Sitting of 3 December 1981

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

    Unemployed Young Persons
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young persons under 21 years in Northern Ireland are unemployed; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): Separate statistics of the numbers of registered unemployed young persons aged under 21 are not collected. However, for the under-20 age group the most recent figures as at 12 November 1981 was 23,991. The corresponding November 1979 figure was 12,956.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that young unemployed people anywhere are more than likely to get into trouble with the law simply because they are wandering around with nothing to do, and that the circumstances in Northern Ireland make them more vulnerable to the blandishments of paramilitary organisations? Therefore, tackling the problem of the large number of unemployed young people must be an urgent priority for the Government. What proposals does the hon. Gentleman have to bring before the House?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman's analysis is correct. Unemployed youngsters are likely to get into trouble. It is precisely because of that, and because of the very high number of young people out of work, that we are taking positive steps. I mention only one. The increase in the number of places under the youth opportunities programme from 7,000 in March this year to an estimated 12,000 by March 1982—an increase of 70 per cent.—is evidence of what we are doing.
    Mr. Molyneaux: In view of yesterday's announcement by Gallaher of the loss of 500 jobs in Northern Ireland, will the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State warn their Treasury colleagues that any further increase in cigarette taxation could be disastrous for both Carreras and Gallaher in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Butler: I think that it is recognised that the increase in the tax has had its impact on cigarette smoking. Equally, it has been a major contributor towards the Chancellor's strategy, and therefore it is to be welcomed in that respect.
    Sir Nigel Fisher: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in some of the most difficult areas of Belfast the
    374
    percentage of unemployed, especially Catholic unemployed, is far higher than in the Province as a whole, and that this constitutes an added problem?
    Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend will know that there is no discrimination between Protestant and Roman Catholic in employment matters. In areas of high levels of unemployment—my right hon. Friend is correct about certain parts of Belfast, but this applies also to other areas of the Province—we offer higher discretionary grants for industrial development to try to improve the employment situation.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Minister aware that his statement today and Government policies do not match the fact that almost an entire generation of young people in Northern Ireland have no industrial or other work experience, that their idealism has been soured and that their hopes have been dashed? Will the Government recognise that situation and take positive steps, including, perhaps, giving financial help to employers to take on more young people under the age of 21 for at least two years?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate the position. The vast majority of young people are at work. However, he is right to point to the seriousness of the matter. It is because of this that the Government are offering incentives to employers to employ young people under the young workers scheme, which will come into effect in the Province at the beginning of January. It is conceivable that it is already having an impact.
    Mr. Soley: Will the Minister take a long hard look at the recent report of the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, which demonstrates clearly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) about the link between unemployment and crime? When he looks at that report, I hope that he will conclude that there is a strong case for the expansion of the economy, particularly to soak up unskilled youth unemployment.
    Mr. Butler: I recognise that the connection exists. That is why we attach special importance to that group of unemployed people in our society. At the same time, we shall not ignore the needs of unemployed adults.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall not be able to call the complete round of hon. Members on other questions.

    Housing Executive
    Mr. J. Enoch Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what number of houses he expects to be sold by the Housing Executive in the current financial year; and, in this connection, what sums will become available from building societies for spending by the Housing Executive in the current financial year.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I understand from the chairman that over 7,000 sales are likely to be completed during this financial year. I regret that without information from individual building societies the Housing Executive cannot assess the extent to which sums will become available to it from this particular source.
    Mr. Powell: With regard to the latter part of the Minister's reply., while I in no way challenge the necessity

    375
    for the annual accounting of public money, are not capital sums received in that way by the Housing Executive from building societies intended to form a net addition to resources? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that there are no pedantic and absurd results from the way in which such payments fall on one side or the other at the end of the financial year?
    Mr. Mitchell: I expect that the Housing Executive will spend about £19 million this year on housing from its receipts. As to the financing of next year's programme, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in not wanting marked pound notes in relation to particular sources, so long as we can ensure that sufficient resources finance an adequate programme. I am discussing that matter with the chairman of the Housing Executive.
    Mr. Soley: Is not the Housing Executive's real problem that the Minister's policies do not allow it to plan in advance? May we have an undertaking that in the next Appropriation Order money will be made available to the Housing Executive to enable it to plan at least five years in advance?
    Mr. Mitchell: Apart from the question of the resources available, I am discussing with the Housing Executive a planned programme—which is exactly what the hon. Gentleman asks for—to enable it to look further than 12 months ahead. We shall then seek to make the resources available.

    United States of America
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make arrangements for a ministerial visit to the United States of America to counter the misrepresentation there by sympathisers of the Irish Republican Army of the situation in Northern Ireland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The countering of such mispresentation has been part of the purpose of recent ministerial visits; and we intend that there should be more.
    Mr. Adley: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his new post. Does he agree that it would be helpful if we could get across the basic realities to the people of the United States; for example, that the people of Northern Ireland in their relationship with Eire are just as entitled to choose their constitutional arrangements as are the people of Canada in relation to the United States?
    Will my hon. Friend's colleagues explain to the American public that the IRA is seeking to create a base for subversion in Europe which is not dissimilar to what the Cubans are doing in relation to the United States? Will he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plan an early visit to the United States?
    Mr. Scott: We need to use every valid argument to persuade the Americans against supporting any organisation that might help terrorism in any way. We are still planning ministerial visits for next year.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Will my hon. Friend ensure that arrangements for his colleagues' trip are adequate? Unless the consulates—I have in mind Chicago in particular—make better arrangements than they have made for visits by hon. Members on similar trips, the visit will be wasted.
    Mr. Scott: I hope that my hon. Friend will let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State know if there are any shortcomings in the arrangements for overseas visits.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any further plans for reducing unemployment in the Province.
    Mr. Adam Butler: We shall continue to pursue our regional industrial development policies, which are set out in the document "Framework for Action". Essentially these involve support for established industries, the development of small businesses and the promotion of inward investment. Success in reducing unemployment can come about only by creating real and lasting jobs, and our national and regional policies are aimed at achieving that goal.
    Mr. Ross: I do not wish to belittle the efforts of the Northern Ireland Development Corporation or any other bodies that are doing their best to attract new industries to Northern Ireland, but will the Minister direct his attention to the Mondragon experiment, in Northern Spain's Basque province, which contains answers for small businesses in Northern Ireland? Will he encourage the establishment of co-operatives, particularly in places such as Londonderry?
    Mr. Butler: I have answered that question before in the House. The Government are not averse to the establishment of co-operatives in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, provided that they have a chance of viability. We can learn from the experiment to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

    Religious Discrimination
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the provisions enacted by the Parliament of Northern Ireland which discriminated between persons or classes of persons on the gound of religious belief.
    The Under Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I am not aware of any such provisions.
    Mr. McCusker: Does the Minister accept that the reference in section 17 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 cannot be taken to reflect unfairly on the integrity of those who promoted the legislation under the Government of Ireland Act 1920?
    Mr. Patten: I am pleased to reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that section 17 of that Act does not reflect on the competence and, more particularly, the integrity of the draftsmen who drew up that legislation.
    Mr. Fitt: Will the Minister of State examine the legislation enacted by a succession of Northern Ireland Parliaments, with particular reference to the way in which the Civil Authority (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 was used exclusively against the Catholic population in Northern Ireland? When the House took over responsibility for Northern Ireland affairs, why was it necessary to pass the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act? The legislation might not have been seen to operate against the minority, but the attitude of Ministers and a

    377
    succession of Prime Ministers made clear what the majority population of Northern Ireland was entitled to do against the minority.
    Mr. Patten: None of the provisions of any of the Acts discriminated on religious grounds. It is clear to the hon. Gentleman and everybody else that acts of discrimination occurred, and therefore some sections of the Northern Ireland community withdrew their consent to the working of Stormont. That is why Stormont was disbanded.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Discrimination on religious grounds, North or South, is to be deplored, but will the Northern Ireland Office make required reading for those who brief people about the history of Northern Ireland what the American Mr. Hewitt has written in the British Journal of Sociology, which puts the allegations of discrimination at Stormont in a different light?
    Mr. Patten: I am not aware of that issue of the British Journal of Sociology, but I shall draw it to the attention of officials in the Northern Ireland Office.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In the light of the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), will he give an assurance that a Ten-Minute Bill to remove the parts of the 1973 Act which are inconsistent with his reply will not be opposed by Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Patten: I do not think that I can give any such assurance. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would share my view that section 17, with its prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of religion or politics, is positively reassuring for the population of the Province.

    Terrorists (Selective Detention)
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in view of the recent spate of murders and other terrorist atrocities in Northern Ireland, he will now introduce a system of selective detention for known Irish Republican Army terrorists.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): No, Sir. I believe that the best way to deal with suspected terrorists is to bring them before the courts.
    Mr. Winterton: That is perhaps not an unexpected reply, and I thank my right hon. Friend for it. Bearing in mind the representations made to him by security advisers and the security forces in Northern Ireland, will he consider introducing some form of selective internment for suspected and known IRA terrorists, in accordance with the request by the Official Unionist Party which seeks to stand for moderation and progress in the Province? Many of us wish to see the ultimate deterrent—the death penalty—reintroduced, but we appreciate the sensitivity involved. Is it not important to take positive action to prevent the murder, arson and brutality which we have experienced recently?
    Mr. Prior: No one underestimates the level of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland. I am not aware that any of my security advisers have called for the reintroduction of selective detention. I am not convinced that selective detention would produce any lasting benefit. I listen carefully to what all hon. Members say, but that is the position as I see it.
    Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition concur with his "No, Sir" answer to the
    378
    hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)? As a Minister, I had experience of internment and I tried, in my little way, to end it. I am glad to see present my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who was very much involved in taking over the internment problem. I can only say that the reintroduction of internment would create more problems than it would solve, if it would solve any at all. I remind the House and the hon. Member for Macclesfield, who made the proposal, that our experience showed that as soon as detention or internment was introduced, violence escalated. It de-escalated only when we ended internment and started tackling the problem through the courts.
    Mr. Prior: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is worth noting that 1972—the year after detention was introduced—was the worst year for terrorist violence in the history of Northern Ireland. The period from 1976 to 1980 saw a steady improvement in the security situation, although no one underestimates how far we have to go.

