD HUMPS
        PART I

          PROVISION FOR ENGLAND AND WALES
          (1). In section 62(3) of the Highways act (descriptions of works for which specific powers are given and in relation to which the general power in that section does not apply), the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph (f)—
          "(ff) the construction, maintenance and removal. of road humps;".
          (2) The following provisions are inserted after section 90 of the Highways Act 1980—

          PROVISION FOR ENGLAND AND WALES

            Construction of road humps by highway authority. "Road humps
            90A.—(1) A highway authority may construct road humps in a highway maintainable at the public expense for which they are the highway authority if—

            (a) the highway is subject to a statutory speed limit for motor vehicles of 30 miles per hour or less; or

            (b) the road humps are specially authorised by the Secretary of State,
            and may remove any road humps so constructed by them.

            (2) The consent of the Greater London Council is required for the construction of road humps under this section by a London borough council or the Common Council.

            Additional powers of the Secretary of State
            90B.—(1) The Secretary of State may construct road humps in a highway maintainable at the public expense for which he is not the highway authority if—

            (a) the highway is subject to a statutory speed limit for motor vehicles of 30 miles per hour or less; or

            (b) the road humps are specially authorised by him,
            and may maintain and remove any road humps so constructed by him.

            (2) The consent of the local highway authority for the highway concerned is required for the construction of road humps under this section and also, in the case of a highway in Greater London for which the Greater London Council are not the highway authority, the consent of that Council.
            (3) The Secretary of State and the local highway authority may enter into an agreement for the carrying out by the local highway authority of any works which the Secretary of State has power to carry out under this section.
            (4) Subject to subsection (5) below, the consent of the Secretary of State is required before the local authority or any other person having power to maintain the highway may remove or otherwise interfere with a road hump constructed under this section.
            (5) If the Secretary of State so directs with the consent of the local highway authority, the local highway authority shall have the same powers in relation to a road hump constructed under this section as they have in relation to a road hump constructed by them under section 90A above.
            (6) Where a road hump has been constructed under this section, the local highway authority and any other person having power to maintain the highway may reimburse the Secretary of State the whole or part of his expenses in relation to the road hump.

            Consultation and local inquiries
            90C.—(1) Where the Secretary of State or a local highway authority propose to construct a road hump under section 90A or 90B above, he or they shall consult with—

            (a) the chief officer of police for the area in which the highway concerned is situated; and

            (b) such other persons as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

            (2) The Secretary of State or local highway authority shall also—

            (a) publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which the highway concerned is situated; and

            (b) place at appropriate points on that highway,

            a notice of the proposal stating the nature, dimensions and location of the proposed road hump and the address to which and the period within which any objections to the proposal may be sent.
            (3) The period stated in a notice under subsection (2) above shall not be less than 21 days beginning with the date on which the notice is first published in accordance with paragraph (a) of that subsection.
            (4) The Secretary of State or local highway authority shall consider any objections sent to him or them in accordance with a notice under subsection (2) above and may, if he or they think fit, cause a local inquiry to be held.
            (5) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (povisions as to inquiries) have effect in relation to an inquiry held under subsection (4) above as they have effect in relation to an inquiry held under that section, but with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
            (6) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult such representative organisations as he thinks fit.

            Regulations concerning construction and maintenance of road humps
            90D.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision in relation to the construction and maintenance of road humps as appears to him to be necessary or expedient in the interests of safety and the free movement of traffic, and may in particular—

            (a) provide that road humps shall be constructed only in highways of such descriptions and in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations;

            (b) impose requirements as to—

            (i) the nature, dimensions, location and spacing of road humps;

            (ii) the placing of signs of such type or character as may be so prescribed;

            (iii) the carrying out and maintenance of other ancillary or consequential works.

            (2) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases, as for example for road humps and highways of different descriptions.
            (3) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit.
            (4) Regulations under this section do not apply where a road hump is specially authorised by the Secretary of State, but conditions attached by him to the authorisation may, in particular, relate to any of the matters with respect to which regulations may be made under this section.

            Status of road humps.
            90E.—(1) Where a road hump conforms to regulations under section 90D above and, in the case of a road hump in a highway maintainable at the public expense, the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are satisfied, the road hump shall not be treated as constituting an obstruction to the highway but as part of the highway, so that in particular—

            (a) the obligation of any person to maintain the highway; and

            (b) the obligation of any person having power to break open the highway to make good any damage or otherwise reinstate the highway,

            extend to maintaining or, as the case may be, making good any damage to or otherwise reinstating the road hump.
            (2) The further conditions applicable in the case of a road hump in a highway maintainable at the public expense are—

            (a) that the highway is for the time being subject to a statutory speed limit for motor vehicles of 30 miles per hour or less or the road hump is specially authorised by the Secretary of State; and

            (b) that the road hump was constructed under section 90A or 90B above or was constructed at a time when the highway was not maintainable at the public expense.

            (3) In relation to a road hump specially authorised by the Secretary of State the reference in subsection (1) above to conformity with regulations shall be construed as a reference to conformity with the conditions attached to the authorisation.
            (4) In so far as it does not apply apart from this subsection, Part II of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 (code regulating relations between persons carrying out alterations to roads and statutory undertakers having apparatus in those roads) applies in relation to the construction, maintenance and removal of a road hump as if the works were executed for road purposes and were mentioned in section 21(1)(a) of that Act and as if the person executing them were the promoting authority within the meaning of that Part.

            Meaning of "road hump" and interpretation of sections 90A to 90E
            90F.—(1) In this Act "road hump" means an artificial hump in or on the surface of the highway which is designed to control the speed of vehicles, and references to a road hump include references to any other works (including signs or lighting) required in connection with such a hump.
            (2) In sections 90A to 90E above—

            "motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act

            "statutory" means having effect by virtue of an enactment.

            3.In section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980 (interpretation) the following is inserted at the appropriate place—
            "'road hump' has the meaning provided by section 90F(1);".

        PART II
          PROVISION FOR SCOTLAND

            Construction of road humps by highway authority
            4. A highway authority may construct road humps in a highway for which they are the highway authority if—

            (a) the highway is subject to a statutory speed limit for motor vehicles of 30 miles per hour or less; or

            (b) the road humps are especially authorised by the Secretary of State,
            and may remove any road humps so constructed by them.

            Additional powers of the Secretary of State
            5.—(1) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the local highway authority for the highway concerned, construct road humps in a highway for which he is not the highway authority if—

            (a) the highway is subject to a statutory speed limit for motor vehicles of 30 miles per hour or less; or

            (b) the road humps are specially authorised by him,
            and may maintain and remove any road humps so constructed by him.

            (2) The Secretary of State and the local highway authority may enter into an agreement for the carrying out by the local highway authority of any works which the Secretary of State has power to carry out under this paragraph.
            (3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), the consent of the Secretary of State is required before the local highway authority may remove or otherwise interfere with a road hump constructed under this paragraph.
            (4) If the Secretary of State so directs with the consent of the local highway authority, the local highway authority shall have the same powers in relation to a road hump constructed under this paragraph as they have in relation to a road hump constructed by them under paragraph 4.
            (5) Where a road hump has been constructed under this paragraph, the local highway authority may reimburse the Secretary of State the whole or part of his expenses in relation to the road hump.

            Consultation and local inquiries
            6.—(1) Where the Secretary of State or a local highway authority propose to construct a road hump under paragraph 4 or 5, he or they shall consult with—

            (a) the chief officer of police for the area in which the highway concerned is situated; and

            (b) such other persons or bodies as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

            (2) The Secretary of State or local highway authority shall also—

            (a) publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which the highway concerned is situated; and

            (b) place at appropriate points on that highway,
            a notice of the proposal stating the nature, dimensions and location of the proposed road hump and the address to which and the period within which any objections to the proposal may be sent.

            (3) The period stated in a notice under sub-paragraph (2) shall be not less than 21 days beginning with the date on which the notice is first published in accordance with paragraph (a) of that sub-paragraph.
            (4) The Secretary of State or local highway authority shall consider any objection sent to him or them in accordance with a notice under sub-paragraph (2) and may, if he or they think fit, cause a local inquiry to be held.
            (5) Subsections (2) to (8) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (provisions as to inquiries)

            293
            have effect in relation to an inquiry held under sub-paragraph (4) as they have effect in relation to an inquiry held under that section, but with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
            (6) Before making regulations under this paragraph the Secretary of State shall consult such representative organisations as he thinks fit.

            Regulations concerning construction and maintenance of road humps
            (7).—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision in relation to the construction and maintenance of road humps as appears to him to be necessary or expedient in the interests of safety and the free movement of traffic, and may in particular—

            (a) provide that road humps shall be constructed only on highways of such descriptions and in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations;

            (b) impose requirements as to—

            (i) the nature, dimensions, location and spacing of road humps;

            (ii) the placing of signs of such type or character as may be so prescribed;

            (iii) the carrying out and maintenance of other ancillary or consequential works.

            (2) Regulations under this paragraph may make different provision for different cases, as for example for road humps and highways of different descriptions.
            (3) Before making any regulations under this paragraph the Secretary of State shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit.
            (4) Regulations under this paragraph do not apply where a road hump is specially authorised by the Secretary of State, but conditions attached by him to the authorisation may, in particular, relate to any of the matters with respect to which regulations may be made under this paragraph.

            (3) Status of road humps
            8.—(1) Where a road hump constructed under paragraph 4 or 5 conforms to regulations under paragraph 7 and the condition mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) is satisfied, the road hump shall not be treated as constituting an obstruction to the highway but as part of the highway, so that in particular—

            (a) the obligation of the highway authority to maintain the highway; and

            (b) the obligation of any person having power to break open the highway to make good any damage or otherwise reinstate the highway;

            extend to maintaining or, as the case may be, to making good any damage to or otherwise reinstating the road hump.
            (2) The further condition mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) is that either—

            (a) the highway in question is for the time being subject to a statutory speed limit for motor vehicles of 30 miles per hour or less; or

            (b) the road hump is specially authorised by the Secretary of State.

            (3) In relation to a road hump specially authorised by the Secretary of State the reference in sub-paragraph (1) to conformity with regulations shall be construed as a reference to conformity with the conditions attached to the authorisation.
            (4) In so far as it does not apply apart from this subparagraph, Part II of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 (code regulating relations between persons carrying out alterations to roads and statutory undertakers having apparatus in those roads) applies in relation to the construction, maintenance and removal of a road hump as if the works were executed for road purposes and were mentioned in section 21(1)(a) of that Act and as if the person executing them were the promoting authority within the meaning of that Part.

            Interpretation and construction
            9.—(1) In this Part—

            "motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967;

            "road hump" means an artificial hump in or on the surface of the highway which is designed to control the speed of vehicles, and references to a road hump include references to any other works (including signs or lighting) required in connection with such a hump;

            "statutory" means having effect by virtue of an enactment.

            (2) This Part shall be construed as one with the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970.

    Title
    Amendment made: No. 38, in line 10, after 'safety', insert
    'to make provision with respect to road humps;'.—[Mr. Fowler.]
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 207.

    Division No. 161]

    [1.01 am

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Durant, Tony

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dykes, Hugh

    Alexander, Richard

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Alison, Michael

    Eggar, Tim

    Alton, David

    Elliott, Sir William

    Ancram, Michael

    Emery, Peter

    Arnold, Tom

    Eyre, Reginald

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

    Faith, Mrs Sheila

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

    Farr, John

    Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Banks, Robert

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

    Beith, A. J.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

    Bell, Sir Ronald

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Bendall, Vivian

    Forman, Nigel

    Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

    Fox, Marcus

    Best, Keith

    Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Fry, Peter

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Blackburn, John

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Blaker, Peter

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Body, Richard

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Goodhart, Philip

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

    Gorst, John

    Bowden, Andrew

    Gow, Ian

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Bright, Graham

    Gray, Hamish

    Brinton, Tim

    Greenway, Harry

    Brittan, Leon

    Grieve, Percy

    Brotherton, Michael

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

    Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

    Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Grist, Ian

    Bruce-Gardyne, John

    Grylls, Michael

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Gummer, John Selwyn

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Hamilton, Hon A.

    Buck, Antony

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Budgen, Nick

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Burden, Sir Frederick

    Hannam, John

    Butcher, John

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Butler, Hon Adam

    Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

    Carlisle, John (Luton West)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hawksley, Warren

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

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Heddle, John

    Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

    Henderson, Barry

    Chapman, Sydney

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Churchill, W. S.

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

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

    Hill, James

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Holland, Philip (Carlton)

    Cockeram, Eric

    Hooson, Tom

    Colvin, Michael

    Hordern, Peter

    Cope, John

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

    Corrie, John

    Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Costain, Sir Albert

    Howells, Geraint

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Critchley, Julian

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

    Hurd, Hon Douglas

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jessel, Toby

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Dover, Denshore

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    295

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Renton, Tim

    Kimball, Marcus

    Rhodes James, Robert

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Knox, David

    Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

    Lamont, Norman

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Lang, Ian

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Rossi, Hugh

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Rost, Peter

    Lee, John

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Loveridge, John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Luce, Richard

    Shepherd, Richard

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Shersby, Michael

    McCrindle, Robert

    Silvester, Fred

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Sims, Roger

    MacGregor, John

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    MacKay, John (Argyll)

    Smith, Dudley

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

    Speller, Tony

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Spence, John

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

    Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Major, John

    Sproat, Iain

    Marland, Paul

    Stainton, Keith

    Marlow, Tony

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Marten, Neil (Banbury)

    Stanley, John

    Mates, Michael

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Mather, Carol

    Stevens, Martin

    Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Mawby, Ray

    Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Stokes, John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Tapsell, Peter

    Mellor, David

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Tebbit, Norman

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mills, Peter (West Devon)

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Thompson, Donald

    Moate, Roger

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

    Monro, Hector

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Moore, John

    Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

    Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

    Trippier, David

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Trotter, Neville

    Mudd, David

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Murphy, Christopher

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Myles, David

    Viggers, Peter

    Neale, Gerrard

    Waddington, David

    Nelson, Anthony

    Wakeham, John

    Neubert, Michael

    Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

    Newton, Tony

    Walker, B. (Perth)

    Normanton, Tom

    Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

    Nott, Rt Hon John

    Wall, Patrick

    Onslow, Cranley

    Waller, Gary

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

    Walters, Dennis

    Osborn, John

    Ward, John

    Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

    Watson, John

    Page, Richard (SW Herts)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Wells, Bowen

    Parris, Matthew

    Wheeler, John

    Patten, John (Oxford)

    Whitney, Raymond

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Wickenden, Keith

    Pawsey, James

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Percival, Sir Ian

    Wilkinson, John

    Pollock, Alexander

    Williams, D.(Montgomery)

    Porter, Barry

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Wolfson, Mark

    Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Raison, Timothy

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rathbone, Tim

    Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.

    Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

    296

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Allaun, Frank

    Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

    Anderson, Donald

    Hardy, Peter

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

    Ashton, Joe

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Atkinson, H.(H'gey,)

    Haynes, Frank

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Home Robertson, John

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Homewood, William

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Hooley, Frank

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Huckfield, Les

    Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

    Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

    Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Campbell, Ian

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Canavan, Dennis

    John, Brynmor

    Cant, R. B.

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Cohen, Stanley

    Kerr, Russell

    Coleman, Donald

    Lambie, David

    Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

    Lamborn, Harry

    Cook, Robin F.

    Lamond, James

    Cowans, Harry

    Leighton, Ronald

    Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Craigen, J. M.

    Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

    Crowther, J. S.

    Litherland, Robert

    Cryer, Bob

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Davidson, Arthur

    McElhone, Frank

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    McKelvey, William

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

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Deakins, Eric

    McNally, Thomas

    Dempsey, James

    McNamara, Kevin

    Dewar, Donald

    McTaggart, Robert

    Dixon, Donald

    McWilliam, John

    Dobson, Frank

    Magee, Bryan

    Dormand, Jack

    Marks, Kenneth

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

    Dubs, Alfred

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Dunn, James A.

    Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    Maxton, John

    Eadie, Alex

    Meacher, Michael

    Eastham, Ken

    Mikardo, Ian

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

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    English, Michael

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Ennals, Rt Hon David

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Field, Frank

    Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

    Flannery, Martin

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Morton, George

    Forrester, John

    Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

    Foster, Derek

    Newens, Stanley

    Foulkes, George

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

    Ogden, Eric

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    George, Bruce

    Palmer, Arthur

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Parry, Robert

    Ginsburg, David

    Pendry, Tom

    Golding, John

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Prescott, John

    Graham, Ted

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Race, Reg

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Radice, Giles

    297

    Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Richardson, Jo

    Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Tilley, John

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    Torney, Tom

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

    Robertson, George

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Watkins, David

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

    Weetch, Ken

    Rowlands, Ted

    Welsh, Michael

    Sever, John

    White, Frank R.

    Sheerman, Barry

    White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Whitlock, William

    Short, Mrs Renée

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)

    Snape, Peter

    Wilson, William (C'try SE)

    Soley, Clive

    Winnick, David

    Spearing, Nigel

    Woodall, Alec

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Woolmer, Kenneth

    Stallard, A. W.

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    Stoddart, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Stott, Roger

    Mr. Joseph Dean and Mr. James Tinn.

    Straw, Jack

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time and passed.

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
    Ordered,
    That the Standing Order of 4 July 1979 relating to the nomination of the Committee of Public Accounts be amended, by leaving out Mr. James Lamond and inserting Mr. Barry Sheerman.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

  Dr. Andrew Dossetor (Pension Entitlement)
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wakeham.]
  1.12 am
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise on the Adjournment the case of my constituent, Dr. Andrew Dossetor. He is a medical doctor who practises in Newmarket. He made application for his war service at the concentration camp of Belsen to be reckoned for his pension entitlement.
  In my view Dr. Dossetor's application has been quite wrongly rejected. Although I am grateful to the Minister for the care that he has shown in looking into the case and for his attendance in the House at this late hour, I expect a great deal more sensitivity from him than his Department has shown in its correspondence with me.
  The background is brief but terrible. It began in 1945 as the allied armies that were advancing into Germany began to uncover the horrors of the Third Reich's extermination centres. One such centre was Belsen. News of its bestialities reached the British 21st Army Group a week or so before the first British troops arrived there. In preparation for dealing with large numbers of weak and emaciated victims, an urgent call went out for medical volunteers.
  In London, the War Office sent an SOS to the London medical schools, and one of the students who responded was Andrew Dossetor, then aged 21 and a final-year student at St. Bartholomew's Hospital. Together with eight other Barts men, Andrew Dossetor placed himself under the command of an Army major, who took them to an Army depot and kitted them out in battledress. They were transported by military aircraft to an airstrip not far behind the British Army's front line in North Germany.
  Within four days of Belsen being liberated Andrew Dossetor was installed in the captured mess of a German armoured unit. Under the command of an RAMC brigadier, Glen Hughes, now deceased, he was put in charge of a hut containing 200 of the concentration camp's women victims. They did not, of course, look like women. Most weighed well under six stone. Many in their twenties had hair that had turned completely white. Some lay in their own excrement, too weak to move or to speak. Scores were dying of starvation.
  Not surprisingly, lice abounded. Their bites quickly infected the weakened inmates of Belson. Typhus spread like wild fire. Andrew Dossetor—today a middle-aged physician, but in those days an enthusiastic student—threw himself into the task of ministering to the sick. He washed and fed those emaciated women in Belsen. He cleaned them up as best he could. He nursed those who had any chance of living—there were not many—and he was handicapped, ironically, by the generosity of the British troops, who handed out their own bully beef, only to find that the shrivelled stomachs and weakened intestines of many of the Belsen inmates simply could not digest so rich a diet.
  On several occasions Andrew Dossetor lifted the bodies of his typhus-ridden patients on to the straw palliases the British soldiers had provided. He assumed that the immunisation that he had been given in London would

  299
  protect him but, unfortunately, in that he was wrong. Within two weeks of starting that work in Belsen Andrew Dossetor began coughing up blood. Postules appeared on his limbs and his legs were covered with lice bites. He was eventually flown back to London, suffering from a bad case of typhus. Lack of oxygen on the flight led to symptoms of myocarditis. Despite the best attention that could be given in a fever hospital, Dossetor's convalescence was interrupted by heart failure—unquestionably the result of the typhus that he contracted in Belsen.
  It was two years before Barts hospital accepted Andrew Dossetor as being sufficiently recovered to be readmitted to full-time medical studies. He therefore graduated two years later—I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to note that—than he would have done if he had not volunteered for service with the Army at Belsen. Happily, Dr. Dossetor ever since has led an active life.
  After finishing medical school he served for two years in the Royal Air Force. The Department, rather curiously in my view, regards that as evidence against Dr. Dossetor, arguing that his being conscripted into the RAF in 1948 is proof that he could not have served in the Armed Forces during the war. But the truth is exactly the opposite. Dr. Dossetor certainly could have argued that he should not have been called up again, and almost certainly he would have been able to make that argument stick. Instead, he chose not to do so. Why? It was because, although the Department may find it hard to believe in these days when patriotism is at a low ebb in our country, he actually wanted to serve his country. As he put it himself when I cross-examined him at the weekend:
  "I made no attempt to get out of being called up again on account of my previous service, because this would have required a 'pity me' attitude. I was quite happy to be called up again, and indeed I extended my service by six months. I was keen to serve my country if required".
  It is because Andrew Dossetor has lived his life in this fashion that he is now a highly respected general practitioner in Newmarket. He is a calm, courteous and intensely patriotic man who has never allowed the scars, physical or emotional, of his experiences in Belsen to make him resentful or bitter, even against the Germans. He does, however, believe—and in this I agree with him—that as he approaches retirement he ought to be entitled, as all who served in the forces during the Second World War have been expressly entitled by this House, to count his war service in Belsen towards his superannuation.
  Why does this matter? On the material side, admitting Dr. Dossetor's claim would mean that he could retire, if he wished, a year earlier and on a pension approximately £300 a year higher than he will get if the Minister denies his claim. Indeed, it is only if the Minister accepts my contention that Dr. Dossetor will be able to take his superannuation at the same time as his colleagues who entered medical school at the same time as he did.
  I emphasise this because unless Dr. Dossetor's claim is accepted those of his contemporaries who did not volunteer to serve in Belsen, those who never put on a World War II uniform, will be able to retire one year earlier and on a higher pension than Dr. Dossetor. Compared with them, he will be penalised because he
  300
  went to Belsen, which he did not need to do, because he volunteered, and because he put on a uniform instead of staying behind as a student.
  I have personally been exposed, as no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister has to a number of military emergencies—in Budapest, in the Congo and in the Middle East—and I can tell him that when life and death choices are involved there is no time and no place for the subtleties of the Superannuation Act 1946, as subsequently modified by the National Health Service (Superannuation) (War Service, etc.) Regulations 1977. What matters in those circumstances is to move, and move fast and be damned to the regulations, because typhus waits for no man, and death on the scale that I later saw in Dachau, and which Andrew Dossetor struggled with personally in Belsen, does not hang about waiting for officials to untangle their red tape.
  The material facts are these. First, Dr. Dossetor was asked to volunteer for Belsen by way of an urgent message from the Army, transmitted to him via the War Office. Secondly, when he responded, he was placed under Army discipline, under the command of an Army major. Thirdly, he was kitted out by the Army, fed and transported by the Army, flown to Belsen in an Army aircraft and housed in an Army mess. Fourthly, there he was given orders by an Army brigadier, and he was sent into that death camp under Army control and Army discipline.
  Fifthly, the fighting was still going on. The nearby woods were full of SS snipers. If Dr. Dossetor had been killed by one of those snipers, he would have been gazetted as killed in action while on military service. He was not in the situation of an ARP warden, an ambulance man or a Red Cross man killed in the London blitz. They, I freely concede, were civilians on war work. They were not in the forces as such and, therefore, cannot benefit from the concessions that have been made available to those who served in the Armed Forces.
  But Dr. Dossetor was in the front line. He was there under fire. He was there when British troops tied the grisly commander of Belsen, Kramer, to a stake on the perimeter fence. He was there when the bulldozers were pushing into those ghastly pits tens of thousands of corpses, some of them the women who had died under his own eyes.
  He became ill and came close himself to dying of typhus, wholly and exclusively because he performed this active service with the British Army.
  By any reasonable measure of fact and common sense, Andrew Dossetor was on active service. In recognition, he was awarded a military decoration, the France and Germany medal. He got this from the War Office under the signature of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. When he got that medal, he did not suppose, and nor would anyone else have supposed, that he was awarded it in recognition of his work as a civilian. He got it for his work with the Army.
  For these reasons, and because I also believe that the Minister will want to temper reason with common sense, I conclude my remarks with two precise requests. The first is that the Minister should allow Dr. Dossetor to buy back his one-year entitlement to any NHS superannuation in recognition of his work for and with the British Army at Belsen and in recognition of the illness he contracted wholly and exclusively as a result of his active service with the Army.

  301
  Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend, if he cannot find it in the regulations—I am sure that he will find it in his heart—to find some other way of discharging the debt that all owe to men like Andrew Dossetor. His case is unique. Meeting it would create no precedents. The cost is infinitesimal but the right on his side is clearcut.
  1.26 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on putting the case of Dr. Andrew Dossetor so persuasively, movingly and effectively. I feel enormous sympathy and admiration for this doctor, whose humanitarian act clearly resulted in personal illness and risk to life and delayed his entry into his chosen profession. It is a story of selfless patriotism. I feel guilty that the Government have been unable to respond to Dr. Dossetor in the way that he responded to the Government in 1945.
  It may help if, at the outset, I explain the background to the war service provisions. Shortly after the war, arrangements were made by the principal Civil Service pension scheme to allow credit for war service to civil servants whose careers had been interrupted temporarily by war service and also, by extension, to those whose entry into a career in the Civil Service had similarly been delayed.
  Post-war entrants to the Civil Service were able to reckon their war service for pension purposes under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1946. At that time, a civil servant had to be established before he became eligible for a pension, but unestablished service which immediately preceded establishment counted at half-rate for pension purposes.
  Virtually no appointments to established posts were made during the war, but many of the people who were taken on in an unestablished capacity were expected to stay on after the war and gain establishment in the post-war reconstruction competitions. Such people would have had an unfair advantage from a pension point of view as compared with those who were prevented by the war from entering the Civil Service at all. The object of the 1946 Act was to seek to put the post-war entrant on an equal footing with the wartime entrant.
  Under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1946, war service was specified as whole-time service in the Armed Forces of the Crown, in the Merchant Navy or the mercantile marine, or in any of the women's services specified in the first schedule to the Act. I shall certainly see, in the light of what my hon. Friend has said, whether there is any way that Dr. Dossetor's work during the war could be considered to fall within the terms of that section of the Act.
  At the time, much thought was given to the possibility of covering forms of national service other than service in the Armed Forces and suchlike, particular consideration being given to whole-time civil defence workers, who came within the scope of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act 1944. However, during the war practically everyone of military age was engaged in some work of national importance and it was considered that it was not possible to extend the scope of the concession without bringing in everbody who had volunteered or been directed to work of national importance.
  302
  In fairness, I do not think that my hon. Friend seeks such an extension, which would be much broader than the present one. The scope of the concession was, therefore, made the same as that which had been adopted for the operation of the system of reserving a proportion of vacancies for established posts in the Civil Service for ex-Service men and women during the reconstruction period, which was in turn derived from the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. Parliament agreed that the concession should be limited in this way to ex-Service men proper, who, it was generally accepted, had a very special claim for the consideration of the community. I think that the case that my hon. Friend has made has been that Dr. Dossetor should qualify as an ex-Service man proper, and I do not think that he has been arguing for a much broader interpretation or a relaxation of the terms of the Act.
  In 1973 very strong pressures were exerted in Parliament on behalf of the teachers, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was then Secretary of St ate for Education and Science, obtained Cabinet agreement to extension of the Civil Service arrangements to teachers. She did, however, stress in her speech in Parliament that there were bound to be great practical difficulties and problems of definition in reopening at that late stage the question of reckonable service of teachers who trained and joined the profession immediately after the war and that inevitably, at that distance of time, we would have to accept that there would be an element of rough justice.
  Following the concession to the teachers it was agreed that a similar concession could no longer reasonably be withheld from the other public service staff groups. But it was also decided, both on grounds of principle and because of the administrative and financial implications, that extension of the concession within the public service beyond the Civil Service should not be accompanied by a broadening of the conditions of the concession already written into the 1946 Act; in particular, the concession should not be extended to cover war service in services other than the Armed Forces of the Crown. So the provisions introduced in 1977 into the National Health Service scheme by regulations having effect from 1975 followed the same basic principles as those which had been adopted many years before.
  At the earlier consultative stage of those regulations, the NHS staff representatives sought to extend the scope of the war service definition in order to include persons who had been engaged in wartime civilian organisations. It was, however, explained to them that the concessions could not go beyond that already determined, and this they accepted with reluctance but with understanding.
  As regards the particular case which my hon. Friend has raised, Dr. Dossetor was a final-year medical student in St. Bartholomew's hospital in 1945 when, as my hon. Friend said, the call came for volunteers to go and help the sick and needy in Belsen concentration camp. Dr. Dossetor was one of a group of volunteer students who, commendably, answered this call. They were attached to the Red Cross and flown out to Belsen, where they worked under the direction of the military. Dr. Dossetor worked in that camp for a period of three weeks in April to May 1945—there is no dispute about the facts of his work there—before unfortunately being taken seriously ill with typhus and being admitted to hospital.
  Dr. Dossetor performed meritorious service in assisting the Belsen victims, for which he subsequently received the France and Germany Star. I pay tribute to his work.

  303
  Military campaign medals were awarded to members of relief agencies, such as the Red Cross, whose service took place in the theatres of war, but such work does not reckon as war service for the purposes of the superannuation concession.
  I have said that I have great sympathy for this doctor, but I have also explained, and the House is well aware, that during the war almost every adult was engaged in work of national importance. I mentioned earlier that when the war service concession was introduced into the Civil Service pension scheme this question was given considerable thought before the decision was taken on who should be covered. Apart from the Armed Forces, many were doing difficult jobs, such as the Bevin boys and munition workers, and some worked in extremely hazardous occupations. Among these were the London Fire Brigade and firemen in other large cities, as well as members of voluntary organisations such as the Red Cross, the Student Relief Organisation and the Emergency Medical Service. No doubt hon. Members can think of others.
  But in introducing this concession for public service employees—it is not available to those in the private sector—it was accepted that a line had to be drawn, and it was decided that it should be restricted to ex-Service men and women who had this very special claim for the consideration of the community.
  Unfortunately, it appears that at present Dr. Dossetor's commendable work in Belsen does not qualify as war
  304
  service which would count towards his NHS pension, for the reasons that I have given. I regret that Dr. Dossetor has not been able to buy war service, but, of course, it is possible for him to secure the same index-linked pension by purchasing instead added years. By so doing, he can bring his potential service for pension purposes up to the maximum of 40 years. I hope that this provision, from which I think he can benefit, will soften to some extent the blow to him.
  It is fair to say that Ministers and hon. Members receive a number of constituency complaints concerning the war service provisions, but, unfortunately, the rules must be applied, however we may personally sympathise with individuals and however sensitive we are. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke about the extension to teachers in 1973 she recognised that reconstructing the past in this way created great difficulties and she accepted that a certain broad-brush approach was necessary. There is simply no room for ministerial discretion in this issue, and to change the law at this stage would have wide and unacceptable repercussions. Moreover, I do not believe that my hon. Friend wants that.
  I shall have another look at the matter, in the light of the information about Dr. Dossetor's terms of service during the war, to see whether there is any way in which his service in 1945 might qualify as war service.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Two o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Canadian Lobsters (Gaffkaemia)
  Canadian Lobsters (Gaffkaemia)
  Trunk Road Schemes
  Trunk Road Schemes
  Tynepark School
  Tynepark School
  List D Schools
  List D Schools
  Day Centre (Prestonpans)
  Day Centre (Prestonpans)
  Divorce (Royal Commission Recommendations)
  Divorce (Royal Commission Recommendations)
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Ghana
  Ghana
TRADE
  Burglar Alarm Systems (Rental Charges)
  Burglar Alarm Systems (Rental Charges)
  British Airports Authority
  British Airports Authority
  Furniture (Polyurethane Foam)
  Furniture (Polyurethane Foam)
  Travel Association (Holiday Protection)
  Travel Association (Holiday Protection)
  St. Piran (Report)
  St. Piran (Report)
WALES
  Llanrwst (Bypass)
  Llanrwst (Bypass)
  Brecon Beacons National Park Authority
  Brecon Beacons National Park Authority
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Dry Stone Walls (Heavy Lorries)
  Dry Stone Walls (Heavy Lorries)
  Council Tenants (Rebates and Allowances)
  Council Tenants (Rebates and Allowances)
  Local Authorities (Direct Labour Activities)
  Local Authorities (Direct Labour Activities)
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Civil Servants (Political Activities)
  Civil Servants (Political Activities)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Discipline (Offences)
  Prison Discipline (Offences)
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  British Nationality Bill
  British Nationality Bill
  Illegal Parking
  Illegal Parking
  Rape and Mugging (Deterrents)
  Rape and Mugging (Deterrents)
  Immigration Rules
  Immigration Rules
  Community Relations Council
  Community Relations Council
  Serious Crime (Ethnic Minorities)
  Serious Crime (Ethnic Minorities)
  Open Channel Radio
  Open Channel Radio
  Police (Complaints Procedures)
  Police (Complaints Procedures)
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Parliamentarians (Pay)
  Parliamentarians (Pay)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Research Assistants
  Research Assistants
DEFENCE
  Wintex/Cimex 81
  Wintex/Cimex 81
  Torpedo Production
  Torpedo Production
  Flight Simulators
  Flight Simulators
  Accommodation
  Accommodation
  Trident and Cruise Missiles
  Trident and Cruise Missiles
  NATO and Warsaw Pact (Strengths)
  NATO and Warsaw Pact (Strengths)
  Defence Expenditure
  Defence Expenditure
  Royal Marines
  Royal Marines
  Rapid Deployment Force
  Rapid Deployment Force
  Royal Air Force (Flying Hours)
  Royal Air Force (Flying Hours)
  Secretary of State (Official Visits)
  Secretary of State (Official Visits)
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Commitments
  Commitments
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
  Naval Gun Competition Teams
  Naval Gun Competition Teams
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Defence Equipment)
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Defence Equipment)
  Civil Service Industrial Workers (Pay)
  Civil Service Industrial Workers (Pay)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Northern Regional Health Authority
  Northern Regional Health Authority
  National Insurance Contributions (Charities and Churches)
  National Insurance Contributions (Charities and Churches)
  National Insurance Fund
  National Insurance Fund
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Disabled Persons (Departmental Staff)
  Disabled Persons (Departmental Staff)
  Child Benefit Recipients (Scotland)
  Child Benefit Recipients (Scotland)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Medical and Dental Teaching Hospitals (Costs)
  Medical and Dental Teaching Hospitals (Costs)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Muscular Dystrophy (Hammersmith Hospital)
  Muscular Dystrophy (Hammersmith Hospital)
  Nursing Staff (Back Injuries)
  Nursing Staff (Back Injuries)
  Nursing Staff (Disablement Benefit)
  Nursing Staff (Disablement Benefit)
  Nurses (Mechanical Lifting Aids)
  Nurses (Mechanical Lifting Aids)
  Hospital Bed Design
  Hospital Bed Design
  Depo Provera
  Depo Provera
  Diazepam and Chlordiazepoxide Drugs
  Diazepam and Chlordiazepoxide Drugs
  Orthopaedic Waiting Lists
  Orthopaedic Waiting Lists
  Pharmacists (Salaries)
  Pharmacists (Salaries)
  Child Benefit Books
  Child Benefit Books
CIVIL SERVICE
  Expenditure Committee Report (Implementation)
  Expenditure Committee Report (Implementation)
PRIME MINISTER
  Heaton Mersey
  Heaton Mersey
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Paris
  Paris
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  London Boroughs Association
  London Boroughs Association
  National Community Service
  National Community Service
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Salmon
  Salmon
  Grimsby Schoolchildren (Painting Exhibition)
  Grimsby Schoolchildren (Painting Exhibition)
  European Community (Price Review)
  European Community (Price Review)
  Agricultural Produce (Disposal)
  Agricultural Produce (Disposal)
  Beef, Lamb, Butter and Cheese (Import Levies)
  Beef, Lamb, Butter and Cheese (Import Levies)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Developing Countries (Indebtedness)
  Developing Countries (Indebtedness)
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  Avgas (Price)
  Avgas (Price)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Inland Revenue (Pension Information)
  Inland Revenue (Pension Information)
  Income Tax (Retirement Pensioners)
  Income Tax (Retirement Pensioners)
  Paraffin (Duty)
  Paraffin (Duty)
  Widows
  Widows
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  United States of America (Secretary of State)
  United States of America (Secretary of State)
INDUSTRY
  Post Office (Capital Investment)
  Post Office (Capital Investment)
  Giro Services
  Giro Services
  Clothing Industry Productivity Resources Agency
  Clothing Industry Productivity Resources Agency
  Petrol and Dery
  Petrol and Dery
  Textiles, Clothing and Footwear (Aid)
  Textiles, Clothing and Footwear (Aid)
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  International Computers Limited
  International Computers Limited
TRANSPORT
  London and Liverpool Docks
  London and Liverpool Docks
EMPLOYMENT
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Closed Shop
  Closed Shop
  Capital Radio (Job-mate Scheme)
  Capital Radio (Job-mate Scheme)
  Index of Retail Prices (Calculation)
  Index of Retail Prices (Calculation)
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Wages Councils Act 1979
  Wages Councils Act 1979
  Retail Furnishing Trade
  Retail Furnishing Trade
  Retail Trades
  Retail Trades
  Marconi, Chelmsford
  Marconi, Chelmsford
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Degree Courses
  Degree Courses
  Teachers (Northern Region)
  Teachers (Northern Region)
  School Population (Northern Region)
  School Population (Northern Region)
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Special Education
  Special Education
  School Closures
  School Closures
  Ancillary Staff (Northern Region)
  Ancillary Staff (Northern Region)
  Sign Language
  Sign Language
  Musical Classes (Fees)
  Musical Classes (Fees)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Gas Supplies (Cessation)
  Gas Supplies (Cessation)
  Western Education and Library Board
  Western Education and Library Board
  Census
  Census
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Prisoners (Communications)
  Prisoners (Communications)
  Departmental Organisation (Studies)
  Departmental Organisation (Studies)
  Consumer Items (Price Monitoring)
  Consumer Items (Price Monitoring)
  Hunger Strikers (Medical Condition)
  Hunger Strikers (Medical Condition)
ENVIRONMENT
  Newcastle (Housing Waiting List)
  Newcastle (Housing Waiting List)
  Tyneside Enterprise Zone
  Tyneside Enterprise Zone
  Housing Capital Expenditure
  Housing Capital Expenditure
  Local Authority Dwellings (Subsidy)
  Local Authority Dwellings (Subsidy)
  New Towns (Housing Capital Expenditure)
  New Towns (Housing Capital Expenditure)
  Housing Corporation (Housing Capital Expenditure)
  Housing Corporation (Housing Capital Expenditure)
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Grant-related Expenditure
  "Assistance With Housing Costs"
  "Assistance With Housing Costs"
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Closed Shop
  Closed Shop
  Parish Review
  Parish Review
  Betterment Levy
  Betterment Levy
  Land Commission
  Land Commission
  Departmental Grants
  Departmental Grants
  Mr. J. Alan Maudsley (Appeal)
  Mr. J. Alan Maudsley (Appeal)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Notification)
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Notification)
  Railway Village
  Railway Village
  Apartheid (Sporting Black List)
  Apartheid (Sporting Black List)
  European Sports Ministers (Meeting)
  European Sports Ministers (Meeting)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford

Industrial Workshops
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the numbers of small industrial workshops that have been constructed with the aid of tax allowances provided in the Finance Act 1980.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, as a result of the tax allowances provided in the Finance Act 1980 and other action taken by the Government, I am pleased to say that the availability of small industrial workshops is improving to meet continuing demand, and the number now being built is greater than for many years.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he can tell me how many people have been actually employed, men and women, and if some of the younger age groups, those coming from school, are getting jobs in that way?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not certain that I follow the gist of my noble friend's supplementary question. I answered a Question about industrial workshops and not about the employment of anyone.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, may I ask the Minister how many workshops, if any, have been closed since the Government took office?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to know that I do not have that figure in front of me, but the number now being built, as I said in my original Answer, is greater than for many years.
Lord Spens: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether these small industrial workshops can be rented?
Lord Trefgarne: Indeed, yes, my Lords; a number of them are being built for that purpose.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that this Question begins:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied"?
On a philosophical point, is it ever the duty of any Government ever to be satisfied about anything, and can he therefore say that he is satisfied about this?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is an interesting question but it goes rather wide of what is on the Order Paper.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend not be willing to help the House in this respect? We should all like to know what is the employment content generated by these workshops, and if the Government are satisfied about them, presumably they are also satisfied about the increased employment.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if that was the gist of the supplementary question put by my friend Lady Vickers, then I apologise to her for not understanding the point she put to me. I cannot off-the-cuff, I am afraid, give the answer as to how many people are employed in these new workshops—not all of them are yet occupied—but I will see whether I can find a figure and provide it to both my noble friends.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether these workshops are being built in the areas of highest unemployment? Is he aware that the unemployment situation throughout Wales is grave, and is becoming more serious month by month? If these workshops are indeed a success story, can he say how many of them are being built in Wales at the present time?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, a number of these new small workshops and factory premises are indeed being built in development areas, particularly those which are being financed by the English Industrial Estates Corporation, whose activities are generally confined to those areas.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, since my noble friend has been good enough to say that he will write to my noble friend Lady Vickers on the employment content of these workshops, can he not perhaps help us all by making that figure known, either in a Statement or by means of a press statement, or by putting it in the Library, so that we can all know what the figure is?
Lord Trefgarne: Indeed, my Lords, I shall be very pleased to do that if I can find the information, as I am sure I can. If my noble friend would like to table a Question for Written Answer, for example, I would be happy to answer it.

Access Week: Wheelchairs in Parliament
2.42 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will encourage Ministers, Members of both Houses of Parliament and senior civil servants to spend a full working day in a wheelchair during Access Week, starting 29th June, being part of the International Year of Disabled People, in order to discover the access problems of disabled people.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are grateful to the noble Viscount for drawing attention to Access Week in this interesting way. While I appreciate the intention underlying the Question, I doubt whether the suggestion contained in it would prove practicable even if it were possible for all those mentioned to carry it into effect.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord the Minister for his reply, may I ask him this supplementary question: Would he encourage Members of both Houses of Parliament to join with disabled people in a wheelchair tour of significant buildings in their own areas?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sure that local groups of disabled people would be greatly encouraged by the interest and support of Members of both Houses, but this is a matter which the individuals concerned will wish to decide for themselves. I would also think it would be extremely helpful to the cause for local authority officers, and perhaps local councillors, to be involved in this particular exercise.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Government will encourage the planning officers of buildings for which they are responsible to be very attentive to the access to new buildings being put up by local authorities, and planning that they should be made adequate to deal with the access to which the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, refers? It is the planning authorities of local government which I hope the Government will press on this important matter.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The Property Services Agency is compiling comprehensive lists as part of a scheme monitoring the civil estate. These will take time to complete. As they are ready they are supplied to the Civil Service Commission to assist them in the assignment of disabled candidates in the competitions they run. We are not just talking about wheelchairs. There are wider problems with people who are still disabled although not in wheelchairs. They have different access problems.

Imports from Japan
2.38 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the outcome of the recent discussions initiated by Lord Carrington on voluntary restraint on Japanese exports to the United Kingdom.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend stressed to the Japanese Government our serious concern about the growing imbalance of trade between the United Kingdom and Japan and between the European Community and Japan. He made it clear that the Government fully support the course of action recently agreed by the Foreign Affairs Council. He emphasised that the United Kingdom, in common with the other member states, is looking to Japan to exercise greater restraint in exporting and to open up its domestic market to imports.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I tabled this Question in the hope that I might have an opportunity to thank the Foreign Secretary personally for the hard work which he undertakes for the country in general and for our House in particular; and, secondly, to draw attention to the fact that the imbalance of visible trade between this country and Japan is now about £800 million per annum in deficit? The agony that this is creating for our motor industry and electronics industry is alarming. Can my noble friend assure us that if an agreement has been arrived at, further talks will go on in Japan so that we can make sure that some of the assurances that the Japanese have given will be honoured, and that we shall then see them opening their borders to our exports as well as restricting imports to this country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Government fully share his aspirations about the future progress of trade between the United Kingdom and Japan. As for his kind words about my noble friend, I will see that they are conveyed to the Foreign Secretary, although the reason why I am answering this Question today is because this is a matter for the Department of Trade.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether, alongside the restriction he has discussed, there was any substantial encouragement given to Japanese investment in the United Kingdom, as a means of rectifying this imbalance?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, certainly we do everything we can to encourage Japanese investment and other appropriate foreign investment in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord will be aware of the plans recently announced for the Nissan company to do just that.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is this not putting the cart before the horse? Are not the people who ought to exercise restraint those who resist the modernisation of archaic processes?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is another matter but it has a grain of truth in it. All the same, in this connection I think it is encumbent on Japanese exporters to exercise appropriate marketing policies.

Guinea: Trade with the United Kingdom
2.40 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 changes took place in trading relations between Britain and the Republic of Guinea in 1980.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my department's official trade statistics show that United Kingdom imports from Guinea were £10·8 million and exports were £26·6 million. Imports thus showed an increase of £10·3 million over 1979 and exports an increase of £21·5 million over 1979—though I understand that both the import and export figures may have been distorted in 1980 by items in transit. In any event, the increase in our trade is significant—which is a welcome achievement by British firms.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that reply and will he accept that those who have been pressing for greater trade with Guinea are pleased to know that this acceleration in trade on both sides has taken place? Can he tell us whether there is any question yet of ECGD cover applying to trade with Guinea, which would certainly increasingly accelerate the figures that he has given?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I have said, the increased figures which I reported for 1980 may have been considerably distorted by items in transit to which I referred. Too much importance should, therefore, not be attached to them. As to ECGD cover, I am afraid that that would depend upon a satisfactory resolution of the difficulties over the rescheduled debt agreement with which I think the noble Lord is familiar.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, as the Minister has attached the question of ECGD cover to the debt, could I ask him whether it is not a fact that the debt is below £1 million; and, in view of the fact that cuts in Government overseas aid have already cost 15,000 jobs in this country, would it not be a good gesture both from the point of view of the economy of this country and from that of further business with Guinea if that debt were cancelled and serious attempts made to arrange for ECGD cover for business with this potentially very rich country? Will he also tell us what is the comparison between the figures that he has given and the figures of trade between Guinea and our competitors, such as France, the United States, Italy and West Germany?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord what is the level of trade between Guinea and
866
countries other than the United Kingdom. But as for the question of debt, which the noble Lord has rightly associated with the question of ECGD cover, it is worth saying that the total debt owed under the rescheduled debt agreement is £7 million, of which just over £1 million is in arrears under the rescheduled debt agreement. The ECGD has to operate under prudent commercial constraints and we think that it would not be prudent to restore ECGD cover while the Guinean payment record is so unsatisfactory.

Standing Orders (Private Business)
2.51 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare) moved Amendment No. 1:
Standing Order 39: Line 17 and 18: leave out "Somerset House".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these six amendments to Private Business Standing Orders are either technical or drafting amendments. Similar amendments are being moved in another place. The first amendment, to leave out "Somerset House", is required because the General Register Office is no longer at Somerset House. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Aberdare Lord Aberdare moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 5:
Standing Order 175: Line 3: leave out "29" and insert "29A".
Lines 5 and 6: leave out "the borrowing, lending and expenditure on capital account of money" and insert "borrowing and lending by the Council and prescribed expenditure of the Council".
After line 41 insert the following paragraph:
"(3) In this Order and Order 1976 references to prescribed expenditure of the Council are to be construed in accordance with paragraphs 25A, 25B and 29A of Schedule 2 to the London Government Act 1963."
Standing Order 176: Line 4: leave out from beginning to "for in line 5 and insert, "the London Transport Executive or any of their wholly-owned subsidiaries any power involving prescribed expenditure of the Council".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 relate to the Standing Orders governing procedure in regard to the annual Greater London Council Money Bills. They are required because of amendments to Schedule 2 to the London Government Act of 1963 made by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Schedule 2 to the 1963 Act lays down the requirements for these GLC Money Bills. With the leave of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Aberdare Lord Aberdare moved Amendment No. 6:
Standing Order 193: Line 1: leave out from "which" to "shall" in line 3 and insert: "a representation under section 1(4) of the Procedure Act would be required".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 6 is to clarify Standing Order 193 which relates to the deposit of Bills under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

House of Lords' Offices
2.53 p.m.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
Moved, that the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
The Report was as follows:
1. LIBRARY
A Report from the Library Sub-Committee for the year 1980 was laid before the Committee.
2. STAFF OF THE HOUSE
A Report from the Sub-Committee on the Staff of the House was received.
3. HOUSE OF LORDS' FEES
The Committee considered the fees payable on Judicial proceedings and Peerage Claims and approved a revision, with effect from 28th April 1981, as follows:—

(a) Fees on Judicial Proceedings

£

Lodgment of Petition of Appeal

18

Entering Appearance

4

Issue of Order of Service

18

Return of Recognisance

18

Lodgment of Petition not referred to Appeal Committee

18

Lodgment of Joint Petition, from each Party thereto

10

Lodgment of Petition referred to Appeal Committee (including report thereon)

22

Application for Order on consent, in lieu of Petition

10

Lodgment of Case, including laying Case on the Table, entering Appeal in Cause List, Bar fee and Counsel attending

90

Lodgment of Joint Case, including laying Case on the Table, entering Appeal in Cause List, Bar fee and Counsel attending

180

Application to set down for Hearing

18

Petition to withdraw Appeal after setting down

18

Issue of Final Judgment

22

(b) Fees on Peerage Claims

Petition of Claimant

18

For each of the first 3 days on which the Committee for Privileges meets

45

For each subsequent day

65

Order for Attendance of a Witness

18

Resolution and Judgement

65

(c) Fees on Irish Peerage Claims

On presentation of Petition

18

Lord Chancellor's Report

18

Order made thereon

18

4. PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
The Committee approved provision for the payment of revised subsistence allowances to delegates to International Assemblies.
5. HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee approved a revised scale of fees for temporary reporting staff.
6. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee were notified of the following awards:—

(a) Death gratuity to personal representative of E. F. Stanghon, deceased, former Attendant, who died on 25th October 1980;

(b) Revised pension and lump sum to Mr. R. L. J. Pope, Judicial Doorkeeper, who retired on 13th May 1980;

(c) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. J. E. Wheelwright, Cleaner, who retired on 14th February 1981;

(d) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. A. Bellchambers, Cleaner, who formally retired on 17th June 1980;

(e) Pension and lump sum to Miss E. P. H. Blake, Wine Waitress, who retired on 3rd January 1981;

(f) Transfer value payment to Lothian Regional Council in respect of Miss S. R. Wilson, M.B.E., Superintendent, Refreshment Department, who resigned on 13th November 1980:

(g) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. R. Heitman, Cleaner, who retired on 5th April 1981.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
2.54 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. It represents an important piece of social legislation, which follows the publication in July last year of the Scottish Law Commission Report on Occupancy Rights in the Matrimonial Home and Domestic Violence. The Bill confers on the spouse who is neither the owner nor tenant a right of occupancy in the matrimonial home as an incident of marriage. It gives to the courts the power to make that right effective, and it provides for various matrimonial interdicts to protect the occupancy right of the spouse without title. The Bill also provides limited occupancy rights for unmarried cohabiting couples.
At the heart of the Bill is a significant modification in the rights which may be exercised within marriage in favour of wives in the great majority of cases. This is a change which has been widely welcomed by your Lordships. The Bill does however strike a balance between making those rights effective and ensuring that the interests of the other spouse and third parties are protected.
It has been apparent during the Committee and Report stages that some anxieties remain. On the one hand, there is a fear that despite the worthy objectives of the Bill, it may not have the effect in practice which is intended and wives who are at risk of domestic violence will discover that their plight is not improved as effectively as it should be. On the other hand, there is the apprehension, which my noble friend Lord Selkirk has cogently expressed, that in a desire to protect the wife there is a risk of tilting the scales rather too far in her favour and causing unnecessary hardship to the husband and possible prejudice to the rights of "innocent" third parties. The Government are very conscious of their responsibilities in this respect and we have amended the Bill at our own hand to take account of your Lordships' reservations in an open minded and flexible manner.
I hope therefore that the present Bill, as amended, has resolved many of your Lordships' misgivings, but I accept that some may remain and I should like to explain the Government's general position on three such aspects. There has been some unease about Clause 16 which provides limited occupancy rights for cohabiting couples. The Bill follows the thinking of the Scottish Law Commission in not seeking to provide the same rights for cohabiting couples as the Bill confers on spouses. The rights available to them are substantially less than for spouses. However, the Government have taken a rather more liberal line than the commission in one respect: by permitting the rights to last, where the court thinks fit, beyond the six months which the commission proposed as an absolute maximum. We would expect six months to suffice in the great majority of cases but we are convinced that a measure of flexibility is essential.
The Bill as now amended gives the court guidance on the factors to which it should have regard in determining whether or not a couple are cohabiting. I think that the Government's general policy must be accepted as being both fair and compassionate.

869
Another area of difficulty is the position of third parties such as creditors. Clause 6 protects the wife's rights from a dealing by the husband where she has not given her consent. This will require some changes in the practices of solicitors and building societies in relation to house purchase and conveyancing. As long as the consent is obtained, wherever it is needed, there should be no problem. It is, of course, open to the court in certain circumstances to dispense with the consent—for example, where it is unreasonably held. The approach adopted in Clause 6 seems sensible; it is one which should cause no difficulty unless dishonesty is involved. The provisions in this part of the Bill are of a highly technical nature and will no doubt receive further scrutiny in another place, but I am satisfied that they are based on a sound principle.
A final point of difficulty for your Lordships, on which it is clear that there is much strong feeling, does not relate to the substance of the Bill but rather to its form. The Bill is intended to be completely neutral as between the sexes. Moreover, the man at work and woman at home pattern of family life is no longer universal. The Scottish Law Commission's draft Bill therefore uses the terms "titled" and "non-titled" in relation to the spouses' rights in the matrimonial home, and "applicant" or "non-applicant" in relation to the spouse who has raised action in the court under the remedies provided by the Bill. These terms have been criticised as clumsy, inelegant and unnecessary. They have not, however, been subject to any censure as confusing in respect of their meaning. I think this is significant. For that reason, the Government were content to retain them despite their novelty. In sometimes difficult and technical subsections, at least it was clear what was meant. However, the Government concede that, given the emphatic view of your Lordships on this point, we are bound to reconsider it and search for more appropriate and yet concise forms of expression. It appeared in Committee that "non-applicant" had caused the greatest offence. But "non-titled"—which to the draftsman is at least the more defensible term—was resoundingly rejected in last week's Division on Report. I accept that the Government must now consider alternative terms which will both keep the meaning clear and comprehensible and also meet the stylistic requirements of another place and ultimately of your Lordships. I myself hold comprehensibility as the primary objective. Frankly, this will be no easy task. It is not a responsibility which we believe can be fulfilled to everyone's satisfaction. Nevertheless, I accept that it is a matter to which we must apply ourselves. It may be that we shall have to come back and ask your Lordships to reconsider the matter in the light of the proceedings in another place.
I am grateful to several of your Lordships—in particular the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and my noble friends Lord Selkirk and Lord Drumalbyn—for the stimulating analysis of the principles which provide the essential justification for the Bill and for your scrutiny of the often complex provisions to achieve what I think we all accept are thoroughly laudable ends. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
3.2 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the Minister of State for his handling of this Bill. He lost the head on just one occasion, and he is going to pay for it now, because the Government, having proved themselves flexible during the consideration of the Bill in Committee and on Report just on one amendment which we forced upon them, have left the position of the Bill imperfect and, whether they like it or not, they will have to reconsider matters. If they do it in the spirit in which they approached the rest of the Bill, I am perfectly sure everyone will be pleased.
The noble Earl said that comprehensibility was what he thought most important. I agree that it has a priority, but, where we are dealing with violence in the home and seeking to give protection for the affected spouse or family, it is more than comprehensibility that we want. We want ease, simplicity and comprehensiveness in the exercise of the new right that has been given. I think it is easier now than when the Bill started because before the Government produced the Bill we had a very, very complicated draft Bill from the Law Commission. I think the present Bill is very much simpler and it may be that in the simplification we got into some of the difficulties which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, rightly raised.
As I say, I am not too well satisfied with the matter of comprehensibility and I hope that the noble Earl will look again at giving more discretion to the court without drawing attention to the question of tied houses. If we reduce the right in respect of any spouse and family, then we are not doing justice to the main aims of the Bill. The Bill is a good Bill. It is one I certainly welcome, and I trust that elsewhere the Government will take the opportunity to approve it.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am very happy to wish this Bill every good fortune but I do not think one should underestimate the fact that it is a very bold Bill. It is far-reaching and changes the whole basis of conveyancing to some degree in Scotland, which is something that may or may not be fully understood by everyone for quite a long time. It gives rights which are not public, which has been contrary to the principles of conveyancing in Scotland for 350 years. I think that will need a great deal of attention from a publicity point of view.
I may say that I am concerned over the question of blackmail, which I can see being very easily used in some cases; and great care will have to be taken to see that that does not happen. Also I believe it will increase the cost of transfer of occupation to some extent both in tenanted and in owner-occupied houses. These are matters in which the skill and no doubt the ability of the Scottish Office will be put to a test to see whether they can find ways and means without hampering what in effect is the cost of houses. To give an illustration, supposing that it takes a month longer to transfer property, when one considers that about 150,000 are transferred every year it will mean effectively that about 10,000 fewer houses will be available for occupation in Scotland at any one time; so the delay in transferring houses could be quite serious.
I must say I am sorry that the noble Earl only half

871
accepts the decision which this House reached last time. I am sure he does not want to produce a good constitutional crisis on this matter, and I hope he will consider all that was said on that occasion. Where there's a "will, there's a way". I do wish this Bill good fortune, though I realise that it will be difficult for the people of Scotland to understand for quite a long time; it will need great care, particularly in publicity, from the Scottish Office.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, may I also join in thanking my noble friend for the way in which he has dealt with this Bill. As he knows, I am by no means yet satisfied on Clause 16, which deals with cohabiting. I think there is liable to be a lot of trouble in this. It is always difficult to make a partial extension of a principle to circumstances which are in many ways totally different, and I think great care will have to be taken—I am sure it will be taken in another place to examine the kind of circumstances in which applications will be made in cases of cohabitation.
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The most cursory examination of the Bill shows that, as its Short Title declares, its provisions are indeed miscellaneous in character, in that they cover a diverse range of matters affecting local authorities in Scotland. A second main feature of the Bill is that it builds on existing structures and existing legislation, although it does bring a fresh emphasis to certain existing provisions. Significantly, this is most noticeable in the provisions dealing with the financial relationships between central and local government. It is in times like the present, when it is imperative for both central and local government to have regard to the needs of the national economy, that the financial relationship between central Government (with its responsibility for national economic management) and local government (with its responsibility for the provisions of so many of our services) has to be watched with particular care.
It is generally accepted that any Government—whatever their political complexion—has a legitimate and indeed vital interest in the totality of local authority current expenditure which accounts for about half of the total expenditure within the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Because of the national economic situation in the last five years and more, this interest has frequently found expression in appeals by Government to local authorities that they should keep their spending under a tighter rein. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, may recall that in introducing the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1975 in another place on 15th December 1975—the last such order for which he was responsible as Secretary of State—he described the settlement contained in the order as "tough", drew attention to the severe economic climate affecting every sector of our national life, and stressed the need for restraint "of unheard-of stringency" in the years ahead. The noble Lord
872
may also recall—it is a matter of public record—that the general response of local authorities to his appeal was, to say the very least, disappointing, and, under pressure from the International Monetary Fund, his successor in office was forced to make substantial reductions in the level of rate support grant with the objective—and, in the event, the result—of reducing local authority spending to a level within the Government's financial targets.
The need for local authorities to restrain their spending is no less now than when the noble Lord was Secretary of State. Since the present Government came to office, Ministers have, in public statements in Parliament and elsewhere, as well as at meetings with local authorities, made plain the important role local authorities have to play in the national interest in bringing down public expenditure to a level we can afford. Guidance has been sent to each authority by circular, so none of them can be unaware of the Government's objectives in this respect.
I pay tribute to the efforts of those authorities—including some not of the same political persuasion as the Government—who have responded responsibly and with good sense and who are trying to keep expenditure under control for the good of the nation. But others have failed to do so and they are jeopardising the national strategy and hurting their own ratepayers—including commercial and industrial ratepayers, who are striving in current difficult economic circumstances to keep their business viable and provide employment. I must tell the House that the Government simply cannot accept irresponsibility of this kind. We are accountable to the nation to ensure that public expenditure as a whole is managed in the public interest with due regard to economic realities.
It is quite clear from the returns showing outturn expenditure for 1980–81 and planned expenditure for 1981–82, which authorities have sent in to the Secretary of State in the last few weeks, that expenditure some £80 million in excess of the Government's guidelines has occurred in 1980–81 and that authorities plan to increase this overspending in 1981–82. The Secretary of State is currently examining these returns to find out the extent of that planned excess in spending and which authorities are mainly responsible for it.
The Secretary of State, in considering the means of taking action, has carried out extensive consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. He was informed that the present rate support grant system—which seeks to compensate for variations in local needs and resources—works quite satisfactorily and is generally acceptable. Having weighed that advice, we accordingly came to the conclusion that we should not alter radically the present system, but should seek to extend our existing powers to make selective reductions in grant payments to individual authorities.
The Secretary of State already has power under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 to reduce grant, subject to prior approval by the House of Commons, to any local authority incurring excessive and unreasonable expenditure. The power now has a decent maturity; it first saw the light of day some 50 years ago and has been re-enacted twice by Labour Governments. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, may recall that the latest re-enactment of the power—in the 1966 Act—was during his term of office as Secretary of State for Scotland.

873
Section 5 of the 1966 Act empowers the Secretary of State, subject to the approval of the House of Commons, to reduce grant to a local authority if he is satisfied that it has incurred excessive and unreasonable expenditure. Useful though this power is, it is somewhat lacking in effectiveness, mainly because any grant reduction can be made only after the relative expenditure has been incurred.
The proposals in Clause 14 of the Bill will render this power more effective by allowing the Secretary of State to reduce grant where an authority, in striking its rate, budgets for excessive and unreasonable levels of expenditure out of line with the expenditure assumptions made by the Government in fixing the total of rate support grant. Clause 14 also introduces certain additional criteria which will enable the Secretary of State to take into account all relevant considerations in determining whether planned expenditure is excessive and unreasonable.
It may also be helpful in this context if I mention Clause 16, which will enable the Secretary of State, when he is calculating the amount of resources element payable to an authority which fixes its rate on the basis of excessive and unreasonable planned expenditure, to substitute a lower rate poundage for the actual rate poundage. This power will enable the Secretary of State to prevent such an authority profiting from increased resources element at the expense of authorities generally, and offers an alternative or supplementary procedure to that provided by Clause 14.
A reduction in rate support grant would not, however, be completely effective if an authority were able to maintain an excessive and unreasonable expenditure level by borrowing. Clause 18 accordingly seeks to prohibit an authority, without the consent of the Secretary of State, from using loans fund moneys to offset any part of a reduction in rate support grant; while Clause 27 will require a local authority to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State for borrowing to meet certain non-capital expenses.
The Government have always emphasised that a major purpose of their proposals is to benefit the local ratepayer, and that is why the powers to reduce the rate support grant otherwise payable to an authority are complemented by another new power in Clause 15 of the Bill, which will give an authority facing a reduction in rate support grant an opportunity to reconsider its spending plans and to fix a new, lower rate. This is not possible under the present law, which does not allow alteration of a rate poundage once fixed. The authority will, in effect, have the choice either of suffering a reduction in rate support grant, or of returning a similar sum to its ratepayers, who will therefore be able to benefit immediately from an authority's decision to prune its budget. If the authority has any regard at all for its ratepayers, it should not find the choice difficult to make.
The remaining provisions in Part II follow on from those I have described. Clause 17 makes provision for the new powers to be effective in the local authority financial year 1981–82 and thereafter. Clause 19 provides that the Secretary of State may use estimates of expenditure for rate support grant purposes—including the purposes of Clauses 14 and 16—if an authority fails to provide required information timeously. Naturally, it would be preferable in all
874
cases to operate on information provided by the authority, but it is wise to provide against the possibility that these important policies could be frustrated by the deliberate withholding of information.
I should also mention for the convenience of your Lordships a related provision in Schedule 3. Paragraph 11 proposes a further amendment to Section 5 of the 1966 Act, the general effect of which is to provide the Secretary of State with wide discretion to restore to the original recipient all, or part, of a reduction in grant made under the provision of Clause 14, if the authority's subsequent conduct merits restitution, or to distribute up to the amount of the net reduction to other authorities to the extent that restitution is not made.
These proposals are not an attack on local democracy. Local authorities will remain frce to determine their own level of spending and local priorities between one service and another, with fair and substantial support from the Government. But, assuming enactment of the Bill, in the current financial year and in the future that support will be subject to modification by the Secretary of State if this freedom is exercised irresponsibly and an authority plans to incur excessive and unreasonable expenditure.
I turn now to capital expenditure. Capital expenditure by local authorities in Scotland is subject to cash limits and it is an essential feature of this Government's policy that these should be observed. It is the Secretary of State's intention to continue to control capital expenditure through the financial planning system which has been developed in cooperation with local authorities in recent years. This control is based on Section 94 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and Clause 26 would enable that control to be modified in two ways: first, by allowing the Secretary of State to withdraw or vary any consent to incur capital expenditure, where the consent in question is not yet fully taken up. This will enable some limitation to be made if monitoring of returns during the year indicates that capital expenditure is going faster than expected. It will also introduce an element of flexibility into capital expenditure controls which could be used, for example, to transfer savings from one authority to another.
Secondly, Clause 26 will allow the Secretary of State to extend by order the scope of Section 94 to include capital consents taken on lease by local authorities or financed out of current revenue. Whether these formal extensions are required will depend on the results of a voluntary approach which is being tried out this year, following consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. If authorities are prepared to count leased assets against their block consent allocations, and to keep within reasonable levels the amount of capital expenditure financed from current revenue, then the Secretary of State may be satisfied that the cash limit can be observed without any formal change in the system. Naturally this is his preferred course, but it remains to be seen how local authorities will respond.
I now come to the remaining provisions of the Bill concerning local government finance. Part I proposes a series of amendments to the Scottish valuation and rating code. I know that the rating system does not have many friends, and indeed the Government are

875
at present considering alternatives to domestic rates. It is because of the possibility of a change to the system—and to introduce a useful flexibility—that the Secretary of State is seeking the powers proposed in Clauses 1 and 2 which would enable him to defer future rating revaluations—including that presently due in 1983—or to require that only certain prescribed classes of lands and heritages be subject to revaluations in the usual way. It would be wasteful to revalue property if shortly afterwards rates no longer had to be paid on it, and Clause 2 would be very useful if it should so happen that only part of the rating system is changed at any time.
The remaining provisions in Part I make useful but relatively minor and technical improvements to the present code, and are included on the principle—with which I do not think anyone could quarrel—that a longer-term commitment to do something about the rating system is not an excuse for leaving it in a state of neglect in the meantime. Through these clauses we can trace the theme of simplifying administrative procedures and eliminating uneconomic work; as an example I might cite Clause 9, which by doing away with part-year increases in the rateable value of dwelling-houses, will reduce demands on ratepayers and also relieve local authorities of the need to go to considerable trouble and expense to levy and collect small sums of supplementary rates. This group of clauses springs mainly from representations by ratepayers or local authorities themselves, and have been agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
Part III of the Bill is concerned with the housing support grants which are payable to local authorities under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978. At the outset I might mention that the need for the changes made by
Part III has been accepted by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The 1978 Act requires the Secretary of State to estimate the aggregate income and expenditure on the housing revenue accounts of all Scottish local authorities, and the amount of housing support grant which falls to be prescribed is the sum necessary to bridge the gap between income and expenditure so estimated.
This process has produced satisfactory results since the provisions were first applied for the year 1979/80, but there are now signs of changing patterns on housing revenue accounts, not least because of the effect of inflation in reducing the real cost of debt repayment. We now have the prospect of individual authorities running into surplus on housing revenue account. That is, in some places income will probably exceed expenditure with the result that the aggregate amount of housing support grants will be reduced by the amount of any local surpluses. There would then be less grant to distribute among the remaining authorities and a smaller sum than that necessary to meet their reasonable needs.
Clause 21 will avoid this undesirable effect by allowing the Secretary of State when estimating the aggregate amounts of income and expenditure to leave out of the reckoning the income and expenditure of any authority which is expected to be in surplus on its housing revenue account.
The clause will allow the exclusion of an authority in another, somewhat special situation. Housing
876
support grants are distributed among authorities by such method as may be prescribed under Section 2 of the 1978 Act. The prescribed method may vary from year to year according to circumstances, but there is always detailed discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Secretary of State gives great weight to the convention's advice. For technical reasons a distribution formula may afford no grant to an authority even though the aggregate grant calculation would ascribe to that authority an excess of expenditure over income. Such an excess would of course increase the aggregate amount of grant to a sum greater than necessary to meet the needs of authorities which do qualify for grant under the prescribed distribution formula, and so Clause 21 allows the exclusion from the block calculation of authorities not qualifying for grant under the formula.
Clause 22 makes a corresponding amendment to Section 2 of the 1978 Act to remove any doubt as to the competence of prescribing a method of distribution of grant which does not afford grant to every authority. I must now return briefly to Clause 21 to mention further changes of a highly technical nature which it makes to Section 1 of the 1978 Act and which will simply bring the legislation into line with the manner in which it has necessarily been interpreted in practice. Clause 21(2) therefore provides that these amendments to the 1978 Act shall be deemed always to have had effect.
Finally, I come to Part IV of the Bill. I have already dealt with Clauses 26 and 27, concerning capital expenditure and borrowing, and I now propose to discuss briefly the remaining clauses. Clause 24 and Schedule 1 make minor but useful improvements to the provisions under which the Commissioner for Local Administration operates in Scotland. The changes have been agreed with the commissioner himself. Clause 25 and Schedule 2 relax a number of detailed controls, many in the planning field, which central Government presently exercise over local authorities. These relaxations will help to further the Government's policy of disengaging as far as possible from the day-to-day administration of purely local affairs, and will also lead to minor administrative savings both locally and centrally.
The abolition of certain non-governmental bodies by Clauses 28 to 32 will also produce savings, but I should stress that we are not seeking to justify our decisions on financial grounds alone. In each case we have satisfied ourselves that advice from the bodies concerned is no longer necessary or can be obtained from other sources. Clause 33 will allow water authorities and water development boards a useful discretion in enforcing by-laws they have made to prevent waste, misuse or contamination of water by enabling them, with the Secretary of State's consent, to relax by-laws if they consider it would be more appropriate not to enforce them in a given case.
Clause 34 concerns one of the conditions which a local authority may lay down under Section 9 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974 before giving a house improvement grant. At present, an authority may require that the house to be improved must, when it is not occupied by the applicant for grant or his family, be let or kept available for letting, the purpose of such a condition being, of course, to discourage

877
grant recipients from converting the grant into cash by selling the improved house at a price which reflects the grant received. There may often be a genuine reason for sale—for example, if the head of the household is obliged to move house to take up employment elsewhere. And since many local authorities are clearly reluctant to use their discretion not to require repayment in deserving cases it seems sensible to abolish the requirement as to letting altogether.
Clause 35 extends the right to buy their council houses to several thousand tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association in Glasgow and Dundee. At present they are unable to buy their houses because, although the houses were built by the SSHA they stand on land leased from the district councils who have refused to sell the land to the association. The clause gives power to the Secretary of State to transfer ownership of land from any "right to buy landlord" to another "right to buy landlord" where such a transfer is necessary to enable tenants to exercise the right to buy. The power will be used only where a voluntary sale cannot be agreed, but it will prevent the local authorities in Glasgow and Dundee from continuing to obstruct the SSHA from selling the houses to their tenants.
The effect of Clause 36 is to require planning authorities, when considering any application for planning permission in connection with a public building, to draw the developer's attention to his general duty under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to ensure that adequate provision is made for disabled persons to have access to the building. The developer's attention will also have to be drawn to the British Standard Code of Practice on the matter. The clause will clarify planning authorities' existing powers to impose any good condition on the granting of planning permission in connection with a building open to the public. It seems particularly appropriate to ensure that developers are fully aware of their responsibilities towards the disabled in 1981, being the International Year of Disabled People.
Lastly, I might mention Clause 37 which suspends the operation of two provisions in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 which were inadvertently brought into force as a result of a technical error.
As I made plain in my opening remarks, this Bill touches on a wide range of matters affecting local government in Scotland. These range from the important new provisions relating to rate support grant to comparatively minor but helpful relaxations of control. Many of the provisions will be useful to local authorities but I must acknowledge, in conclusion, that from the Government's point of view the most immediately useful powers will be those which will assist the Secretary of State in his task of bringing under control the local authority component of public expenditure in Scotland. These powers are necessary not just to protect the interest of the hard-pressed ratepayers of Scotland but to satisfy the national economy. The Government need make no apology to anyone for bringing these provisions forward. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
3.31 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, this Bill seems to us on these Benches to be to a large extent unnecessary although admittedly it covers such a wide range of measures and subjects that some of them are an asset; but it is unnecessary with regard to its main purposes, and also unacceptable. There are a number of reasons for thinking that the major part of this Bill is not necessary. To start with, the Secretary of State already has powers under the 1966 Act, a matter which the noble Earl the Minister mentioned, which can be invoked if an authority's expenditure is considered to be excessive, and I believe that those powers have never yet been used.
This Bill is based on the assumption that local authority expenditure is too high. The Government White Paper on public expenditure, however, stated that between 1974 and 1980 local authority spending in Scotland fell by 9 per cent. whereas over the same period expenditure by St. Andrew's House increased by 7·6 per cent. It is not local authorities that are putting up public expenditure. Indeed, the Government have admitted as much. The Secretary of State for Scotland has said:
"Authorities responsible for the greater part of expenditure are now showing a moderate and sensible approach to expenditure levels".
So the problem is, as in England, with one or two authorities, and indeed probably in this case with only one—with Lothian. If this is so, do we really need such wide-ranging and restrictive legislation: legislation which gives far too many powers to the Secretary of State and is basically a centralising Bill? This Bill would penalise all authorities for the acts of only a few.
If we have any faith at all in local government and in devolution we should at the moment be straining every effort to encourage more of it, not less. This Bill moves in the wrong direction. In aiming at those authorities who are disposed to ignore current economic realities in framing their expenditure plans, this Bill alters the relationship between the Secretary of State and local authorities in a way that is centralism of the worst kind.
Part II of the Bill is concerned with the levels of the rate support grant. It enables the Secretary of State to reduce the rate support grant if he is satisfied that the authority has incurred what he considers to be excessive and unreasonable levels of expenditure. Clause 16 enables him to use estimates of expenditure in planning the level of rate support grant if authorities fail to provide the required information. As the Secretary of State put it, and as I think the Minister put it just now, this is to prevent frustration by the deliberate withholding of information. Clause 14 enables the Secretary of State to substitute a lower rate poundage for actual rate poundage in determining the entitlement to RSG of excessively spending authorities.
Clause 23 enables the Secretary of State to withdraw or vary consent to capital expenditure. He can place a moratorium on local authority spending. Through these clauses the Bill thus gives substantial powers of intervention to the Secretary of State, and even if the present Secretary of State gives assurances about the way in which he will use these powers he cannot give any such assurances to govern his successors.