    Security
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about security in the Province.
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any statement to make on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Prior: Since I last answered questions on 29 October, I have to tell the House with deep regret that five members of the security forces and nine civilians, including the Rev. Robert Bradford, have died as a result of terrorist attacks. Several others have been injured, some seriously. There has been a particularly vicious series of attacks on part-time members or former members of the UDR and the RUC Reserve.
    The House will be aware of additional security measures which have recently been taken. In particular, the Army's Spearhead unit has been sent to Northern Ireland, and more policemen have been deployed on operational duties. The GOC is deploying the UDR flexibly, with some units from peaceful areas supplementing those in the more difficult areas. All these extra measures have enabled the security forces to concentrate on the border areas. Everything possible is being done to protect those most at risk, but a good deal inevitably depends on the vigilance of such persons themselves.
    The security forces are working extremely hard to prevent further terrorist attacks, from whatever quarter. They have had important preventive successes which, by their nature, are inevitably unseen. They continue to arrest suspects. Since 29 October, 102 people have been charged with terrorist offences, making a total of 865 charged with

    379
    such offences this year. Prevention and conviction represent the right way forward. The interests of law and order and of reconciliation between the two communities cannot be served by people trying to take the law into their own hands. I am determined that terrorism will be defeated, but it must be done through the rule of law. We are entitled to expect all people to lend their full support to the established forces of law and order and to make available any information they may have which could help prevent or detect criminal acts.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first the five hon. Members whose questions are being answered.
    Mr. Brotherton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of hon. Members wholeheartedly support and congratulate the security forces on their recent successes? Is he further aware that there was a report on the tape today that various officials of the United States of America were coming to London to discuss the problem of Northern Ireland with his Department? Will he make it plain to the House that the problems of Ulster are the problems of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and have nothing whatever to do with any other foreign power?
    Mr. Prior: I am sure that the matter to which my hon. Friend refers is a speculative piece. I am certain that the Americans, as much as the rest of the House, understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the support that he gives to the security forces.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: My right hon. Friend, despite the representations of the Police Federation of Northern Ireland and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), has ruled out selective detention. Since we have not yet got extradition from the South or any efficacious alternative, will my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign Office to renew its efforts in Dublin to secure either extradition or that efficacious alternative? Is he aware that the people of this country will not be content for ever to listen to these melancholy communiqués in a 100 years war.
    Mr. Prior: The Irish Government, I think, have not been left in any doubt about our views on extradition. It is true that so far extra-territorial legislation has not been very effective, but we now see encouraging signs that this is changing. I am hopeful that the talks between the two Attorneys-General will result in further action. Anything that can be done to bring pressure on the Irish Government in respect of criminals who take refuge in the South should be done.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend pass on the congratulations of the House to the security forces on their recent successes and thank them for bringing a greater measure of security to the Province? Will he confirm that the situation is such that there is no place whatever for any so-called third force? Does he realise the great concern, not only in Ulster, but on this side of the water, a the prospect of such a force being allowed a free rein?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I confirm absolutely what my hon. Friend said. I think that that would be the view of the whole House. I believe that the availability of information
    380
    is the most important method by which we can bring criminals to justice. The more that both communities get on with this, the sooner we shall solve our problems.
    Mr. Winnick: All hon. Members continue to deplore the senseless and mindless terrorism of the Provisional IRA, but is the Secretary of State aware that there is no support in the House or in the country for the bullying and intimidating manner in which those associated with a third force speak? Does he agree that this sort of action should be repudiated? Will he assure the House that the negotiations with the Dublin authorities regarding the Province will continue and that he will not withdraw from those talks?
    Mr. Prior: I am seeking to pursue a policy in which the majority and the minority groupings in Northern Ireland can live in peace with each other. No one should say anything that makes that task more difficult.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Secretary of State aware that we have played our part in devising mechanisms entirely within the law to provide the channel of communication for information to be fed to the security forces? Will the right hon. Gentleman refute reports to the effect that the special security measures to which he referred, which were announced on 17 November, are to be reduced by next Wednesday? Will he assure the House that this time the security forces will be encouraged to finish the job of eliminating terrorism, from whatever source? As the Royal Ulster Constabulary is now rapidly approaching its recruitment target, will the right hon. Gentleman recommend that its establishment be increased by another 1,000?
    Mr. Prior: If the police authority or the Chief Constable put forward proposals for an increase in the size of the force, I shall consider them carefully.
    On other matters, it is not only the open, but the covert, side of security that is important. I lay special stress on that. I have no plans at the moment to make any change in the disposition of forces in Northern Ireland, but this is still a matter of consultation between myself and the GOC and the Chief Constable.
    I warmly welcome all information that is made available to us. I hope that it will be strictly within the law. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has sought to do in that respect.
    Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that he will find a ready response from the Opposition to his statement on security and the way in which he is tackling the situation? We also back the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have always believed that the security forces are as good as the information they receive? The best way to get information from that great block of people in Northern Ireland between the two extremes is for them to see a ready response to their pleas for social, economic and political activity as well.
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I have always believed that there are three parts to a tripod which can lead eventually to peace and greater security in Northern Ireland. The most important part of that tripod must be security. I am grateful for the support that I have received in recent days from Churchmen of all denominations and the pressure that they are bringing to bear on the community.
    Mr.Michael McNair-Wilson: My right hon. Friend has exhorted those who wish to play a part in the security of the Province to come forward and join the official security forces—the UDR and the RUC—but is he satisfied that the regulations governing the acceptance of new recruits into those forces are not unduly restrictive?
    Mr. Prior: I believe that I am, but I shall reconsider the regulations. There has been a problem about those who have reached the age limit. I have had consultations with the GOC to see whether he can be more flexible about those who are nearing the age limit. If my hon. Friend has any points in mind about entry to the UDR, I shall see that they are examined.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Secretary of State agree that, while it is obviously desirable, extradition is not likely to be achieved in the foreseeable future, for many complicated reasons, and therefore further and greater co-operation between the security forces north and south of the border is of the essence? Is he aware that that has been achieved in recent months?
    Mr. Prior: Co-operation is much better, but it is never perfect. The talks between the Attorneys-General could do much more to help. However, the Government of the Republic are more aware now of the strong feelings in Northern Ireland and in the House about criminals in the South.
    Mr. Fitt: In the measure that the Secretary of State has undertaken to deter terrorism in Northern Ireland—that terrorism is not restricted to one section of the community—will he be ever mindful that there is now real fear in the minds of the minority in Northern Ireland about the creation of a third force? Will he give an undertaking to me, which I am sure would be accepted by the House, that anyone found in Northern Ireland in an illegal assembly and wearing a mask, whether in the IRA or the so-called third force, will be arrested immediately? Is he aware that it has been stated that members of the third force are, in another line of duty, members of the UDR and the RUC? Will he give a further undertaking to the House that if anyone waving a licence, or a so-called licence, permitting him to have arms is found to be a member of the third force, he will have those arms withdrawn?
    Mr. Prior: I have made it clear that private armies have no place in our society. They will not be allowed to take over the work of the security forces. The Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding are investigating allegations that members of the RUC and UDR have taken part in so-called third force demonstrations carrying their weapons. I am certain that appropriate action will be taken if that is proved to have been the case. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, but it is far better, having laid down the general principles from the House and the Government, to leave the interpretation of the law to the Chief Constable and the GOC, in whom I have the utmost confidence.
    Mr. Kilfedder rose——
    Mr. McCusker rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call both hon. Members, because five questions are being answered.
    Mr. Kilfedder: The Secretary of State congratulates himself smugly on the messages of support that he has received from various bodies in Northern Ireland for his
    382
    security policy. Does he realise that he will not get any congratulations from the relatives of those who have been foully murdered or cruelly maimed by the Provisional IRA in its vicious, sectarian campaign of violence against Protestants and members of the security forces——
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: And Catholics.
    Mr. Kilfedder: —and will he now accept that it is time for the Government to do something, after 13 years, to protect the lives of those who live, daily and nightly, under fear of death?
    Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear me correctly. I did not say that those messages of support had been conveyed to me. I said that the Catholic Church and the Churches in Northern Ireland generally were now playing an active part in advising people to give information in a way that perhaps they had not done previously. I do not wish in any way to minimise what Northern Ireland has suffered for 12 years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do all that he can to help me to bring about peace and reconciliation between the minority and the majority elements in that society.
    Mr. McCusker: The Secretary of State talked about prevention and conviction as being a way forward, and I believe that most people would agree with that in a normal situation, but what consolation is that to people living along the border in Armagh, Tyrone and Fermanagh, who neither see prevention at work nor a conviction? When he is bearing in mind what has been said by Church leaders, does he remember the words of the Archbishop of Armagh a few weeks ago, when he said that the campaign along the border amounted to nothing more or less than a constructive attempt to drive people off land that they and their predecessors had lived on for centuries? Will he consider reopening some of the small police stations that existed along the border in the 1950s and 1960s in an attempt to instil some confidence into those communities?
    Mr. Prior: As I said in my original answer, 102 people have been charged with terrorist offences since 29 October, including, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, a number for offences that may have been committed in the border area. We are making every effort to catch the criminals. The hon. Gentleman has been to see me with a number of proposals. I have taken those proposals seriously and implemented them wherever possible. He has produced another proposal this afternoon. I shall see that it is examined, but the difficulty about opening small police stations is that, quite often, they are the focus of attacks by terrorists and it is better to have people out on the ground than in police stations. However, we shall examine the matter again.

    Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in view of the negotiations with the Government of the Irish Republic for increased cooperation between the United Kingdom and the Republic, he will take steps to assure the majority of the people of Northern Ireland that their desire to remain within the United Kingdom has the wholehearted endorsement of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will take steps to assure the

    383
    majority of the people in Northern Ireland that it is the desire of Her Majesty's Government that the Province should continue to remain within the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Prior: I reaffirm that the Government's policy is to maintain the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in accordance with the wish of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Since the people of Northern Ireland have endured for over 12 years the campaign of violence and hatred directed against them because they are British, does my right hon. Friend agree that they deserve to be commended both for their patience and their courage? Will he therefore make it absolutely clear that they will be supported in their determination to remain British? Will he give that support, and will he make it clear to the Republic that the people of Northern Ireland will have that support for as long as they wish to remain British?
    Mr. Prior: That support has always been made clear and remains the policy of the Government. The Republic of Ireland also recognises that any change could be made only by consent. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will come to live together in peace and will recognise the great advantages of remaining part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Flannery; Is it not clear to the Secretary of State that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), while constantly declaiming his adherence to the United Kingdom, acts as though the United Kingdom Government are alien to the North? Is it not clear that the actions of that hon. Member are opposed to any political steps taken by the Government to engage in conversations that they feel will bring about peace? Is it not clear that something must be done to try to prevent the position whereby the third force, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has said, can go through the streets in uniform waving armaments? If any member of the Catholic community did that, he would be arrested. Can we have evenhanded democracy in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Prior: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the whole House that I intend democracy to be evenhanded throughout the Province.
    Mr. Dickens: Although I recognise that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend accepts that nearly all the inhabitants of the United Kingdom are intolerant of the millions of pounds that are being poured into that part of the United Kingdom, and intolerant also of the loss of lives in the Ulster Constabulary and in the Armed Forces, as well as the loss of other innocent public lives? Will my right hon. Friend pledge to show the same tenacity towards finding a political solution to Northern Ireland as we showed when solving the problems of Rhodesia, now known as Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Prior: The two problems are not in any way comparable. However, I am sure that the whole House will wish to be tenacious in seeking a peaceful solution to the problems that have faced us for so long.
    Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that we wholeheartedly support the Anglo-Irish dialogue, but feel that it is probably time that the House had a chance to discuss the matter? We look forward to a debate, as
    384
    early as possible in the new year, on the joint studies and the other related issues that have been put forward by hon. Members today.
    Mr. Prior: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. However, an opportunity must be given before long for a debate on Northern Ireland. I know that my right hon. Friend has that in mind.

    Homosexual Law Reform
    Mr. Soleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the reform of homosexual law in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. John Patten: Not yet, but my right hon. Friend hopes soon to be in a position to make a statement following the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.
    Mr. Soley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we cannot allow such an anomaly to continue for much longer? Will he undertake to look at civil liberties generally in Northern Ireland to ensure that they do not fall below those existing in other West European States?
    Mr. Patten: I have given an undertaking that my right hon. Friend hopes to come forward soon, after due consideration has been given to the difficult implications—in a legal and social sense—of the ruling. He hopes to make a statement to the House. I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about civil liberties.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Do the Government accept the principle that legislation that is introduced and passed for the rest of the United Kingdom, as a result of Private Member's Bills and without the authority of the Government being exerted, cannot be applied by the Government, by Order in Council or otherwise, to another part of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Patten: No, Sir. I cannot accept that.
    Mr. Stokes: If the permissive society has not yet reached Northern Ireland, is that not a very good thing that the North shares with the Republic?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has voiced some of the feelings that are strongly expressed in the Province and to which the Government are rightly sensitive. The judgment of the European Court drew those feelings of sensitivity to the attention of everyone.

    Stranraer-Larne Route
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in view of the closure of the Liverpool to Belfast ferry route, he will seek discussions with British Rail Sealink to ensure the extension of the service on the Stranraer to Larne link.
    Mr. David Mitchell: No, Sir. Both ferry operators working out of the port of Larne have assured us that there is sufficient capacity available at the present time.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that we on the Labour Benches hope that speedy action will be taken to reopen the Liverpool to Belfast ferry? What action will he take to ensure that the same fate does not befall the route

    385
    from Stranraer to Larne? In particular, will he join us in asking the Monopolies and Merger Commission and his right hon. Friend to reject the proposed takeover bid by European Ferries?
    Mr. Mitchell: The reopening of the service from Belfast to Liverpool is a matter for the commercial judgment of those who are considering operating a service. We very much hope that they will come forward and make the operation successful. As regards the safety and continuance of the Larne service, 8,000 fewer passengers have travelled on the P and O Belfast-Liverpool service during the past five years, while over 422,000 more passengers have travelled between Lame and Scotland. Therefore, it is plain that the service is viable.
    Mr. Concannon: Is the Minister aware that it would probably be in his interests, and in the interests of the House, if he were to be a little more forthcoming about the state of negotiations for reopening the Belfast to Liverpool ferry? I am not asking for names or for the names of firms, but merely if he will give some assurance that the matter is proceeding with all speed.
    Mr. Mitchell: Negotiation is not a matter for the Government. We have played the role of the honest broker in advising those concerned of the commercial possibilities. We have every reason to believe that operators will come forward, but that is for them—not the Government.

    De Lorean Cars Ltd.
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current output and product development of De Lorean Cars Ltd.
    Mr. Adam Butler: I understand that the company is currently producing approximately 80 cars per day, a rate which would enable it to meet the target of 20,000 cars that it originally set itself for 1982.
    The company will continue to develop and improve the DMC 12 to meet the demands of the market and I understand that it has plans to introduce, at some later stage, a new saloon car.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that it is very much to be hoped that sales will catch up with output and lead to long-term, stable jobs in the Province? As regards public accountability, given that £80 million of taxpayers' money is involved, will the Minister explain why he has failed to tell the House that three members of the audit committee have financial interests in the company according to the Minister's paper, the Sunday Telegraph? In addition, will he explain why $18 million of taxpayers' money has been spirited abroad to a Panamanian company to pay Lotus Cars, which is in Norfolk? While we want permanent jobs, we also want full and proper accountability of taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman's information about sales and production is erroneous, because sales are running ahead of production. The same comment might well apply to the hon. Gentleman's other allegations. I ask him and others who attempt to detract from this exercise not to do so, because they will damage employment prospects in Northern Ireland.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Brintonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the chairman of the student academic campaign for Soviet Jewry.
    Mr. Brinton: Although I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply, does she agree that, in the week that the House has heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, it is somewhat ironic that it has also been lobbied by the young jobless, teachers and members of local government? Do not such diverse interests illustrate the direct conflict facing the nation? What advice will my right hon. Friend give me to place before my constituents in Gravesend if public spending continues to rise at its present rate?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has put his finger on two points. First, if those in the public sector demand more and more pay for doing the same amount of work, there will be less and less money with which to provide jobs for the unemployed. I hope that they will take that into account. Secondly, it is recognised that if people continue to demand more and more public spending for their constituents, they are at the same time demanding more taxes and contributions from their constituents.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady answer the question that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not answer yesterday? By how much will the measures that the Chancellor introduced yesterday increase the right hon. Lady's own tax and price index?
    The Prime Minister: By between 1 and 1½ per cent.
    Mr. Foot: How will increases on such a scale, together with increased rents, rates, health charges and national insurance contributions, assist the fight against inflation?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman always tries to have it both ways. He always poses as a person who can hand out benefits to his constituents, but then refuses to allow the Supply to pay for them. The answer is exactly the same as the answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton). If the right hon. Gentleman demands more benefits for his constituents, he is, at the same time, demanding higher contributions to pay for those benefits.
    Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the private sector, both corporate and individual, is becoming increasingly alarmed at being forced to pay not only the monopolistic prices but to finance the public, or the Socialistic sector of the economy, and that it is looking for strong and urgent privatisation? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that that hope is not in vain?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, the efficiency of the private sector has gone well ahead of the efficiency of the public sector. Consequently, price increases in the private sector are much below price increases in the public sector. That is one reason why we are now taking powers to refer more of the public sector

    387
    to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and why we are going ahead with more measures to privatise organisations such as the BNOC and to take away the gas monopoly.
    Mr. David Steel: What advice can the Prime Minister give to students, following yesterday's announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, given that some of their unavoidable costs, such as hall fees, have gone up by about 40 per cent. in the past three years, and that the allowance being given to them for next year is only a fraction of the Government's own estimate of inflation? What about the low-income families with sons and daughters at colleges and universities?
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. and learned Friend announced yesterday, student grants will go up by 4 per cent. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes it to go up by more, he must say what else he would cut or what other increase in taxes he would impose.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Is the Prime Minister aware that last month male unemployment in my constituency was 19·1 per cent. and that women's unemployment was 12·3 per cent.? Since then, the closure of Guy Motors has been announced, which means that another 800 jobs will be lost, and another firm—Britool—is in grave danger because of the probable withdrawal of the temporary employment subsidy. What words of solace and comfort does the right hon. Lady have for my constituents? I want no nonsense about wanting it both ways. My constituents want jobs and work, and that means investment of public money. What will she do about that?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady probably saw recently, imports have risen. This country needs to get a larger share of our own market for those who produce in this country. That means moderate wage settlements and highly efficient companies. That is the way to get more jobs.
    Mr. John Townend: When my right hon. Friend considers Lord Scarman's remarks about positive discrimination, will she remember the 22 per cent. unemployed people in Bridlington town in my constituency, who have never rioted and who have just as much right to the Government's sympathy and aid as have the unemployed people in Brixton who, if they get on to a tube, have far more job opportunities than exist in the North-East?
    The Prime Minister: I shall most certainly do that. Nothing in the difficult unemployment situation warranted rioting in any part of the United Kingdom. We are very conscious that many parts of the United Kingdom face difficult problems and that they must have the same amount of attention as those where riots occurred. It is much more difficult to get employers to go to places where riots have occurred than it is to persuade them to go to places where peace and good social conditions exist.

    Engagements
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I have just given.
    Mr. Skinner: Has the Prime Minister seen the report in The Times today about 97 young children having died
    388
    while waiting for bone marrow transplants at Westminster hospital? Is that not the most tragic commentary of all on the operation of market forces and monetarism? Why does not the Prime Minister show some compassion for once and give a categoric assurance that sufficient money will go to the regional health authorities involved so that the doctors in those hospitals are not placed in the dilemma of having to choose one child to live out of every seven?
    The Prime Minister: I saw that report and I was as concerned as the hon. Gentleman. I remind him that, since the time of his Government, spending on the National Health Service has increased. The number of doctors is up by 1,000. The number of nurses and midwives is up by 21,000. Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, a report by Professor Merrison on the future of the Health Service pointed out that one could spend just about the whole of the gross national product on health care, such is the great advance in technology and the expense of some of these operations.
    Mr. Stallard: The right hon. Lady is harder than ever.
    The Prime Minister: Harder than ever? To have 21,000 more nurses and midwives and 1,000 more doctors is hard? We have much lower waiting lists for operations. How very hard Labour Members must have been.
    I come back to the question that I was asked from a standing position. I am well aware of the excellent work done by Professor Hobbs at Westminster hospital. It is one of the few places where work on bone marrow transplants is done. We are looking at the future development of the service, and I am pleased to say Sir Douglas Black has agreed to chair the working party to consider the need for further bone marrow transplant units outside London so that this situation does not occur again. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will have the grace to be pleased—but I doubt it.
    Mr. Jessel: Since, tomorrow, the Army Board is due to consider the future of military bands, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the tremendous value of these bands, not only for Army morale and recruiting, but because of their role on Royal and other occasions in lifting the spirits of the nation? As these bands are the envy of the world and attract visitors here, thus helping the balance of payments, does my right hon. Friend consider it right that the entire cost should fall on the defence budget? Can that matter be looked at?
    The Prime Minister: I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend says about the popularity and importance of Army military bands, and also their importance and popularity overseas. I should point out that they are also trained as medical orderlies. So they have another role. I shall draw the attention of the Ministry of Defence to what my hon. Friend says, so that in considering future expenditure on defence the matter may be borne in mind.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the demand made by the Labour parliamentary candidate for Bermondsey that extra-parliamentary action should be taken to challenge the Government's right to rule? Does she agree that such an irresponsible demand should be condemned by all supporters of British parliamentary democracy and should not be condoned by craven silence?
    The Prime Minister: I confess that I have not seen the remarks attributed to the honourable person who is