879
Part III of the Bill deals with the housing support grant. Clause 18 allows the Secretary of State to disregard the expenditure and income of certain authorities in determining the aggregate amount of housing support grant. Clause 19 amends Section 2 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978 to allow for prescription of methods of apportioning HSG. The calculation of housing support grant is being made on the basis that in 1981–82 local authorities in Scotland will put up their rents by 40 per cent. Looking at the figures per house the impact of this can be seen: in 1980–81 it was £255 per house and in 1981–82 it will be in the order of £156. It is still maintained that there is some freedom of manoeuvre by local authorities and that they do not have to increase their rents, but if they choose to raise their rates instead the Secretary of State has the power under Clauses 13 and 14 to claim that their expenditure is unreasonable and he can cut their rate support grant accordingly. It does not appear to be a very great liberty that they have.
I think that the central issue with regard to this Bill was outlined very well
by my right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Grimond, when he stated that it was a question of the balance of responsibility and powers. Either the central Government should take some of the responsibility from local government as they are taking powers—at the moment they are taking powers without responsibility—or local authorities should be given more powers for the way they conduct their affairs. This Bill does not decide the issue; indeed, it fudges and complicates it. It merely gives the Secretary of State more power but not more responsibility. If he is to act responsibly he will need much more staff in order to make informed decisions; he will need to take over some of the responsibilities of local government as well as the powers. As it stands, the Bill provides no satisfactory criteria on which decisions are to be based. There is only a reference to general economic conditions and to such criteria as he considers appropriate.
This Government came into power making considerable noises about freedom and devolution of power and cutting central Government borrowing. In many areas—and particularly where it has touched local government—they have done exactly the opposite and have done it in a major way ever since they came into power. I think it was a very great pity that it happened in England, but the fact that the Secretary of State in England got himself into a problem where he could not find his way out without taking immense centralising powers I should have thought was not a reason why the same thing should happen in Scotland, where the difficulties and the problems are admittedly much less. It seems to be just another example—and a bad example—of the Government thinking that they have to do in Scotland much the same as they were doing in England. We think that that is not a good principle.
We will watch this Bill through its next stages with interest. On the face of it, it does not appear that there is very much that we can do to this Bill to make it acceptable. Nevertheless, we, and no doubt noble Lords in other parts of the House, will be studying ways in which we can improve it. If we do not manage
880
to improve it, we will feel, I think, that this is an unacceptable Bill and that we will have to vote against it on Third Reading. But in the meantime I hope that your Lordships will be able to do something to make what is a bad and unnecessary Bill somewhat less bad and somewhat less unnecessary.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for the clarity of his presentation of the Bill, but we share many, if not indeed all, of the reservations which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, upon its terms. As he said, the House will be considering the terms of the Bill with great care, with a view, if that be possible, to effecting the necessary improvement.
One thing is certain, my Lords; its provisions are certainly miscellaneous, and my recollection is that miscellaneous statutes were extremely unpopular with the Scottish legal profession, for reasons which no doubt will be clear to your Lordships. Indeed, my recollection is that in particular some learned professors of law used to reduce themselves to a state of near apoplexy when miscellaneous provisions statutes were presented to Parliament. It is true that the degree of their apoplexy varied according to whether the political complexion of the Government presenting the Bill was in accord or not with their own particular prejudices. But I need not detain your Lordships, and you would not wish me to do so, by dilating on the idiosyncracies of Scottish professors of law.
I find myself a little embarrassed at having to address your Lordships at this early stage of the Bill, for this reason, that it is the principle of one particular of the miscellany of clauses in this Bill to which I wish to invite your Lordships' attention. It is one which I was surprised that the noble Earl did not expand upon a little more, and it is Clause 36 of the Bill, which inserts a new subsection into Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. As your Lordships will remember, Section 26 of the 1972 Act makes provision for the determination by planning authorities in Scotland of applications for planning permission. It lays down the various matters to which planning authorities must have regard, must take into account, or must do, in dealing with and determining applications. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, as amended by the subsequent Act of 1976, places upon a variety of persons a duty to take certain steps to provide for the needs of the disabled.
Thus, if I may expand a little on its provisions, any person undertaking the provision of any building to which the public are admitted must provide for the needs of the disabled so far as access, parking facilities and sanitary conveniences are concerned. A local authority providing public conveniences must do the same. Owners or occupiers of premises such as hotels, restaurants and places of public entertainment are required in the same way to provide sanitary conveniences, if required to do so under the public health Acts; persons providing buildings for schools, universities and colleges, so far as the means of access, parking and sanitary conveniences are concerned, must do likewise. These provisions were extended by the 1976 Act to offices, shops and railway premises to which the Shops, Offices and Railway Premises Act 1963 apply,

881
and also to factories as defined by the Factories Act 1961.
The duty on all such persons is quite clear; they must provide in these various respects for the disabled. The only qualification is that the provision shall be so far as it is in the circumstances reasonably practicable. So the position is that Parliament has said that these various persons owe to the disabled these duties. Parliament failed to provide a sanction in the event of these persons neglecting their duty. Nor did Parliament provide who should be the judges of what was reasonably practicable. For myself, frankly I cannot understand why planning authorities have not ensured that the provisions of the 1970 and 1976 Acts are complied with. I should have thought that that would have been a matter of planning wisdom. But I am informed, and I gather from what was said in the other place—and I think it is implied by the fact that the Government have introduced into this Bill the provisions of Clause 36—that in fact since 1970 this duty to the disabled placed upon various persons has not been adequately discharged.
What concerns me is that the Government, having apparently acknowledged that this is the position, should have introduced a clause which seems less than adequate to the needs of the situation. Surely, if Parliament has said that this duty rests upon these people, it is not sufficient for the Government at this stage, if they admit that that is the situation, simply to ensure that the applicant in any planning application is aware of these duties laid upon him under the statute. Surely the Government's concern, if the duties are not being discharged, is to ensure that they are discharged, simply by making them mandatory. I should have thought that that would have been their approach to the matter. I cannot understand the reluctance, particularly in this year, and I hope that in the course of the Bill the provisions in relation to this particular matter will be radically strengthened.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank, as I am sure would other noble Lords, my noble friend Lord Mansfield for the very clear way in which he introduced this Bill. I propose to raise three points about three of the miscellaneous provisions. The first and most important is in Clause 36, which has just been alluded to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. As chairman, for Scotland, of the International Year of Disabled People, I have been ventilating three guiding principles, which I call the three As—access, awareness and adaptation.
Here in Clause 36, we have an opportunity of looking at the first, access. I am glad to see that there is something in this Bill. But what we must ask is, is it enough? This Scottish Bill appears to give us the only opportunity during this International Year—1981—to make progress on the question of access for disabled people. The present wording of the clause does not go nearly as far on access as the recommendation in the report of the Silver Jubilee Committee. That report was published in January 1979 and it recommended that the access sections of the 1970 Act be made mandatory, subject to individual cases where it was unreasonable and impracticable. I understand that the Committee on Restrictions
882
against Disabled People, which advises the Department of Health and Social Security, agrees with that recommendation. The British Standards Institution brought out a code of practice in 1979 and I am glad to see that it is mentioned in Clause 36.
So the way ahead is clear. This will happen anyway. It is only a matter of time. The country will insist upon access provisions for public buildings. As regards new public buildings there will be increasing pressure for this to take place. Also eventually there will be the adaptation of existing buildings. However, the demand for new buildings to have proper access arrangements is the result of growing public awareness and concern and that is what we are promoting during this International Year.
When new buildings are being considered in future it may well be cheaper and less trouble for the developers and builders to include proper access arrangements in the initial construction plans. Adaptation later is usually expensive and can be very awkward if access arrangements were not thought about at the design stage. Surely the Government would agree that in 1981—over 10 years after the access legislation in the 1970 Act—no new building intended for public use should pass through the design stage without consideration of access. Too often in the past that point has been forgotten until it is too late. There has been an improvement in the past 10 years—a great many more buildings which are open to the public are considered at the design stage than used to be the case before 1970. However, this matter is still being overlooked. Those concerned with the planning and the building of a new structure will have many other factors on their minds which they have to take into consideration. There ought, therefore, to be an automatic reminder, an obligation, that they must consider access for disabled people at an early enough stage.
The 1970 Act is not obligatory. What I suggest, therefore, is that new buildings to be open to the public should be subject to a procedure which ensures access for disabled people unless it can be shown to be unreasonable or impracticable. I reiterate that this is only to be applied to new buildings. I know that the local authorities in Scotland do now possess the power to refuse planning permission if dissatisfied with access arrangements. I believe that in this regard Scotland may be ahead of England and Wales. The trouble is that local authorities either use those powers or do not use them in a most haphazard way. I doubt whether further circulars from the Scottish Office would have much effect on this, but I would ask my noble friend whether perhaps at the end of this debate or later he could inform the House about the review of Scottish building standards regulations which is apparently, or has been, taking place, in the light of the British Standards Institution's code of practice on access. The Secretary of State for Scotland last month in another place stated that such a review was going on. So I would ask whether any result has been reported yet or whether any views have yet been formed. One way in which the situation could be improved would be through revising the building standards regulations by which new buildings would have to be regulated.
The Department of the Environment may have difficulties about this matter, and I keep seeing this in papers and correspondence and in reports from the

883
other place. However, it need not affect Scotland. The Scottish Office is, among other things, the Department of the Environment in Scotland. Almost everything that is done by the Department of the Environment for England and Wales is done
by the Scottish Office in Scotland. Certainly it deals with local authorities on all these matters and dispenses the Government grants to those local authorities, besides the fact that there is separate Scottish legislation. So there is no reason why we should not go ahead in Scotland. Indeed, we have done so in other fields in the past, leading the way for the rest of the United Kingdom.
In the matter of access for disabled people it appears that everyone concerned in the country accepts that we are all due to go in the direction of providing arrangements for access for disabled people in buildings for public use. The difficulties are simply those of readiness and timing. As regards developers and builders, if the matter is considered at an early enough stage it should not cause increased costs. Any cost would be derisory. Indeed, it could well save them spending money later on adaptation. The building industry is unfortunately under-employed at present in Scotland as well as elsewhere. The extra tasks of putting in ramps as well as, or instead of, steps is surely nothing that will overstrain that industry in present conditions.
Of course, the tidiest way of dealing with this matter would be, as the Silver Jubilee Committee recommended, to apply this to new buildings which are in the categories already in the legislation—that is, the 1970 Act. But should there be difficulties about doing that in this Bill—and I recognise that it covers shops, banks and pubs and that there may be difficulties or exceptions, although they may all be covered by the question of what is reasonable and what is practicable—I should like to ask the Government whether they could not make sure that publicly-owned buildings were covered; that is to say, that as regards every new building to be owned by a public agency (the Government, Government departments or local authorities) such as a library, museum or offices which the public are expected to enter, such provision should be made mandatory. I have spoken at a little length on this point but I think that it is worthwhile making it now, well before the Committee stage, because I hope that the Government will give considerable thought to it.
I attended last July the opening of a new housing estate by Her Majesty the Queen on the outskirts of Edinburgh, which was for disabled people living alongside able-bodied people. It was one of the schemes of integration. One of the matters that was made clear to all of us was that the disabled people, particularly those in wheelchairs, could go anywhere in the neighbourhood. In quite a short time they could go down from the first or second floor; out into the street and into the supermarket; all round the supermarket shopping, including coming out and paying, without any difficulty. Moreover, in even quicker time they could go down in their wheelchairs, along ramps the whole way, into the local pub and up to the bar. That was a happy demonstration of what can be done when people have really thought things out beforehand.
884
The other two matters I can deal with very briefly. Both concern Clause 25 and Schedule 2. The Government intend to relax, or bring to an end, certain Government controls over local authorities. In general, I welcome this. But I suggest to them that care is needed when they try to remove controls where the Secretary of State is in the position of a referee, with expert knowledge at his disposal.
The first point concerns community councils, in paragraphs 31 and 32 of Schedule 2. If this matter is to be left entirely to local authorities, in some areas the community councils—which may have been at odds with those local authorities—will certainly feel that their interests may not be properly looked after. Indeed, some of the new schemes that may come forward—if they are only to be decided upon without any kind of appeal by what in Scotland would presumably be the district councils—may never come to anything, because the district councils may decide that they do not want community councils in the area, for they may think that the community councils might simply give rise to a certain amount of trouble for them.
Therefore, I would ask the Government to look at that again, to see whether some reference or appeal should remain to the Secretary of State. I would also ask whether the community councils in Scotland have had any opportunity to express views on this; whether the Socttish Office was able to carry out consultations with them or their representatives before this provision was brought forward.
My last point concerns tree preservation orders. I declare an interest, as I have before in your Lordships' House, of owning a small forestry area in Northern Scotland. But I am also a conservationist and have myself successfully suggested to local authorities that certain tree preservation orders should be made, and they were made. So I have seen this from both sides.
However, in paragraph 23 of Schedule 2 again reference to the Secretary of State is being completely removed. There is anxiety among forestry interests that local authorities with little knowledge about trees or forestry—and there is no particular reason why they should have such knowledge—might make decisions which were inimical to forestry interests. The Secretary of State has access to expert knowledge and he would be able to be the best judge where there was a difference of opinion with forestry interests. I understand that the number of occasions when the appeal which is available has been used in the past is small, so this would not involve very much in the way of work. I hope that the Government will also reconsider that point.
4.3 p.m.
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, I rise to speak as one who has had six years' experience as an elected regional councillor since 1974. I should like to speak from the practical background that I have gathered during that time. When the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 devolved powers to the newly reorganised local authorities in May 1975 there were many people—both within and outwith local government—who had severe misgivings. The margin of unease was very wide, stretching from those who saw the Act as heading for disaster from the start, to those who were prepared to find fault with it purely for fault's sake. There were

885
also those—and I count myself among them—who were prepared to give the entire Act the benefit of the doubt and to work unswervingly in its support.
From this your Lordships will gather that throughout Scotland there were a multitude of opinions, from the destructive to the constructive. But however that may have been, there was also one single, solid, common area of belief, and it was shared throughout our nation. It was that the purpose of the Act had been to devolve from central Government to local government greater powers, and thus to increase local democracy and local involvement. Of that purpose there was no doubt whatever in anybody's mind.
Sadly, as I reflect upon the actual course of events since May 1975, I have to come to the conclusion that far from central Government relaxing and devolving their powers to local government, they have consistently taken actions which tighten the controls and decrease the intended benefits of local democracy and local involvement. It is not short of the truth to say that now, as never before, central Government exercise powers which virtually destroy the original intentions of reorganisation. It is my contention—and I say this quite genuinely with a heavy heart—that parts of the Bill before your Lordships' House today may well prove to be the final nail in the coffin in which will be buried the body of local government as we know it to be presently constituted.
It is, of course, true that the Bill contains certain relaxations, but these are as nothing when they are compared with the additional powers to be granted over local government, which, in my view, in places are absolutely deadly. When a person or a body is under attack—and local government is presently under attack—I believe that it is only fair to analyse the principal areas of criticism, and this I should like to try to do.
In the simplest possible terms, the charges made against local government are those of overspending and lack of control. But is this, in fact, true and if, in certain cases, it appears to be true, are these charges brought about by the actions of local government alone? If I am to make my point, it is necessary for me to invite your Lordships to return to the first half of the 1970s. During that particular period of time it was the deliberate policy of central Government to encourage local government to expand its spending programmes, both capital and revenue. This deliberate policy resulted in an increase in capital expenditure in real terms of 6·9 per cent. in 1972–73; of 23·4 per cent. in 1973–74; and by a further 1·4 per cent. in 1974–75. That was the final year of the old form of local government.
As is well known to your Lordships, increases in capital expenditure imply an increased commitment to current expenditure in future years. That this fact was fully recognised by central Government is clearly indicated by the increase in the rate support grant for 1975–76, the first financial year following reorganisation when the rate support grant was increased, in order to cover that area, to 75 per cent.
The changeover from the old to the new system also took place at that time when local expenditure was increasing within the same deliberate pattern established over previous years, and it took place at a time of very high inflation. It is true that there was a sig-
886
nificant increase in local expenditure during the period of reorganisation. But most of this can be accounted for by inflation, over which local government has no control, and the inherited commitments of the new authorities, again over which they had no control.
An indication of how seriously under pressure the new local government was at that time is recorded in the Scottish Office Financial Division Circular, already mentioned by the noble Earl the Minister of State, 75–1975 dated 22nd December 1975. It was a circular very well known to all of us involved in local government in those days. Within the circular—and I make no bones about repeating the quotation—we in local government were requested to exercise "a stringency hitherto unheard of". This we had in fact been doing, but we continued to do it so that in the financial year 1975–76 instead of there being an increase in capital expenditure as in previous years there was a decrease of 11·2 per cent. in real terms. It was also possible to contain the rates burden by use of balances. But the fact remains that since reorganisation up at least until 1979 70 per cent. of all expenditure increases can be accounted for by inflation.
May I now turn to the implications of grants. Between 1972 and 1975, 70 per
cent. to 79 per cent. of expenditure increases were accounted for by additional grants. However, following reorganisation, and against the inherited expenditure increases that I have already described, in our first year, 1975–76, only 44 per cent. of additional expenditure was financed by additional grants—44 per cent. rather than the 70 per cent. to 79 per cent. of the four years prior to reorganisation—while at the same time rate support grant has fallen from 75 per cent. in 1975–76 to the present level of 66·7 per cent. By any standards local government has received from central Government swingeing cuts.
These figures that I have quoted I have not provided as excuses but rather as facts which, when subjected to the closest interrogation within the total context of the financial pattern, prove beyond doubt the responsible and at times in my view nigh miraculous control of local government expenditure. There are of course a few exceptions, as there are to any rule, and I put up no defence whatsoever of those irresponsible elements. But taken in the grand mass the self-control of local government makes St. Andrew's House and Whitehall a picture that is positively black.
It is more for that last fact than for any other that I take the strongest exception to the presumption within this Bill that the Secretary of State, be he who he may, knows what is best for every local authority electorate. The Bill in my view contains elements which are a travesty of the intent of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. If I did not know the Secretary of State personally to be a man of great humanity and great humility I would describe as absolute arrogance the suggestion that the Secretary of State should be taking unto himself powers contained within Part II and elsewhere in this Bill.
Whether he likes it or not, within the present constitution the individual local authority is elected by the local electorate to provide and maintain certain services governed by statute. Unless it can be proved that it is acting contrary to the law, then the present proper method of disciplining a local authority is through the courts or through the ballot box. To

887
me it is quite extraordinary to assume that the top civil servants and their masters know as well or better than the local politicians what the individual needs and aspirations are of the beneficiaries of the services provided by local authorities. On top of that is the fact that within this Bill I can find no proper definition, or clearly laid down rules of procedures, and yet the Secretary of State will be given wide powers to decide when he considers a local authority is spending excessively and unreasonably.
To make matters worse, as I understand it the Secretary of State will look at expenditure on all services grouped together and then, if he considers them excessive he is going to have the right to say which of these services shall suffer a reduction of rate support grant. If these powers are to be given, the next logical step of intrusion would be a direct intervention as to the element local rates form of an area's economic policy—and once you have done that you have killed the purpose of the local authority as we know it.
I am genuinely sad to have had to say these things at a time when I believe that the Government need support upon our road to recovery. Perhaps it may sound to some as if I have over-reacted to this Bill, but I wonder in fact whether it is not the Bill itself that is the child of over-reaction. We all know in Scotland who are the sinners in this field, and we all support the Government's anger when it is directed at those who are clearly at fault. But there are 65 local authorities, and for an example only six of those have found it possible to fall within the Government's revenue guidelines for the year 1981–82.
Does this mean that the 59 local authorities in the view of the Government are all wrong as to the needs and reasonable expectations of those they represent? Does this mean in the view of the Government that all 59 of them are irresponsible? Does it mean that they are all politically opposed to the Government? It most certainly does not, for they come from straight across the political field. When the friends, of which there are very many in Scotland, of the Government become as vociferous as the foes is it not just possible that the guidelines themselves indicate a clear distance of central government from the realities of life within the local authorities? Perhaps change in the constitution is required. If so, may I beg the Government to come through the front door with honesty and not to try to achieve their ends by entering through the basement window.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I rise to take part in this debate having spent a great number of years in local government in Scotland, in particular the Borders. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, took my place as the representative when, in 1975, after 29 years, I thought it was time somebody else took on the responsibility. I shall not follow what the noble Earl said because I think it is for my noble friend Lord Mansfield to answer those points, but I must tell him that his reaction was a little over-strong. I say that because, having spent many years in local government, I find no difficulty in supporting the Government in the Bill, which contains a number of important aspects,
888
and I could not agree with him that the measure is devoted entirely to taking away responsibility from local government. I should have been perfectly prepared to continue as a regional councillor operating under a Bill of this kind, as we have worked under a great many other measures.
Be that as it may, we must accept that conditions today are far different from what they were when I was a county council member. We were not faced with the very high inflation which exists now or with income going down all the time. I hope that what we did in those years will go down in the history of local government as things that were worthwhile, and of course we were able to do those things because we had the money to pay for them. The ratepayers approved of the things we were doing and of course the costs were much lower than they are today. Therefore we were in a much happier position, and that is obvious.
Considering the conditions facing the Government now and the fact that there are several very extravagant local authorities which are not paying due attention to what the Government are asking of them, I believe that the Government are right to take additional powers which will at any rate prevent inflation getting worse; of course we all hope that the situation will get very much better.
I have received so many letters and so much information on the subject that I cannot refrain from quoting a few figures to show how disruption can occur in relation to local responsibility under present conditions. I have received many letters from one region in particular, the Lothian Region, where current expenditure is £63 million above the sum that authority is supposed to be spending, while all the other regions altogether are overspending by only £87 million. In other words, in one region alone there is far more overspending taking place than in any other. In that area, expenditure has risen from £198 million in 1978–79 to £383 million in 1981–82, and, although the Government have agreed to raise the support grant from £114 million to £169 million, the rates there are abnormally high, and that is hitting people very hard indeed.
In fact, in the last three years the rates have risen by 25 per cent., 42 per cent. and 50 per cent. respectively. There is therefore justification for the Government taking a very serious view of that state of affairs. That region is
largely governed by Labour councillors who appear to take a much less responsible view of the current situation. Because of the anxiety that the situation there is causing, my informant tells me that groups of ratepayers are going round the region pointing out where extravagances are taking place and where savings could be made. I understand these groups have been given the collective title of Ratepayers Action Group Executive, whose initials are RAGE, which is a ferocious word to use in this connection. People are bound to be anxious when the nation is in such a bad way and economic conditions are so bad.
Nobody dislikes having to economise more than I do. For all the years I was a county councillor we were in the happy position of being able to save up to do the important things that were wanted in the area, so we had the money to do those things and we did not need to raise the rates by anything like today's increases. I am sure the Bill contains a number of items—my noble friend Lord Mansfield will no doubt draw attention

889
to them—which will lead to economies being made and that there will be schemes of, for example, rate rebates. The Government will of course explain to councils how such rebate schemes can be implemented.
In one of the very small East Lothian boroughs, my home town of North Berwick, is a small residential holiday centre of which a large proportion of the population are retired elderly people. Hopefully they will be able to apply for rebates, but they will not want to do that from choice because they have been independent all their lives. Many of them depend on the holidaymakers who come there, and many of them are in the low income groups. Most people in that category are anxious to pay their own way; rates which are reasonable and which they can pay without help they are anxious to pay, rather than call on the Government to assist them.
In my view the Government are right to try to curb expenditure in areas where overspending is injurious to the population and is unfair to many of the ratepayers. In my region in the Borders, although economies are having to be made, they are managing to carry on local government in what appears to me as a ratepayer to be a highly satisfactory way. It shows that economies can be made if people have the courage and desire to make them.
The noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Wilson of Langside, spoke about access to places by the disabled. I think Clause 36 could be improved so that more help along those lines could be provided at little extra expense. As Lord Campbell said, if plans for new buildings include special arrangements for the disabled, those facilities can be included for much less than is the case once the building has been completed and alterations have to be made. It is surprising that even nowadays, when we have a much better outlook on integrating the disabled into the community, there are architects and planners who forget when planning buildings that a large number of people in wheelchairs will want to use them and for whom it is vital to have the kind of access about which noble Lords have spoken. I very much hope that the Government will look with sympathy on this particular clause and that we shall be able to have a provision which will ensure that the kind of mistakes which have occurred in the past will not be made in the future.
There are a number of other points in the Bill with which I hope we shall be able to deal in Committee. But, taking the situation as it is, with the difficulties that face local authorities and the Government, I think it only right that at this time there should be some powers to restrict the extravagant and to help the non-extravagant, and to see that there is fair play throughout the whole of the regions of Scotland.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, I, bearing the name that I do bear, always feel that I owe the House an explanation when I intervene in purely Scottish affairs. I hope to explain the reason in a moment. At this stage I want to raise only one point, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for having in fact already raised it, but I should like to digress on it further for not more than two minutes. I refer to those paragraphs of Schedule 2 which relate to timber preservation orders.
890
My reason for speaking on this matter—and I have to declare both an interest and a reason—is that I am the honorary president of the timber growers of Scotland, and I am involved with other organisations concerned with land use north of the Border. There is grave concern among landowners, large and small, farmers, foresters and I dare say gardeners, too, about the removal of the right of appeal to the Secretary of State over a timber preservation order—or TPO—which is disputed. In this respect what I have to say is contrary to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who stated that under the Bill the Secretary of State will be doing too much. I am saying that lie will be doing too little, because paragraphs 22 and 23 of Schedule 2 in effect provide that the local planning officer will be given the power to impose and confirm any TOP he wishes, whether or not there are any objections to it, and the owner will then have no right of appeal to anybody. So the local planning authority is to be judge and jury in these kinds of cases. I understand, as I think my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy mentioned, that there are very few instances of appeal to the Secretary of State, so I cannot think that the onus on central Government would be very great.
I am among those members of your Lordships' House who will wish to raise this matter again at the Committee stage, and I very much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will, with his usual sympathy in regard to matters of forestry, give the proposal further consideration and see whether it could not be changed for the better and the right of appeal to the Secretary of State restored. I have two particular reasons for suggesting that. One reason is that legislation is soon to come our way following the Government's private forestry consultative paper on felling control and grant aid, and I believe that whatever is done about timber preservation orders ought to be considered in the light of that document.
The other point is that the sub-committee on forestry of the Select Committee on Science and Technology (on which I sat under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield) has made a recommendation in a report that tree management orders ought to be substituted for tree preservation orders. I am most disappointed that, because of the timing of events, the Government and Ministers have never had an opportunity to study and consider the report of the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. However, I hope that they may yet do so before we finish dealing with the various forestry measures which are to come forward in the weeks or months ahead; in fact one of them is due to come up tomorrow. That is all that I wish to say, and I very much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will on another occasion be able to be helpful to us regarding this matter.
4.35 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, as an Englishman I, too, wish to apologise to the Scots present in your Lordships' House for taking part in the debate, but Clause 36 particularly concerns disabled people and that is my reason for speaking. I should like to support the noble Lords, Lord Wilson of Langside and Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Baroness, Lady

891
Elliot of Harwood, who have already spoken on the clause. The 1970 Act placed an obligation on developers of new buildings to which the public have access to provide facilities for the disabled, but no means of enforcing that obligation were included. Unfortunately, there are still being erected buildings which have unnecessary steps. I think that all of us in this House would agree that in principle all new buildings should be accessible to the disabled, except where that is physically impossible, or would be unreasonably expensive.
In this connection the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned shops and pubs. I believe that to disabled people shops and pubs may be even more important than publicly-owned buildings and it is important that they should be included in any provisions, with the same kind of let-out where it is physically impossible or unreasonably expensive to make them accessible for the disabled.
So my feeling is that Clause 36 ought to be much stronger than it is at present. We should like to see the onus placed on a new developer to show that it is impracticable or unreasonable to provide access for the disabled, because we feel that in principle all new buildings should be accessible in this way.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am perfectly sure that the attention paid to Clause 36 of the Bill will give very considerable pleasure to my Labour colleague in another place, Mr. John Home Robertson, because it was he who introduced the clause. It will give him even more pleasure when he discovers that, like him, Members from all over have recognised the importance of the clause and feel that it should go further. I look forward to the very considerable help that we are to receive during the Committee stage when we deal with the point about access for the disabled.
The point was taken up in relation to a fairly new police headquarters in Ayr—the local concrete "Kremlin". It is quite a new building. When it was suggested that the question of access for the disabled ought to be considered, the reply was that the police headquarters was not a public building. That appals me. It is quite disgraceful that in this day and age people should be so insensitive to the needs of the disabled.
When we come down to the main aspects of the Bill, I do not know that the Minister of State can be very pleased with the acceptability of it. I think there was only one person—and that was the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot—who really defended the Government and the powers they were taking. She did not go into the powers; and she told us she had been a member of a local authority, not now but some time ago. It must have been rather sad for her to listen to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, who took her place on that local authority, with his present knowledge of the feelings of people in local government, condemning the Bill and warning us that this could be the last nail in the coffin of local government as we know it, and the local government of which we have been so proud.
Since the end of the war I have been concerned with every single Local Government Bill. I was either on the Committee dealing with it, right from 1946, or
892
for eight years as Secretary of State I was the person responsible for it. I say that from the point of view of the continued existence of local government this is the worst Local Government Bill that I have known in that time. That is an attitude which, I am glad to say, is shared by other people. I remember that we have Members in this House who have all the experience that I have had. There is a whole team behind the noble Earl. There are, I think, eight or nine. There are three ex-Secretaries of State; there are Ministers of State; there are Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State—a whole team of them. Not one of them has come forward today to support him in respect of this Bill. No wonder he is drafting in reinforcements!
We were all expecting we were going to get a rather shattering new outlook on local government in Scotland, reviewing how re-organisation has gone. This task was given to an ex-Under-Secretary of State. He has reported, and he is now being honoured. He is going to come in, and we shall be able to question him about his report, the Stodart Report. We will welcome Tony Stodart here, but I do not think we can suggest to him that he gave us everything that we looked for in respect of his suggestions about the reorganisation of local government—grey areas being decided on, and one or two other things like that.
When you come down to it, the balance between local government and central Government is a delicate one. We in Parliament are to blame for most of the burdens of local government. Every Bill we pass we should examine to see whether or not we are giving local government more to do, and if we are giving it more to do we should be asking the question: Are the Government prepared to support it financially? The last Bill we in this House passed in respect of local government was a Private Member's Bill. It had the support of the Minister of State and the Scottish Office. It was to deal with the mentally handicapped, when we said that we would extend the privilege of concessionary fares to them. I was reading the Strathclyde Report. They welcomed it and applied it. To the people who are blind, to the people who are crippled, to the people who are old and to the people who are deaf we added the mentally handicapped as among those who have the right to concessionary fares. How much did it cost Strathclyde? It was £500,000. Should we have denied them it?
But if we will that to be done then we have to got to will the finance to do it, and not come along and say that the local authorities are irresponsible, that they are out of control so far as expenditure is concerned. I think the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Minto, highlighted this particular point. There are 65 Scottish local authorities, and all but six cannot meet the guidelines put down by the Government. That is a serious matter; and that number includes the local authority of which the noble Baroness was a distinguished member at one time. She knows what our rate poundage is from the region. I think it is only a penny different from that from Strathclyde. That is less than the Highland Region, because she is 83p. and the Highland Region rate poundage is 93p.
When you look at it, what determines the responsibility otherwise of a local authority? There is nobody who is going to tell me that local authorities

893
sit down and say, "By how much can we increase the rates?" They have tried their best to get the balance right because we have willed upon them standards in education, standards in social work and standards in planning. We have given them new burdens. Then along come the Government and say, "You will cut down". That is what they have done. Local authority spending is not out of control. If there is anything which is out of control, it is spending by the central Government. I think the figure given to the Corrie Select Committee was that between 1965–70 and 1975–80 expenditure by Scottish local authorities in real terms went down by 13 per cent. At the same time the expenditure by the Scottish Office went up by 13 per cent. It is Satan rebuking innocence in this case, not Satan rebuking sin.
But now we come along with this Bill. Hitherto, Scottish Secretaries of State have said, "We can handle the matter; we do not need draconian powers such as the English Ministers have taken". I think the Minister of State suggested that in my time I was tough with local authorities. Of course I was tough with local authorities, but I got the balance right. Reluctantly they agreed—and I was actually at the negotiations—on eight separate terms on rate support grant. But I was fair.
The important point in relation to local government expenditure is that you sit round and you decide what is the reckonable expenditure. If a Government come along and cut the reckonable expenditure to an unreasonable figure, then of course rates are going to go up. That is what the Government have done. They did that last year, and they are doing it again this year. Of course, you have got to go back to December of last year, when we had the rate support grant statement. The rate support grant was cut by 3 per cent. I have here all the various cuts that were made, and, let us face it, these are the things we are talking about—what the Government did in the cuts. There was sewerage, highways, education—right through. They laid down their assessment as to where the local authorities should cut.
But, then, after you have settled that, there comes another point. The Secretary of State decides by how much he will support that reckonable expenditure. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, said that in 1975–76, when I was Secretary of State, the figure was 75 per cent. I think it is only fair to tell him that there were unusual circumstances in relation to the changeover, and it went back a bit later on. But this Government have cut it, and cut it deliberately, at a time when more support is needed. We were told in December that it was going to be cut by another 1 per cent.—it was 1·9, but there were certain calculations in respect of the ·9 per cent. So there you are. You have unreasonable rate support grant, the reckonable expenditure figure, and you have the Government cutting down on the support they are going to give. Of course the rates are going to go up.
Then, of course, we are not finished there. There used to be a time when the Government took into calculation while the year was on amounts in respect of increased orders; that is to say, if there were unusual circumstances, if the teachers' salaries went up or the salaries of other people—and, remember, local government is very much a labour-intensive industry—or if prices went up, they would negotiate with the local
894
authorities and strike a figure to balance that out. They do not do that now. Read the same White Paper of December! The Government said that they would not support in this current year and give additional grants in respect of increases of wages and salaries over 6 per cent. That is from August last year to August next year. Has any single person within local government got 6 per cent. or less—the police, firemen, teachers, anyone else? This is the burden that local authority has to bear, a burden placed on them deliberately by the Scottish Office. Then they start this hare running that local expenditure is out of control. It is not local expenditure that is out of control; it is the heads of the Scottish Office and the Government—heads which are in the sands! So that they start this myth about local government being out of control; and now they come along and say that they will need to take more powers in this Bill to control it. They say that it is all very reasonable, that they are just tagging it on to existing powers which are there in Section 5 of the 1966 Act. I have a copy of what is said in Section 5 of the 1966 Act, for the purpose of greater accuracy. If there was ever deceit, there is deceit even in the rubric of this Clause 14 of the Bill, which reads:
"Reduction of rate support grant where local authority's estimated expenditure excessive and unreasonable".
Clause 14 reads:
"In section 5 of the 1966 Act (which among other things provides that an element of rate support grant payable to a local authority may be reduced where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the expenditure of that authority has been excessive and unreasonable)—".
What Section 5 said was that first there would be a reduction in expenditure if the local authority was not meeting the reasonable standards. That remains, I suppose. I warn the Scottish Office that they had better get going, because if they reduce the support to local authorities it may be that certain of the standards that Parliament has asked them to maintain they will not be able to meet and they will need to bring into force subsection (1) of Clause 5 of the 1966 Act.
Then Section 5 of the 1966 Act went on to say, the other case:
"that the expenditure of any local authority or joint board has been excessive and unreasonable, regard being had to the financial and other relevant circumstances of the area or areas concerned".
The circumstances only of the area! If one goes back—and this goes back 50 years—this was related not to excessive rates; this was related to manipulation of the formula by local authorities who, by manipulating the formula, would get a higher grant from the Government. It goes back beyond the rate support grant, beyond the Exchequer equalisation; it goes back to General Grant himself. It was for different purposes and it never has been used—not once in its 50 years. And this is where the Government say that they are just naturally adding to that. Are they? They should have come out with new Bill and people would have known the nature of the powers that they were going to take; because you could act under this after the money had been spent and you could cut the grants for the following year, and it was in relation to people who were saving up money and not providing the services that they were budgeting for perhaps so that in the next election they would be able to reduce

895
the rates. These things can happen! Many people are able to manipulate formulae and the Government still have the power to manipulate formulae in the rate support grant.
I can remember in the times when there were boroughs and counties that a local authority in one of the boroughs decided to raise their rents. That meant raising their assessment; and that meant that they paid a great proportion of the education charge. In Ayr, the rents went up; because of that the rates went down in Kilmarnock. There was the ability to manipulate formulae; and this was related to that and not to the kind of problem the Government have at the present time.
What will happen here? Remember that we have all had our rate demands! I do not know about the Minister of State, but I got mine last week. The assessments have all been made. The Government now say that at the time of assessing the estimated expenditure the Secretary of State is going to ask them to let him know and he will examine it to see if he thinks it is excessive and unreasonable—not in the light of circumstances in the area—and there is a long list of other factors to which he must have regard in determining whether the esitmated expenditure is unreasonable. He must have regard:
"to expenditure or estimated expenses, in that or any preceding year, of other local authorities".
You cannot always compare one local authority in Scotland with another: the Highlands with Strathclyde, or Strathclyde with the Borders. Every noble Lord who has been in local government knows that this is just words—whitewashing a power which should never have been taken. This is lovely! We shall have a good time with this in Committee. I hope the Government are prepared to give us two or three weeks in Committee. I may be alone on this side but I am all for getting it right by amendments; and I shall get plenty of help from my English colleagues. What does,
"are closely comparable (or as closely comparable as is practicable)",
mean? It is about as meaningful as the non-titled spouses and the titled spoures that we had a go at the other day. It does not end there. He must then give consideration to the,
"general economic conditions; and
(iii) to such other financial, economic, demographic, geographical and like criteria".
What are "like criteria" to that? It is on the basis of all this. And he must hear the local authority and tell them that they are excessive and unreasonable. How long will this take?
And, suddenly, in the midst of all this the rates can be changed. But the rate reduction is not necessarily given back to the local authority. It might only be part. There are so many wonderful questions in this! And, bearing in mind the figure given by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that of the 65 there are 59 defaulting local authorities. Can we not be told which they are and what action the Government will take and when? Is it Strathclyde?—Strathclyde which has half the population of Scotland, including me. My rates have just gone up and I shall come to that point. If I forget, let somebody before I sit down whisper the
896
valuable word "valuations", and I shall have a word or two to say about that. Strathclyde: what have they done? In the past seven months they have cut about £40 million off their budget; they have reduced their manpower by, I think, about 2,000 people. Everytime they make somebody unemployed it means additional expenditure on the Government side, so it is not all clear sailing. Yet they still cannot meet the guidelines. If they met the guidelines their rates would still have to go up by 31 per cent. instead of 37 per cent. This is the impossible task that the Government have given to local authorities.
Who is going to decide what is excessive and unreasonable? There is evidently some new Solomon that I never knew when I was there lurking around the carpeted corridors of New St. Andrew's House. Here we have the Secretary of State getting into trouble with local authorities. He cannot be so good as all these four Secretaries of State that now inhabit your Lordships' House. We never had this trouble. They thought we were tough, but we never had this trouble. What has gone wrong with the Scottish Office team? He comes along with a solution with all the subtlety and tenderness of Lord Braxfield. He has to deal with the whole of the Scottish local authorities as Braxfield did with the radicals of his day when he said:
"They'll be nane the waur o'a hangin'".
This is the attitude of the Secretary of State to Scottish local government. Well, it will not do. We had high hopes for the reconstructed local government of the 1973 Act. I see the noble Lord who was the Secretary of State at that time is in his place. The man who carried the Bill through most of the Committee stage was the present Secretary of State. I can remember the ringing phrases about strong, viable local government: "Local government will be free, not dependent, not interfered with by the central authority".
And what have we now? The greatest punitive and interfering powers that we have ever had initiated by Mr. George Younger who took that Bill through. It does not end at the rate support grant aid. We go on the same with the housing support grants. The powers in relation to housing support grants are such that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, suggested that everything showed further interference there. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to this as well.
It is not a question of whether a local authority is in surplus; it is a question of whether it is made to go into surplus by virtue of the formula because the basic and central element of the formula is the assumed income of the local authority; and what is further assumed is not what the rent is but what the rent should be. We have already been given the figures that the rents for this year have to go up by 40 per cent. and the local authorities are tied to a recompense of 6 per cent. in respect of increased wages and 11 per cent. in respect of increased costs.
In the city of Glasgow half the people in local authority houses are getting rent rebates and rate rebates, and unemployment among householders is probably higher there than in any other part of the country, but they have to have their rents increased by 40 per cent. This is done by this tender Government,
thoughtful all the time of the human spirit and human

897
people. Is it not nonsense? Of course the local authority cannot possibly put up this 40 per cent.
If this is continued for another two years of the life of this Government there will be no support for council housing in Scotland at all. Nevertheless, there is support for private housing through income tax rebate and that will still continue. It is going to be a strange situation. Remember, if they do not put the rents up they are going to be attacked for the first time in respect of the capital spent on housing. It used to be that the capital provision on housing was related to needs, but now it is going to be whether or not they behave themselves.
This is political and financial blackmail of the worst kind. It would not be so bad if this Government had a mandate; but they have no mandate from the people of Scotland. There are 22 Tory Members of Parliament from Scotland. There are 44 Labour Members. At least the local authorities who are objecting to what is being done here, the local authorities who are fixing rents and determining expenditure, have an electoral mandate from their electors. I shall be speaking for a long time; I am the only speaker from this side of the House and I am going to take my allotted span. I hear the noble Lord opposite refer to three score years and 10. But I had that last week. The Government, as usual, are late.
The actual fact is that the local authorities have their mandate and the Government have none. I do not know why on earth the Government should descend to taking action like this—and it may well be just one local authority, or of course, for all I know, it may be the whole 59 local authorities. I do not know how the Government can justify this. It is causing concern. I hope that they will think again about it. I noticed today reading (I think it was the Scotsman) that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in England and Wales are protesting about this Bill. They are protesting because the powers are so sweeping, so punitive, that they fear that they will be introduced for England next; that Scottish local authorities are being reduced to—I think their phrase was—"outstations of central Government".
They are being reduced to puppets of central Government. I do not know whether the Government appreciate that. In respect of local authorities, they are reducing them virtually to puppets. One of the hopes of the re-organisation of local authorities was that it would attract a different people of quality because they had power as well as responsibility. Now they have responsibility but the power—and it was suggested again I think by the noble Earl—has more and more been taken into the hands of the Government.
I want to say a word or two about valuation. I do not like what the Government are doing in respect of valuation. They are taking for the first time the power to change the year of valuation in Scotland. We have had a sad record in England and Wales about valuations. They seldom take place at the quinquennium and we are used to them being a bit erratic in respect of this. Only on one occasion have we departed from the five years in Scotland. Why is it being done? I know that no one loves valuation and the rating system of Scotland which is based upon valuation. It is an outdated feature that a person should be rated and pay local taxes on the house that he lives in. There could be four or five wage-earners
898
in a small house but because it is a small house they pay very little rates. In a large house there could be one single person on a fixed income hit by inflation but he pays high rates. There are variations within Scotland as to the assessment in relation to rates.
I am very glad that one of the authorities, one of the Quangos, that the Government have decided to retain is the Scottish Valuation Advisory Committee, although I see for some reason or other they are reducing its size from eight to six members. But what has that advisory committee been doing in relation to the uniformity of rating? I do not expect the Minister of State to know because he is fairly new to his office and he was not there at a time when certain problems arose. I know areas in Ayr—I live in one—in Prestwick and Troon where at the last revaluation assessments gross annual values were "bumped" by a multiple of four and five.
It is about time that assessors should be able to give reasons for their changes in valuation and objective judgment and give them before appeal point. At the initial appeal they ask that the appellant should give reasons why they think they are too highly rated, but for the actual figures which have been set, and against which the people are appealing, the assessor gives no judgment. I can assure him I would be very annoyed if the 1983 valuation does not take place on time, because I have been amassing more and more evidence in relation to the lack of uniformity in judgments in relation to assessments throughout Scotland. In case he thinks that I am barking up the wrong tree there, I would refer him to a small Bill that was passed in which a change was made allowing anyone in Scotland who is aggrieved by valuation to be able to cite not just a house in the same area or the same town but anywhere else in Scotland. I suggested about 18 months ago to the Secretary of State when this arose that he should ask the Scottish Advisory Committee on valuation to look into it. It has never been done, but I think it is an important point.
We will come to valuation later on, but here again we find the Secretary of State taking powers to change the valuation date and to restrict the valuation to seven kinds of property. He tells us the reason is, "We do not like the whole system and we might change it all". We have had this before. Local rates were going to be abolished by the party opposite. Then they said they would take education out of the local authority's responsibility financially and would pay the whole thing. Nothing like that has happened and nothing is certainly in the Stodart Report to give an indication that this is their way of thinking at the present time. Like a true Scot on the Labour side, I am very suspicious of Tories: there must be some ulterior motive! It may not be the Minister's motive. Of course, 1983 is just before the next election. I should warn your Lordships also that the valuation officer in Scotland is also the electoral registration officer. It may well be they will be able to afford the cost of a revaluaton at the same time as they are getting ready for an election; but I cannot be at all certain why Clause 1 is there.
I do not like Part I. Part II I absolutely detest. Part III in relation to housing support grant means that the housing policy of this Government is now to raise the rents, sell the houses, raise the rates and get

899
rid of government support for housing. It is a pretty bleak outlook for Scotland, a Scotland that never put them into power at all. The only good thing is probably Clause 36. That is about all I can say, and we will make every effort to ensure that in respect of planning we will be aware of the importance of access, and access at the start is much less expensive than adaptability, but we will do what we can to strengthen that.
I should like to say just one other thing. On 17th March 1981 the Scotsman addressed itself to this Bill. It said that these legislative proposals
"…would allow him to penalise an authority the estimated expenditure of which was considered excessive and unreasonable'.".
He is going to consider that and he is going to judge whether it is "excessive and unreasonable". They say also:
"Mr. Younger exercises his power because of the voting predilections of people in the south-east of England not because of the support of the Scottish electorate; those whom he is attacking, on the other hand, at least are exercising authority granted them by electoral right".
They go on to say:
"Without question the new amendments"—
that is this legislation—
"present a threat to the authority of local government. If the sole judge of what councils can spend is to be the Secretary of State then local independence will be a mirage with no place for councillors' discretion or judgment. To argue thus is not to condone authorities which challenge the Government at every turn, which meet dogma with dogma and so lose sight of the interests of their ratepayers. That is a political issue … What Mr. Younger is proposing is a constitutional change of fundamental importance but of doubtful value".
I hope the Government will think again about this and have a little more respect for the whole traditions of Scottish local authority and a little more faith in Scottish local authority. If we get the balance wrong, and the balance is being tilted in favour of central Government, then local government—that was damaged in many people's eyes by the re-organisation following 1973—is being further damaged by this particular Bill. So let the Government think again.
5.17 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading debate, coming as they have from several shades of the political spectrum and among some of whom at any rate there is very considerable experience of both local government and of central Government. Not least I include here the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who, in his own allotted span, as he described it, was careful to extract the last ounce of party political juice from this particular lemon. But I do not blame him for that.
I said I think fairly clearly in my introductory remarks that several of the provisions of this Bill are of considerable significance for local government in Scotland and of course I agree impliedly, I think, with the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that they certainly can affect the delicate financial relationship which exists between central Government and local authorities. This importance has been reflected by several speakers in this debate.
900
The main point put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and I fancy also by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was that these provisions in effect come too close to providing an exercise in control over local expenditure in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, prayed in aid the views of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in England and Wales who are reported in the Scotsman as saying that the Bill could reduce authorities to administrative outposts of central Government. I suggest that is overstating the position to a very great degree in the same way as, if I may say so, I think the noble Earl, Lord Minto, overstated the position. I am not sure that he quite appreciates the limitations which there are in this Bill and the safeguards, checks and balances which are written into it and which I have no doubt we shall discuss at very considerable length in Committee—also, of course, for quite reasonable political motives, on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Ross.
I suggest that this Bill does no more than propose an extension of the powers of the Secretary of State to influence local government expenditure and I do declare that influence of this nature has been recognised by successive Secretaries of State of both the major parties to be necessary. Indeed, all of them have used it at one time or another in various different degrees. At the moment, an extension of these powers is justified by two factors—
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, can the noble Earl say when I used these powers?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, as I said when I opened, the noble Lord proposed his rate support order and he was, at the time, concerned at the levels of expenditure. He did not reign long enough to influence what he wanted, but that was not to say that he was not concerned—
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, with all due respect, the noble Earl made the implication that I has used these powers. I was Secretary of State for nearly eight years. When did I use these powers?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, every year—four times a year, I think—as Secretary of State, the noble Lord sat down with COSLA and argued the toss as to what their spending was going to be. If the noble Lord is saying that in all those meetings he did not try to influence the local authorities, then I am quite sure that he, or I, must be mistaken. I do not believe for one moment that the noble Lord, occupying the position that he did in St. Andrew's House, did not bring all his powers of persuasion to bear on the local authorities.
If I may get on, as I have tried to say there is a combination of two factors which justifies this present increase in power. These factors are very simple, if one analyses them. First, there is an increasing need for restraint in public expenditure which arises from our current economic situation. The second factor is that there is a reluctance on the part of one, or more than one, authority in Scotland to exercise the kind of restraint that our circumstances require. In those circumstances, what is the Secretary of State to do?

901
What are the Government to do? We have to look at our powers again and, in the circumstances as we find them, we have to seek to supplement them.
I assure noble Lords that there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent a local authority from carrying out specific items of expenditure which it wished to carry out, and which it was lawfully entitled to carry out. But the Secretary of State, with his responsibility for the administration of the rate support grant, is entitled to secure that the grant is not used to support excessive and unreasonable levels of expenditure—and I emphasise that phrase. Even in such instances, if the Secretary of State is ultimately successful in withholding grant from a local authority he cannot veto any specific item of expenditure. So the freedom of local authorities, as I believe, is still very much there. Where their freedom is restricted is in budgeting for totally unjustified expenditure in our present circumstances.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities claim that the Scottish proposals go
much further than those for England and Wales. I think the difference is that the block grant provisions in England and Wales reduce the grant payable on local authority expenditure above a certain level, whereas the Scottish proposals depend on an act of judgment on the Secretary of State's part in deciding whether expenditure is excessive and unreasonable.
Of course, it is a fact that the Secretary of State has the duty to determine what is excessive and unreasonable expenditure, but, as the Bill provides, his initial judgment must have regard to financial and other relevant circumstances. If the Secretary of State failed to take any such relevant circumstances into account, the local authority concerned would have substantive grounds for its representations against the report. It is a major safeguard that all this has to be taken into account by the House of Commons, before approval is given to a report which could result in the withdrawal of rate support grant. So that, as I argue, the Scottish arrangements are at least as fair to the individual authority as the system which is to be operated in England and Wales. This, I think, has been quite overlooked by the Association, at least so far as they are reported in the Scotsman.
It is because we wish the powers which have been in existence since 1975 to be effective that we are fortifying the existing borrowing controls so as to make it clear that a local authority cannot cover loss of rate support grant by recourse to borrowing money. A local authority will still have that power in the short term, in anticipation of income receivable, but not to make good income lost from a reduction in rate support grant. It is in order to protect the ratepayer that we are introducing a power to allow a local authority to levy a lower rate; not a supplementary rate as is available in England and Wales. Our objective is, therefore, that local authorities should effect an actual reduction in their expenditure.
Obviously the Secretary of State regrets the need to introduce these powers to cut rate support grant and my right honourable friend wishes that there was no need to make use of them. But it is unfortuante, though nevertheless apparent, that overspending in Scotland in 1980–81 and local authority budgets for 1981–82 are running at an unacceptable level. It is
902
significant, I suggest, that the manpower reductions achieved by local authorities in England and Wales have not been paralleled in Scotland. Our systems and circumstances are, moreover, significantly different and I think that the use of different powers to suit our different circumstances in Scotland is fully justified.
Perhaps I may come to some of the more important points which were put to me by noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy had three points. First, he and, indeed, other noble Lords—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, among others—commented on Clause 36. I think I am right in saying that, basically speaking, the clause was welcomed but anxieties were raised.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we are anxious to do all we can for disabled people, particularly because this is the International Year of Disabled People. Clause 36 requires planning authorities, when considering any application for planning permission in connection with a public building, to draw the developer's attention to his general duty under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to ensure that adequate provision is made for disabled persons to have access to the building. The developer's attention will also have to be drawn to the British Standard Code of Practice on access for the disabled. The clause will clarify planning authorities' existing powers to impose any condition justified in planning terms on the granting of planning permission in connection with a building which is open to the public, and an undertaking was given in another place to issue a circular on this point. These measures should ensure that developers are fully aware of their responsibilities towards the disabled.
However, we feel it is wrong that the question of access for the disabled should be singled out as a material factor, when a planning authority is determining a planning application, since material considerations are not defined in the Planning Acts and what is material will vary with the individual circumstances of each application. It is a matter for the application of general principles derived from judicial decisions that make it possible to decide what, in any individual case, is material. Planning authorities can impose—and, in the past, have imposed—conditions relating to access for the disabled and the proposed circular will set that out. Nor would it be appropriate to use the Planning Acts to enforce a statutory duty under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. It is a fundamental principle of the Planning Acts that they should not be used to regulate matters which are dealt with under other statutes.
My noble friend asked for an automatic reminder to be given to developers, who are seeking planning permission, of their duties in relation to access for the disabled. We think that, in effect, Clause 36 provides for this. For the reasons I have explained, it would not be possible for a planning condition to ensure that that duty was complied with. But I would certainly expect that adequate access for the disabled should be the norm in any new development to which the 1970 Act applies. The circular which is to be issued will provide absolutely unequivocally for the planning system to play its full part in drawing developers' attention to their duties. I hope that this will satisfy

903
my noble friend, to whose work as Scottish chairman of the International Year of Disabled People, I should like to pay my own, and very sincere, tribute.
My noble friend asked next about community councils. I think his point was that the Secretary of State should retain his powers to deal with amendments to community council schemes where these are opposed. My noble friend emphasised the need for the Secretary of State to retain a role in relation to community council schemes so as to enable him, in particular, to act as a kind of arbiter in cases where amendments proposed by a local authority are opposed by local interests.
We accept entirely that the Secretary of State had a valid part to play in the initial formulation of community council schemes, not least to ensure that there was a broadly similar approach throughout the country. Now, however, that the basic schemes have been agreed in each area, we take the view that any amendments which are considered to be necessary in the light of local circumstances should be the subject of debate and decision locally.
To ensure that due weight is given to local interests we are proposing a statutory provision for full public consultation. The Bill envisages that any decision by a local authority to review or amend a scheme must have the approval of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. There are, we believe, important safeguards—and these are they—against hasty or ill-considered changes which do not reflect local views. My noble friend asked in effect what consultations had taken place in relation to these proposals. I can tell him that both COSLA and the Scottish Council for Social Services were informed about these proposals and did not demur.
My noble friend's third point, which was also echoed by my noble friend Lord Dulverton, related to tree preservation orders. Only the relatively few tree preservation orders against which representations or objections are made and not withdrawn require at present to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. A local
authority which makes an order currently confirms it as unopposed if no objection or representation is raised. We are not aware of any consequent difficulty for private timber interests. The right of appeal to the Secretary of State against refusal of consent to fell will of course remain.
At present there is no discernible dissatisfaction with local authorities generally carrying out their responsibilities for tree preservation orders and there is no reason to anticipate change in this respect. Therefore, so far as consent to fell is concerned, appeal to the Secretary of State will continue to be the right of those whose applications are refused by a local authority. The planning authorities, in considering whether or not to make a tree preservation order, will have to take into consideration the representations made to them by interested parties when the order is advertised. However, we shall look carefully at the points made by my noble friends concerning the relationship between the system of tree preservation orders and the recent developments in forestry policy which we debated not so long ago in your Lordships' House and which we shall be returning to tomorrow.
904
I have—and equally without offence, I hope—tried to answer the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, in general but I think that I should answer him in a little more particular form. He spoke on the basis that local authority expenditure has, at any rate in the main, been reasonable. I think that was the burden of his remarks. It is right to say that, from 1975–76 to 1979–80, Scottish local authority expenditure decreased further than public expenditure generally but that from 1971–72 to 1975–76 the opposite was true: local authority expenditure in Scotland relevant for rate support grant increased by 31 per cent. and the gross domestic product rose by 6 per cent. There is no reason why Scottish local authorities should not contribute realistically to the cuts in expenditure which are currently being sought by the Government.
I have already answered my noble friend's point that the Bill in no way detracts from a local authority's discretion to decide its own priorities so far as the services which it provides are concerned, but the exercise of the Secretary of State's existing powers, as extended by the Bill, will require an authority, in considering a high level of spending, to consider also the responsibility it hears to the national economy as well as to the people in its own area.
Another burden of my noble friend's argument—and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, argued this—was that local authorities are being made to bear an undue and unfair share of expenditure cuts. It has been suggested that local authorities are being asked to make unpleasant decisions instead of the Government. One has to remember that local authority expenditure is a large and important component of public expenditure and that it must be reduced, but the proportion of the reduction which it bears depends upon the content of local authority programmes.
For instance, education accounts for nearly one-half of local authority expenditure and the decline in school rolls entails a related reduction in expenditure on education. Expenditure by central Government includes substantial demand-related expenditures which are increasing, so a direct comparison overall is not appropriate. However, to take services with common characteristics, such as road transport, the 1981 White Paper shows that expenditure by central Government declined by nearly 33 per cent. from 1975–76 to 1980–81, while expenditure by local government declined by 24 per cent. in the same period.
The noble Lord—I hope I am answering his very well argued speech persuasively, because it was one which obviously had a great effect upon your Lordships—spoke about the guidelines as being possibly unrealistic and that as a result the authorities, or the great mass of them, are to be penalised. I want to emphasise that the guidelines are not mandatory. They are indicative. Whatever the relevance of individual guidelines, the total of guidelines is equal to the total of relevant expenditure as determined for rate support grant. In current economic circumstances, the Secretary of State is bound to be concerned about an overall excess, whatever reasons there may be for local variations.
I would remind the noble Lord of the criteria for grant cuts. Reference to the well established system of expenditure guidelines in Scotland will provide a reasonable basis for a preliminary assessment of

905
expenditure plans. But it is not intended to refer only to any single factor. Evidence will be accumulated having regard to comparison between the authorities' and the Government's spending plans, population structure and changes, local industrial development, spending by closely comparable authorities and other evidence of that nature which would support the conclusion that excessive and unreasonable expenditure is planned. So my right honourable friend in the exercise of his new powers will not be, as it were, motivated by any arbitrary or, indeed, whimsical notions and ideas.
I turn now to the noble Lord, Lord Ross. He complained of many things, most of which, I think, have been answered one way or another in what I have already said in what has been rather a long period of time; but there are two matters which I think I should raise. The noble Lord complains of unreasonable increases in council house rents. In 1980–81 rents bore just under half the cost of the provision and maintenance of council houses. In the present year, rents will bear about 56 per cent. of costs. That is the first point. The second point is that the rebate scheme will, for eligible households, limit the rent increases to an average of about 75p per week. The third point is that, of the tenants who do not receive support, about one half enjoy incomes in excess of £8,000 a year, and I suggest, therefore, that they at least cannot expect to be subsidised by the ratepayers, many of whom must be worse off than them.
Another point which was quite unconnected was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in the effects of the 1978 rating revaluation, and, of course, he used his considerable knowledge and experience of Ayrshire. The Scottish Valuation Advisory Council is examining the 1978 revaluation and that includes the associated appeal arrangements. So far as Ayrshire is concerned, the advice which was given by the Secretary of State of the day was that ratepayers can, and if necessary should, appeal, and I understand that a good many have done so.
My Lords, no doubt we shall consider some of these—and indeed other—matters in depth in Committee. As I have said, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and I have no doubt that our debates in the future on this Bill will be as full and fruitful.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Insurance Companies Bill
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

Harbours (Transport of Farm Animals) Bill [H.L.]
5.43 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is the sequel to an unsuccessful attempt by the Portsmouth City Council to promote a private Bill in
906
the House of Commons in the last Session, to prevent the transit through their harbour of food animals intended for slaughter or for further fattening. That
Bill was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker, on the ground that it was unsuitable for the Private Bill procedure and that it should be a Public Bill. So that Bill did not proceed in another place and the Portsmouth City Council, diligent in its endeavours and persistent in its purpose, sought some other way of regulating or prohibiting a trade which is repugnant to a large section of the citizens of the town. On advice, the City of Portsmouth has now drafted this Bill, which I submit overcomes the impediment which, under Mr. Speaker's ruling, made it unsuitable for the Private Bill procedure.
The Bill before the House today is therefore, a Public Bill, although introduced by me as a private member. I need scarcely say that I have no interest whatsoever to declare, except that I am wholeheartedly behind this Bill and recommend it to the enlightened opinion and selfless interests of noble Lords this afternoon. The object of this Bill is to enable all harbour authorities—not Portsmouth alone—to make by-laws for regulating or prohibiting the transport of farm animals intended for slaughter and for certain connected purposes.
I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I go straight on to the Bill itself and come to other matters arising later on. Clause 1 contains the whole aim of the Bill. This is the conscience clause for a whole community. It says:
"Where the transport of farm animals through a harbour, or on ship from or to a harbour, for slaughter or for fattening prior to slaughter gives rise to public concern as being offensive to public morality and contrary to public policy, the harbour authority…may make bye-laws for regulating or prohibiting"—
that traffic.
That, my Lords, in one long sentence, is it. All harbour authorities within the meaning of the Harbour Act of 1954 would be granted by-law-making powers and the procedure for making by-laws would be that laid down in the Local Government Act 1972, which applies generally to by-laws made by local authorities and is now commonly applied, where appropriate in legislation, to by-laws made by other harbour authorities.
It is provided in subsection (4) of Clause 1 that the confirming authority for by-laws made under this clause would be the Minister. No conscience clause without confirmation. The Minister is the keeper of the Ark of the Covenant of the deeply held community conviction. Those words will ring in the ears of noble Lords on both sides of the House in another connection.
The Bill, therefore, provides the Minister, if he sees fit, to require a harbour authority to make and submit by-laws for the purposes of this Bill. This would apply to such harbour authorities as the British Transport Docks Board or the Port of London Authority, who would have difficulty in the ordinary way in ascertaining local opinion and deciding what is or is not offensive to public morality and contrary to public policy. Therefore, the provisions of subsection (5) of Clause 1, giving the Minister power to require bylaws to be made, would of course rest entirely upon his own judgment and his own opinion of local feeling.
This power is based upon Section 7(3) of the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 regulating the handling of petrol in harbours. The purposes for which the

907
by-laws may be made are set out in Clause 1(2) and they would give power to regulate as well as to prohibit this particular traffic. Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) is normal for a harbour authority at the present time, but paragraph (b)
"…for regulating the care and handling of farm animals in transit through the harbour and their loading or unloading in the harbour"
is probably new, because harbour authorities generally appear not to have such duties laid upon them at present and that is why people complain so much about the rough handling that these animals frequently get at the ports—and I am told by observers how rough it can be.
Particular importance attaches to paragraph (c), which is the principal provision to enable harbour authorities to prohibit the loading and unloading of animals for slaughter. So much for Clause 1. Clause 2 deals with the inspection and detention for the enforcement of such by-laws and the powers provided in subsection (2) to search premises, vehicles or vessels is specifically limited to this purpose but the power to require information goes wider, as it must in order to be effective.
So subsections (3) and (4) deal with power to give directions to ships under Section 52 of the Harbours Clauses Act 1847. Clause 3 provides for offences under the Bill and Clause 4 deals with interpretation. That is a fairly rough sketch of the Bill, which I hope is adequate and intelligible at this time.
Now I think I ought to pass to the legality of the Bill under EEC rules. I do this because in interviews that took place between the Portsmouth City Council and officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, and indeed the Minister of State, the noble Earl himself, they all made quite a big point of the possible impediment of the Treaty of Rome and regulations made under it to this Bill. So I must look for a few moments as to whether the provisions of the Bill fall foul of our obligations under the Treaty of Rome and any other EEC legislation which may override our own.
The Treaty itself in Article 34.1 provides that:
"Quantitative restrictions on exports, and all measures having equivalent effect, shall be prohibited between Member States".
But Article 36 provides:
"The provisions of Articles 30 to 34 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, or public security, the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants".
And there are other grounds which are provided in the same article not relevant to this Bill; for example, articles of historic or archeaological value. So this is, so to speak, the conscience clause of the treaty; the let-out by Article 36 on grounds specified in it. But then Article 36 goes on to say:
"Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States".
The Report of the Agriculture Departments on this subject, published in 1978, devoted quite a lot of space to the implications of these articles. Their view was stated in paragraph 130 of their report. May I quote it.
"There have been several cases in the European Court where it has been held that Article 36 must be strictly construed in relation to prohibitions of trade, and that Member States are
908
not entitled unilaterally to determine that a particular prohibition or restriction falls within the terms of the Article. There might well be difficulty, therefore, in persuading the European Court that a total ban on exports was justified for the protection of health or life of animals simply on the showing of instances of detriment to the health or welfare of animals in the course of trade".
But, my Lords, those are not the grounds upon which my case rests: nor indeed is it what the Bill proposes to do. The report of the Agriculture Departments concluded, in paragraph 132, that the judgment of the European Court on a particular case (which was not in fact related in any way to the matter in hand but on the disciplines of harmonisation of the laws of Member States) would be to make it more difficult to justify a ban on exports after Directive 77/489 which provides its own safeguard measures on health and welfare and which became binding on this country in August 1978. But this Bill raises the matter to a higher plane of ethical judgment than Directive 77.
I think I would take too much of the time of your Lordships at this moment if I were to pursue this question of legality within EEC laws much further. All I will add now is that much is uncertain about the construction of the laws of the EEC; they are not a model of clarity. The European Court is the arbiter, and no decided case appears to rule out the options in this Bill.
On the principal clause of the Bill I will argue that member states must judge for themselves, at least in the first instance, as to when public concern has arisen on a matter which is
"offensive to public morality and contrary to public policy".
If this Parliament confers upon harbour authorities the right to test and respond to public feelings on a matter of this importance, then that may become public policy, and what is "offensive to public morality" is surely for us to judge. Certainly this Bill is not "a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade", referred to in Article 36 of the Treaty.
Do your Lordships believe for a single moment that if the horrible trade in the export of worn-out horses for slaughter in Belgium still continues we should be deterred for a single moment by the Treaty of Rome from stopping it? As far as it can be made effective we already have a total ban on the export of horses for slaughter. The most recent Act of Parliament to stop traffic in horses was the Ponies Act 1969. Before that boatloads of young foals were shipped abroad, ostensibly for riding, but most of them were for meat, and that trade was stopped. Horses for slaughter must be killed here. EEC countries would very much like to import live horses and especially foals for meat. They have a delicacy known as "foal-veal", but they cannot get foals from us by lawful means, though they get calves by the tens of thousands. You see, we have discrimination between young equines and young bovines, and one might ask why.
For good measure we also have a ban on export of live food animals to the Middle East for slaughter, because it would be offensive to public morality to send our animals long distances to a method of ritual slaughter which is unlawful here except for meat for consumption by Mohammedans. Whether the latest development of an export trade in animals slaughtered

909
here under the immunities of Section 36 of the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 is to be tolerated is another matter. I already have Questions on the Order Paper on this subject.
Moreover, let me recall that in 1973 the House of Commons itself imposed a total ban on exports of live food animals which lasted until another vote was taken on the subject in January 1975. So when we feel strongly enough about things we ban them. I am submitting here that while not advocating a total national ban I am advocating that there should be a measure of local option.
Let me turn then to the case of the local community for the Bill. The Bill provides for more democracy locally, and that in itself is a good thing. It promotes the principle that citizens have the right to greater control over their environment. More local autonomy, more decentralisation—how frequently we hear this said, and how much of it is lip service! There are numerous limitations placed upon the right of citizens to control their environment. I need not labour that. Where, however, some project or proposal is mooted which causes concern among those claiming to be adversely affected there is usually some form of appeal, and we are all familiar with appeals under the planning Acts and the powers of the Secretary of State.
If, for example, there was a proposal to erect a slaughterhouse in the middle of a town, or, say, a cattle market, the citizens locally would be able to resist a development which would seriously harm their environment. All the offensive side effects of transporting or of driving livestock to and from the place would be brought into their protest. But when a harbour is used, and increasingly used, for the transit and shipment of thousands of live animals a year, the citizens through whose streets and thoroughfares this traffic passes have no remedy whatever. No planning permission is required. Indeed, for years land has been used for lairages without any planning permission, despite the bitter complaints of local residents. In Folkestone and Dover the prerequisite of planning permission has now been established after a long controversy, and one lairage has been closed and permission granted for an alternative further away from a residential area.
Shipments from a port which were a trickle years ago are now a flood and no one appears to have the power to do anything about it except Parliament and the Transport and General Workers' Union, whose veto on one port I shall come to later. I have already mentioned that Parliamentary authority was granted to stop the shipment of live horses for slaughter and it is at present public policy not to export live food animals to the Middle East for slaughter. Both those bans were imposed on the grounds set out in Clause 1 of this Bill, which are the words of Article 36 of the Treaty, under which member states may still act unilaterally if they so wish.
There was, of course, a significant occasion when the House of Commons voted against the Government of the day to stop the granting of further licences for export until complaints about this traffic were further investigated. The Government had already banned the export of sheep off their own bat and the House of Commons refused further licences for beef and calves. The House of Commons made the ban total and a
910
committee was appointed under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, in July 1973, and reported in March 1974. On 16th January 1975 the House of Commons debated the subject in the light of the O'Brien Report and on a free vote of the House the resumption of the export trade was approved. That was an act of faith in the good intentions of our European partners to impose measures to eradicate the cruelties which had aroused such indignation on this side of the Channel. There is still a lot of realiable evidence available to justify much concern about the treatment of our animals both before and certainly after they leave our shores. It is that concern which troubles citizens who see it in their midst. They see more of it than those who happen not to live in the eight ports principally used for this traffic.
The second matter to consider in this connection is whether those who object have reasonable grounds for a demand to stop it or at least to have control over it. Here we come to what may satisfy the conditions of Clause 1, which are based upon public opinion and what the public will not stand for. This brings us close to the real cause of public distress, which is the welfare of the animals.
I turn first to the size of the problem, including the limits of possible rejection, of this traffic in living animals through our ports. How big is it? How many localities are involved? There are eight ports: Dover, Felixstowe, Folkestone, Great Yarmouth, Plymouth, Poole, Portsmouth and Southampton. Your Lordships may wonder what happened to the Port of Hull, from which 50,000 sheep and lambs a year used to cross the North Sea. The Transport and General Workers' Union gave notice in March 1978 that as from 1st May in that year they would not ship any more, and they did not and they have not shipped any since. So there are occasions when local option can be obtained through a union that some people would deny to be given by Parliament. The total export trade through these ports in the year to last December was approximately 185,000 calves and 226,000 sheep and lambs. That is sea-borne trade. There is now a growing export by air and that amounted to 90,000 calves in the same year from eight airports, but they are outside the scope of this Bill.
The volume of trade through the seaports ranged between 247,000 animals through Dover—by far the busiest of all—and 10,500 through Great Yarmouth. Portsmouth exported 34,300 calves, but no sheep or lambs. Southampton exported over 30,000 calves and less than 40 cattle, but 1,100 sheep and lambs. Dover exported 48,300 calves and 198,000 sheep and lambs. So Portsmouth holds fourth place in the total of sea-borne exports, behind Dover, Plymouth and Southampton. There is one further piece of information which is relevant to this: no calves are exported for immediate slaughter, all go for further fattening—at least so far as we know. But a substantial proportion of the total of 226,000 sheep and lambs did go for immediate slaughter. This trade has grown up during the past 25 years. It had a small beginning—to begin with it was simply for food for Service families stationed in Europe. It changed from a mere trickle to a flood and none of the citizens closest to it have been consulted, and none can interfere. The cattlemen and the shippers are in command.