    389
    standing for that seat. If those remarks are true, we in this House, who believe in parliamentary democracy, assume that anyone wanting to come here would also believe in it.
    Mr. Foot: Since the matter has been raised, may I say that the individual concerned is not an endorsed member of the Labour Party, and, so far as I am concerned, never will be endorsed?[Interruption.] May I add that, as the Labour Party has played the leading part in the establishment and sustenance of parliamentary democracy, we do not need any instructions on the matter from skin-deep democrats on the Conservative Benches or defectors on this side?
    Later——
    Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that in the exchanges at the end of Prime Minister's Questions I used the term "not an endorsed member". It must be clear from the context that what I wished to say was "not an endorsed candidate". I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make the correction so that Hansard may record this statement as well as the remarks that I made previously.
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the engineering workers and the tanker drivers on their acceptance of realistic pay settlements, by which action they have shown greater wisdom and common sense than has been shown in some of the views put forward by their trade union leaders?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I congratulate those workers. I note that the figures that were released by the CBI yesterday showed pay settlements of about 5 to 7 per cent. That is good news. It is only by moderate pay settlemments that we shall stay competitive and get more jobs in the economy.
    Mr. Michael Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we have had such a good question hour without the aid of the digital clock, will you consider dismantling it, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: I deeply appreciate that conservative question. I shall give it my radical attention.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 7 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.
TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER—There will be a debate on public expenditure proposals for 1982–83.
Motion on EEC Documents 9675/81 and 4632/79 on carriage of goods by road.
WEDNESDAY 9 DECEMBER—Supply (6th Allotted Day):
Until about 7 o'clock a debate on the common fisheries policy and the need to safeguard the interests of the British fishing industry, and afterwards a debate on people, heavy lorries and the environment.
Both will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY I0 DECEMBER—A debate on the report of the Scarman inquiry on the Brixton disorders 10–12 April 1981, Cmnd. 8427.
FRIDAY II DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 14 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions until 7 o'clock.
The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that subject to progress of business, it is intended to propose that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Wednesday 23 December until Monday 18 January 1982.
[For the debate on the carriage of goods by road: EEC Documents 9675/81 and 4632/79.
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee:
Second Report, Session 1978–79, HC 159-ii, paragraph 4.
Second Report, Session 1981–82, HC 21-ii, paragraph 1.]
Mr. Foot: I thank the Leader of the House for responding to two of our requests and for providing time for debates on the economic statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Scarman report. We are grateful for the fact that he has responded to our two proposals, but I should like to raise three other questions.
First, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to provide time for a debate following any judgment by the House of Lords on local government and public transport? Secondly, in view of the leakages or revelations—or whatever they may be—about the Government's possible proposals for the National Health Service, will he give us an undertaking that there will be an early debate on that subject? Finally, has the right hon. Gentleman any news for us, apart from the leakages, about the present state of the Local Government Finance Bill that seems to be being mangled in some other meetings elsewhere? We hope that the mangling process will go on and that the right hon. Gentleman will perhaps offer the nation the Christmas present of abandoning the Bill altogether.
Mr. Pym: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the debates that have been arranged for next Tuesday and Thursday. I made it plain
392
that we thought that a debate on the Scarman report would be necessary, and in response to the right hon. Gentleman's request we have brought it forward to the earliest possible date. We have taken a similar decision in relation to the public expenditure announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday.
I have nothing to add to what I said last week and previously about the House of Lords judgment, which has not yet been given, as far as I know. We must consider that matter when the judgment is given. I also have nothing further to say about the Local Government Finance Bill. Consultations on that Bill continue.
What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last Tuesday on the National Health Service is in no sense new. It was announced ages ago that the review was in hand. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there was a debate on the National Health Service about two weeks ago.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will it be possible next week or the week after to have a debate on parliamentary elections to bring in the question of redistribution of seats and also to make it possible for the Opposition to explain how a selected candidate is not an endorsed candidate and whether the Leader of the Opposition was talking about the person selected in Bermondsey or about Tariq Ali, who has applied to join the Labour Party?
Mr. Pym: I am sure that that would be an interesting subject for debate, which many hon. Members would enjoy. However, I must disappoint my hon. Friend. I regret that I shall not be able to find Government time for that debate.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the Leader of the House aware that during the Second Reading debate on the Nuclear Industry (Finance) Bill the Minister dealing with the Bill said that in his view the proper time to discuss the Government's programme for building nuclear power stations was not in discussion on that Bill but in the debate on the Select Committee's report on that subject? When will that debate take place?
Mr. Pym: I am sorry, but I cannot make an announcement at present. However, I appreciate that at some point we shall have to have that debate.
Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Leader of the House recollect that the useful experiment with Special Standing Committees that we had last year, which was enormously successful with the Criminal Attempts Bill and with two other Bills, has not been perpetuated this Session? In view of support for it by hon. Members on both sides of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman bring forward the necessary motion quickly?
Mr. Pym: My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), introduced the experiment in the House. As his successor I should like to say that I watched carefully the experience of the House during the experiment. I have a good deal of sympathy with the idea behind it, but it is not my present intention to reintroduce the Standing Order relating to Special Standing Commmittees at the moment. However, I should be prepared to do so if the Government identified a suitable Bill for the use of the procedure either in this Session or in a future Session.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: May I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision in view of the undoubted success of the new procedure, which must not be allowed to fall into desuetude? Is not this a matter for the House to decide? Should it not have the opportunity to consider whether it wishes to make the procedure permanent? May I ask my right hon. Friend to put down a motion so that the House can come to a decision on the matter?
Mr. Pym: Various views are held about the procedure. There is no question of allowing it to fall into desuetude, as my right hon. Friend suggested. I indicated carefully in my reply that I had an open mind about the matter. At the moment, there is not a suitable Bill, but if it seemed appropriate to use procedure, for any Bill in this Session or in the future I shall be prepared to put down the appropriate motion.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the Leader of the House find time in the near future for a debate on hon. Members' secretarial and research allowances because many hon. Members are finding increasing difficulty, with the Government's present economic policies, which are putting many people in the dole queues and causing different sorts of deprivation, in dealing with all the mail? The amount of secretarial help that we receive is not enough to cope with our enormous mailbag and the tragic personal cases—we must deal with more of them day by day. Will the right hon. Gentleman give urgent consideration to that matter?
Mr. Pym: Where it is appropriate, recent practice has been to have a debate once a year, usually in the summer. We had such a debate last summer. I doubt whether there will be an opportunity in the immediate future, but this matter may well arise again during the summer.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: As rumour has it that the House will not return from the Christmas Recess until 18 January, will my right hon. Friend explain why he said that we would be sitting until 23 December? Many hon. Members like to fulfil constituency duties before Christmas; and one or two also have families.
Mr. Pym: All I announced was that, subject to the progress of business, the Christmas Adjournment would be proposed on a certain date and that it would end on a certain date. I thought that a bit of advance warning about what was in mind would be helpful to the House. I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not approve of the dates that I have chosen.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Does next week's timetable mean that the Government have now abandoned their crazy Bill on local government finance?
Mr. Pym: No, Sir.
Sir Bernard Braine: Is it not unfortunate that the House has never had an opportunity to discuss the workings of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act since its enactment? In view of continuing anxiety about the handling, transportation and processing of hazardous materials, has his attention been drawn to early-day motion 100, in the name of myself and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry)?
[That this House, concerned that there is still no effective legislation to govern the storage, transport and
394
use of hazardous substances seven years after the Flixborough explosion, recognises the urgent need for regulations to safeguard the interests of the general public, provide adequate protection for those working with such substances and to amend the inadequacies in the planning law as it now stands, which often enables firms to commence the processing of these lethal substances without needing to apply for new planning permission; and therefore, as a first step, calls for the immediate presentation to Parliament of draft Regulations on Hazardous Installations as drawn up by the Health and Safety Commmission in 1978.]
Will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate on this important subject?
Mr. Pym: The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and my hon. Friend have raised that important matter from time to time. Regulations for the conveyance of dangerous substances come into force in January, and draft regulations on the notification of hazardous installations should be submitted to Ministers early next year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is studying proposals from the Health and Safety Commission for changes to the planning laws. This is very much a live subject in the minds of Ministers. The regulations may provide an opportunity for debate, but I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's representations.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: With my natural modesty, I hope that I do not have to travel to the Front Bench to ask my question. In view of the impending danger to a number of British cultural institutions—we have had warnings from the director of the British Museum, and from the director of the British Film Archive about the survival of the nitrate film stock—when can we have an urgent debate on the funding of the arts in Britain, which is a critical matter?
Mr. Pym: I am afraid that Government time will not be available in the near future, but I observe that next Friday, on Monday week and on other days there will be Private Members' motions for which hon. Members can ballot. One of those occasions might be appropriate. It is not that I do not agree that this is an important subject, but the pressure of time is such that, frankly, I doubt whether Government time can be found in the near future.
Mr. Alan Clark: If my right hon. Friend caught the mood of the House on Tuesday when the Secretary of State for Transport presented his paper quaintly but misleadingly called "Lorries, People and the Environment", and as we are to debate this next Wednesday, does he not agree that the sooner that the paper changes colour from white to green the better?
Mr. Pym: When answering questions on Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said that draft regulations would shortly be circulated for consultation, which will require a minimum of two months. He indicated that after that the House would need to reach conclusions. That seems to put the position in a fairly clear perspective.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman table a motion to reconvene the Select Committee on Procedure so that we can deal with the point that was raised the other night when business collapsed following an early Adjournment?
Mr. Pym: I intend to re-establish the Select Committee on Procedure dealing with Supply as soon as possible. Discussions about that are taking place through the usual channels. It is not my intention at present to set up a separate Select Committee on Procedure to deal with other matters, although that is always a possibility for the future, if for any reason the House so decides.
Mr. Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend match his commendable efforts to limit the amount of business in the Chamber by containing the amount of parliamentary business outside it? Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Education and Science was unable to meet a group of Members this week because no room was available and that next Monday I am invited to an important meeting that is to be held in an alcove? Can he not do anything to check the incontinent tendency of parliamentarians to keep meeting like this?
Mr. Pym: I think that that is beyond my power, which is perhaps just as well. Equally, from the other point of view, I should be reluctant to see any further extension of this Palace in order to provide even more facilities for hon. Members to have meetings of that kind. There is no doubt that an increasing number of groups are coming to the House and in various ways they find advantage in doing so. It my be that we are reaching the stage when the House will want to consider what action, if any, ought to be taken about it, but in the meantime I believe that things should be left as they are.
Mr. John Garrett: The right hon. Gentleman will know that on Monday we had an important debate on the rights of the House to examine and scrutinise public expenditure. As every speech in that debate, other than the one from the Treasury Bench, supported the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee that our powers of scrutiny should be strengthened, when may we expect legislation on that issue? Secondly, why did not the right hon. Gentleman intervene in that debate? This was clearly a House of Commons matter, in that it sought to strengthen the powers of the House. Surely it is part of the right hon. Gentleman's job to strengthen and develop our powers of scrutiny rather than to leave the matter to the Treasury.
Mr. Pym: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that was an important debate. I think that I followed precedent by my non-intervention. The normal practice is for Treasury Ministers to speak to the subject, and sometimes Ministers from other Departments. I think that that happened on this occasion with the Department of the Environment. The Government's mind is certainly not closed on these matters. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have taken careful note of what was said on that occasion. In a debate of that kind, it is not unusual for the view expressed by the Committee to receive more prominence than any contrary view.
The Government and the Public Accounts Committee have a common interest in better control of public spending and better value for money. I realise that at present they do not see fully eye to eye, but I believe that the differences are as much about means as they are about ends. It is right that my right hon. and learned Friend and I should consider the important matters raised on that occasion.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call all those hon. Members who have been standing in their places.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: As I understand that the work of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland has been completed and the recommendations submitted, when may we expect the appropriate order to be laid before the House?
Mr. Pym: I require notice of that question.
Mr. Michael English: I think that the whole House will welcome the right hon. Gentleman's ready acceptance of ministerial responsibility for Tariq Ali. Will he complete the experiment on Bills by referring, say, three to Select Committees, either existing ones or ad hoc ones, under the existing permanent Standing Order? When we have had the debate on expenditure on the "instant reaction" principle next Tuesday, can we have another debate—there is precedent for this—after the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Calm), has had the opportunity to consider its economic implications?
Mr. Pym: I do not know whether there will be time for a debate on the hon. Gentleman's last point. As to the possibility of referring Bills to Select Committees, it is not my intention to do so, at any rate in this Session.
Mr. Nigel Forman: As one who has had direct experience of the new Public Bill procedure with the colloquially named "nodules Bill", will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many hon. Members view this procedure sympathetically and think that it has a useful part to play in our procedures? Will he therefore bear it in mind for a forthcoming Bill on data protection, which is urgently needed?
Mr. Pym: As I said, I am not unsympathetic. The success of the procedure depends very much on the choice of the Bill. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I have told the House in all frankness how I am looking at the matter during this Session. I do not have a completely closed mind.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement to the House on whether the Government are to go ahead with the purchase of the D5 or the C4 Trident missile? Is the Leader of the House aware that if the larger missile is purchased about £94 million worth of development work will have to be abandoned? Does he not accept that it would be welcome if the Secretary of State for Defence were to come to the House and announce the abandonment of the whole lunatic project? Does he not further accept that at least we would then be sure that Westminster hospital would receive the necessary finance for children needing transplants?
Mr. Pym: I know that the hon. Gentleman cannot resist his weekly crack of that sort. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, that the Government are considering, with the United States, the possibility of the D5. No conclusion has yet been reached, nor is it imminent. It is very much in Ministers' minds and, in the fullness of time, when conclusions have been reached, naturally the House will be informed.
Mr. Roger Moate: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that we have already had years of consultation about heavier lorries? Is he not aware that there is a great deal to be said for the House of Commons reaching a decision on the matter at the earliest possible opportunity? Does he not also accept that it is a question that cannot be, nor should be, settled on party lines? Therefore, will he do what he can to encourage a free vote on the matter when it is debated next week?
Mr. Pym: The last point is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. The proposal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—that there should be two or three months for the White Paper to be considered—is reasonable. At the end of that time we shall come to a conclusion. I do not believe that that is a very long time for my hon. Friend to have to wait.
Mr. Christopher Price: Will the Leader of the House have less than a closed mind on the subject of Special Standing Committees? Is he aware, for instance, that last year the procedure radically changed the nature of the "sus" Bill after pressure from both sides of the Committee? It made it a very much better Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the forthcoming Criminal Law Bill is suitable for consideration in a Special Standing Committee? What are his criteria for the suitability of Bills?
Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman is fair about that, and the Bill to which he referred was a successful part of the experiment. However, as I said earlier, I do not envisage any particularly suitable Bill at present. I have an open mind, and there is no point in putting down the motion that I have been requested to put down unless there is a good prospect of using the procedure. If minds change and an opportunity of which we wish to take advantage arises, I shall be prepared to reconsider the matter.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the utter dismay felt by Her Majesty's loyal subjects in Gibraltar at the Government's decision—in answer to a highly unplanted question by me—to close the dockyard and to restrict the use of air space? I understood from Gibraltar this morning that the Chief Minister is coming here next week to see Ministers about it. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the House is properly advised on the matter and kept informed about what alternative provisions will be made for the people of Gibraltar?
Mr. Pym: I shall convey my hon. Friend's representation to both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Will the Leader of the House seriously consider asking the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement to the House about the hours that junior doctors are working, bearing in mind that there is an urgent need for a statement because patients are being put at risk?
Mr. Pym: I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's representations to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Anthony Steen: May I direct the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends?
[That this House believes that the pressing problems facing our cities can best be tackled by implementing some of the proposals contained in a recently published study `New Life For Old Cities' endorsed by 62 Conservative honourable Members and Members of the European Parliament representing urban constituencies which offers new hope for the regeneration of our cities, by turning to people rather than Government and relying more on private enterprise than public bureaucracy; and notes that included amongst the recommendations are: (a) the rapid release by auction on the open market of hoarded public land surplus to requirement, (b) promoting city renewal through self-financing private enterprise agencies which would contract out to existing local businesses and professional firms the job of marketing the city's assets, (c) making urban renewal attractive to private investment by offering cheaper loans through issuing tax-exempt revenue bonds, (d) offering rate holidays not just in enterprise zones but to single-plant family firms elsewhere and inner city retailers who ultimately will pay full commercial rates but only if their businesses prosper, (e) encouraging private business to build new factories, offices and homes in the inner city thus reducing the 60,000 acres of agricultural land and green field sites lost each year to urban sprawl, (f) halting demolition and instead encouraging local authorities to sell off decaying property for £1·00 for those (homesteaders) willing to repair and live in them, and making similar arrangements for shopsteaders to enable run-down shops scheduled for demolition to be saved, (g) encouraging building societies to lend on older houses and discontinue 'red-lining' (that is refusing loans for house ownership in run-down areas), (h) enabling sitting tenants of flats and maisonettes in outer council housing estates to purchase their freeholds for a nominal sum in return for a share in the block's management and upkeep thus saving local authority expenditure and (i) contracting out to private enterprise those local authority services which can be done better and cheaper by private enterprise; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to assume a catalytic role so as to enable public and private enterprise in partnership to realise their full potential, to reduce those checks and controls which militate against new development and to involve more fully those people living and working in cities in the total revitalisation process.]
It offers new life for old cities, not only the inner cities but the middle and outer cities, too, where the majority of the population now live. Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging a debate on paragraph(f) of the motion which suggests a policy of homesteading, shopsteading and flatsteading to replace compulsory purchase and demolition by local authorities?
Mr. Pym: That is obviously an important subject, but I cannot provide Government time to hold such a debate in the House. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has spent a great deal of time in the inner cities. The matter is high in his priorities and it is being fully and carefully considered. If my hon. Friend wishes to mount such a debate, he must enter the ballot—I know that he does anyway—and hope that he is lucky in the draw.