911
If I am asked what it is that local citizens object to I have plenty of evidence available from petitions and letters from people in Portsmouth. Indeed, the city council received a petition of over 7,000 signatures to campaign for this Bill. Noble Lords may have had letters from individual citizens concerned which tell them as much about their feelings as I could tell them. What upsets local people is the ceaseless traffic of livestock carriers through the approaches to the town and to the docks. In rough weather conditions they grieve for the live cargoes at sea for up to seven, nine or 10 hours. They also have deep concern for the fate that awaits these animals on the other side.
On that matter the RSPCA has said to me—as I believe they have to many noble Lords—that:
"the safeguards for the welfare of the animals involved are as inadequate now as they were in the 1950s".
That is their judgment. The special investigation inspectors of the RSPCA have followed numerous shipments to Europe and every year, they say, they report breaches of the existing regulations. The RSPCA has been tireless in gathering at enormous cost, first-hand evidence of what actually happens and they have probably given in a letter to noble Lords an account of shipments last year trailed by their inspectors, some of which were in transit for over 24 hours, during which time the animals were not fed, rested or watered, despite stops en route to rest and water the drivers, and to refuel the vehicles. Last September the RSPCA trailed a consignment of sheep bound for West Germany which was kept waiting all night at the German border because no veterinary inspection facilities were available. When the RSPCA inspectors finally lost touch with the lorries they had been in transit over 35 hours.
Lord Burton: My Lords, how many prosecutions were there as regards the allegations which the noble Lord is making? How many prosecutions have there been in view of the fact that that action is clearly contrary to the existing law?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, they are breaches of European law.
Lord Burton: My Lords, how many prosecutions were there?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, there is the problem of enforcement all the time not only in Europe, but in this country too. Despite these codes and regulations and an EEC directive which is still supposed to be binding on all members of the Community, a free trade across frontiers between one country and another exists today; no limit upon the distance that animals may be transported is laid down; there is grave concern at slaugthering methods in the EEC; and the rules about the feeding and watering of animals in transit laid down in the EEC directive are frequently ignored.
The conclusion of the RSPCA, shared by others who have accompanied numerous consignments, is that breaches of the EEC rules are going on all the time. The RSPCA declares that:
"Further safeguards and regulations are not the answer. Those that exist at present are blatantly ignored and, in the absence of any proper enforcement agency on the other side, there is no reason to believe that the position will change".
912
It adds:
"In terms of animal welfare there is an overwhelming case for a total ban, but it would make economic sense also".
That brings me to the complex puzzle of the economics of this trade. It is very difficult to get a satisfactory overall assessment of what our input and output of live animals, and our meat imports and exports, really amount to. The Report of the Agricultural Departments of 1978, to which I have already referred, made an attempt to get the economics of this trade in perspective. But I wish that we could be given more information which gets to the heart and the truth of the matter; not that in a matter of this kind I regard economics as being all-important. Those engaged in the slave trade talked loudly about economics; so did the employers of sweated female labour; so did those who organised the white slave traffic. Morality behind public policy is sometimes all—as were the sanctions on Rhodesia and, more recently, on the USSR. One cannot curb evil without some loss to somebody. Even the ports which might want to avail
themselves of this Bill would probably suffer more than anyone else in the business. We are not yet an obsessively mercenary nation. But here is the exercise in comparative economics which I submit to your Lordships.
While exports of adult cattle, which reached a total of 70,000 a year nine years ago, have virtually ceased, the number of calves exported has risen dramatically over the same period from 10,000 to 276,000. Exports of sheep and lambs, which rose from 122,000 in 1972 to 200,000 in 1977, are even higher in 1980. Alongside the rise in exports of calves, we have imports of adult cattle now averaging 100,000 a year from the Irish Republic. Are they all store cattle? I invite noble Lords to study the reply to my Parliamentary Question which was published in the Official Report this morning, at column 859, giving the latest figures over the whole area of this subject. It amounts to the fact that we are exporting both sheepmeat and live sheep, and at the same time we import large quantities of sheepmeat. We export beef and veal and large numbers of calves to EEC countries; at the same time we import over 200,000 metric tonnes of beef and veal from the EEC.
Is there some economic sense to be found in all this, or is it the movement of live animals across the draught-board of the big cattle dealers? There may be some doubt as to how all this trade comes to be manipulated, but if noble Lords can bear with me for a moment or two longer, I shall give my summary of the account. In 1980 we exported live calves to the value of £25 million, and we imported carcase beef and veal to the value of £293 million. As regards live sheep and lambs, we exported £7·5 million-worth, and imported sheep-meat to the value of £170 million. So we exported carcase meat to a value of £250 million, live animals to a value of £33 million, and we imported carcase meat of the same species to the value of £464 million. We have halved our United Kingdom slaughtering of calves over the last two years. No wonder that some slaughterhouses have gone out of business and are now being opened up by Arab slaughtermen who want to use them for the export of ritually-slaughtered animals to the Middle East.

913
There are obviously some questions to be asked on these figures, and the National Farmers' Union has tried to answer some of them. But whatever may be the answers, it is not necessary to sort them out here and now for the purposes of this Bill. This Bill does not, of itself, ban anything. It would give some local option, though only then by consent of the Minister. This is the least that the citizen should be given—to have some vestige of control over his environment. Without this Bill the inhabitants of eight English ports may continue to bear the brunt of a trade which has a host of critics and which causes the deepest resentment among those who, like myself, believe that the moral standards of a people have as much to do with the treatment of animals as with many less important aspects of the human condition. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
6.16 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I should like to express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for so ably and fully introducing this Bill. It is a vast subject, covering not only animal welfare but economics and rights of local communities; and he has covered the field excellently and well. In view of the number of speakers on the list today, I do not think that it is for me to try to cover anything like the same ground. I shall do my best to be extremely brief because there is one particular point on which the noble Lord touched towards the end of his speech which, from these Liberal Benches, I wish to underline.
I shall not concentrate on the ill-treatment of animals, the evidence for which those of your Lordships who have received a certain amount of information from the RSPCA and others will know. It is no use saying that there are laws against this ill-treatment. The point is that in other countries those laws are unenforceable by us, except just occasionally by great pertinacity, great luck, and at great expense. For all practical purposes they are not enforceable, and this ill-treatment goes on. We know that the laws are being broken, and there is nothing that we can do about it.
But that is background and I do not want to dwell on it. I do not wish to find myself specialising in animal affairs, fond as I am of them. I find myself concerned with the Laboratory Animals Protection Bill and with this Bill, and I find myself permanently speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. That is always a pleasure, but there are other things to do; and it is for that reason that I should like to concentrate on something which I regard as important, and that is the rights of local communities to protest, to state their claims, to be allowed not to take part, and not to allow certain things to happen where they live.
This is a right which Liberals would encourage at the best of times over perfectly ordinary matters. In this country as a general policy we need more devolution and not less, but we are getting less devolution and not more. Those of your Lordships who were present in the Chamber this afternoon during the debate on the last Bill will already have seen how a Government which are, in their own way, keen on the principle of freedom and keen on not having centralised government
914
have been forced—and I say "forced" to put it kindly—or have found themselves in a position where they felt that they had no alternative but to increase the powers of the centre as against local government. We have had an English local government Bill where that happened; we are now having a Scottish local government Bill where that is happening, and it is absolutely the wrong tendency. Any situation that we can find where we can give the right to local communities to govern their own affairs, particularly when it is to do with matters of their own conscience, is a worthwhile opportunity which we should seize.
Approving, as we do on these Benches, of devolution of powers, such devolution is doubly important on matters of conscience. The English conscience moves in a peculiar way. It is not over-sensitive, and that is a good thing. We tend for years and years to let individuals make up their own minds, decide for themselves, even on things which a lot of us feel are barbarous, cruel and wrong. I think that this is absolutely right. Whether it is laziness or tolerance, I believe that it has the right effect. But from time to time we make up our own minds that we must act collectively, and as often as not the move is a local move rather than a central move, and all the sounder for that.
John Hampden refused to pay the ship money; the dockers refused to ship supplies to the Russian counter revolution. Our history is in fact studded with examples of this kind of action. Sometimes in the light of history we may look back and think they were wrong as to what they decided to do, but much more often they are right, and surely they are always right to do what they think to be right. The efficacy of democracy depends on that kind of decision, that kind of action, and that kind of local prejudice much more than it depends on what happens here in Westminster.
The people of Portsmouth, the councillors of Portsmouth by a great majority—and I think it is a splendid thing, and something which we should admire and marvel at, that an overwhelmining majority of councillors, and we all know in local government that councillors are not easily moved to quixotic gestures—have been moved to claim the right of their city to stop this vile traffic—and I use that phrase with intention—going through their city. Morally, undoubtedly, they have this right. Certainly they should have it legally.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am opposed to this Bill for two main reasons. One, it would damage the nation's trade; secondly, it could cause unnecessary delay and therefore hardship and cruelty to livestock in transit. Being a farmer I shall concentrate my remarks on the welfare aspect, but as I am being constantly told by Governments, of all colours, that I should try to sell my goods more efficiently I have to remind your Lordships that exporting is a vital outlet. This Bill would discriminate against British farmers and exporters without similar conditions being put on our EEC partners.
On the matter of trade, I was somewhat interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, indirectly suggesting the banning of imports of New Zealand lamb. I understand only too well the concern of the

915
noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to ensure that no unnecessary cruelty is inflicted on animals. It is my concern as well. Therefore, our objectives are the same, but not for the first time or maybe the last time I differ from him in the application and the practice.
I do not think we shall achieve much in arguing as to what does, or does not, constitute cruelty to animals. The argument is subjective, and neither the noble
Lord, Lord Houghton, nor his compatriots in Portsmouth, nor I, can prove to your Lordships who is correct. It is not possible to ask a sheep how she feels. We can only guess. Certainly I have been doing that all my farming life, as no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has been doing similarly all his political life.
The noble Lord can argue that, because I am so intimately and physically concerned with my livestock, particularly the need to make them profitable—and I am not ashamed of making profits and employing people—I fail (if I can put it this way) to see the meat from the wool, and that his judgment is a more balanced one. I must leave such a decision to your Lordships, but I would add that no farmer or exporter of livestock can tolerate, on financial or welfare grounds, stress. I think it is the stress factor that I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is trying to reduce in his Bill.
It will not, for the following reasons. First, it will multiply and complicate existing national arrangements by substituting local ones. There could be a totally different set of rules in, say, Holyhead from the one in Portsmouth, apart from the language problem. Surely such a matter is not a matter for a Private Bill, despite the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. Secondly, the Bill could delay and obstruct movement through the ports. Thirdly, the Bill could complicate and revise unnecessarily the new 1979–80 Sea Transport Order which consolidates previous legislation in line with the directive that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned, EEC 77/489. Lastly, the Bill could confound and confuse the Farm Animal Welfare Council, whose job it is to look at the export of live animals.
I have to remind your Lordships that the export of live animals has been the subject of inquiries in 1957, 1975 and 1977, including the one chaired by the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien. All these reports came out in favour of the trade continuing subject to certain conditions, which have been met and are now subject to close day by day monitoring. I have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, why he cannot accept decisions made by Government select inquiries. If my memory serves me right, it was only the other day that the noble Lord was so forthright in his condemnation of Governments appointing such inquiries and using the valuable free time of such experts as the noble Lord himself, for instance, who I think served or gave evidence to the committee Dogs in Society, after which the Government did not accept their recommendations. Surely here is a perfect example of a Government doing exactly what the noble Lord wants them to do.
I conclude by repeating to the noble Lord, Yes, we are on your side in trying to prevent cruelty to animals; but do not take my particular view of what is, or what is not, cruel. Likewise, I ask you not to take your
916
own view, but to accept the impartial inquiries of 1957, 1975 and 1977. The noble Lord has made his point. He has concentrated the industry's mind yet again on the need to keep a close watch on the export trade. But no further good, only aggravation and frustration, would occur should this Bill be allowed to go into Committee. I beg the noble Lord that he will withdraw it.
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I am in somewhat of a quandary this evening. Yesterday I agreed to a request from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who cannot be here today, to ascertain what were the views of the Association of District Councils since I am one of the vice-presidents of that body. I now find, having put my name down to speak, that that association, having discussed the matter, decided "a decision by the Association on this issue is not appropriate", which does not help me very much this evening.
Despite the fact that I played truant last week and spent it on a hill farm in Cumberland, I have no farming credentials to speak on this Bill. But I personally support the Bill that is before the House, and I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for his attempts to alleviate suffering by animals in transhipment to other ports. Opponents of this Bill may very well argue that the local port authorities are not the right bodies to have the powers which are proposed in the Bill. I know that some will feel that Parliament should remain the arbiter of public policy and public morality in matters which affect national activities.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, they feel that this Bill, if enacted, could well lead to an arbitrary assessment of what is public concern in a particular locality followed by the making of bye-laws under the Act which could result in different regulations being enforced in different ports all around the country. I have no doubt that some opponents will object to Clause 1(5) as being somewhat unnecessary in a Bill which purports to grant permissive discretionary powers only. But it is nothing new for the Minister to have reserve powers to use if he deems it necessary so to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, covered the background of the Bill and the reasons for its introduction thoroughly. The Bill simply makes it possible for port or harbour authorities to make by-laws to regulate or prohibit the transport and export of farm animals intended for slaughter. Why do we have to export animals intended eventually for slaughter? Why can they not be slaughtered here and their carcases exported? Many of these animals are transported to the Continent and are subject to frequent loading and unloading with all the attendant stress, strain and suffering after going sometimes 300, 400 or 500 miles without rest, food or water. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said the RSPCA each year reported repeated breaches of the regulations and the EEC directives which exist and which are supposed to safeguard the welfare of animals in transit. I accept that we alone cannot enforce the directives or regulations in other countries, but we could at least give a lead by means of this Bill to enable harbour and port authorities to

917
make by-laws to regulate or prohibit the export of farm animals intended for slaughter.
Other noble Lords have referred to the attitude of the Portsmouth City Council, a responsible local authority with a great deal of experience in the export of live animals for food, and their views should carry weight with your Lordships. Another point we should consider is that when live animals are exported, our processing industries in turn have to import large quantities of hides, offals, bones and other by-products. If the slaughtering was done at home, there would be less need for those imports and it seems ironic that at the same time that we are exporting cattle to the Continent for further fattening for slaughter, we are importing large numbers of store cattle from Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge spoke to a similar Bill in 1972 and he has asked me to pass his regrets to the House at not being able to stay tonight for this debate. However, he supported a similar Bill in 1972 and he supports this one today. He would particularly like to know—if the Minister cannot answer these points tonight perhaps he will do so by way of correspondence—the numbers of bobby calves (that is, calves under a week old) that are exported from this country; surely those calves should be killed as early as possible if they are not to be reared here at home. Secondly, what improvements have been made in the handling of animals for sport both here and abroad, since we last discussed the matter on the Bill that was put forward in 1972? As I say, I shall understand if the Minister cannot reply offhand tonight. Perhaps he will write to me or my noble friend Lord Donaldson on those two points. I hope the House will give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading, and I give it my support.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to clarify one point? I think I misheard her, but did she ask for information as to what improvements had been made in respect of animals for sport—or did she mean animals for export?
Baroness Stedman: For export, my Lords.
6.35 p.m.
Lord de Clifford: My Lords, while my feelings are rather divided on the matter, I feel that I must support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on the Bill. I am happy to speak following the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, because on many occasions we have crossed swords across the Floor of the House, but tonight it is delightful to find myself on the same side with her. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said there was a large matter of conscience involved in the issue and that people expressed their consciences in different ways. My conscience is wholeheartedly behind the Bill and I cannot understand the attitude of people who point to the EEC as being a difficulty in relation to the Bill.
The House may remember that I have never been a supporter of the EEC, and what always astonishes me is the way in which we keep hearing about harmonising things; it never happens. We are supposed to harmonise with the EEC, but it seems they are never prepared to harmonise with us. What stuck very
918
badly in my throat was the banning of exports of lamb to France. If there was any question of harmonising, I should have thought that was one case where the French might have given way. They did not, however; they fought it all the way.
We in this country through Parliament can arrange all the welfare we want for animals in transit, but once the boat carrying them leaves our shores, it seems we can do nothing about the welfare of those animals if the country to which they are going will not agree or try to enforce the laws which are in existence. When the City of Portsmouth or any other port says, "Enough is enough"—that they will not export animals in a certain way—I am 100 per cent. with them because it should be for the people of an area to decide such matters affecting that area. Indeed, many times in recent years we in Parliament have been told by the Government, "We intend to hand responsibility for this, that or the other to the people who live in the local areas", and that is what we are asking the Government to do in this case.
I will not follow other noble Lords in describing the horrors that can take place once animals have left this country. It can be said that those who make such comments are biased and are prepared to overstate the case. Be that as it may, things occur which are contrary to the conscience of the people of this country and if the people of a port area say they will not stand for it any longer, then in my view they have every right to say that. My noble friend says he cares for his sheep but that he must make a profit.
I cannot see—I have never been able to see—why the continuation of the export of sheep live can really make more profit for a farmer than the same sheep slaughtered with all its by-products left in this country. People have tried to tell me why it is, but I still do not see it. I am not a very good economist; in fact I am an extremely bad one according to my wife. I should like to understand the reason. But I fear that until I am convinced that we would be doing damage to our farming industry, I shall always be against the export of live animals, and I must support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in relation to the Bill, though I do not agree with some of its details.
6.40 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as many of your Lordships know, I farm. I do not sell cattle, other than dead cattle, and I do not sell any sheep at all. I feel that the Bill is really for the prejudiced, and not for the enlightened. Not surprisingly, the Speaker in another place ruled that it was a totally unsuitable Bill to be introduced by Portsmouth City Council as a Private Bill. I shall try to show that it is equally unsuitable in a Public Bill to allow mediaeval barriers to trade to be set up by the various ports concerned.
Clause 1 is extremely widely drawn. What it really says is that if a number of people get together and say that they do not like the export of live animals, the local authority can ban it, disrupt people's livelihoods, and, as has already been said, introduce different laws for different ports. At the moment there are very strict rules on the transport of live animals overseas. They are stricter than the rules for transport of animals within the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the Bill and the attitude of those who support it have shown

919
a very unattractive form of chauvinism. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, was saying, basically, "We don't trust beastly foreigners"—as was the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I presume that it is perfectly all right to take sheep from Orkney or Shetland or Northern Ireland to this country; that is all right because it is being done by nice, kind "Brits". They would not do harm to animals. But we cannot really allow the foreigners to do it; they are far too unkind, far too cruel. That comes from the great Liberal Benches of those who support internationalism and free trade.
Perhaps your Lordships will be interested to know that many of the slaughterhouses in the Community are up to Community standards for slaughterhouses, which are extremely high, whereas the standard of slaughterhouses in this country is not nearly up to the standard of slaughterhouses in France, Germany or the Low Countries. So perhaps before we go on about how beastly are the foreigners to our poor little sheep, we ought to put our own house in order with regard to slaughterhouses in this country.
The logic of Clause 1(5) has already been commented on. It is that if the Minister says that people are not passing enough laws in their local authority, he can make them pass some more. Is that really what we are suggesting should happen? I know that it happens in relation to petroleum transport. But people do not get emotional about petrol. You cannot pat it on the head and feed it carrots on a Sunday afternoon. We get too emotional about animals. Of course we have to have decent lairage and feeding and proper regulations, but I find it rather unattractive that it is suggested in your Lordships' House that we cannot trust foreigners to enforce the rules that we have.
Clause 2(2) also gives another set of people the right to search private property without warrant and generally to boss people about. I suggest to your Lordships that there are already too many of those kind of people in existence. Surely—and I think that this will be established further by my noble friend Lord Ferrers—it is against the rules of the European Community to enact a Bill such as this. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would have liked to say it was not against the rules of the Community—but he seemed to cast doubt even on that.
The farming industry would bear an unnecessary cost if, say, Felixstowe said, "Yes, go on with the trade in live animals", while Folkestone and the South Coast ports said, "No". That would present an unfair disadvantage to farmers, and it would hamper trade.
As I have previously said to your Lordships, we must of course have decent rules for the transport of live animals. Of course transportation must be undertaken kindly and successfully; and of course I should be totally against the grubby transport of broken-down knacker horses for trade. Of course one is against that. But I personally see nothing wrong in having horses slaughtered for human consumption. I had an extremely nice hunter, of which I was very fond. His soul hunts with the Fernie hounds and his body fed greedy Frenchmen over Christmas because his legs were gone and he was put down and slaughtered
920
in this country. Let us not get emotional. Let us make absolutely certain that what we do is done cleanly, tidily and correctly, and without cruelty. But let us look to the mote in our own eye before we say that all foreigners are beastly to British animals.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Macleod of Fuinary: My Lords, I do not intend to delay the debate for any length of time, not being an expert in the subject in which we are involved. But it has been my lot for nearly 40 years to spend summers on the little island of Iona, eight miles long by two miles wide, which lies off the coast of Mull. Whenever I am on the island the farmers have livestock for the market. The livestock has to be ferried across to Oban. That means that it has to be put on one ferry for one mile. Then it has to go 34 miles across Mull, and then travel for 10 miles by another ferry to Oban. The livestock has to undertake a 2-ferry journey before being disposed of in England or abroad, which means going over the sea again.
That is the essence of the problem, but here is the extent of it. It involves not only Iona. Everyone can picture in their minds the West Highland coast, with Islay, Jura, Colonsay, Mull, Skye, the Hebrides, and Shetland and Orkney. Livestock from all those places has to travel by ferry before being disposed of. Thus your Lordships will understand the concern of farmers regarding this proposed legislation.
The rugged Western Highlands are uneconomic in relation to mainland abattoir activities, and moreover they are not economic in the sense of growing crops and any form of development of agricultural work. The farmers in these areas can do only one thing—that is to export their livestock. They will be faced with catastopohe if they are debarred by further regulations concerning transport.
From Orkney alone 13,000 cattle and 20,000 sheep are disposed of every year. From Shetland 25,000 sheep are disposed of; I do not know the figure for cattle from there. From the Western Isles at least another 20,000 sheep and cattle are disposed of. Well over 100,000 beasts are sent, and the catastrophe would be absolutely disastrous for literally hundreds of small farmers if they are to be affected by new legislation.
We should remember—we have been reminded of this fact in the debate—that legislation regarding the transport of animals was passed in 1927, that we legislated for the protection of exported animals in 1964, and that in 1973 there was the Transit of Animals Order. Bearing in mind that that legislation has been loyally obeyed from the districts that I have named, to pile on additional conditions would literally throw out of business scores of farmers, and would leave us and the continent short of tons of carcases, which presently are seemingly required both here and on the continent.
If anything like this present Bill is ultimately passed, I plead with the Government to make the necessary amendments for the West of Scotland and for the North of Scotland, to satisfy hundreds of farmers who presently have a prosperous, necessary and well-regulated trade, divided though they be, and have to be essentially every time they move in all these places, by ferries, in the North and West of Scotland.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Macleod, because I, too, shall be touching on that point which he has raised. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has explained the purpose of his Bill very clearly, and its content, and I know how sincere he is in his intention to obviate suffering by livestock. But I must tell him immediately that I cannot support this Bill, and that I hope he will not pursue it. I declare again my interest as engaged in farming in Northern Scotland, near my home. My specialities do not include livestock; they are seed potatoes and barley, which all goes into the whisky industry.
This Bill would give port authorities powers to regulate or stop the transport of live farm animals for slaughter or for fattening for slaughter. The effect of this would be haphazard. It would disrupt both the livestock farmers and the transport operators. It would damage their programmes, which would in any case by bedevilled in future by uncertainty. The interests of our islands, and especially the Scottish islands, would be severely damaged. The Bill would affect movements between the islands and the mainland—everywhere where the livestock pass through a harbour. In the Western and Northern Isles, cattle and sheep are an important element in farming and crofting, and they in turn form major sectors of the islands' economies.
I would point out, after what the noble Lord, Lord Macleod, has said, that it is not sensible or feasible to have slaughtering facilities on all the islands. Indeed, recent health requirements have made slaughtering conditions more stringent, and this is no doubt correct—and I heard what my noble friend Lord Onslow said about raising standards in this regard. It is consequently not easy to multiply slaughtering facilities over the islands.
Livestock forms the staple commodity in the islands, for land over a large area of them is not suitable for other forms of agriculture, such as crops. I would make the exception of Orkney, where there is pasture for dairy cattle, which produce the well-known cheese and cream. But in general the Scottish islands have to depend upon the rearing of livestock for beef, mutton and lamb. This Bill would strike a severe blow upon the Scottish islands. The consumers would also be deprived of supplies of, for example, Shetland lamb, and beef from the Hebrides. From what I have said—and I was interested to hear the origin of this Bill as having come from the City of Portsmouth—what may be appropriate for Portsmouth is not appropriate for Stornaway.
Turning to exports as a whole, I understand we export to European countries, and in many cases it is for slaughter and consumption. I would ask my noble friend Lord Ferrers whether he would confirm this when he speaks. This Bill would undoubtedly reduce British exports to those markets, and some of those markets have been hard won in the past. How, then, should we proceed? At present the regulations in the United Kingdom are strict, and require proper periods of rest, watering and other humane handling of animals. They are now, I understand, being consolidated and brought into line with EEC arrangements.
There remains the question of enforcement, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that we
922
must improve in every way we can the policing of the regulations. Surely that is where we should be looking. It is, from what he said himself, anxiety about exports to other European countries which is the reason for his having introduced this Bill. We are concerned with what happens to those animals after they have left the shores of the United Kingdom. This is the area in which we should be seeking improvement and consolidation, and making sure that the regulations can be enforced. But I conclude by saying that the damage which would be done to the British agricultural industry if this Bill were to go through means that I hope it will not succeed.
6.56 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I take a different view from that of the noble Lord who has just spoken. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Houghton for introducing this Bill. I support it, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading and allow it to proceed to amendment in Committee. I shall be very brief because at this stage of the debate it is impossible to avoid repeating arguments that other noble Lords have made, but I think it is important to demonstrate the weight of support in your Lordships' House for this Bill, and this may justify a very limited degree of repetition.
I welcome particularly the power given in Clause 1 of the Bill to harbour authorities to prohibit the export of farm animals intended for slaughter, and I hope that it will appear to many of these authorities that it would be, to quote the words of Clause 1,
"offensive to public morality and contrary to public policy"
to allow the export of sheep or cattle assigned for shipment to the European Economic Community countries for slaughter there.
Now why, on the balance of the arguments that have been expressed in the course of this debate, should this trade in farm animals be stopped? I think it is because we now know without any possibility of doubt—thanks largely, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has pointed out, to the fine work of the RSPCA inspectors, who followed shipments of farm animals to their destinations on the Continent; and I think a tribute is certainly due to the RSPCA—that such regulations as have been made for humane treatment of these animals in transit and for their merciful dispatch at the point of slaughter have not been generally observed and are not capable of enforcement. These safeguards are in fact as ineffective today as they have been at any time since the trade began about 25 years ago.
The only effective action, of course, would be for the Government to ban the trade in farm animals, as they did for a time when it was suspended in 1973. But this is obviously not the policy of the Government today. The most we can hope for is that this trade will be curtailed and controlled by port authorities by the use of the by-law powers conferred on them by this Bill.
The argument for stopping the export of sheep or cattle on the hoof is not solely humanitarian. This, again, has been pointed out, but I think it ought to be underlined. It is also economic and social. We are amply provided with slaughterhouses in the United Kingdom (and I am afraid that on this point I disagree

923
with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow; my information is quite contrary to his) and these slaughterhouses measure up to the high standard of hygiene and efficiency prescribed by the European Economic Community. At present, these abattoirs at home are not used to capacity. The export of live animals would be unnecessary if, instead of being transported a long distance to a convenient port, they were killed at the nearest slaughterhouse and exported as carcase meat to the continent like the great majority of meat that we export to the continent. This would be some degree of compensation for the farmers. It would give more employment to those engaged in slaughtering animals and there would be further benefit from the use of the by-products, hides and so on, which would cut down the import bill for leather and the meat processing industries. There would thus be real economic and social advantages in converting our present exports on the hoof to exports of carcase meat.
This is only an enabling Bill which does not oblige the harbour authorities to do anything. Some may not wish to take advantage of its provisions. Therefore, I am glad that there is a default power for the Minister in Clause 1 in case this should happen. But where authorities have the need for these powers they should not be deprived of them simply because they are not appropriate for private legislation. It should be possible for them under the general law, which is exactly what this Bill provides, to have regard to matters of public concern and policy in their own areas and to stop, or, at least, to regulate, a trade that is offensive to all concerned with animal welfare. I repeat that I hope your Lordships will allow the Bill to have a Second Reading and that any amendments which may be necessary in the interests of those who are prejudiced by the provisions of the Bill will be considered and dealt with at that stage.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether he would also ban the export of animals from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom and from the Scottish Isles to the mainland? Would he recommend a ban on the export of live animals from the Scottish Islands to Scotland or from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom—or is it only to foreigners?
The Earl of Listowel: No, my Lords, I suggested that in the case of live animals to other parts of the country—and I know that it is more difficult in Scotland—they should be sent to the nearest convenient slaughterhouse which, again, from the farmers' point of view is best from the standpoint of the quality of the meat.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I would not wish to detain your Lordships for long. While I appreciate the good intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I am afraid that I must tell the House that this Bill would be devastating for Scottish agriculture, which is already struggling, as I have said recently, with an average net income for the 30,000 holdings of £1,100 per annum per holding. Which of your Lordships will expect anyone in this country today to work, often for long hours, for as little as or less than £1,100 a year? The
924
Bill would prevent farming on all the islands off the coast of Scotland. Surely that is a restriction on trade. The noble Lord said that he did not wish to restrict trade. That is a restriction; it must be so.
By the nature of the terrain, the islands are confined to livestock farming only (as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has said) and if this Bill were to pass, one or two individuals, possibly with the best welfare intentions, could stop the market for all this livestock and close down the farming in the islands. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, stated that it was the intention to get by-laws for every port. His intention seems to be to inflict the maximum damage on farmers, particularly for the islanders. They are the very people in the worst economic state, who have difficulties with everything coming into the islands or going out being more expensive.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, could confirm that Portsmouth have already spent £70,000 of their ratepayers' money on trying to get legislation of this type. This shows what a few determined individuals can do. I am confident that many of the ratepayers of Portsmouth could have found more worthwhile uses for this large sum of money. By the nature of the size of the enterprises in the islands, slaughterhouses are impracticable there. While on the subject of slaughterhouses the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to them and I am afraid that he was wrong. Our slaughterhouses are way behind a lot of the European ones. It is very often the local authorities who are represented on the port authorities who are the people responsible for these slaughterhouses and who have not brought them up to standard. They say that they do not have the money to do so. To put them in the position of looking after the welfare of these animals seems to be wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Macleod of Fuinary, has spoken more ably than I could on the problem which would face the islanders. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton,
referred to the ban on the exports of sheep to the Arab countries. This market has been largely taken over by Australia and New Zealand. All that has happened is that we have lost a large trade outlet which we could have controlled and now millions of sheep are having a longer journey than if we had been allowed to do it. The noble Lord referred to the various infringements of the existing laws and EEC laws which, he said, were taking place. He referred to following vehicles for many miles and hours. If there were infringements and all this expense and trouble was taken to follow these vehicles, why were there no prosecutions? He could not answer me. I know that I interrupted the noble Lord. I apologise to him; but I felt that I had to do so.
Legislation already exists with realistic provisions to safeguard the wellbeing of animals being transported by sea. The Government only last year took steps to initiate a consolidation, an up-dating, of transport orders and have circulated proposals for consideration. The Government already keep a close watch on these matters. Let us look at what exists at the moment. First, animals for export must be rested for at least 10 hours, fed, watered, inspected by a veterinary officer who must then issue a certificate of fitness to travel. There are already very strong safeguards on that alone. There are rules governing the loading and unloading

925
of stock. That is exactly what this Bill is intended to impose—further restrictions in addition to those already there. Vessels can leave port only if the master is satisfied that the sea conditions are such as will not cause suffering or injury to animals which are being transported—a more stringent regulation, therefore, than is in existence for humans. I do not think that the master worries about whether the ferry leaves port in a rough sea when he has only human beings aboard, but he is not allowed to do so if he is carrying animals. So much for the allegations that animals are being moved from
Portsmouth and battled about while going to France. I take it that that is where they were going.
Finally, export licences are issued only for those countries where acceptable welfare standards already exist. Ample legislation and regulations exist already. It could be that if this Bill were passed, the Skyemen would have to resort to their old method of getting cattle to market. That was to swim them across to the mainland mainly at Kyleakin. Would the noble Lord feel it better for the cattle to have to have a long swim in cold water and strong currents rather than to leave things as they now are? His Bill would not stop someone swimming the cattle but would possibly stop them from taking the ferry.
Earlier I referred to how Scottish agriculture is struggling for its very
existence at the moment under sever financial handicaps. This has been recognised in Brussels and the EEC has agreed to make a payment of £20 miilion for the development of agriculture in the Western Islands. If this Bill were passed tonight we should be holding out the begging bowl with one hand while cutting our throat with the other. We should be the laughing stock of Europe and the hope of getting further aid for other impoverished areas of the country would be completely lost.
To return to two detailed points of the Bill, Clause 3(1) makes it possible for a £1,000 fine to be payable by anyone who fails to comply with the by-laws. It seems to me that this regulation could apply to every animal so moving. Consequently, if there is a sheep lorry with 400 sheep on board—which is not an unreasonable number—there could be a fine of £400,000. Is this not correct?
I think that this Bill is intended to be a United Kingdom Bill; but as at present drafted in Clause 4—and this is the intention—it would not apply to Scotland. The Bill refers to the wrong Ministers, it has the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They are not the relevant Ministers. It should be referring to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Not only is there faulty drafting here—and the Bill would be extremely injurious but there may well be drafting mistakes elsewhere. I hope for all these reasons—and very good reasons they are, and no doubt we shall hear others from my noble friend on the Front Bench—that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will withdraw his Bill tonight. I am confident that, if he does not, we shall not give it a Second Reading.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, in speaking to your Lordships, I have been advised by the Confederation of British Industry and also the National Farmers' Union of the Isle of Wight. My noble friend Lord
926
Campbell of Croy—in a splendid speech which I thoroughly endorse—said that it might be all right for Portsmouth, but not for Stornaway. I can assure him that it is not all right for Portsmouth. It is one of the ports that we would seek to have, by amendment, excluded from the provisions of the Bill, if it ever got that far. It would be illogical for Portsmouth to stop its traffic to, say, France, and to allow its traffic to the Isle of Wight. I can assure your Lordships that we would fight hard to have it banned from taking part in the outcome of this Bill, in the unlikely and unhappy event of it ever becoming law.
Turning to the slightly wider issue, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—who put his case extremely well and tried very hard—was not very convincing on what I think was the key point in his argument. That was that Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome gave a save-all to anybody to upset all the efforts of the Treaty of Rome. I was not at all convinced by what he said. So quite apart from the fact that I do not like the Bill, I do not think he even proved to us that it was legitimate within the EEC framework.
I would suggest—and one or two noble Lords have pushed on to this point—that really what we want to do is not produce this rather narrow-minded legislation, which gives individual ports freedom to impose their somewhat one-sided views upon the majority; we want to concentrate—and I am sure that the feel of the House would go with this—on trying to make sure that the EEC Directive 77/489, which has been referred to, is properly implemented throughout the Community. The important point is that we are in the Community and we need take full advantage of it. There are all sorts of advantages for us and in such a communanté spirit what we need to do is make sure that the Community's own rules are properly implemented for all of us. To take a narrow-minded view strikes me to be backward-looking and thoroughly retrograde. I suggest to your Lordships—and I shall not detain you any more because all I wanted to say has already been said—that we must not accept this Bill and we must not give it a Second Reading.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I beg your forgiveness for intervening but it will be for only three minutes. I yield to nobody in my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his efforts for the welfare of animals. As the House knows, I am also interested in that aspect. This Bill is not really logical or practical. Regarding logic, I should like to point out that Clause 1(2)(c) says:
"the authority as may be specified in the byelaws grant a certificate that the animal is not intended for slaughter on, or within three months after, arrival at the place to which it is consigned and has been certified by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to be accredited breeding stock".
I have exported breeding and store stock—both cattle and sheep—by sea. So far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no difference in their treatment. If you have a bull worth about £10,000 he would probably be treated better. Animals intended for slaughter do not know that they are going to be slaughtered any more than the animals intended for breeding know that they are intended for breeding. So it is not really logical.
The other point regarding practicability has been made extremely well by my noble friends Lord Camp-

927
bell of Croy and Lord Burton, so I will not go into that. I must declare an interest: I farm in a fairly extensive way on the Island of Mull. We have to send our stock across to the mainland. If we could not do so we should have to become like the Hindus with the Brahman bulls. We would have to leave our livestock until they died of old age, because we cannot fatten them on the hills. So it is not really practicable. I should like to end by saying that as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, the real problem is enforcement. There are ample laws to see that this traffic is controlled for the welfare of animals; but the real problem is to enforce these laws. Having said that, I shall not support the Bill if it goes to a Division.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate, starting with a most passionate and detailed speech from my noble friend. This is a Private Member's Bill, and if there is a vote then this is a matter for the exercise of conscience on the part of every Member of this House. There is no doubt whatever about Lord Houghton's passionate concern for animal welfare. It is well known, appreciated and understood. It is to his great credit.
I am afraid, however, that the Bill put forward with the best possible intentions will serve only to increase bureaucracy and certainly confusion arising through different standards covering the movement and welfare of animals applying in various ports. I note in passing that no mention is made in the Bill of the use of air transport, which also has welfare problems of its own, as we all well know.
I share my noble friend's concern for animal welfare as well as other humanitarian interests. This may interest your Lordships: it so happens that some years ago, before the operation of the Export Animals Protection Order 1964 and the Transit of Animals Order 1973, I was involved at first hand with the purchase, transport and care of cattle for export, mainly to Holland. This was at a time when I was nursing a constituency in Norwich, where there was and still is a considerable animal welfare lobby. I had no option: my employer was the late Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, who on the first deal gave me 24 hours to obtain all the facts about what was and is a complicated business, bearing in mind the regulations governing animal welfare, which have been extended and strengthened since.
Bearing in mind the implications of my political interests, I watched every procedure personally with the greatest care. I saw the cattle loaded, inspected them and their quarters on the ship, checked lairage facilities and visited my animals resting there. In no case, I may say from my observations on this particular ship, was there any ill-treatment or lack of care. In fact in one shipment from Boston, Lincolnshire, one of my cows was found to be in calf and the pregnant mother was held back and given every attention until the veterinary surgeon certified her and her offspring as fit for travel. The lucky buyer had a bonus but my firm had greater expense. I must say from past experience of attending some, though not all, cattle markets that it seemed to me that often discomfort and distress to animals was greater there than in the procedures of shipment I still maintain that view.
928
Apart from the obvious possibility of an uneven operation of the Bill by harbour authorities, which might cause animals destined for export to travel greater distances, what happens to the cattle already loaded if some official discovers a technical breach of a by-law and the ship is detained? Are they to be offloaded, put onto transport and dispatched again to lairage, and then once again to be in transit and loaded, et cetera, all over again?
The Bill does in fact encourage piecemeal legislation, as harbour authorities could adopt varying by-laws or none at all. This is the core and the weakest part of the Bill. If further safeguards and improvements are needed, and I am prepared to accept that that is the case, then the only way is to have legislation operating nationally, as a Government measure.
I do accept that there is a case against long-distance shipment of live cattle overseas or to countries where standards of welfare and slaughter are not equal to our own. There is certainly a case, I will agree with my noble friend, for further consideration on the position of calves or baby calves, which many letters received refer to, and I have loads of them here.
I must say that the great bulk of correspondence sent on or handed to me—because I am deputising for my noble friend Lord Peart—comes from the Portsmouth area. Much of it refers to animals enduring long journeys without rest, food or water. If this occurs here, then there is a case for the Government to institute an investigation, as this is illegal in Britain. Mention was made about shipping cattle at times of rough seas prevailing. I understand, and I am subject to correction, that ships carrying cattle are not allowed to sail when the seas are rough. There are a number of pressure groups for or against, some expressing views with great emotion. The bulk in favour want slaughter in Britain. Carcase meat is still exported from Britain as well as being imported into Britain.
I have not referred to any question of a valuable export trade or the profit motive. My main concern, like that of my noble friend, is animal welfare and there is no doubt that my noble friend, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is as well aware as I am that his Bill at this stage of the Session has practically no chance whatever of proceeding very far, even if given a Second Reading majority today. But we must all admit that he has well and truly put his case. Let us say that in many instances there is a degree of substance in it.
The Government circulated proposals for a new Sea Transport and Export of Animals Order in 1979–80. These proposals are extensive and desirable. Legislation consolidating present law and extending powers nationally and internationally would be welcomed on all sides of the House and outside. It would be a considerable help to the House if the Minister replying for the Government could give us a definite assurance that legislation will in fact be coming along.
As I have already indicated, my Lords, I very much regret that I cannot support my noble friend's Bill because, as I have indicated, it would result in a patchwork of varying degrees of control all over the country. The bringing in of by-laws would in itself often depend on the volume and strength of public lobbying in a given local authority area, as indeed is the case in Portsmouth. I accept that people have

929
the right to protest, as we see by the lobbies here in these Houses of Parliament. They have the right to protest to their councillors and to bring pressure on them, as indeed they do. Even on noble Lords pressure is exerted, as the volume of correspondence I have here proves. But I believe the answer lies in the hands of the Government by the bringing in of legislation, proposals for which are already available—legislation which would in this House be vigorously and expertly examined. Of that, bearing in mind this debate, we can be very sure.
7.27 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was fascinated by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, because he is always so careful. I was not surprised that he did not hold his position with the late Lord Macpherson of Drumochter too long if he sold off all his cows which he thought were barren cows, only to find they were in calf. He must be a very good person to do business with! I am sure I have done the same too; but the only difference was that I did not know it. I suppose I should declare an interest. I also farm, but I do not export any animals for slaughter or further fattening.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has been—much to his credit—a great campaigner for the improvement of conditions under which animals are kept, and the noble Lord's Bill today is another tangible example of his concern. The Government share with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, a concern for the welfare of farm animals but where we tend to part company with him is on the most suitable way in which to protect them. In this case we are concerned with the welfare of those of them which are carried by water and, in particular, those which are to be exported.
Perhaps I may first explain the protection and safeguards which already exist. The Government already protects all farm animals which are intended for export through the provisions of the Exported Animals Protection Order 1964. That order requires them, among other things, to be rested for a period of 10 hours in a Government approved export lairage and to be offered food and water during that time. Under the order, animals cannot be exported unless they have been examined by a veterinary inspector, who is appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, and
also unless they have been passed as fit to be shipped. A new order is being prepared, which will improve the welfare of farm animals which are intended for export, and it will transfer the licensing of such exports from the Department of Trade to the agriculture departments in Great Britain. Interested bodies and the Farm Animal Welfare Council have been consulted about these and account is being taken of their comments in the new order which is being prepared.
There are, too, two further statutory instruments to protect the welfare of farm animals during carriage by water. They are the Transit of Animals Order 1927 and the Animals (Sea Transport) Order 1930. These orders lay down detailed, constructional standards, in order to ensure that the ships, which are used, are adequate, and that they make provision to protect the welfare of the animals during carriage. Under a related measure, standards are laid down for two-tier vehicles which are used to carry farm livestock on
930
ferries, and these vehicles have to be inspected to ensure that they meet the required standards. Proposals to amend and to update these regulations have been the subject of consultation with interested parties and the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and here, too, a new instrument is being prepared. The new order would set revised standards for vessels and vehicles which are used to carry livestock on ferries and it would, in a number of ways, tighten up on the existing safeguards.
Apart from the domestic scene, the Government are working in the European Community on the preparation of a new directive which is intended to expand and to develop Directive 77/489 on the protection of animals during international transport. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone that we should try to make improvements in standards in the European Community. This is exactly what we are doing. This new directive has involved long and difficult negotiations in Brussels, but agreement is not far off and the Government hope to see this new directive in being within the next few months. My noble friend Lord Onslow asked me about this directive—or I think he intended to ask me, because he gave me prior notice that he was going to do so—but he waxed so eloquently about motes and beams that I believe he failed to do so.
The welfare of farm animals during international transport is already protected
by Directive 77/489 and one of its most important provisions is that, during transport, these animals must not be left for more than 24 hours without being fed and watered, unless the journey can be completed within a reasonable period of time. There are allegations—they were made this evening—that there are breaches of this directive. Where that happens, the breaches are taken up with the exporter concerned and with the authorities in other member states.
A further directive is under discussion in Brussels. It is almost complete. It is, at the moment, at the technical level and it will be submitted to the Council of Ministers shortly. This directive would expand and develop the provisions of Directive 77/489, and would be likely to provide for a travel document to record certain details of the journey, and thereby improve the enforcement of the present rules. The provisions of the draft directive will be likely to require remedial action to be taken during the journey, if the animals are not being carried in accordance with current requirements. These are important new developments which must be taken into account in reaching any decision on the need to prevent the export of live food animals to destinations within the European Community. So there is quite a lot going on in the animal welfare scene.
These safeguards, and the new developments which are proposed, demonstrate that the Government are deeply engaged in the preparation of measures, both here and within the European Community, to increase the protection of the welfare of farm animals which are being exported and which are being carried by water. I accept that there are some who feel that, whatever the arguments are, they just do not want to see animals exported on, in their judgment, humanitarian or welfare grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and various others of your Lordships have given us

931
examples of that today. May I say that, even though I do not share these views myself, I entirely respect them and I respect the right and the sincerity of others who do hold them. That is what I might describe as the causus belli of the Bill.
However, I am bound to tell your Lordships that if this Bill were implemented it would have very severe economic and international consequences; and particularly severe consequences for agriculture in the islands, and for the communities which depend upon it. So let us consider this, as a number of noble Lords have been concerned about it. The main cause for concern is the provision which enables by-laws to be made to prohibit the movement of farm animals by water, except for the movement of accredited breeding stock. In 1980, over 600,000 farm animals were transported by water to, from and within Great Britain. This movement of animals is necessary for the efficient operation of the agriculture and food industries, and there would be serious consequences for both if this trade were to be interrupted.
Over half this total of 600,000 is made up of sheep and calves which are exported to the European Community, and the interruption of this trade would lose well over £100 million in foreign exchange every year. That is a very substantial sum. I know that the advocates of a ban on live food animal exports would argue that the lost trade could be made up by increased carcase meat exports. But this would not be the case, because live exports exist in response to a specific market demand on the Continent, and those countries which require animals for their own slaughtering will simply get their supplies from elsewhere, in preference to importing carcase meat.
The scope of the Bill does not cover foreign trade alone, but covers all movements of farm livestock by water, including that which goes between the islands and the mainland of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Macleod of Fuinary, was the first to mention that. It is a curious thing that every Scottish noble Lord—my noble friend Lord Burton, my noble friend Lord Campbell, and my noble friend Lord Massereene—mentioned it and I am not surprised. My noble friend Lord Burton said that this Bill does not refer to Scotland. In fact, it does because an Act of Parliament applies to all parts of the United Kingdom, unless a part of the United Kingdom is specifically excluded. There is no such exclusion in the Harbours (Transport of Farm Animals) Bill, and therefore it applies to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But, of course, my noble friend is quite right. The definition of "Minister" in the Bill is one of a number of drafting defects, where the scope of the Bill has not been reflected in its definitions.
In 1980, over 130,000 farm animals were moved by sea between the Scottish islands and the mainland. The Scottish islands are heavily dependent on agriculture and, in particular, on livestock production, and they need to be able to send store and fat animals to the mainland for market. If the provisions of this Bill were to be applied to the Scottish islands, it would have a devastating effect on their economy and on the people who live by that economy. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked whether there was a decline in slaughterhouses and referred to slaughter-
932
house standards. There may well be a decline in slaughterhouses, because the hygiene regulations are expensive to put into effect and small slaughterhouses, such as those on the islands, with a low throughput, could not justify the costs of meeting the hygiene regulations. He also asked me whether we export animals for slaughter. The answer is that the United Kingdom exports sheep for slaughter and for further fattening, but our calf exports are for further fattening and are not for immediate slaughter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that had the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, been here he would have asked what improvements there had been since 1972. The main improvement has been the introduction of common rules throughout the Community. This is a very substantial improvement which requires pre-stunning at slaughter. That is Directive 74/577 which came into force on 1st July 1975 and which protects the welfare of animals during international transport. One of its most important provisions is that during transport these animals must not be left for more than 24 hours without being fed and watered unless the journey can be completed within a reasonable period.
The welfare of exported animals has also been improved by the provisions of the Transit of Animals General Order 1973 which introduced general safeguards to protect the welfare of animals in transit by any means of transport. There is also the directive to which I referred earlier, 77/489. The noble Baroness asked in particular what is the position with regard to bobby calves. That is a terminology which has traditionally been used to refer to calves which go for immediate slaughter.
As I have said, no calves go for export for immediate slaughter because it is not economical to do so. All calves which do go, go for fattening. I cannot tell the noble Baroness what are the exact figures for calves but I can tell her that in 1979 total cattle exports—the majority of these refer to calves—were 500,000 head, which was 3 per cent. less than in 1978. In 1980, the number dropped to 370,000 head, which was about 26 per cent. less than in 1979. The noble Baroness will also wish to know that all calves which do go
abroad have to be inspected by a Government vet and that they must be over 50 kilogrammes in weight before they are exported. Government vets enforce this rule strictly when they inspect the calves. There are, therefore, no very young calves which are exported.
It is estimated that 30,000 cattle and between 50,000 and 60,000 sheep are transported annually from the islands to the mainland for immediate or early slaughter. There is also a reverse trade in live finished cattle from Aberdeenshire to the Island of Lewis and a small inter-island trade in finished cattle and sheep. The prohibition of these movements of stock would place the islands in a serious financial position by the closure of outlets to a wider market.
A problem could also arise in the beef industry. This industry traditionally relies upon supplies of fattened store cattle from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. These animals, too, are imported by sea. In 1980, over 110,000 animals were brought in. If the provisions of this Bill were to come into effect, this trade would stop and it would have severe consequences

933
for our beef supplies in Great Britain.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, for many of us who have an open mind on this issue, a great deal turns on this question. A lot of the debate has missed the point which seemed to be made by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby: that these powers to make by-laws are subject to confirmation by the Minister. Is it the case that the power to confirm or to refuse could be used in order to prevent any unreasonable by-law in the case, for example, of the trade between the Scottish Islands and the mainland? Or is the power to confirm or not to confirm not used in that way?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be good enough to contain himself, I shall come to the point to which he addresses his mind quite correctly. There is another aspect of the Bill to which I should like to refer before turning to that point; namely, that if the Ministers of Agriculture and Transport were to approve any by-law which could be construed as limiting trade between members of the European Community, they would be placing the Government at the risk of causing a breach of its obligations under the Treaty of Rome.
My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley says that this kind of prohibition, if not observed within other states would be discriminatory. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said that this is not so, because Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome would permit this. The Government's legal advice is that a by-law banning exports or imports even from one port could constitute a breach of our obligations under Articles 34 and 30 of the Treaty of Rome. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, suggested that Article 36 permits a ban on the grounds of public morality but I have to tell him that past rulings of the European Court of Justice give us no reason to believe that a ban could successfully be defended on these grounds.
Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports or measures having an equivalent effect. Article 34 contains similar provisions relating to exports. Our legal advisers consider that these articles include local restrictions such as those proposed in the Bill. Such measures would, at the very least, result in the diversion of trade which could cause delays and additional transport costs to the exporter.
There is the implication in Clause 1(5) that the Bill should be applied uniformly. The European Court has ruled that all trading rules enacted by member states which are capable of hindering directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade, are to be considered as measures having an equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said that the bye-laws can be justified on such grounds, even if they are considered to contravene Articles 30 and 34 of the treaty. I am bound to tell your Lordships that our legal advisers very much doubt whether a case on these grounds could be made before the courts.
Apart from this, Article 36 also provides that any restrictions or prohibitions imposed on the grounds provided in Article 36 must not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised discrimination of trade between member states. Council directive
934
77/489 EEC on the protection of animals during international transport has been adopted to harmonise member states' laws in that regard, in order to eliminate the technical barriers to trade in live animals which could result from disparrities between national laws. The European Court of Justice has ruled that in such circumstances recourse to Article 36 is no longer available.
The Government are also concerned about the precedent which this Bill could set for the use of ports for our seaborne trade generally. The control of our exports and imports must manifestly be a matter of national policy and not, I suggest, of local determination. For this reason alone, I am sure that the Bill will not be welcomed either by shippers or shipowners generally, although I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, would not be particularly worried about that. However, I know that the Department of Trade has had representations from the Freight Transport Association which includes the British Shippers' Council.
It is to individual harbour authorities to whom the Bill would give the responsibility for judging whether a trade had given rise to public concern as being offensive to public morality or contrary to public policy. I would venture to suggest that it is wholly inappropriate to place a subjective responsibility of that nature upon commercial bodies. In the first place, we would be creating an obvious conflict of interest, since ports depend on all kinds of traffic for their livelihood. Some ports already have a trade in farm animals, and there will always be others who could see a reasonable prospect of obtaining such business. In the second place, the Bill could lead to an arbitrary assessment of public concern in a particular locality and it could result in divergent by-laws being enforced at different ports around the country. I suggest this is not a matter on which there should be a variety of methods of application of the law but one common approach within the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, "Don't worry about this, all by-laws must have the approval of the Minister"—and here we come to the point raised by the noble Lord. If I got his words correctly I think the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that the Minister is the Ark of the conscience of the community. The Bill goes further than that. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said that he was all for devolution and let individual local authorities do what they like. Further, there is an implied obligation under Clause 1(5) that a Minister should—not just "could" but "should"—impose these restrictions on trade if he feels that any harbour authority does not at present have sufficient by-laws of its own to achieve that end.
So although the Bill may appear to give freedom of choice to individual harbour authorities in fact it places upon the Minister an overriding power which could enable him to ensure that the provisions of this Bill apply nationally to all harbour authorities, irrespective of their views. Furthermore, it gives the Minister the power to make the by-laws which will have the same effect as if the harbour authority had made the by-laws, even if the authority did not want to have them.

935
So this has other implications for harbour authorities. It runs counter to the long-standing policy that ports should remain open to all users provided that port charges are paid. This policy is expressed in Section 33 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act of 1847 which is incorporated into the local legislation of most harbour authorities. The Bill would involve a major and unwelcome departure from this policy. At the same time it would place on harbour authorities the responsibility for administering a policy which has nothing whatsoever to do with safe navigation or with the proper regulation of a harbour, which are the duties for which they are established.
This is of course a Private Member's Bill and your Lordships can do what your Lordships see fit with it, but I am bound to leave the House with a clear impression of the Government's attitude to the welfare of farm animals which are intended for export, and it is this. We believe that this trade should be permitted to continue but with added legal safeguards. The Government have set up the Farm Animal Welfare Council to give advice on matters affecting the welfare of farm animals and it has already considered the Government's proposals for the new safeguards for the welfare of farm animals during export and during carriage by water. In our view, these measures should apply throughout the country and not on a port by port basis as is proposed in the Bill.
The Government understand, and indeed share, the deep concern of those who are committed to improving the welfare of farm animals, and many of your Lordships have spoken on that basis this evening. We all want to see animals well and properly cared for, but I suggest that the Bill has to be considered in all its aspects and not just in relation to one aspect, however important that may be. I am bound to tell your Lordships that the Government's view is that the adverse effects of this Bill, which I have endeavoured to describe, outweigh the advantages of it, and therefore the Government could not support the Bill.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, first I must thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It is obvious that this Bill has aroused considerable interest and has been more controversial than I expected. Our debate today has not been nearly so entertaining as some of the debates we had on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, when we were more relaxed and we had more friends across the Chamber than I appear to have at the present moment. Nevertheless I have assumed this task and I am going to stick doggedly to it.
I must make an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, for not having dealt adequately with his question. The infringements that I referred to were those observed by the special investigation branch of the RSPCA in other countries and therefore prosecutions did not lie in the hands of those who were observing the infringement. There are obvious difficulties in other countries' nationals trying to prosecute those who infringe the law of their own country, so they were reporting infringements outside this country.
I think I should make another observation in passing, which is that probably new considerations will arise in connection with the transportation of animals with
936
Greece already in the enlarged Community, where there are grave doubts about the treatment of animals—and with Spain and Portugal and Turkey also coming in, the enlargement of the EEC will certainly create entirely new problems of freedom of movement of transportation and the removal of trade barriers between member countries. I ask noble Lords to bear that in mind.
I wish those who are not in favour of the Bill had at least made some acknowledgment of the ideal—I would say it is a principle—that living animals which are to be slaughtered should be slaughtered as near as possible to the point of production. That has been stated time and again as the ideal which should be followed, and we should be adjusting our slaughterhouse facilities to the greater observance of that principle than we are doing at the present time.
I believe that one day those who come after us will wonder why we tolerated this traffic at all. There will be alternatives found to regarding living animals as merchandise to be shipped from one place to another and subjected to treatment which offends a great many people. The British Veterinary Association said that they would heartily support this Bill, though they feared, as one or two noble Lords have mentioned, the possibility of longer distances having to be travelled by land if facilities at certain ports were withdrawn. It is better that animals should travel further overland in this country than have longer sea voyages or journeys by land in other countries. That is the experience which I think most people would say justifies keeping as much as possible within our own control.
Let me now straight away dispose of the problem of Scotland and the transportation of animals between islands and the mainland within the United Kingdom. The Bill does not specifically exclude them and it does not directly or indirectly refer to them, but I would say that this is a matter which could be dealt with at the Committee stage of the Bill. We could in fact leave Scotland out of it altogether, as so frequently Scotland is left out of legislation which applies to England and Wales, so I hope that no noble Lords will regard the special difficulties of transportation from islands to the mainland of Scotland as a serious obstacle to approving the general principles of this Bill.
The real principle is whether we can make some progress towards a better solution of a problem which will stay with us whatever we do. I believe that ultimately the only straight and sensible course is to phase out this traffic altogether—and let me remind my noble friend Lord Wallace, who has spoken from the Front Bench, that this is part of Labour Party policy and I have not the slightest doubt that one day this will appear in the manifesto to which he will be committed. I must say that as of now I am drawn more to the Social Democratic Party than I am to my noble friend on the Front Bench. At least I have heard the voice that I wanted to hear from our Front Bench, and I cannot make any promises about my future political allegiance. However, meantime I must put up with what my noble friend said from the Front Bench.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord will be quite welcome over here if he has any doubts.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, kept on saying "if this Bill is

937
applied", "if the provisions of this Bill applied"; it was as if this Bill were imposing directly the options which are available under the Bill. The options are there, but they are not necessarily applied to anybody, not necessarily imposed on anybody either. It is a matter of particular harbour authorities, particularly probably the municipally-owned ones which have local electorates bringing their opinions to bear upon them. It is there that the disposition of a harbour authority is probably stronger towards exercising the option under this Bill than in a nationalised port which has no necessary response to make to local opinion. It is only if local opinion is strong enough and the port authority, a local one, take no action to respond to that local opinion that the Minister would come in to exercise his powers by requiring that particular port authority to make the necessary by-laws.
I think heavy weather has been made on all sides about a good deal of the detail of this Bill, losing sight of the fact that there is a firm principle involved here—that is, whether we are going to have more de-centralisation, whether we are going to have more control over our environment or whether we are to exercise some responsibility. And I emphasise that word; it is not a whim, it is not an emotion, it is responsibility for the attitude of citizens towards activities which are going on in their midst. I think we must bear that aspect of the matter in mind. The difficulties that might arise as between one port and another are inseparable from the exercise of any degree of local autonomy. We have spoken of regional decentralisation, we have been bewitched by devolution and decentralisation in recent years; we have in fact tried to get a greater acceptance of devolution in both Scotland and Wales. So the principles of this Bill are clearly written into a great many political tendencies at the present time.
Well, my Lords, there is a great deal else that could be said. I feel very strongly that the issues in this Bill are worth your Lordships' approval, for examination as thoroughly as your Lordships like in the Committee stage of the Bill. I regret that I cannot respond to the suggestion that I should withdraw it. I do not do things to withdraw them—not of this magnitude. I have spent a great deal of time and thought on this Bill. I have convinced myself about it, and there is not the slightest reason why If should withdraw, no matter how critical the views of noble Lords opposite. They have all been in favour of keeping this trade going. No concessions have been made in the speeches I have listened to, and I have listened to them all, about wanting to meet the public disquiet and distress about this trade, which is more widespread than in the ports directly affected.
I am afraid that this is the attitude of the conservative frame of mind. I use that term not in a political sense at all, because I do not want to make any political points in my final few observations. But we do have to move on from where we are; otherwise we should still be in the middle of the slave trade, to which I have already referred. However, I see that your Lordships are ready to give this Bill a Second Reading, so I strongly thank you for doing so, and invite all noble Lords who feel as I do, if we have a Division, to come into the Lobby with me.
8.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Avebury, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Listowel, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bernstein, L.

McNair, L.

Brockway, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Stedman, B.

de Clifford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gardiner, L.

Underhill, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Wade, L.

Hale, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Mottistone, L.

Auckland, L.

Mountevans, L.

Avon, E.

Newall, L.

Birdwood, L.

Norfolk, D.

Burton, L. [Teller.]

Northchurch, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L.

Orkney, E.

Digby, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sandys, L.

Hylton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Leonard, L.

Soames, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Loudoun, C.

Strabolgi, L.

Lyell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Walston, L.