Council House Sales (Norwich)
3.57 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the right to buy under chapter 1 of part I of the Housing Act 1980, which came into force as long ago as 3 October 1980.
I have today sent a notice to Norwich city council that I intend to use my powers under section 23 of the Act—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful".]—to intervene to assist secure tenants of the council to exercise their right to buy their homes. I have taken this very serious step with the greatest reluctance, and only after prolonged correspondence and discussions with the council over many months.
Complaints about delays and difficulties from individual Norwich tenants began to reach my Department in February this year. Accordingly, in April the council was formally asked for information on its past and expected future progress in dealing with right to buy cases.
Since May, as well as extensive correspondence, there have been three separate meetings with the council—one at official level, one with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and one with me. During this period complaints have continued to come in from tenants about delays and difficulties in exercising their right to buy. It appears that tenants currently have to wait a very long time, about a year, before they receive a section 10 offer notice, and delays can occur thereafter before completion is achieved.
On 28 July a formal warning was sent to the city council that I was contemplating using my powers of intervention under section 23 of the Act. Following the meeting with me on 5 November, the city council forecast that outstanding valuations, which are required before section 10 notices can be issued, should be completed by June 1982 but with the possible exception of some cases which it identified as difficult. One hundred and one cases were referred to at the November meeting as difficult.
At the end of October, the city council had admitted the right to buy in only 884 cases, a smaller number of cases than in many authorities, but still had 652 offer notices to send out. Notwithstanding adjustments that have been made to the monthly rate of issuing section 10 offer notices and the revision of some of its procedures, the city council's performance to date in issuing section 10 notices is among the worst of all authorities whose progress has been taken up by my Department. Moreover, its projected future performance, on which it has declined to give any assurance of further improvement, appears to me worse than that of any other authority which has been given formal warning that I am contemplating using my powers under section 23.
Having considered matters very carefully it appears to me, whether I have regard to Norwich alone or Norwich in comparison with other authorities, that secure tenants of Norwich city council have or may have difficulty in exercising their right to buy effectively and expeditiously, and I have accordingly sent them a notice of intervention.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is the Secretary of State aware that this high-handed action is completely unjustified following the months of negotiations that have wasted the valuable time of his officials and
400
those of Norwich city council? The council has taken many steps to speed up its action under the Act, including several actions demanded by the right hon. Gentleman himself. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that offer notices are now going out at seven times the rate that was being achieved earlier in the year? Is it not a fact that the difference in time between the right hon. Gentleman's demands on offer notices and the ability of the council to comply now boils down to a mere four months? How does that justify his intervention as housing commissar? Why has he decided to pick as a scapegoat one of the most responsible and progressive of housing authorities when the latest figures, which he presented to the House three weeks ago, show that 53 Conservative-controlled local authorities had sold no houses and that 19 Conservative-controlled authorities had either made no return or nil returns under the Act, including the authority within the constituency of the Minister for Housing and Construction, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley)?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement is not the last word on this matter as the Norwich council intends to test his action in the courts? Does he accept that in two and a half years he has forced up council rents by 117 per cent., that mortgage rates are at a historic record high level, that unemployment in the building industry is higher than ever before and that the housing programme is at its lowest ebb since before the First World War? Why is he wasting time on this petty distraction when he should have been devoting all his energies to putting right the housing shambles that he has created? Why is he so worried about a pebble in his shoe in the middle of an avalanche that he has created?
Mr. Heseltine: I think that the House will appreciate that, far from being high handed, I have gone to considerable lengths at meetings, which in the end I have held myself, to avoid the need to intervene. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said that the rate of issuing section 10 notices is now seven times greater than it was earlier in the year. The House may ask legitimately what the rate was earlier in the year.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the difference between my demands on offer notices and the council's ability to comply is only four months. He has failed to take into account that that refers to straightforward cases only and that no timetable has been given for those cases which are not. As for a possible challenge in the courts, that is entirely a matter for the city authority. It must make up its mind.
The right hon. Gentleman always refers to the constituency that is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), the Minister for Housing and Construction. The authority within that constituency is not selling under the right to buy because it is proceeding on a voluntary basis under the original arrangements that applied before the right-to-buy scheme. However, it may help the House to know the figures within my hon. Friend's authority. I understand that 385 applications have been received and that 28 have been withdrawn, leaving a net 357, which are still extant. Offers have been made in respect of 306, which is 86 per cent. of all inquiries.
The right hon. Gentleman pursues his characteristic denunciation of the approach that we have made. I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that he regards

401
the right to buy as of such significance that he has now persuaded the Labour Party to promise to remove from all council tenants the right to buy. I understand that he has gone as far as to say that the Labour Party, if ever reelected, will interfere with the existing contractual arrangements.
Mr. Charles Morrison: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statement. Far from being high handed, is he aware that many of us have thought that it was high time that he made use of his powers of intervention? Does he understand that he will be given every encouragement from his right hon. and hon. Friends should he feel it necessary to intervene in respect of other local authorities?
Mr. Heseltine: I much appreciate my hon. Friend's kind remarks. He will know of my reluctance to use powers that are available, but I have to remember that in the end it is my duty to uphold the law and to ensure that tenants receive their legitimate entitlements.
Mr. David Ennals: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Norwich city council is implementing the right-to-buy provisions both efficiently and expeditiously? Does he know that some of the statistics contained in his statement are incorrect concerning the number of evaluations that have been carried out? Does he appreciate that last month the council completed 90 evaluations and that there have been 90 offers for tenants? Is he further aware that there are several Tory-controlled local authorities whose records are substantially worse than that of Norwich city council? Does he remember that he told me that since I September there have been only five criticisms or complaints received by city council tenants? Why has he picked on Norwich? Is this not deliberate party political discrimination?
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the statistics upon which I have to operate are those provided by the Norwich city council. He will be aware also that I have had to act in respect of Norwich because, when its performance is compared with that of other authorities, I consider it to be among the worst in delivering the right-to-buy scheme to council tenants. That is a fact that has been reinforced by the number of complaints that I have received from tenants.
Mr. John Major: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I spoke at a public meeting in Norwich earlier this year to several hundred tenants who were bitterly angry about the way in which their applications to buy had been treated? Is he further aware that those tenants will welcome his statement? Would it not be for the general good if the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) were to say unequivocally and willingly from the Dispatch Box that he will request Labour councils throughout the country to comply with the present law?
Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Ardwick would want all authorities in every political party to comply with the law. I am much more concerned that he should come to the Dispatch Box to remove some of the barriers to a better housing policy that his party is imposing on the housing scene. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the efforts that he has made to draw the attention of council tenants to the rights that are now theirs by
402
statute. He has given us a manifestation of the concern in one area that those tenants should be able to get their rights.
Mr. John Garrett: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is nothing more than a vindictive action against a Labour authority with an incomparable housing record compared with the records of other authorities of its size? Is he aware that the rate of making offers has substantially improved, which shows the willingness of the council to co-operate with his Department? Why has he not picked on Tory authorities that have a slower rate of making offers than the Norwich city council? Will he accept that Norwich has been picked on for an authoritarian attack on political grounds, that that is part of his conscious destruction of the powers of local government and that it is fundamentally undemocratic?
Mr. Heseltine: I cannot accept that it is fundamentally undemocratic when a Secretary of State intervenes to uphold the legal rights of individual citizens. I do not believe that it can be argued seriously that I am being vindictive. I have taken such care and such time to try to persuade the authority to try to improve on the performance which has been a subject of concern to me. This is not a matter of party politics. I should be prepared to move whatever the political complexion of the authority if the results of its sales efforts seemed to justify it.
Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his decision will be noted and welcomed in Norwich and by council tenants within other authorities who are facing difficuly in buying? They may follow his suggestion, including my own constituents, and make their complaints known to him in the hope that he will take further action.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that I am in contact with a number of authorities. I have had to issue warnings to a number of them in the hope that they will seek to remedy the matters of concern without its being necessary for me to intervene. I understand that my actions today will be seen as a step in the direction of the implementation of the right to buy on a wider basis than simply that of Norwich. However, I repeat what I have said and hope that it will not be necessary for me to widen the intervention that I have announced today.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that his disgraceful dictatorial action will be bitterly resented by local authorities throughout the country as an affront to local democracy? Would it not be more appropriate if the right hon. Gentleman worried a little about the hundreds of thousands of people on the waiting lists who are desperately waiting to be rehoused and who will have to wait much longer as a result of the Government's action which has meant that local authorities cannot provide the accommodation needed?
Mr. Heseltine: Before the hon. Member gets carried away with words such as dictatorial suppression, will he understand that as the Secretary of State I have to take into account the individual rights of citizens in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the determination to ensure that the law is enforced will be warmly welcomed on the Government Benches? Is he further aware that the Social Democratic

403
and Liberal Parties are so interested in the rights of tenants to buy their homes that there is not one of their members in the Chamber?
Mr. Heseltine: I have heard my hon. Friend's comments, but he would not expect me to consider party political matters in this situation.
Mr. Kaufman: As the Secretary of State has asked me about my attitude to the law, is he aware that throughout the passage of the legislation I have made it clear that the Labour Party is opposed to a breach of a law on this matter? Is he further aware that no local authority has broken the law and that there is no proof that Norwich has broken the law? The legal action taken by Norwich may prove that he has broken the law. The only person proved to have done that so far is the right hon. Gentleman, who was found in a recent High Court action to have broken the law and he is doing nothing to rectify the position.
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Member is so anxious to defend himself that he misunderstands the situation. I am complying with the recent legal finding in a way that I believe will be totally within the law, as he would expect. I am delighted that he is keen on the maintenance of the law. He must understand that the law gives me certain rights on behalf of citizens, just as it gives rights to certain local authorities.
Mr. Tony Durant: Will the Secretary of State accept it from me that Conservative Members welcome this move with great enthusiasm? Will he remind the House that what we are discussing, despite the comments from the Opposition, is the desire of ordinary people to buy their homes? An Act to make that possible has been passed by Parliament and we should support it and implement it as soon as possible.
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware that my position means considering the rights of individual citizens. That is the purpose that the law envisaged when it gave me powers of intervention.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Secretary of State accept that his smarmy appearance at the Dispatch Box fools nobody? His proposal is an example of a deliberate political vendetta against a successful Labour-controlled local authority. He has repeatedly expressed concern for the rights of the individual citizen. Therefore, will he tell us what manpower in his Department is engaged in furthering the rights of those citizens who want the tenancy of a council house but are kept waiting by the inefficiency of his policies? We now have the lowest public sector house building starts since the war. What is he doing for the rights of individual citizens who are on the dole, who have building skills and who want to be put to work on building houses in the public sector? His rotten Government's rotten policies are preventing them from being put to work.
Mr. Heseltine: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman in the calmest voice that I can muster. The persecution complex which now riddles the Labour Party will do it no good; nor will it help to heap personal abuse on me. Before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away with rewriting history about the cuts in capital programmes of the sort he
404
describes, will he say why he supported the Labour Government who halved the capital expenditure of local government?
Mr. Christopher Murphy: Will my right hon. Friend consider action in the case of my Socialist-controlled district council, which appears disinclined to fulfil the spirit of the law, to the obvious frustration of the tenants who wish to exercise their legal rights as early as possible?
Mr. Heseltine: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned for his constituents and, under the law, I must consider representations on behalf of any tenants who cannot fulfil their legal entitlement. I should be prepared to do that whenever I felt that the law was not being fully implemented.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: When the Secretary of State puts the commissioner into Norwich, will he also instruct him to take evidence from the Norwich people who are on the waiting list for a house? There must be evidence about the hardship under which they live. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that such people cannot wait? They desperately need housing and it is the right hon. Gentleman's policies which are obstructing their desires.
Mr. Heseltine: I should be prepared to consider all the representations made to me provided that they were relevant to the discharge of my duties. However, I should have to make the point to anyone who said what the hon. Member just did that the revenue from the sale of council houses puts hundreds of millions of pounds for housing purposes in local authorities' hands.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the four hon. Members who have been standing in their places.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State aware that his demonstration of his readiness to use the reserve powers firmly will be noted with great pleasure by my constituents? He will be aware that the Secretary of State for Wales enjoys similar powers in relation to councils which appear to be experiencing extraordinary difficulties, at the very least, in implementing the Act.
Mr. Heseltine: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is here, and will share my admiration for the way that my hon. Friend advances the case for his constituents. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Wales is as determined as I am to carry out in full the duties that the law puts on us.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Has Norwich council been divorcing the garages beside the houses from the houses themselves and saying that tenants who want to buy cannot buy the houses? Will Norwich council do the same as Greenwich council in forcibly moving elderly people who applied with their more elderly parents to buy their homes—the council's grounds being only that the elderly parent died during the time that the council was not fulfilling the law? Will he consider intervening in Greenwich, as in Norwich, because the delays there are unacceptable to the tenants who want to exercise their right to buy their homes?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend's constituents will be grateful to him for putting their case today in the way that

405
he has done before. I am not satisfied with the position in Greenwich, and that is one of the authorities with which I have had discussions about the rate of progress. However, I have no further statement to make today.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend care to compare the record in the sale of council houses of the Conservative-controlled London borough of Ealing, which has now sold about 2,000 houses with a smaller staff, with that of Norwich? Will he comment on the fact that some of my constituents who live in Northolt, but in council houses belonging to the London borough of Brent, cannot buy them because that council has reversed the decisions which it previously made?
Mr. Heseltine: I am always glad to hear the achievements of authorities which are enthusiastically applying the right to buy. I am aware, as the House will be, that there have been about 400,000 applications under the right-to-buy provisions, which shows the wide benefits that council tenants see in the policy. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the problem. I shall keep that point under surveillance, as I do with all the other responsibilities that I have under the Act.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Despite the comments by hon. Members on both sides, does my right hon. Friend agree that what is happening in a major way at Norwich is certainly happening in nearly all constituencies under Labour-controlled councils? We applaud your actions and are relieved that at long last you are doing something about it.
Mr. Heseltine: I am not sure that you have taken action of the sort to which my hon. Friend referred, Mr. Speaker. If you had, I should of course have appreciated it. Following my hon. Friend's comments, and drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. Member for Ardwick said that all authorities should stay within the law, I hope that that message will be widely heard.