Margadale, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion for Second Reading disagreed to accordingly.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

El Salvador: Policy
8.14 p.m.
Lord Chitnis Lord Chitnis rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how their policy on El Salvador and its immediate neighbours is evolving.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am asking it this evening because while there has been tremendous concern and publicity for the situation in Central America in this country recently, relatively little has been said about it on the Floor of this House. I want to talk about the situation in El Salvador, knowing that other noble Lords intend to talk about other countries in the region. So far as that country is concerned, almost all that has been said by Her Majesty's Government here is that they deplore the violence from whichever side it comes, although in February the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, did say in Answer to a Question of mine that there was no similarity between the situations in El Salvador, Afghanistan and Poland, because in the latter two countries the Russians were sending in troops or

939
threatening to send in troops. Since the Americans are now doing both in Salvador, albeit on a different scale, I assume that the Government's thinking must have moved on and I hope that the noble Lord will tell us in what direction.
It may be also an appropriate time to talk about El Salvador now that the first period of the Reagan presidency is over, when Mr. Haig has just visited London, and when the results of the guerrilla offensive which started at the beginning of January can be seen. What is clear is that increased American support for the junta has not resulted in the crushing of the guerrillas any more than the guerrillas have succeeded in effecting a successful revolution. What in fact has happened is a stalemate. Because of the danger that the stalemate may be broken by a widening of the conflict within the region; because America may be tempted to take action which extends the importance of the conflict far beyond the region; but surely most of all because of the immense suffering being caused to the people of El Salvador, I hope that the Government have used, and will use, their considerable influence with the United States Government to stop supplying lethal arms to the junta and to press for a negotiated solution. In particular, I hope that we may be told what, if anything, was said about the problem between the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Haig last week and I wonder whether Mr. Haig was able to throw any light on the appalling tale that anything up to 1,500 peasants were suffocated by the army blasting the entrance of the cave in which they had taken refuge.
Over and above the Government's dislike of the violence—the murder of even the mildest of dissidents by the army and the agents of the junta and the kidnapping by the guerrillas of foreign businessmen, including Britons, which I recognise the Government feel they cannot forget—do the Government share the view that the United States has misread the problem of El Salvador? The fighting there does not have its genesis in some international Communist conspiracy, based on Moscow and Havana, to take over Central America. It is based rather on 50 years of monstrous social injustice in El Salvador. Every British tradition, every Western democratic tradition suggests that we should be on the side of the oppressed rather than the oppressor. Our complaint against Communist countries is that they are governed by authoritarian tyrannies, that dissent is ruthlessly stifled and that they are thoroughly undemocratic. All those things are true of El Salvador, and America—the home of the brave, the land of the free, and all that—would have us support the junta in charge there. It makes a mockery of the West's claim to support civilised values to find its leader putting pressure on countries to stop providing arms to the Left; itself arming the Right; and then standing by while the Right indiscriminately slaughters the supporters of the Left. The only slight consolation is that every indicator shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans are opposed to their Government's policy.
But I suggest that perhaps so much has been said, written and shown on television about the present horror in El Salvador that there is no need for me to dwell on it, and it may be more profitable to concentrate instead on what could be done in the future. I suggest
940
that three propositions must be accepted. First, that a total military victory by the junta, with or without American advice and assistance, is highly improbable and, even if possible, could only be achieved at the price of many more deaths and the total destruction of the country's economy, already severely crippled. Secondly, a total military victory by the opposition front is equally improbable and undesirable, if only because it would never be accepted by the United States or even some of the European Governments which support the political aims of the front. Thirdly, all experience would seem to show that in such a situation the only way to a political solution is one which involves both sides to the conflict. If these points are accepted then it would seem obvious that all international pressure should be directed towards achieving, first, negotiations leading to a cease-fire; secondly, a period during which some semblance of political normality can be restored; and then—and only then—elections.
The trouble is that, while many Western Governments, notably the West Germans, see this, the United States does not. When it stops hankering after a military victory for President Durarte, it seems to believe that one can jump straight into elections without bothering with the earlier stages, and presses that advice on him. This is a nonsense but derives solely, as far as one can make out, from the belief that the opposition front is beyond the pale, an opinion normally justified by reference to guerrilla atrocities, undoubtedly appalling, which happened some time ago. But just as the junta governing El Salvador has changed, and as its methods have changed—becoming even more openly brutal—so has the front changed also, in roughly the opposite direction.
Its present leaders includes Dr. Ungo, the former head of the Social Democratic Party, Ruben Zamora, the former Christian Democrat, and many others whose democratic credentials are rather better than those of the majority of the junta. To refuse to deal with these people on the grounds that they are merely Soviet stooges is the kind of attitude which, if persisted in, will condemn, in effect, tens of thousands more Salvadorians to death.
And then, in wondering whether elections should best be held before or after the fighting stops, one only has to remember the rather similar situation in Zimbabwe to be able to list the reasons why an election without peace would be open to all the objections which stultified the 1979 Rhodesian election. There is a nasty civil war going on in El Salvador at the moment, in conditions under which an open campaign would be impossible. For example there has to be a curfew. There is no reliable census and thousands of refugees have had to flee within and outside the country. The internal bases of the parties in opposition have been destroyed, their leaders who have not been assassinated are in exile; their ordinary supporters murdered in their thousands merely for voicing their support. When ex-United States Ambassador White says that young people have been killed in Salvador on the merest suspicion of being dissidents, an election campaign under present conditions is likely to be a somewhat one-sided affair. Indeed, elections first, frankly would merely make matters worse.
My Lords, I always used to wonder when I first concerned myself with the problems of El Salvador tow or three years ago, how people in this country could ever be made interested in its extraordinary problems and, indeed, what it was to do with us anyway. I do not think that that is any longer the case. It is notable now the great upsurge of interest inside and outside this House, in the churches, in the media and a feeling that, as decent human beings, it is a matter of concern for us. I hope that this feeling is mirrored in the Government and that we can look to them to use their great influence with the Government in the United States based not only on our traditional friendship but also our experience in dealing with such problems elsewhere.
Will the point be made to the American Government that a military victory for the junta in El Salvador is a mirage; that the seemingly democratic solution of imminent elections is no solution at all; that negotiations between both sides in the war, a process which will almost certainly involve international mediation, is the first goal to strive for?—the first step on the road leading to a cease-fire, a return to normality and then an election. That way at last peace and justice might come to El Salvador.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I very warmly welcome and endorse the analysis of my noble friend Lord Chitnis of what is happening in El Salvador, and I believe that the resistance forces there exist, not because of the outside encouragement to which reference has sometimes been made, but because of the internal situation in the country itself, on the basis of inequalities which have been apparent in that society over very many years. I think that the resistance forces are acting out of a desire for national liberation and social justice, and that they represent, very broadly, the people of El Salvador; and there should be mechanisms by which the people of El Salvador should be allowed to decide their own destiny free from the interventions of any outside power, and that particularly includes the supply of arms from any source whatever.
Although the spotlight is on El Salvador these days, it is not the only country in Central America where human life is held cheap. In neighbouring Guatemala, which is a country of 5½ million inhabitants, the Government programme of political murder, described in a report published in February 1981 by Amnesty International, has intensified recently, and this may not be unconnected with the fact that the American Right see the régime of President Luis Garcia, as they see that of President Duarte in El Salvador, as a bastion of anti-Communism.
The authoritative Latin American Bureau in a study entitled Guatemala—Unnatural Disaster, which was published in 1978, pointed out that while the earthquake in 1976 claimed over 22,000 lives and rendered over one million people homeless, in the years 1970 to 1974, 15,000 died at the hands of the Government-sponsored right wing terrorist groups; uncounted numbers died from malnutrition due to the inegalitarian social policies and particularly to land tenure; trade unions were repressed and attacked as the "enemy of reconstruction", and thousands of peasants were forcibly evicted from their holdings.
942
Now Amnesty International, in one of the most horrifying documents ever to have been published by that organisation, reveals, in all its loathsome detail, the policies of the Guatemalan régime today; it is alleged that the death squads, the Escudrón de la Muerte and the Ejérato Secreto Anticomunista, operate under the direct control of the President's office.
In 1979, according to official spokesmen, the Escudrón de la Muerte killed 1,224 so-called criminals between January and June, and the ESA killed 3,252 alleged subversives in the first 10 months of that year alone. Not a single one of these thousands of murders has ever been solved. The assassinations continued at the same rate in 1980, although official figures are not available. Among those who were murdered last year were four Catholic priests, including, for instance, Father Conrado De La Cruz, who was detained with 44 other people at a demonstration on 1st May. He and his assistant, Herlindo Cifuentes, have never been seen again and many of those who were arrested at the same time were later found murdered. Florencia Xocop Chavez, a leader of the trade union at a textile plant in the capital, was abducted together with 26 other trade union leaders meeting in the Centrale Nacional de Trabajadores, the equivalent of the TUC, on the afternoon of Sunday, 21st June. None of those trade union leaders has been seen since that date.
Senora Juana Turn De Menchu, wife of one of the peasants who was killed in the Spanish Embassy occupation, was detained as she walked home to her village on 19th April 1980, and again has never been seen since. A final example and a particularly interesting one, because he is one of the few people who have escaped after having been arrested, is Victor Manuel Valverth Morales, an engineering student, who was arrested by two plain-clothes men in the engineering department on the campus of the university. But after he had been shot several times by these two plainclothes men, he was rescued by fellow students. They secured the identification papers of the two kidnappers, which showed that one of them was a military intelligence agent and the other a member of the so-called "Treasury Police". I am glad to say that Valverth recovered from his wounds and is now in exile in Costa Rica.
The Amnesty International report contains detailed statements, first, from the survivor of a military torture camp, who endured being hung up by his testicles, kicked unconscious and hooded with quick lime, and who also saw three fellow prisoners garroted in front of his eyes. The report contains the testimony of a conscript soldier who witnessed many tortures and murders. If anybody wants this information confirmed by independent sources, this is what the former Field Director for Oxfam, who spent four years in Guatemala, had to say:
"The wholesale slaughter, for there is no other word for it, has spared no sector of society".
Dr. Villagarn Kramer, the former Vice-President of Guatemala, who resigned his office in Washington last September because he could not do so in Guatemala in case he would be assassinated, said that his main reason for relinquishing office was the disregard of the Guatemalan régime for human rights. I think that it is rather surprising that none of this information is thought worthy of comment either, I gather, in the

943
United States' media or even more so in the United Kingdom, where one would have thought that because of the situation with regard to Belize it might have been worthy of comment.
But United States policy on Guatemala seems to be designed to have the very opposite effect of that which is intended; that is, it will drive the people of Guatemala into the arms of the Communists. Recently three United States envoys—General Daniel Graham, Belden Bell and General John K. Singlaub—visited the country and pledged support for the terrorist régime of Luis Garcia. General Singlaub came very close to declaring his sympathy for the death squads. Frankly, I must say that the Americans seem to be choosing some very odd friends. The trouble is that in the long-run, when these dictators are finally overthrown, those who had to struggle for their freedom against murderers and thugs, who were armed with American weapons, are not going to be exactly sympathetic to the United States.
Britain's relationship with Guatemala is a tricky one because we have no diplomatic relations with the country and because we have the responsibility to ensure that the independence of Belize is secure. Nobody wants to do anything whatsoever that will jeopardise or hinder the progress of that country towards independence. One wants to ensure at the same time, however, that nothing in the agreement that we make with Guatemala could involve this country in action, either direct or indirect, against the democratic forces of the opposition in Guatemala.
There have recently been bombing attacks against villages on the Guatemalan side of the frontier with Belize. I should like to ask the noble Lord when he replies whether he would tell the House if the roads mentioned in paragraph 5 of the Heads of Agreement signed between the United Kingdom and Guatemala on 11th March will facilitate military operations by the Guatemalan forces against the rebels, or against the civilian population in the neighbourhood of the frontier with Belize. In this respect the situation in Guatemala bears a close resemblance to that in El Salvador, the attacks being indiscriminate. Although they may be said to be directed against terrorists, it is frequently innocent civilians who lose their lives.
The Heads of Agreement also provide in paragraph 9 that Belize and Guatemala shall agree upon certain development projects of mutual benefit. If the treaty, or treaties, giving effect to this clause involve any payment of aid by the United Kingdom will it be ensured that that aid is related to bona fide development projects, and that stringent safeguards will be incorporated in them to ensure that resources are not diverted into military or quasi military purposes?
In conclusion, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the report of the UN Commission on Human Rights of 26th January 1981 on the question of missing and disappeared persons. That Commission, of which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, was a distinguished member, received information in great detail about murders, disappearances and tortures in Guatemala of named individuals. The Commission wrote to the Government of Guatemala first on 30th June last year and then again on 30th September asking for the Government's observations, and no
944
reply was ever received.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for an assurance—and I know he will be prepared to give this assurance—that we will continue to support the work of that Commission, so that the international community may ultimately build up an effective system for detecting, exposing, and even finally punishing crimes against the people committed by the main powers which are supposed to protect them from injury, which is the hope of the tortured, the bereaved, and the dispossessed in Guatemala just as much as in El Salvador.
8.34 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I cannot attempt to follow the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; precisely. In any event, he was mostly talking about the next-door country, Guatemala, although it of course has a great deal of relevance to this issue. Our thanks must be due to the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, for introducing this subject at such a timely moment. I should probably declare an interest, as I think I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who has actually lived in El Salvador. I lived there some 20 years ago for nearly three years. Although this gives me only a little knowledge, which has been helpful, it has given me above all a great feeling for the people who live there. Many of my friends have in fact been killed in the present and recent troubles.
When I went to live in El Salvador I never used to declare that, because nobody had ever heard of it. I always used to say I was going to live in Central America. They more or less knew where that must be by definition. Unfortunately now, by virtue of the unfortunate happenings in that country, everybody has heard of El Salvador.
I should like to take up one interesting point that the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, made about military victory. I am sure we are all agreed that military victory is not the objective, can never be, and should never be. But in order to achieve the objectives laid down and spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, it is essential that we have some sort of law and order. What seems to me to be happening in El Salvador is a power struggle between the Left and the Right. The Government have to establish some system in the country whereby people can go about their daily business. In a struggle between Left and Right, this is not the same as it was in Nicaragua. That was a special case where there was a single oligarchy. In El Salvador no such oligarchy exists. What exists is an emergent middle class, unfortunately insufficiently established to have been able to give the stability in the political system at a crucial period in the 1960s.
It is necessary when considering El Salvador to go back to the 1960s because frequently one hears, and reads in the press, and there has been a lot of coverage, that democracy has never existed in El Salvador. That is not correct. There was a fragile parliamentary system which unfortunately collapsed due to pressures from all sides. Indeed, at one time President Duarte, now held up as being very much a Right-Wing character, was considered to be the most radical person in existence. It shows that thinking has changed.

945
It behoves us to think a great deal about what President Duarte, a parliamentarian, a man who has been a candidate for the presidency in democracy, is trying to achieve, and his long-range objectives. But as the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, put it so clearly you cannot create, or re-create, instant democracy. In a country where there is a great deal of illiteracy, and so much outside interference which has produced this instability, the immediate reintroduction of one man one vote is an unlikely panacea. I was very happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, say that.
From the point of view of Britain, this is not really our main area of interest. Unfortunately, our trade and our involvement in Central America are very low. Some of us have struggled manfully to try to raise them, but it is outside our generally recognised sphere of influence. It is therefore essentially a North American problem. The North-South relationship, the whole of the hemispheric dialogue between the United States, Central and South America, is something of vital importance, and is insufficiently understood in Europe. It requires increasing knowledge and increasing dissemination, and this is another reason why I welcome this debate this evening so much, because it will help to propagate the problems of Central America which are insufficiently recognised.
Whatever happens it is no good us in the West, or indeed in the East, trying to impose solutions from the outside. What we can do—and I hope that the noble Lord who replies will say something about this—is to encourage the organisations with which we are associated, like the Organisation of American States, and indeed the leading and great republics in Latin America such as Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina, to play a much greater part in participating in Caribbean affairs in general. When talking about the Caribbean one must include Central America.
Meanwhile, the bloodshed must cease, and in that respect I welcome the United States initiative. I hope the Minister will say that we are supporting that initiative in trying to achieve those ends. It is an absurd situation that the United States Embassy should be in a state of seige in a country where it is trying to restore law and order. Until we get law and order, the objectives outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, will never be achieved, nor will the objective of-re-creating economic prosperity.
I say that because it is a small country with a very dynamic population, but unfortunately many of the entrepreneurial people have been driven out and their businesses put under seige. As for the solutions that have been proposed, one is instant land reform of the whole country, breaking the estates up, when in fact the estates do not dominate the position. It is often said that, with a population of 4 million, the land there is owned by only 2 per cent. of the pepole. It must be borne in mind, however, that though a small country, that represents about 100,000 farms. Economic activity and agricultural development, which will only come after stability is re-created, will bring about a new way of life in Central America.
Some years ago, as noble Lords will be aware, Central American countries tried to group together in a common market, but it foundered for a variety of reasons; for example, because of the Salvador—Honduras conflict, because of the economic problems
946
in other countries and because of problems in Nicaragua. Ultimately, it will restart, because in the limited spell of its life it achieved an enormous increase in intra-regional trade; countries which had previously not spoken to one another began to realise that by working together they could achieve something.
It is a fragile institution which still exists but it broke down because of differences and political ambitions in the individual countries. Therefore, I believe our best effort rather than criticising, as we do, in the press—would be to see where we can help to fortify the international institutions which are working in El Salvador and in the whole of Central America. We must try to see where we can be of help to re-create a sensible trading pattern so that the products which those countries produce can be exported, and many of their agricultural products have great opportunities in the West and elsewhere, particularly if a climate of investment can be created.
One should in that context mention the large corporations or multinationals, which are frequently castigated. In fact, in Central America the multinationals have brought nothing but benefit. Unfortunately, they have been insufficiently involved because of the smallness of the area and the fragility of the then common market; probably Honduras was the only country in which the larger corporations were involved to any extent, and that fell apart a long time ago.
The development of the area about which we are speaking will take place only by the re-creation of a climate appropriate to investment, and that means investment by the nationals of the country; about 80 per cent. of all investments in Central America has come from domestic capital formations. Until that sort of climate is re-created—and it requires peace and order—we shall never see a solution to the problem.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, we have listened with great respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, because of his residence in El Salvador. It may seem almost an impertinence that someone who has not been there should differ from him in some of his conclusions. I can only say that people are often resident in a country but are in a different environment and have a different political attitude; two people may live in a country together yet come to different conclusions. The views which I shall express are also a reflection of the views of those who have lived in El Salvador and know the circumstances there.
On Sunday 23rd March 1980 the Archbishop of Salvador in a sermon appealed to the members of the security forces not to kill people. He said:
"Brothers, you are from our same pueblo (people), you kill our brother campesinos (peasants); and, before an order to kill given by a man, you ought to reflect on the law of God which says: do not kill. No soldier is obliged to obey an order that is contrary to the law of God … In the name of God, then, and in the name of this suffering pueblo, whose cries rise to the heavens, every day more clamouringly, I beg, I ask, I order you in the name of God: stop the repression".
That sermon was described by a representative of the armed forces as "criminal", and the following evening the archbishop was shot while celebrating Mass in the cancer hospital where he lived to give some service to the dying patients. On the following Sunday,

947
100,000 people gathered in the square before the Cathedral for the archbishop's funeral service. A bomb was thrown into the crowd and snipers opened fire from buildings around. The funeral service was completed, not only for the archbishop but for the 50 people who had been killed.
I am indebted to Dr. Dermot Keogh, the historian, for those descriptions in his book, Romero: El Salvador's Martyr. He was in the cathedral crowd and he asked, "Where are the police and army?"—accustomed to democratic societies where their duty is to protect the public—and the answer he got was, "Outside, shooting in at us". I recite that incident because it indicates two conclusions. The first is that the present Government there, initiated by overcoming by a military coup in October 1979 50 years of dictatorships, are often described as moderate. Because they began with a programme of human rights and democracy they are still presented to us as being democratic. But in fact they have sadly deteriorated in their policy—deteriorated from violation of human rights to the point of massive extermination. It is the army of the Government that is guilty of violence against peaceful crowds such as occurred outside the cathedral. In addition to the army, reactionary paramilitary forces are supported by the Government and allowed to shoot at will.
The second conclusion is that the victims of the repression are not members of Marxist resistance organisations only. They are Catholics (the archbishop and the cathedral crowd); they are many Christian Democrats; above all, they are innocent, defenceless peasants in that territory. According to the records of the Catholic Church in El Salvador, an overwhelming proportion of those killed are unarmed civilians.
One must say something about the attitude of the Government of the United States. They are now supporting the Government of repression in El Salvador. President Reagan has stated openly that human rights are secondary; the struggle against communist states and dangers must come first. But, my Lords, what is the democratic case against communism? It is the denial of human rights It is the denial of political liberties. I do not think there is any doubt that, proportionately to the population, El Salvador denies human rights more than does the Soviet Union itself. I am always reluctant to describe political opponents as hypocrites. But what word other than hypocrisy can be used when, at the present Madrid Conference, the United States representative is threatening to disrupt all the proceedings by denunciation of human rights in the Soviet Union?
I make my position clear. I am against the denial of human rights in any country. I have stated publicly that I will not go to the Soviet Union on the invitation of the Government because of their repression of human rights. But 82 countries in the world are repressing human rights, according to a survey of the United Nations. To seek to threaten the progress of detente and disarmament in the world by selecting only the Soviet Union, while supporting in El Salvador a government which are repressing human rights is, to say the least, illogical and not justifiable.
The United States Government justify their attitude
948
by stating that Cuba has been supplying arms to the resistance in El Salvador and that they have been passing through Nicaragua. They have been showing to our Government, or to the governments of Western Europe, a document which appears to justify that statement. Cuba has denied that it has supplied arms. Nicaragua has denied that it has allowed them to go through its territory. They say that the document that has been shown to governments is a forgery which has been committed by the CIA. I want to acknowledge at once that I cannot judge the truth of what is said on both sides, but one knows from the history of the CIA that in the past it has been guilty of forgeries, guilty even of assassinations. The CIA and the KGB of the Soviet Union are together the most dangerous international organisations in the world at the present time.
I wish to end my speech on a constructive note. The Human Rights Commission has appointed a rapporteur to go to El Salvador. I am glad to know that the representative of the United Kingdom voted in favour of that proposal at the United Nations Commission. The representative of the United States did not do so; he abstained. I want to suggest that the rapporteur from the Human Rights Commission should not he satisfied merely with giving a report of the situation as he sees it. He will be meeting representatives of all the communities and ideologies in El Salvador. He will be meeting the representatives of the powerful Catholic Church. He will be meeting many Christian Democrats. He will be meeting the representatives of the two resistance organisations, one of which is Marxist. He will be meeting the Government. I should like to see him return with a proposal that moderate members of the Government, representatives of the Catholic Church, and other organisations in El Salvador should be brought together under the auspices of either the United Nations itself or the Organisation of American States. They should be brought together and world influence should be exerted to bring about both a ceasefire and, after a period, democratic elections which would allow the people of El Salvador itself to determine its future.
8.59 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I apologise if a cough, which becomes worse as the hour gets later, makes it impossible for me to stay to the end of the debate. I want to take up a point which the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, emphasised at the beginning of the debate; namely, that El Salvador is of growing concern to many ordinary people in our country. I should like to approach that point by declaring a financial interest in El Salvador. I do so, associating myself with many millions of other ordinary people in this country who have a similar financial stake. It is not a financial stake invested in El Salvador for purposes of gain, however; it is a contribution made through Christian Aid to humanitarian services in that country. Perhaps I might remind your Lordships that £7 million was received by Christian Aid for disbursement in 1980, most of that from house-to-house collections throughout the length and breadth of our country. For example, 19½ million gift envelopes were distributed.
Of that £7 million, £150,000 went in aid to El Salvador, first to separate Protestant and Roman

949
Catholic groups but now to the Salvadorian Ecumenical Association of Service and
Humanitarian Aid. Let me emphasise the interests that those who make such contributions have in that country by saying that, in February, Christian Aid instituted a special aid for the needy of El Salvador, and in the few weeks since February £65,000 has been contributed to Christian Aid for distribution to the needy in that country. There is therefore wide interest in the goings-on within El Salvador—interest not, I think, stimulated only by contrary reports of this or that pressure group in the media, but simply because those who invest money in this way like to know how it is being used, and those who make those grants available seek to give honest and true reports of what is happening in the country. By these means, I think, ordinary people in this country have entered into some partnership of generosity.
People are disquieted. It is clear, for example, that in January 1980 the civilian politicians in the junta resigned simply because they had failed to bring the security forces under control as they had undertaken to do. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has given personal examples of harassment, imprisonment and death in El Salvador. The information coming to Christian Aid from the legal aid office in the Catholic archdiocese of San Salvador is that 80 per cent. of the 8,000 non-combatants assassinated in El Salvador during 1980 were murdered by members of the security forces. Eighty per cent. of the 8,000 non-combatants assassinated met their death, by the testimony of the witnesses given to the legal aid office, at the hands of one of the four different security forces operating at the behest of the Government in that country.
Therefore, questions are being asked by ordinary people about the rightness of giving unlimited support to the junta Government from the United States—support which it is sometimes suggested we back up morally through our Government. Hence the British Council of Churches have quite properly, because of this involvement, made representations to the Minister of State. They did so in February, and they received from the Minister, Mr. Ridley, a personal letter. I want to conclude by referring to that letter, and by drawing attention to two passages in it. This was a letter addressed to the Secretary-General of the British Council of Churches, who was writing about these matters of concern. First, the Minister said:
"We do hope that some means can be found to bring about a negotiated settlement to the conflict, and to enable the Salvadorian people to determine their own future in a democratic way".
The noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, referred to this in his speech, pointing out that there had to be a negotiated settlement between all parties in that country before there could be a move towards elections, if those elections were to be free and democratic. I would ask the noble Lord the Minister whether it is still the hope of the Government that there might be such a negotiated settlement, and whether the Government will press upon the United States Government to secure this negotiated settlement between all parties in that country. We have had a memorable example of what can be done through effort and negotiation in Zimbabwe, through the negotiated settlement there brought about by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his colleagues on behalf of the people of that
950
country and in the name of our Government. I would urge our Government to press the significance of this upon the Government of the United States in the particular problems which now beset the people of El Salvador.
The second passage to which I would refer in the Minister's letter is this—and this has already been referred to by Lord Brockway. The Minister wrote:
"It is not possible to defend resort to violence and terror by either side in the conflict, though in the present circumstances there is rarely much objectivity in reports of what is happening. That is why a thorough and early report by a United Nations investigating team is desirable, and we supported the resolution calling for the establishment of such a team at the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva on 11th March".
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has already congratulated the Government on taking that step in support of that resolution, and we must ask the Government to pay the most careful attention to the report when it is made and to act upon the information which they receive through the United Nations sources.
Finally, I wish to ask the question: Is it not a tragedy that in such a small country as El Salvador it is quite impossible at the moment to establish the authority of the United Nations in the securing of a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement? The polarisation of the two great world powers is hindering this in the United Nations itself and within that country. Ought we not to be making it a priority in our foreign policy to seek to strengthen the United Nations and to secure for the United Nations the strength of authority and resources in personnel and necessary equipment so that they could intervene in such a situation as this, rather than leaving it to the two super powers making it, as it were, a battlefield of ideology in such a small country as El Salvador? I thank your Lordships for listening to me. I support this Question, and am grateful that it has been asked.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, it is natural that when an explosion happens like that in El Salvador we in this country should see it first through American eyes because it is from American reports that we hear of it; and that we should then ask ourselves, "What is El Salvador and what are its people like? Let us find out about the country"—and then we send our own television teams and our reporters and, that, thirdly, we begin to say, "What is the right course for the British Government to take in this umpteenth case of conflict between the super-powers with the umpteenth small nation standing to be trodden underfoot between them?" I propose to follow the same order this evening.
The House will remember that one of the first matters which horrified the American people and set the tone for what has happened since was the murder of the three nuns. The House will remember also that Mr. Haig as Secretary of State in an early Congressional hearing implied one day that they had in some sense almost deserved their death because they had been conducting themselves not as nuns and as medical missionaries but in some other capacity. Then, two days later, he withdrew that implication almost claiming that he had never made it. This history was traced with extraordinary skill, I thought, and assiduity,

951
by the American press and particularly by the New York Times. It set the tone.
Then, again, early in the days of the Reagan Administration, Mr. James Cheek, one of the Deputy Secretaries of State, when describing the situation in El Salvador said, "It is like the first signs of a cold. You have to treat it seriously at once and jump on it to stop it spreading." Then we probably all remember the "Panorama" programme in Britain where there was an American expert, not a member of the Administration but one of the directors of one of the institutes for the study of foreign policy in Washington—I think, a former General. He was asked the question, "In what way does El Salvador differ from Vietnam? Why do you not fear that American military involvement in El Salvador might end up in the same way as in Vietnam?" His answer was, "Because it is a smaller country".
We remember how the Reagan Administration's almost first act of foreign policy was to sack its Ambassador in El Salvador because it did not like what he was saying and we may feel perhaps a certain recognition of likelihood in the assessment of the Chinese newspaper, the People's Daily not so long ago, that the reason the United States has chosen this situation—meaning El Salvador—is because it wants to take tough action in a place easily controlled by itself alone with the aim of letting Moscow know that "a new force has emerged in Washington and the days of hesitation and self-doubt are over". Then we note that the American aid to El Salvador at present is only one part military to three parts civilian. That is one way of putting it. If we try it the other way round and say that the military component of American aid to El Salvador is as high as 25 per cent., that strikes one again as an unhelpful presage.
Looking now at the country and what we know of the country—which for most of us is not very much and, for me, I share the ignorance of most people of this country—we see that it has burst into full-scale horror with massacres; and the case of the 1,500 peasants in a cave has been mentioned already by the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis; and there are others. We should not forget that, since 1931, military coups d'etat and civil war have been not the exception but the rule in El Salvador, as they have in other countries, and in one of the coups d'etat in the 1930s there was a massacre in which 30,000 died. Hard as it is to face, the horrors that we are discussing this evening are not new. They are not unusual. It is well known in the world that such things happen in such countries.
What kind of country is it? It is a coffee country. The price of coffee is going down on the world markets. It is a country where in the past few years the Church has been for reform. It is a country where on the whole business, including Lord Montgomery's multinationals, big international business, is against reform. It is a country where there is a long-standing anti-union law so that the workers are not free to organise or to obtain normal political expression. It is a country where only two years ago a junta was set up with the approval of the United States, rather quietly, rather efficiently and with very little bloodshed compared with other occasions. It is a country which is not abnormal either in its own internal, social and economic
952
and political consistency, or in its relations with the United States.
So, what is the way out? Perhaps we may hope that some of the uninhibited approaches from Washington may be becoming tempered by the experience of office. Such horrible things are happening and are being expressed in the American press, not only the massacres but also what has been called the TV war, that is the competition between American television teams to get a bit of war to film and send back, that this is arousing feeling in America and will be something that will cause the American Administration to think again about what is going on.
There is the appointment, which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, reminded us about, of the UN rapporteur by the UN Human Rights Commission. This gives promise of objective reporting of what is going on which may then provide the basis for constructive debate and voting in the UN itself which has not really so far taken place.
There is the changing attitude of Mexico which to begin with went along to a pretty great extent with the uninhibited American attitude and perhaps was stimulated by the appointment of a new American ambassador to Mexico who is an actor and has been the star recently in an immensely successful horror movie. He is fluent in Spanish and it has been a great success in Mexico City and he is particularly identified with the brand of rum that he advertises in television publicity. But who shall tell? The Mexican attitude appears to be changing a little from day to day so that they may come to exercise a restraining influence on Washington.
There is also the fact that the European Community, standing aghast at what has happened, and having no locus to do anything direct, not in our hemisphere, have voted a certain sum. I have seen it quoted at different times as being 400,000 European units of account, that is about £200,000, and also £950,000. I do not know, may be there have been two different votes, first a small one and then it was increased. Perhaps the Government will tell us what the sum now is and what the history of that is. At any rate, they have voted this for transmission to the Salvadorian Red Cross to help refugees both in the country and outside.
The main question that I have is: How does the European Community know that there is a Salvadorian Red Cross? We hope that that money is in a bank somewhere for the right person to claim. How will the Community check that the person claiming it is the right person? How will they check on its administration on the ground in this country in flames?
What should be the attitude of the British Government themselves? We do not even have an embassy there. I do not think that we have an embassy in Nicaragua either, the neighbouring country. There is something unreal about the politics of El Salvador and Nicaragua. Nicaragua is the country which since the victory of the Sandinistars a couple of years ago has sent its Defence Minister to Kampuchea where he has stood up beside the Government of that country and said "We are ready if you permit us to struggle by your side weapon in hand against the Peking expansionists". That is the Nicaraguan policy on East Asia which is of course of interest to us all.
The German Parliament is rather sharply divided between the Social Democrats who back Dr. Ungo,

953
the Salvadorian rebel anti-Government fighter, and the Christian Democrats, who back another anti-Government fighter in and outside El Salvador. I am not sure that the reflection of the German political party conflict in Salvadorian affairs is going to do anybody any good.
Therefore I hope that our Government, acting through the Community, will remember that what is happening in Central America is not unusual and that, though tragic and horrific, it is extremely difficult to understand, that we cannot be certain of understanding it with our own free understandings and that if and when we are invited by the United States to take up a very strong position we should agree only after the most profound reflection.
Central America is not in the NATO area any more then the Persian Gulf is in the NATO area. If we are invited to do this or that by the United States in NATO, prima facie we should do it for, in NATO, over many decades they have been the leading country. In the rest of the world that is not the case, and for the United States to be able to call upon our automatic support in areas outside the NATO area would require, I suggest, a process of democratic analysis and debate in this country as profound as that which preceded the signature of the North Atlantic Treaty in the late 1940s. So let us stand back, let us send money to help the oppressed, let us be sure it finds its way to the oppressed, let us stand back from the alleged misdeeds of Russia and Cuba, let us stand back from the hot-headed aspect of the United States policy, which now appears to be in decline. United States policy now appears to be becoming more sober day by day. Let us remember, above all, the extreme apparent unreality of Central American politics, which may be summed up perhaps by the fact that in the last few days the Nicaraguan Government have broken off diplomatic relations with Cuba because of an alleged Cuban invasion of Colombia, on the Pacific Coast of Colombia.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, has asked this evening refers not only to the Government's policy concerning El Salvador, with which a number of noble Lords have dealt admirably, but to neighbouring countries as well. It is on that basis that I should like to call the Minister's attention to certain aspects of the situation in one of those neighbours—namely, Nicaragua, whose fortunes and future are bound to be affected by developments in El Salvador.
There are two aspects of Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Nicaragua which concern me—namely, our lack of direct diplomatic representation in that country, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has just referred, and our most inadequate record in respect of Nicaragua so far as economic aid is concerned. I believe we should approach both these questions with a proper appreciation of the delicate, not to say crucial, position of Nicaragua in the Central American situation.
It is some years now since I myself travelled in that part of the world as a junior Minister in the Ministry of Overseas Development. But from what I have read since, and from discussions that I have had with
954
people who have been there recently, including Mr. Frank McElhone, the Shadow Opposition spokesman in another place on aid matters, I believe that the general lessons which I learned years ago are even more relevant to the present situation. Put simply and generally, in relation to the whole region of Central America, the task for all of us who are concerned with the fate of all the countries in that region is to enable the problems related to and derived from great poverty to be tackled and overcome without the continuance in office or the introduction of repressive political régimes, whether of the Right or of the Left. It is because I believe that in Nicaragua they are trying to do just that, that I am joining in this discussion this evening.
When the Somoza régime was overthrown nearly two years ago, the new government certainly represented a move to the left. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any replacement of the Somoza régime which was not further to the left than it was. But the forces in Nicaragua which now support the new régime are certainly not extremist. They cover a wide spectrum of popular organisations, including trade unions, businessmen, professional organisations, church groups and academics.
The task which that government faces is enormous. The country was already impoverished before the civil war. The bulk of its population were living below the poverty line, as generally reckoned by international agencies. Then, the burden which has been imposed by the war has been tragic in both human and material terms—50,000 people dead; twice that number wounded; 40,000 orphans to be cared for; physical damage to property of crippling proportions.
Surely, such a country facing such problems should have a prior claim for aid from us, as from other donor nations. Yet I understand that official aid to Nicaragua last year from this country amounted to no more than £128,000—a mere drop in an ocean of need. But fortunately that is not the way in which our European partners approach the problems of Nicaragua. Substantial official bilateral contributions come from Holland, from Sweden, from Germany, from France, and from Italy. They are generous contributions, but still inadequate to meet the need that is there. Yet so far as this country is concerned it is the voluntary agencies, not the Government, which realise the nature of the problem there and the need to do all that their limited resources allow.
We have heard references in connection with Christian Aid's activity in El Salvador. In Nicaragua, Christian Aid is also generous in its activities. It combines with War on Want, with Oxfam, and with other agencies, and these have together sent some £600,000, which is in striking contrast, I suggest, to the contribution from official sources. It is probably more than these voluntary agencies ought to spare, having regard to the very many other calls upon their funds from troubled areas throughout the world, but no doubt they feel that they have to make that extra effort in helping Nicaragua because their own Government do virtually nothing.
Different people have different critieria to justify the provision of aid for developing countries. Some say that it is justified if it finances exports from the donor. Some urge that aid should go to the poorest

955
people. Some may say that it should be applied to ensure political stability. These are different approaches to the question of overseas aid. But whatever the reasons that one applies, whatever the critieria, it seems clear to me that Nicaragua can advance and, indeed, has advanced an urgent claim for British official aid. Yet, as I have said, practically none is forthcoming. I believe that to be wrong and I believe that it is a wrong which should be righted.
Finally, I wish briefly to turn to the question of diplomatic representation in Nicaragua. I recognise that when the embassy was closed in the mid-1970s, that decision was part of the pursuit of economies in the diplomatic service generally. I suppose it was natural that a group of small countries in the Central American region would be considered an obvious area in which representative services could be shared. But if I am right, as I believe I am, that Nicaragua is something of a test case as to whether a moderate political régime can become firmly established in that region; if I am right, as I believe I am, that a much larger aid programme is needed; and if I am right as again I believe I am—that shared diplomatic services with Costa Rica are proving inadequate, then I believe that it all adds up to a case for re-establishing at least a small embassy in Managua. When, therefore, the Government consider action in relation to this evening's discussion, as they must, and when the Government consider, for instance, the points which the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, raised in his opening speech I hope they will also consider the two main points which I have raised in connection with Nicaragua: the need for a much more generous aid programme and, in that connection, the need for diplomatic representation in that country.
9.33 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, like all noble Lords I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, for having put down this question because I think it is a subject which this House should very properly investigate deeply and carefully. I have been only to Mexico and Venezuela. I have never been to San Salvador. I should also like to mention, before I speak in detail, that I am speaking having been approached by the Catholic bishops and many Catholic organisations who have given me much information about this sad subject, information which I am afraid has often led me to the sad conclusion that our great ally, the United States, for whom I have the greatest respect, is not exactly on the same lines as I would like to see it.
The scale of killings in San Salvador is absolutely appalling. The population is about 4 million or 5 million and in 1980. 12,000 people were killed. That is 3 per cent. of the population, which is equivalent to 150,000 being killed in one year in our own country. These were killed by the security forces and the other Right-wing groups—very often the security forces, so to speak, in plain clothes. In this year, 1981, 5,000 have already been killed. I am not forgetting that of course there have been murders and kidnappings by the Left-wing guerrillas at the same time; but the vast majority of the terrible deaths have taken place at the
956
hand of the Government.
In San Salvador there is the awful problem of terrible poverty and injustice, common to many Central American states. Fifty per cent. of the population is illiterate. There is malnutrition of 75 per cent. of the children under five. These are appalling things to say. Sixty per cent. of the land is apparently owned by 2 per cent. of the population and this, to my mind, sets a situation which I cannot believe is right.
The Catholic Church, which as your Lordships know I belong to, has taken a line in that country which, as has already been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, resulted in Archbishop Romero being machine-gunned and then that ghastly killing of further people when they rallied to the memorial service of his funeral. The shootings undoubtedly came from the Government palace. Six Catholic priests have been shot recently and we all know about the American nuns and the other missionary who were raped and killed the other day.
What is really significant about this is that there has been no effort on the part of the Junta to try to find out who did these things. That is what makes it incomprehensible to me.
One noble Lord said that the American Ambassador was sacked. That is not true, my Lords. The American Ambassador, Bob White, is a marine general—and marines in the United States Army are like the Brigade of Guards in our army, if I may make a little joke in this sad moment; they are very tough people. This marine general, Bob White, resigned. He said he could not go along with the policy that was being asked of the Reagan Government. He resigned in January 1981, and as I understand, he has been replaced.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Duke allow me to apologise to the House for having misled it on that point. Of course he resigned and the noble Duke is quite right about that, but there are resignations which amount almost to dismissal when the policy that a man is expected to enunciate is one which his masters know he cannot agree with.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for that. What we are really saying is that there was a great disagreement between the Ambassador on the spot and the State Department in Washington. I see the noble Lord is nodding approval, which is what I want.
Another thing that has been talked about is the question of Nicaragua. We all know what happened and how there is a new Government in Nicaragua. But I do not believe that it is becoming a totally communist Government at all, as is hinted by some of the announcements of the American Government. I have two little almost amusing things to say on this. The Foreign Office is run by a Foreign Secretary who is a Catholic priest, Father Miguel D'Esto, a Mary Knoll father—that is like a white father. I do not believe that the Mary Knoll Fathers are communists. The Minister for the Arts and the literary side of it is a Jesuit. I do not think the Jesuits are communists. I am not saying that Nicaragua is not more friendly to Cuba than I would like if I was American, but I do not believe—and I am informed that is right—that