BILL PRESENTED
  SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS)
  Mr. Secretary Fowler, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Secretary Tebbit, Mr. Hugh Rossi and Mrs. Lynda Chalker, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with certain contributions payable under the Social Security Act 1975: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 33].
Orders of the Day

  SHIPBUILDING BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  Nuclear Industry (Finance) Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of order?
  Mr. Palmer: It is not possible to have any debate on the Bill because six names have to be appended to the motion that the Bill be debated, and unfortunately one of them has mysteriously disappeared during the night. It would be useful to have your guidance for the future. If an hon. Member, such as myself, were prepared to make cogent remarks for the improvement of the knowledge of the House, would it be in order for that hon. Member to volunteer to take the place of a missing Member?
  Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. Some hon. Members may well regret that they will not have the advantage of hearing him; others may feel differently. As the hon. Gentleman has indicated, there were only five names, and I was therefore obliged to put the Question, according to Standing Orders.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  Mr.A.G.Green
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Budgen.]
  4.21 pm
  Mr. Robert Atkins: I am exceedingly grateful, even at this extraordinarily early hour, for the chance to draw the attention of the House—[Interruption.] I regret to note that some of my hon. Friends are leaving the Chamber. I hope that it is not an indication of their view of the subject that I am about to raise. As I was saying, I am grateful for this early opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the grievance felt against the Government—the Home Office in particular—on two counts by a constituent of mine. The first concerns the Home Office's rejection of his possible re-employment as a prison officer. The second concerns the apparent refusal to tell him exactly what were the reasons for that refusal.
  I am referring to Mr. Arthur Green, of Fulwood in my constituency, who applied to be a prison officer in December 1975. After training as a prison officer he had his first appointment, in March 1976, to Maidstone. He was quite happy there, apart from a difficult divorce, which followed upon a separation that he had from his first wife. He was enjoying the work at Maidstone prison as a prison officer on ordinary disciplinary duties.
  Mr. Green was given custody of his 10-year-old son at the time of the divorce. That would seem to be an indication of his sense of responsibility in the eyes of the court. I am not an expert in these matters, but I gather that it is unusual for a father to be given the custody of one so young.
  Mr. Green applied in March 1978 to become a dog handler, and he was sent on a course which, coincidentally, took place at Preston prison. I say "coincidentally" because Mr. Green is a Prestonian and his family come from Preston. Although he was stationed at Maidstone, he was able to return to Preston prison for the dog-handling course. He was there for two months, June and July 1978. There he met his second wife-to-be. Following completion of training, he has transferred to Risley in Manchester with his dog, Major. There were no difficulties at that time with the dog, with Mr. Green's son or, indeed, with the job. He was living in prison quarters about half a mile from Risley prison.
  After a time, Mr. Green decided to remarry. Well before doing so, he had established that his wife-tobe—she had also been rather tragically divorced, and had a 2-year-old son—was petrified of dogs, and particularly in regard to her young child. There was nowhere in the house to which they were planning to move, where the dog could be kept, either in the garden or in the house itself, since Mr. Green's wife-to-be was determined not to have a dog of such size near her child, quite apart from the fear that she had herself.
  Accordingly, because of the pressure, Mr. Green sought, through the necessary channels at the prison—through the governor and so on—permission to give up dog handling and to return to ordinary disciplinary duties. He was not expecting any preferential treatment, but by the time of his second marriage, in November 1979, no arrangements had been made for him to leave his dog-handling duties. By now he was living with his new wife in Preston. This necessitated a drive of about an hour each way—sometimes twice a day if he was on the 6 am to
  408
  2 pm shift and then had to return for the 10 pm to 6 am shift. In winter time, when the weather and road conditions were difficult, the journey would sometimes take even longer than an hour.
  Because of Mr. Green's wife's fear of the dog, and the fact that no arrangements had been made for him to come off dog handling, the dog had to sleep in Mr. Green's van outside the house. He fed it, he cared for it and he exercised it properly, until such time as the strain became too much and he began to worry about the effects on the dog and, of course, on himself. Accordingly, he made arrangements for the dog to be looked after at Risley by the other dog handlers who were resident there.
  Mr. Green tells me that he assured himself regularly and continuously that the dog Major was fit and well. He also tells me that any of the dog handlers who were at Risley at the time would bear witness to that fact. Indeed, Mr. Green tells me that he received several compliments from his colleagues and others at Risley on the way in which he was coping with his domestic and his job difficulties at this time of remarriage, and with the move and the difficulties with the dog.
  In the meantime, Mr. Green had heard from a recently trained dog-handler at Risley, who had been on a subsequent course at Preston, that this dog-handler had met another trainee from the Isle of Wight who stated that he was taking over Mr. Green's dog, Major, in due course. Not unnaturally, my constituent made contact with that prison officer and offered, at his own expense to take the dog direct to the Isle of Wight. The distance from Preston to the Isle of Wight is, of course, considerable. The offer was refused by the prison service.
  Incidentally, following Mr. Green's eventual transfer from the dog-handling section he has maintained contact with the Isle of Wight dog handler, and has on many occasions seen the dog Major since he left the section. The dog has been brought to Mr. Green when the dog-handler from the Isle of Wight has had cause to travel north. Mr. Green has kept in contact with the dog on a regular basis. That is surely not an indication of hostility towards the animal.
  Mr. Green heard, on very good authority, that a report was written on the dog Major, soon after it left Mr. Green's care, suggesting that the dog was difficult and hostile and ought to be put down. Apparently, no blame was attributed to Mr. Green for that state of affairs.
  The Isle of Wight dog-handler pressed hard upon the prison service to be permitted to take over the dog, as he was an experienced man with dogs, having recently been trained specifically as a prison dog-handler. He fought against the suggestion that the dog should be put down. It was not put down, and he eventually took it over. That at least suggests that the dog was difficult and had been causing problems.
  I should explain that Mr. Green's new wife's father had died just before Mr. Green's remarriage, and that Mr. Green's new mother-in-law, who cannot drive and is not in the best of health, was wholly reliant upon her daughter, Mr. Green's new wife, to help in the small business that she had in Preston market. Mr. Green's father, of 72 years, was alone in Preston and had recently been seriously ill in hospital for some six weeks.
  For the above reasons, among others, he had, at the time of the application to come off dog-handling, applied for a transfer to a prison nearer Preston—because of the

  409
  distance involved in travelling, his new wife not being very keen on large dogs and so on, let alone the family reasons to which I have referred.
  Mr. Green was not expecting preferential treatment. He offered to pay any expenses involved in such a move, as opposed to a move at public expense, which, I gather, is the usual procedure. So, on the second occasion, he offered to arrange a move at his own expense, even though he was not expecting the move to take place quickly.
  In November 1979 he was taken off dog-handling and therefore returned to ordinary disciplinary duties, which involved his working a normal day. He was reasonably content to await the offer of a move in due course. In December 1979 he was offered a move to London at public expense or to Maidstone at his own expense and was told that he had to decide between these two options as soon as possible. He refused.
  I apologise for delaying the House, but I should like to quote from the letter which Mr. Green wrote to me, in which he laid out the problem as he saw it. Although I have sought to explain the case in as careful detail as I can, I believe that quoting Mr. Green's letter will help the Minister to understand the strength of feeling of my constituent in this difficult matter, as it affects him. He says:
  "In the first place, I applied to go on dogs because as far as I was concerned the Prison Service was my chosen career and I was a dedicated officer and, to me, going on dogs was a 'step up'. I was transferred from Maidstone to Risley without any argument on my part despite having been settled, with my young son, in Maidstone for three years.
  I agree that training specialised officers is expensive, however, I should like to point out that part of the expense involved goes towards training the dog. In my case, Major was posted to Albany, to another officer, and there was no discontinuation of Major's services to the prison. Also, Major's new officer was due to go on an eight week course for a new dog (his own having died or been injured) so causing the service to save money on the dog course and also on any overtime that would have occurred by other officers who would have had to have covered for him while he was absent. However, my domestic situation changed and I tried living in Preston while still on dogs to see if it was at all possible to combine the two."
  I have mentioned Mr. Green's wife's fear of dogs, and I have spoken of his wife's young child, who was of a boisterous nature and who did not realise the potential danger of the dog. I am sure that I do not have to talk at length about the problems that we have seen recently with dogs that have turned on and savaged young children. It may be only a small number of children who are savaged, and it may not involve many prison dogs, police dogs or trained dogs, but it is a fact that many mothers fear that happening. My own wife feels much the same way.
  I have already referred to the health and the stress problems of having to commute between Risley and Preston and the problems that that caused, both financially and in relation to the dog.
  Mr. Green continues:
  "I never really wanted to come off dogs because I enjoyed the work but it was impossible to continue on dogs for the above reasons. I still wished to continue in the Prison Service so I applied for a position at Preston or surrounding area, reverting to discipline duties. When I put in for a transfer from Risley to Preston, I was quite prepared to wait my turn until a discipline position became available. In no way did I expect preferential treatment."
  I emphasise what I said earlier.
  Mr. Green quotes from the letter that he received from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, which said:
  410
  "Officers also know that they will be expected to await the appointment of a replacement before reversion can take place."
  Mr. Green continues:
  "In all honesty, I was never told of this ruling concerning awaiting a replacement, and was assured that my position on dogs at Risley 'would be covered.' When my transfer came through to go to London or Maidstone"—
  to which I referred earlier——
  "I appealed and was refused. I felt it was impossible to go to either, because:(a) having only been re-married for a few weeks, I did not wish to leave my new wife and family so soon;(b) it was impossible for my wife to accompany me due to the fact that she had binding commitments in Preston to fulfil."
  As I have mentioned, that was due to her mother's ill health, and the necessity of running the business after her father's recent death, and his father's ill health, which necessitated hospitalisation. He continues:
  "(c) I did not wish to be parted from my children"—
  that was the young child of his new marriage, by his second wife, and his son of some 10 or 11 years of age——
  "at a time when we were all getting used to living with each other in a family atmosphere which both children had been denied up till then. Also, we had just got the children settled in new schools and we did not want them to be disrupted yet again (the elder child (mine)"—
  the elder boy—
  "having been in five different schools in five years)."
  I suggest that those are sentiments to which anyone in the House could subscribe if he had been through the tragedy of the break-up of a marriage, and facing the serious need to ensure that the children—who always suffer greatest in circumstances such as these—should have their futures protected, particularly at such a young age—2 or 3, and 10 or 11. Surely that is something which all of us would recognise and support. I would define that as being arguably one of the best possible reasons for a sympathetic consideration of this man's case.
  Not being an unreasonable man, Mr. Green goes on to say:
  "My wife and I did give great and careful thought to the matter of me moving either to London or Maidstone by myself so continuing my career in the service, but we really felt that our private lives and those of our children deserved some consideration at the critical stage they were in at that time. I could see no alternative but to resign from the service, even though I considered this as a last resort. I had to do something that was alien to me simply because of the circumstances I found myself in. I honestly believe that no one had better reasons for wanting to be in the North West area than myself, which I was prepared to do at my own expense."
  I cannot emphasise this point enough. On two particular occasions, in order to be seen to be reasonable and helpful, Mr. Green offered to take these options at his own expense, even allowing for the fact that he did not expect preferential treatment.
  Mr. Green goes on to say:
  "The prison service has already trained me as a discipline officer and if I was allowed to resume my duties, the money already spent on me would not be wasted."
  I am sure that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, heard yesterday, during the debate on the prison service, of the pressures upon prisons at all levels—the staff, the prisoners, those administering them, and those responsible for them. It seems to be amazingly shortsighted that an officer who is so keen and so dedicated to the job has found himself in this position wholly and absolutely against his will.
  Mr. Green goes on to say:
  "I could take up my duties without the Prison Service having to incur any further training expense on my behalf. In view of the present desperate shortage of prison officers, and new recruits, it would seem prudent to allow me to resume my duties,