957
Nicaragua is totally in the hands of the Cubans and that they are putting clandestine arms across the estuary into San Salvador.
What we want, and what I hope the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will say he is hoping for, is a negotiated peace. That is what we must all try to achieve. I do not believe there is any chance of El Salvador becoming another Cuba. If it did become another Cuba, I know what that would mean. If you become a communist state you remain a communist state, with the Politburo and the Red Army dominating you. We have seen that in Poland, we have seen that in Lithuania, Latvia, right down to Hungary. I know about that subject. I served for two years of my 30 years in the British Army commanding the British State Mission with the Soviet Forces in Germany, and I toured East Germany for two years of my life. I know exactly what the tyranny of the Red Army is, and what a powerful Red Army it is too, and the awfulness of the East German régime. I do not believe there is any likelihood of that spreading to El Salvador. I think there is a much greater likelihood of the Americans supporting such an extreme Right-wing régime that there would be a revolution and this would encourage that to happen. The new archbishop, who replaced Archbishop Romero who was murdered, is called Rivere y Damas; he has been to Washington and told the State Department that he thinks the junta and the guerrilla rebels are willing to talk. This was reported just the other day in the Herald Tribune, reporting the New York Times. And this archbishop has said he hopes that they will take that line of encouraging this talking going on.
The United States Catholic bishops, led by Archbishop Hickey of Washington, on 2nd March called on the State Department, and asked President Reagan and his Government—and I quote—"for the termination of all military aid to El Salvador and for new efforts to facilitate a negotiated political solution to the conflict ". So they asked that there should be the termination of this military support to the junta. I say that I hope the Government will follow the initiative that is being given by some of the other states we know so well, such as Germany and Sweden and Austria, and I believe Mexico and Venezuela, in calling for an international conference to try and achieve a lasting peace by international mediation between the two sides in El Salvador, to enable democracy and free elections to take place in that country.
I do not believe that President Duarte is in need of the support that America is giving him. In fact, he has said quite openly that he wishes to receive the American 126 million dollars he is getting for land settlement, but he does not want this 35 million dollars for arms that he is having forced upon him.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Mansfield: My Lords, in view of the interesting and informative speeches that have been made by all of your Lordships I think that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, for initiating this debate. One thing that it has done is to provide the opportunity for the focussing of attention on a part of the world about which—as regards some of us, at any rate—very little detail is known. For myself I admit that my knowledge of Latin
958
America is very limited indeed. Had it not been for an approach from a certain quarter which I shall mention in a moment or two, I doubt very much whether I would have regarded myself as sufficiently knowledgeable to take part in a debate on Latin America.
This debate provides the opportunity to bring to the attention of your Lordships' House and the Government and as many people as are willing to listen the situation of miners in that area. The observations that I propose to make concern mainly the country of Nicaragua. Most of the speeches tonight have been about El Salvador, and as I shall base my remarks almost exclusively upon Nicaragua and the miners I shall, perhaps, be out on a limb.
However, it is now less than two years since the Somoza régime, after 40 years of dictatorial rule, was overthrown and in that short space of time my information is that the first decisive steps are being taken towards social and economic reconstruction in that country. Nowhere I gather is this more evident than in the mining sector. It might quite properly be asked, "How do I know this?", not having been there. The source of my information is from people who quite recently have visited this country, certainly since the revolution of 1979. The channel of communication has been the Miners' International Federation who very recently sent a European delegation to visit miners in Latin America, and Nicaragua was one of the countries that was visited by this delegation. I am pleased to say that the National Union of Mineworkers of Great Britain was part of that delegation and the NUM, as a result of that visit to Latin America, feels—and this has already been demonstrated in the debate by many of the speeches tonight—that Britain can and should do more to help Nicaraguan miners; hence its desire that this particular matter of the mining situation and miners in Latin America should be ventilated. As almost everyone will know, unlike Britain's the mines in Nicaragua are gold and silver mines, whereas ours are coal mines. One thing has struck me about miners: that wherever they mine a product—whether it be gold, silver, copper or coal—there is an affinity, a kind of fellow feeling; it may be more pronounced among miners than among any other body of workers. I think that it is because they face the same hazards and dangers in extracting nature's treasure for the use of mankind.
I am led to understand that during the 40 years of the Somoza régime, the mines in Nicaragua were owned by foreign countries, and mainly by North American interests. The verdict upon what they were doing in that country for the working conditions of the miners, their health and their wages, proper exploration and investment in the mines and in machinery, was that it was negligible. The new Government have inherited a host of problems connected with mining. For instance, just after the revolution ended and the new Government took office most of the foreign technicians left the country, and plant and machinery have been allowed to deteriorate. In fact, the new Government inherited the mining sector of the economy in a state of collapse.
As I understand it, the position is that immediately after the end of the revolution and the coming to office

959
of the new régime one mine was completely lost; another is only operating at a third capacity and another mine, during or just after the revolution and the taking over by the new régime, was completely closed after an attack of arson.
The NUM delegation, for which I am really speaking tonight, on its visit to the country was able to witness the conditions of the miners in the mine that it visited. For instance, it drew attention to the fact that miners were carrying drills and other heavy equipment in temperatures of 47 degrees centigrade. I am told that that is hotter than a Turkish bath. The delegation reports that safety measures were appalling and that ventilation, which is so necessary in any kind of mine, however deep it might be, is an absolute must. It seems to me that if temperatures are of the nature that I have just mentioned—47 degrees centigrade—it is because the ventilation is not what it should be. Drainage, which is often a problem in all kinds of mines in any part of the country, was totally inadequate. Coming to the social life of the miners in this country, the report says that the layout of the towns and the housing were very poor indeed. The miners themselves were suffering from silicosis, tuberculosis, rheumatism, and skin diseases. The delegation, in the light of what I have said, and other things besides, presents a sombre
960
report relating to the miners and to the industry itself in that country.
There is one bright aspect. I understand that the new Government has increased wages to a basic, decent level. Before the Liberation Front took over, miners in the appalling conditions described in the report had a daily wage of 60 pence. The hours worked per shift under the new régime have been reduced from eight to six. They have also set about improving and modernising the mines, so far as resources allow, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Oram.
In view of the detailed report of the MIF, new machinery, technical appliances and safety programmes are urgently needed in this country. The NUM is hoping to help with advice and assistance particularly on the question of safety measures. Also the British Volunteer Programme is trying to obtain the services of mining engineers and geologists which are so necessary. I ask the Minister who is to reply to the debate: Can our own Government give some help? The delegation thinks they could and should. May I, in conclusion, put this point to the Minister. A geological laboratory is a high priority in this country. Will he confirm or otherwise that the Bolivians were helped with such a project? Could the same be done for this country of Nicaragua?
9.59 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, has raised the question of El Salvador and what is going on there. He indicated that some of the later speakers might widen the debate. I should like to attempt to place El Salvador in the general picture of Latin America, and particularly of Central America. I can best do so by recounting to your Lordships three episodes which are vividly in my mind from visits that I have made to that part of the world.
The first is of an evening party to which I was invited in one of the major cities of Central America. We drove from my hotel through the centre of the city and soon we had emerged from the great buildings of offices, banks, and shops and were passing through slums which were of a sort which those whose knowledge of slums is confined to this country, or even to Europe, cannot possibly imagine. There were no houses, but dwellings. The best of them were made of metal—beaten out of tin cans of various sizes and shapes—and the worst of them, the majority, were made of cardboard, old cartons which had contained goods for the shops and which had been broken apart to form the walls of the places where families (human beings; old people, children, working men and women) were living. They had no floors, just the mud on which those rickety shelters were erected.
Soon we came to some high walls and the iron gates in them were flung open and my car drove up the gravel sweep to some marble steps. I mounted them and great doors were opened and inside was my host. We had been to the same school together; he was wearing the old school tie. He was standing on the marble floor with marble columns around him. His guests were there and white-coated footmen were carrying silver trays of champagne and caviar. In the course of conversation he mentioned that he owned two Rolls-Royces. Fortunately he was a shipowner also because there were no facilities for servicing his Rolls-Royces in the country, so he put one of them on one of his ships and sent it back to England for servicing and, when it returned in perfect order, he put the other one on so that he was always able to have a well-serviced Rolls-Royce. Then I drove back through the shacks of the shanty town.
My second recollection is of a day I spent with a self-made man, a public works contractor who had made many millions of dollars building roads, dams and so on. He showed me his plantation; his bananas, his scores, probably hundreds, of workers hardly clothed at all, the naked children playing about in the dust in front of their hovels, too. There were no water, no schools and no health services of any kind. He told me he had divided his fortune of many million dollars into three parts; one-third he retained in the country for his own business; one-third he had invested on Wall Street in New York, in Zurich and in London; and he told me that one-third was available to ensure that the government of his country remained as it was so that he could continue his way of life and continue to make money in the way he had made it for the first 50 years of his life.
My third recollection is of a conversation I had in Cuba on my second visit there—my first had been in the days of Batista—when I spent several days with
962
Fidel Castro going round the island, looking at the progress that had been made there—or the changes that had been made, perhaps I should say—in his day. I told him, "I like a great deal of what you have done. You have made great progress, you have abolished the grinding poverty, glaring inequalities and corruption and you are bringing about education and health services for all. But," I added, "I abhor the methods you use; your violence and cruelty and the fact that people are incarcerated without trial for political offences, if they are not shot out of hand". He said to me: "You do not understand. You are European. You in England had your revolution, with its violence, 300 years ago, and now you can afford the luxury of constitutional change and democracy. But we here—we are Latins, we are Americans. We cannot have changes by your European constitutional means. We have to use violence and repression".
I do not know whether it is true that that is right; I hope that it is not and that it can be proved that he is wrong. But I cannot help thinking, with regret, what a change has come across our allies in the United States. Two hundred years ago when there was a bloody revolution in France, when the downtrodden peasantry rose against the affluent and isolated aristocracy, the American people were on the side of liberty and equality, and they supported the French Revolution. What would those people who took that attitude then feel today about the countries that I have just described to your Lordships? Would they in fact be supporting my public works contractor, my old Etonian with his two Rolls-Royces, or would they be supporting those who lived in the cardboard hovels at the gates of great houses? We know perfectly well who they would be supporting. But today they are not doing that and we must try to understand why they are not.
There are, I believe, two reasons. One, which I put forward as a minor reason, is the fact that American big business has great influence in both Washington and the countries where it operates, and it has done well out of the existing régimes. It does not want any form of revolution. It does not want any serious social change or economic change, and it uses such influence as it has on the policies of its country.
The second, and to my mind the more important, reason and the more dangerous reason, is that the United States is rightly obsessed with the fear of Soviet imperialism, but it is unable to distinguish between Russian imperialism and the Marxist doctrines and the socialism (or whatever one wants to call it) that the oppressed people are trying to bring about in their own countries. Therefore wherever the United States sees anything remotely resembling an attempt to create a socialist state close to its borders, it immediately says, "We must crush this because it will be a springboard for the Soviet Union, our enemies". It has done that in Cuba, and it has in fact created a springboard—not a very effective one—for the Soviet Union, and Cuba now looks towards the Soviet Union for its support.
If the United States continues with this policy eventually, increasingly, the smaller countries of Central America, and then some of the larger countries of South America, will go the same way, and they will come to realise that the United States, far from being the bastion of freedom, is in fact the bastion, and the

963
supporter, of the small group of oligarchs who condemn the rest of the population to poverty and oppression. That is not what the United States wants. It is not what its people really stand for; and it is a tragedy. It would not be a tragedy if its fear of the Soviet Union did not lead it into this form of reversal of its own true feelings.
All I would say to the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate is that I hope that he and his colleagues, in particular the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, will use all their influence—and Lord Carrington's influence is far from negligible—to convince the United States that the safety of the West, quite apart from the welfare of tens of millions of human beings, will be best served by, at least, an attitude of neutrality and, at best, an attitude of sympathy towards those who are trying to redress the balance in favour of the oppressed and the poor, rather than appearing to the world at large—not only in Latin America but in the whole of the third world, in South-East Asia and in Africa also—as the champions of the oppressors, the champions of the few and the champions of the privileged. That, I hope, will be the successful task of the British Government, both in El Salvador and in the other countries of Latin America.
10.11 p.m.
Lord Macleod of Fuinary: My Lords, I would be very tempted at this late hour to withdraw from making a speech, even a very short speech, were it not for the fact that Christian Action, and also the British Council of Churches, have hoped very much that there would be a debate about this and that it would be the state speaking in terms of what Christian Action are saying and in terms also of what the British Council of Churches are saying. Because they have both of them—I think I am safe in saying this—come to the conclusion that they must deny the present Government in El Salvador and that they must make it perfectly clear that they are doing so and that no good can come from attempting further to speak with them.
For instance, Christian Action are most concerned to feed the people, but when talking with the representative of Christian Action and, indeed, of the British Council of Churches, with whom I had a conversation and who has been twice in El Salvador since this year came in, I found that the only result from the present Government in El Salvador was that these people were simply concerned, not to feed the poor but to help the insurgents and the people who are opposed to the Government there. It is true, also, that the Government have invited members of the old democratic parties in El Salvador to be joined with them, but it is equally true that most of those members have resigned because they could not go on dealing with this army group who are in charge. Indeed, two of those who resigned have been murdered, one is now in prison and tragedies of the kind referred to have taken place.
It is true that the police control the situation on behalf of the Government in El Salvador, but it is also true that they have two other well-organised groups who are not the Government police but are there, in fact, to put across the murders that we have
964
heard so much about. It is true that the Government there are now talking about land reform. But it is also true—and I have this from somebody who has just come back—that, in that land reform, this redistribution of land to which there has been reference is going to be made simply to those who at the present moment are in favour of the present Government in El Salvador.
What, then, must we do? There is no solution going to come from the Government there, or from conversations with them, and I am suggesting that there is one thing that we must do. That is really to face up to the USA, without any kind of hesitation and without any side remarks of any kind, and ask them to get out of this business and not to make such fools of themselves. The most terrifying thing that has come from the President of the United States of America has been his idea that he should attack Cuba because Cuba is giving armaments at the present moment to the insurgents in El Salvador. Can your Lordships imagine anything more akin to the final straw than that they should speak in those terms?
It is not long ago since terrible things happened in Afghanistan—and they were terrible things. This led to Russia being cut off the list in regard to the Olympic Games. Why not tell America roundly that we will not take part in the next Olympic Games (which are to be held in America) because of what they are doing at the present time in this situation? There is a need for raw speech, definite speech, for having nothing further to do with them because of this playing around. It is up to Britain, to NATO and to the West to say, "If this goes on and they go on backing these sort of people in various states in South America then they are enemies of all possibility of peace at the present time".
10.16 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, for giving us the opportunity to debate the sombre and violent situation of El Salvador and of some of its neighbours. The social background to El Salvador has already been sketched in and I should like to add one point. The extremes of deprivation and violence have resulted in something like a quarter of a million people being displaced from their homes. It is estimated that 150,000 of these are refugees within El Salvador itself and the other 100,000 have been obliged to flee to neighbouring countries. In addition, there are some 10,000 orphans, it is thought. It was for these reasons that in February this year the World Council of Churches launched an appeal for £1 million for immediate relief and welfare.
Several estimates have been made tonight of the number of people who lost their lives in 1980 in El Salvador. The estimates vary from a low figure of 8,000 to a high figure of 20,000. It is necessary, I suggest, to ask why it is that the peasants have suffered most and why one archbishop and many priests and religious and catechists, including four American missionary women, have been murdered. I believe that the late Archbishop Romero gave the answer when speaking at Louvain University on 2nd February, 1980. He said then:
"It is a simple fact that our Church has been persecuted for

965
the past three years. It is most important to observe why. They have not attacked just any priests or institution. They have attacked that very part of the Church that has sided with the poor and come out in their defence".
The late Archbishop Romero and Bishop Rivera Damas had previously stated in August 1978:
"Institutional violence occurs when the majority of men, women and children find themselves deprived of the necessities of life".
The two bishops went on to say:
"peace and happiness cannot come from wealth accumulated at the expense of others".
I hope to be able to strike a slightly more constructive note in addressing a number of questions to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I should like to ask what representations the Government have made to the United States concerning arms supplies. What consultations have our Government had with Sweden and West Germany, who have proposed, I think formally, that a negotiated settlement should be brought about? And, as my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk has mentioned, I believe that some other countries have also joined in this plea. It is perhaps worthy of note that the most recent number of the Economist states that the Salvadorean opposition is now ready for negotiations.
I should like also, following in the footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to ask what is the position concerning food aid and help for refugees from the EEC. One cannot be in the presence of a large surplus of milkpowder at a time when children are dying. This seems an absurdity. I should also like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will match pound for pound any voluntary sums which are raised in this country through the appeal launched by the World Council of Churches.
Finally—and I follow my noble friend Lord Montgomery—will the Government consult with the Organisation of American States to see whether an impartial and Spanish-speaking force could maintain order in El Salvador until the paramilitary groups are disbanded and free elections can be held? As an additional supplementary question, may I ask whether, if a request comes in, the Government will help with the training of a modern democratic police force for El Salvador?
Perhaps more fundamental than any of those matters is the question of information. At the moment it seems that there is a considerable cloud of propaganda hanging over Central America. Will Her Majesty's Government and their European allies make sure that they have independent and objective sources of information on El Salvador and its neighbours? I say this at a time when the British Embassy in San Salvador is closed but I do not mean that the sources of information should be simply diplomatic ones. There are other possible channels. I have given my noble friend notice of these questions. I am sure that I shall receive one of his usual most helpful replies.
10.22 p.m.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, your Lordships will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, for raising this Question. Our first concern must be for the people of El Salvador itself. They are the
966
prey of brutal elements of the so-called Left as well as the Right who, by intimidation, rapine and murder—amounting in some areas to extermination and genocide—seek to impose their will on the people of that country.
The condition of El Salvador and its people is indeed horrifying. The situation there, however, is of almost equal concern to the other states of Central America which, like the Middle East and Southern Africa, has a sobering importance for the rest of us. Indeed, whatever happens in El Salvador, affects Central America, affects Latin America and indeed the United States, which has a proper and legitimate interest in peace and stability on its southern borders.
The question arises as to how we resolve an intolerable situation—intolerable for the people of El Salvador—and very dangerous indeed for the general region and ultimately for the rest of us. What contribution can this country make together with its friends, partners and allies, to a solution? A contribution to a solution is not the same as an intervention on one side or the other. The dreadful danger in El Salvador is that it may become another Vietnam through the overcommitment of the super-powers either directly or by surrogate.
I join with those who wish to bring persuasion to bear on our friend and ally in Washington not to go too far, if at all, in sustaining the nominal Government of Premier Duarte.
The situation is in urgent need of solution before it deteriorates into something which imperils a much wider area and we must seek the right agency to bring about a solution by conference. This is not impractical idealism. I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lord Chitnis draw what I thought was a very useful parallel between the possibilities in El Salvador and what was achieved last year in Rhodesia. A problem which seemed almost impossible to solve in Rhodesia was in fact solved because we found the right agency of conciliation. For years, people denied the possibility of bringing together around the same table the various warring elements in Rhodesia, together with the interested countries contiguous to it. But it happened, and it happened because our Foreign Secretary recognised that in the Commonwealth, in this particular case, lay the agency of conciliation.
Where lies the agency of conciliation in El Salvador? I was very glad indeed to hear more than one speaker refer to the United Nations. The United Nations, by its own charter, is entitled to intervene in a situation of this kind. Under Article 2, this is definably a situation which imperils peace. Unfortunately, under the system of veto, it is highly improbable that the United Nations as such can intervene directly and effectively in order to achieve a solution. It will almost certainly have a role to play in following up the efforts of the right agency.
Now which is the right agency? The Commonwealth, unfortunately, has no real presence in this part of America. It has in the Caribbean, but not in Central America. We may count on the United Nations later to fulfil a very useful role, as I have said. Here I very much welcome the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, and backed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that the Organisation of American States would seem to be a possible

967
agency of intervention.
I would mention in particular the countries of Mexico and Venezuela. There are others, of course, just as important; but Mexico and Venezuela have shown themselves over a fairly long period to be growing in diplomatic and commercial strength. Indeed, they have achieved a prestige in Central and Latin America and in the United Nations, as I have seen for myself, as countries which genuinely have been developing their own resources and their democratic institutions. They are looked up to, they are listened to; and it occurs to me that if we use the OAS as the agency for helpful intervention, then the role of those two countries would prove to be very important indeed.
In passing, may I refer to the very fine contribution made by these countries globally?—for instance, the role of Mexico in ensuring that at least we had a partial ban on environmental warfare. It was very largely the work of Mexican statements. Similarly, in the field of oil research and in the more enlightened assessment of oil economics, there is much to be said of the policy of Venezuela as well as Mexico. So that perhaps is where the agency of concert may be found, and I think it is for this country, as a member of the EEC, of NATO, of the Commonwealth and, certainly, of the UN, to promote in every possible way the formation of this kind of intervention.
Time is short. The situation in El Salvador is worsening day by day. As recently as October 1979, there was a broad-based government—admittedly, brought about by a coup displacing the Romero Government; but, nevertheless a broad-based government—which encompassed the Democratic Socialists under Senor Jungo on the left, the Christian Democrats, elements of the Church, many of them reformist radicals of the most genuine nature and elements, also, of the trade unions and even of the military. That lasted only a few months. It fell prey to the suspicions of the peasants' trade unions who hardly believed that the proposals for reform would be carried out, and, also, to the sabotage of the unusually rapacious landlords of that country.
So we cannot look inside El Salvador for the beginnings of a reconciliation, any more than we could in Rhodesia. It was impossible to reconcile the parties in Rhodesia, until an agency from outside brought them together and, also, brought them in concert with neighbouring countries. The similarities are striking. I strongly urge the Government to examine the possibility of a genuine, strong diplomatic thrust aimed at creating an agency of conference through the OAS, using, in particular, some of our very best friends in that part of the world; namely, Mexico and Venezuela. Perhaps when the Minister comes to reply he will give us some indication of how Her Majesty's Government are thinking about this question.
10.33 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I must first echo the sentiments of every noble Lord who has spoken this evening in recording my appreciation of the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, has given us to discuss this important matter again this evening. I say "again" because, of course, I have answered
968
questions on the subject of El Salvador and, indeed, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has made statements both inside your Lordships' House and elsewhere about the problems of that country and its neighbours. Recent events relating to the unhappy country of El Salvador, as such it is, have focussed attention on the plight of the population and the need to seek an early end to the violence and the suffering which has engulfed them.
The position of Her Majesty's Government concerning El Salvador was made clear
by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary in a Statement that he issued on 25th February. The Statement condemned the supply of arms to the insurgents: the United States had provided ample evidence that certain countries were supporting the guerrillas in this way. We regard this as gross interference in El Salvador's internal affairs and have called for it to end. We condemned unequivocally the continuing violence in El Salvador and called upon the Government of that country to protect its people from violations of basic human rights and, in particular, to exercise firm control over the actions of all Government institutions and organisations, including especially the security forces. A copy of this Statement was handed to the Salvadorean chargé d'affaires in London and to a visiting official Salvadorean Government delegation in London on 26th February.
Your Lordships will recall that on 9th December of last year my noble friend sent a message to the Salvadorean Foreign Minister after the abduction and brutal killing of six moderate opposition leaders, expressing a firm hope that those responsible would be found and brought to justice. These murders, the assassination of Archbishop Romero and the murders of the three American nuns and a lay social worker last year, are all crimes which have rightly caused widespread indignation. To these must be added a shocking catalogue of atrocities by both sides, of which the innocent have been the all too frequent victims. We deeply regret the continuing civil conflict in El Salvador and have made our views abundantly clear to the Salvadorean Government. We shall continue to do so.
If I may add a personal note, a memorial service was held for Archbishop Romero here in London, and I myself represented the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary at that service.
Her Majesty's Government have long held the view that a proper investigation by the United Nations Human Rights Commission should be held into the reports of human rights abuses in El Salvador. We felt unable to support a resolution adopted by the United Nations in December last year criticising the Salvadorean Government because that resolution was unbalanced, in that it did not condemn all factions involved in human rights abuses, but we supported that part of the resolution calling for an investigation. Furthermore, we supported a resolution passed by the Human Rights Commission at Geneva on 11th March of this year which was more balanced. A special rapporteur is being appointed and will conduct an investigation, presenting his report to the Commission at its 88th Session early in 1982, with an interim report to the 36th Session of the General Assembly later this year.
Her Majesty's Government have also been mindful

969
of the need to provide aid for those refugees who have fled the fighting and the terror. Many are now in camps in Honduras, while others have sought refuge in sanctuaries within El Salvador. We take the view that it is right to channel aid to refugees, provided all possible precautions are taken to ensure that it is delivered into the hands of those for whom it is intended, the refugees themselves. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was particularly concerned about that point. So far the European Community have given aid worth some £900,000 to be distributed through the International Committee for the Red Cross and Catholic relief agencies. Again the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised that matter. I think I am right in saying that the total sum that has been given is made up of more than one donation and that the total has only recently reached that figure.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, this is all very interesting, but where is this money, in good solid cash, going to? Is it going into the treasury of the so-called Duarte government?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords. It is money which is being channelled to the International Red Cross and to at least one other aid agency. The cash which has gone to the ICRC is 400,000 European units of account, and 1,050 tonnes of cereals and 200 tonnes of milk powder have been sent. The Catholic relief services have received 950 tonnes of cereals, 500 tonnes of milk powder and 200 tonnes of butter oil.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, I am obliged and most encouraged by that information.
Lord Trefgarne: Her Majesty's Government's share of that aid is substantial. Aid has also been given through the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, to which of course the United Kingdom contributes. We naturally believe that a political solution to the conflict in El Salvador is greatly to be preferred to the continuation of the present fighting. We would of course support any realistic proposals to bring this about.
However, in rejecting the move by the Organisation of American States to mediate between the Salvadorean Government and the Opposition Revolutionary Democratic Front, or FDR, as it is called, President Duarte made it clear that he was not prepared to accept mediation in what he regards as El Salvador's internal affairs. He has however stated that he is prepared to negotiate with the FDR, an offer which they do not so far appear to be prepared to accept. It has been suggested by more than one noble Lord tonight and by the media that the United Kingdom with its recent experience in Zimbabwe has a role to play in any negotiations. We have a long association with Africa and had a mandate to settle the dispute in Zimbabwe. The situation in Central America is very different and we have no such mandate. We think it would be more appropriate for El Salvador's neighbours to use their influence in this matter.
President Duarte has publicly pledged himself to work for the earliest cessation of violence in El Salvador.
970
He is attempting to press ahead with a reform programme despite the extreme difficulties of doing so in the face of guerrilla hostility and Right-wing opposition. The aim of his programme is to redistribute land on a more equitable basis, thus attempting to solve one of the problems contributing to the present conflict. Financial reforms have also been introduced. For this programme, the United States is giving considerable economic assistance amounting to some 126.5 million dollars.
President Duarte has also established an electoral commission charged with arranging elections in 1982, and the Salvadorean Government has expressed a willingness to see international observers present during the elections. This electoral commission has already stated that all previously registered parties, including the party led by the FDR leader Guillermo Ungo, the social democratic MNR and the communist UDN are eligible. We are well aware that organising fair elections free from intimidation by political extremists will be an exceptionally difficult task. But we consider that President Duarte's efforts to find a political solution to the conflict deserve support.
Her Majesty's Government urge both the extreme Left and the extreme Right to forsake the path of violence and give those who seek a peaceful and democratic solution a chance to make their voices heard.
In supporting the democratic path in El Salvador, it is our policy to call upon El Salvador's neighbours to do likewise. In Nicaragua—a country which interested particularly the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and others, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who I see is not now in his place—we have seen in past years the overthrow of a dictator of the most unattractive kind by a revolution which clearly had the support of the overwhelming majority of the population. We would of course not wish to see a return to the previous situation, but the present state of affairs is worrying. We consider that the Government in Nicaragua should allow the population to voice its opinion of the progress and policies of the present Government through properly constituted elections. We reluctantly conclude that the current system of government in Nicaragua allows only the Sandinista movement through its nine-man directorate to decide policy.
There are now many "advisers" in Nicaragua from Cuba and other communist countries. We have been that Nicaragua has allowed itself to be used by Cuba as a means of channelling arms to insurgents in El Salvador. In our Statement issued on 25th March we called for this to end, and I am pleased to report to the House that there are indications that the flow of arms appears to have diminished. But there are disturbing indications that militarism in Nicaragua is increasing with the establishment of a regular army of 50,000 and the mobilisation of a large militia of up to 200,000. To the south, Nicaragua is bordered by Costa Rica, unique in the region in having no armed forces at all, and to the north by an under-populated Honduras with an armed strength of 11,000.
Her Majesty's Government believe that it is legitimate to ask whether the people of Nicaragua are able to express their opinion freely about these developments. Indeed, there are disturbing signs that those who express dissenting voices are being intimidated

971
and silenced. In response to these developments the United States Government has recently suspended its aid to the Nicaraguan Government, though it is continuing to support the private sector there (responsible for about 60 per cent. of the economy) and non-government development organisations.
Following the overthrow of President Somoza in 1979 the Nicaraguan people earned significant goodwill from their neighbours and the West who responded with a considerable amount of aid. Through international bodies and the European Community, the United Kingdom contributed some £2·7 million. That goodwill has been sadly eroded by recent events. I have a little more information about our aid to Nicaragua, which perhaps I can turn to in a moment.
I should also like to say a brief word on the situation in Guatemala which particularly concerned the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Your Lordships will appreciate that our relations with Guatemala are dominated by our need to see Belize to an early and secure independence. As your Lordships will know, significant progress has been made in that direction recently. But we are aware from a number of sources, including Amnesty International, of a disquieting situation in Guatemala. We have constantly pressed at the United Nations and at other international fora for the adequate protection of human rights in Central America and throughout the rest of the world.
May I now turn to some of the individual points that have been raised during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, in opening this debate,
referred to our attitude towards the opposition party in El Salvador. It is not true to say that we have ignored the FDR; we have indeed received their delegations which recently toured Europe. These have included Sir Ruben Zamora, Luis de Sebastian and a Mr. Hector O'Kelly. Turning again to the question of Guatemala which Lord Avebury covered in some detail, the noble Lord raised some detailed points about the Heads of Agreement which have been signed with Guatemala in respect of the forthcoming independence of Belize. They are detailed points, on which, if the noble Lord will allow me, I will write to him.
The noble Lord also referred to the lack of comment, as he saw it, in the press of both the United Kingdom and the United States about the situation in Guatemala. The noble Lord will, of course, appreciate that what goes into the British press, much less the American press, is no responsibility of the Government's, and of course we have no more means of getting things into the papers than we do of getting them out.
The noble Lord asked me specifically for an assurance about the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which I gladly give him. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, asked me about the possibility of re-opening our Mission in Managua. The embassy there was closed in 1976, for reasons of economy. Recent events have caused us to consider re-opening the embassy, but in view of the present financial climate, which is, I fear, even less satisfactory than it was when the Mission was closed, a decision has not yet been taken. The noble Lord asked me about the question of aid to Nicaragua. I have some more details here. Perhaps, in view of the lateness of the
972
hour, he will allow me to write to him with those details, which I gladly undertake to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, unhappily is not in his place, but I will, if I may, deal with the point he put to me. It was in connection with the National Union of Mineworkers, who were recently in that part of the world. I should like to say to the noble Lord through the medium of the columns of Hansard at least that, if the NUM wants to submit its recommendations to the ODA for consideration, consideration will most certainly be given, although I should perhaps say that in the present climate it is unlikely that any recommendations could be acted upon in the immediate future. We have received no request for aid in the mining field from the Nicaraguan Government, but again, of course, it would be considered when and if it was received.
My noble friend Lord Hylton asked me a number of questions, and I shall deal with as many of them as I can. First, on the question of United Kingdom aid to Salvadorean refugees, as I said earlier, it is our policy to direct aid to refugees through multinational agencies, such as the UNHCR which is operating in Honduras. On the latest figures available the Government have provided £5.4 million towards pledges totalling 140 million dollars to the UNHCR general programme, from which some 3 million dollars have been allocated to the programme for El Salvadorean refugees in Honduras. That is, of course, in addition to the aid which the European Community has channelled through the ICRC and Catholic relief agencies, to which I referred earlier.
My noble friend also asked about joint funding with the United Kingdom voluntary agencies. We have received no application for funds on that basis. The joint funding scheme with voluntary agencies is, generally speaking, for development work only and is not designed for relief and welfare programmes. On the question of European mediation, which my noble friend raised and which I think at least one other noble Lord raised, we certainly support any realistic proposal to bring about a political settlement in El Salvador, but we are not aware of any initiative by Sweden or West Germany, for example, to bring about such a settlement.
Several noble Lords raised the possibility of an Organisation of American States' peace-keeping force. That would be a matter for the OAS itself and the Salvadorean Government, but, as I said earlier, President Duarte has made it clear that he would not accept OAS mediation in what he regards as El Salvador's internal affairs. Again on the points raised by my noble friend Lord Hylton, we have received no request to train a modern democratic police force in El Salvador and we could, of course, only consider such a request as and when it was received.
On the question of sources of information which my noble friend raised, I can say that the Government and their European allies maintain their own independent and objective sources of information through their embassies and consulates in Central America. We maintain embassies in Panama; in Costa Rica, which is accredited to El Salvador and Nicaragua; and in Honduras, and we have a consulate in Guatemala.
The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, gave me notice of one particular point that he wished to raise. I can say that it is our policy to support any initiative

973
likely to bring about a peaceful and democratic solution to the problems facing El Salvador. Neither side has so far asked anyone to act as a mediator in the conflict. We think that it would, therefore, be more appropriate for El Salvador's neighbours to use their influence to stimulate such an initiative.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein—a somewhat lone voice, as he pointed out, from the Benches beside and behind me—spoke from the depth of his own experience, particularly in El Salvador but also, of course, in the area of Central America generally. I was not quite sure about the reference to my noble friend's multilateral—or was it multinational?—company which one noble Lord made, but no doubt the point will not be lost on my noble friend.
I should like once again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, for raising this subject at such a timely stage. It is right that we should debate a subject of such immediate humanitarian concern. But I would ask those who criticise only the Salvadorean authorities for the callous and repellent acts of violence that have been reported, to remember that there are two sides to this conflict. Violence will achieve nothing and will solve nothing. A truly democratic outcome in El Salvador is long overdue. In urging encouragement for President Duarte's efforts to end the bloodshed, we do not, of course, condone the use of force and terror. We strongly believe that all who seek to impose their will on others by force of arms and who show indifference to suffering should feel the weight of the universal condemnation which they deserve.

Greater Manchester Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the said amendments considered and agreed to.
Allied Irish Banks Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
English Industrial Estates Corporation Bill
  Public Passenger Vehicles Bill
    National Film Finance Corporation Bill
      Film Levy Finance Bill
      Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  CYPRUS: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
  CYPRUS: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
  ARMS EXPORTS TO SOUTH AFRICA
  ARMS EXPORTS TO SOUTH AFRICA
  THE RUSSIAN AK74 RIFLE
  THE RUSSIAN AK74 RIFLE
  SURVEY OF MARGINAL LAND IN WALES
  SURVEY OF MARGINAL LAND IN WALES
  THE LONDON/NEW YORK POSTAL SERVICE
  THE LONDON/NEW YORK POSTAL SERVICE