  411
  so fulfilling two causes…the use of an already trained and dedicated officer, and my own cause, in that I am eager to resume service in my chosen career, which, I must stress again, I never wanted to leave in the first place."
  Mr. Green goes on to refer to a letter—to which I shall refer shortly—which was sent to me as his Member of Parliament. He says:
  "it was stated that I was being posted to London because they were so short-staffed there. However, about three weeks after I resigned I was told that officers at Risley were offered Wymott"—
  a prison near Leyland, adjacent to Preston—
  "at public expense. The Home Office must have been aware of the reorganisation at the time I applied for the North West and I cannot understand why I was not offered Wymott at my own expense, which would have answered two problems in one fell swoop.
  Since joining the Prison Service, I have always given 100 per cent. of myself. I believe I have a good record. I have never argued about any of my past postings or detached duties."
  My constituent's letter shows his concern about what happened to him. When he was presented with these difficult options he appealed to the governor, the Home Office, the Prison Officers Association and to the welfare section—to no avail. As he says, he had no alternative but to resign from the service, much against his will.
  My constituent was told before leaving by the then chief prison officer at Risley, Mr. O'Rourke, that he was very sorry to see Mr. Green going and that he would be prepared to give Mr. Green an excellent reference for any job for which he might apply. I am not wholly familiar with the prison service, but I imagine that the chief prison officer is equivalent to a regimental sergeant major, if I may draw that analogy. I was only a part-time soldier, but I know, had I been a professional soldier, that if the RSM had said to me when I left that he would give me a reference I should have regarded that as the highest accolade that I could have within the ambit of my regiment or battalion. I am sure that my hon. Friends recognise that when a chief prison officer is prepared to offer such a reference it is a demonstration of how highly my constituent is thought of, at least by the chief prison officer.
  Only three weeks after leaving the prison service my constituent was told by a friend, still at Risley, that prison officers were being transferred to Wymott at public expense. One must bear in mind that on two separate occasions Mr. Green had offered to move at private expense—out of his own pocket—rather than incur public expenditure. Not unnaturally, when hearing this Mr. Green re-applied for a post as a prison officer, and/or a trade officer and as a civilian bricklayer at Wymott. He was not even granted an interview.
  In September 1980, Mr. Green went to the jobcentre where he noticed that there was a prison service recruitment drive. He was again refused consideration. This is a man who had been a prison officer, done the job, and been harshly treated, as I maintain that he has, and I am sure that hon. Members, on hearing about the case, will agree. Having done all this, he decided, as a last resort, to come to his Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Ian Gow: Quite right too.
  Mr. Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for his sedentary support. I took up the case and wrote to the Home Office, which, at my instigation, granted Mr. Green another
  412
  interview in April 1981. I was subsequently told that he would not be re-employed because of his unsatisfactory performance and cruelty to his dog.
  I shall quote from the letters that I have received because the case does bear repeating. It will take me some time to work through my complicated file—I hope that the House will bear with me just a moment. While I am looking for the letter that I wish to quote I shall add that it is difficult for an hon. Member faced with a problem put to him by a constituent to judge in the early stages of the case whether his constituent is trying to pull the wool over his eyes. I am sure that many of my colleagues occasionally find that a case has been going from one hon. Member to another. I must emphasise how strongly I was impressed by my constituent, his complaint and the manner in which he laid the complaint before me. I support him strongly in the applications that he is making.
  In a letter written on 21 January 1981 the Under-Secretary of State says:
  "I should also add that when Mr. Green applied to rejoin the prison service in February of last year the usual inquiries were made of his former Governor as to his suitability for reemployment. As a result it became apparent that although his reports had been generally satisfactory… there was a considerable cause for concern."
  That does not seem to tie in with what the chief prison officer had to say. The Under-Secretary continued:
  "Indeed the deterioration had been such that his local management had been compelled to take Mr. Green's dog away from him because of his neglect of the animal."
  My constituent tells me that that is absolutely not true. He says that it bears no relation to what he experienced.
  When I passed that letter to Mr. Green he was extremely angry. He took exception to the suggestion that he had been cruel to his dog. I took the matter up with the Home Office again and received a further reply on 27 February which states:
  "Notwithstanding any impression that Mr. Green gained about the value of his work when he left the Prison Service"—
  that again differs from what the governor said—
  "it is a matter of record that local management do not support his request for re-employment."
  Earlier the letter states:
  "the dog was taken away from him and removed to civilian kennels."
  My constituent emphasises strongly that the dog was put in civilian kennels, but that he put it there when he went on a week's leave. He picked it up at the end of that week's leave. The dog was never taken away from him. He took the dog to the kennels and made the necessary arrangements. That clashes with what the Home Office tells me.
  Mr. Gow: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's most interesting story. Did not the first letter from the Minister say that the conduct of my hon. Friend's constituent was generally satisfactory? Will my hon. Friend elaborate on that, because the letter seems inconsistent?
  Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have received a number of letters from the Home Office which seem to express different opinions in terms of the original statement that my constituent's performance was generally unsatisfactory. I pointed out that the chief prison officer was prepared to go out on a limb to support my constituent's position to the extent of offering him a reference for any job for which he might apply. That appears to be acknowledged in the second letter. It acknowledges at least that there is a difference of opinion

  413
  between the governor and the chief officer about my constituent's performance. There is a difference and I hope that the Minister will explain it.
  I am impressed by the manner in which my constituent has put his case to me. He has said that he is prepared for the case to be taken to the highest possible level. I ask hon. Members to consider that. Not every day of the week is a man who has a grievance prepared to allow the full spotlight of public attention to be put upon his case in the national media and the House of Commons. He is prepared for his name to be bandied around. I should think twice about that unless I were absolutely certain that my case was right. That is a sign of how strongly my constituent feels.
  Mr. Keith Best: I concur with what my hon. Friend has said. Does he agree that it is regrettable that such cases have to come under the full spotlight? Is it not regrettable that one sometimes has to represent an individual by raising his problems in the House?
  Mr. Atkins: I am grateful for that comment. It is difficult to raise a constituent's personal grievance on the Floor of the House. Occasionally that has to be done and that is right, but one must think carefully before doing it. One cannot do it lightly. I am sure that there will be some difference of opinion between my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and me on the merits of the case. I can speak only as I find. I am impressed by my constituent. He and his wife have come to see me on numerous occasions at my constituency surgery. I am impressed by that and because he is prepared to take his case to the highest possible place so that his grievances might be rectified. That indicates to me how strongly he feels and how committed he is to seeing his name cleared and getting his job back.
  At no time before Mr. Green came to see me as his Member of Parliament had he been informed of any blot on his record, been given the chance to know what was held against him or been allowed to challenge it.
  I had to find out the reasons for the apparent refusal of the Home Office to take him back. That in itself is slightly worrying. I am not sure of the procedure in such circumstances. I look forward to hearing my hon. and learned Friend's reply.
  Mr. Green was not sacked. He was not forced out in the sense that he was told he was unsatisfactory and asked to go. I hope that hon. Members will accept that he had the best possible reasons for refusing to move to London or Maidstone—a sick mother-in-law, a sick father, a new wife and two young children. If those are not the best reasons for refusing a move, I do not know what are. He was put in the position where he had to resign because he would not go to the other end of the country.
  I wonder if it is normal practice that someone put in this position should not be allowed to know the reasons for his not being re-employed when he was led to believe by the chief prison officer and colleagues that he was doing a good job. This was a man dedicated to the job he had taken up three or four years previously. He enjoyed the job. Allowing for the difficulties that arose with the dog and his new family—he had no trouble with the dog—I would be interested to know my hon. and learned Friend's views about the propriety of not allowing him to know why he was not readmitted to the service, particularly when the Home Office was prepared to tell me the reasons.
  414
  There is clearly some element of privilege attached to the records of individuals. I accept that there must be qualified privilege in some respects in relation to references for jobs. Surely, however, the Minister agrees that my constituent was at least led to believe, by the comments of his friends at Risley and the chief prison officer that he had done the job pretty well. The chief prison officer almost went so far as to say that he was sorry to see him go and that a reference would be given.
  I believe that this is important. My constituent feels deeply that he has a justified grievance against the Home Office on the basis that he was not allowed to continue to do the job he wanted to do and that he was harshly treated over his domestic situation, especially as he was willing to pay the necessary expenses on two occasions to take the dog Major to the Isle of Wight. I cannot emphasise strongly enough how keenly I feel that commitment. The normal procedure is for payment to be made at public expense. On two occasions, my constituent made the offer out of his own pocket either to take the dog to the Isle of Wight or to make the move to any nearby prison. He never wanted to leave the service to which he remains dedicated.
  Until he came to see me, my constituent had not been able to ascertain any reasons for his continued rejection. Following my intervention, the allegation of cruelty to his dog was serviced. My constituent wishes to make it crystal clear that these allegations are untrue and that he resents strongly the imputation on his character. I would suggest that for the reasons I have enunciated my constituent has a real case that must be answered by my hon. and learned Friend. My constituent wants his job back. If that is not possible, for reasons that will have to satisfy me, I would contend that natural justice, if nothing else, dictates at least that his integrity and good faith should remain unimpaired.
  Mr. Gow: I regret that I was unable to hear the opening sentences of my hon. Friend's speech. Can he inform the House where Major now is?
  Mr. Atkins: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the dog rather than to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major). I understand that the dog Major is at present in the Isle of Wight. When my constituent came off dog-handling at Risley, the dog was taken over by a newly trained dog handler at Albany prison in the Isle of Wight, where I understand the dog is now being looked after.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) missed my early remarks. With permission, I shall refresh the memory of the House. My constituent informs me, on the best authority, that when the dog left his care, a report was prepared which has perhaps gone to the establishment division of the Home Office. The report would indicate that the dog had been a difficult and perhaps hostile dog, that my constituent had been skilful in being able to maintain the dog in difficult circumstances but that, because of the difficulties, the dog should be put down. It is a credit to the new handler, an experienced animal handler, although not particularly experienced in prison dog handling, that he persuaded the prison service to allow him to take over the dog so that he could study the dog's difficulties, help it along and bring it back into the fold of dog handling.
  My constituent has an extremely good case. I hope that I have been able to lay out that case to the best of my

  415
  ability as I see it. I strongly support my constituent in his plea. He would like his job back. With the pressures that exist on the prison service, a man of his trained ability should not be thrown overboard when he could be reemployed by the service. If, however, he cannot have his job back, the least that can be done in the interests of natural justice is that his name should be cleared of any imputation of cruelty to the dog. This is what particularly upset him. It should be removed completely from the record.
  I hope that my remarks will be well received by the Minister and that he will be able to say that my constituent has a case. In that way, some of the wrongs that have been done to him can perhaps be righted.
  4.58 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I shall not detain the House for long. When I heard that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) intended to use this Adjournment debate on behalf of one of his constituents, I felt compelled to come and listen. I think this a worthy cause, although I know none of the details and nothing of Mr. Arthur Green. My many years as a magistrate have taught me to be cautious and not to prejudge an issue.
  As hon. Members know, every story has two sides. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North is a sensible Member. Because he feels so deeply that there has been an injustice done in respect of his constituent, it is right that other hon. Members should not only hear his contribution—I congratulate him on his delivery—but give him some support if they feel that his case is strong and sensible.
  I cannot claim to be an expert on dogs apart from the fact that I used to breed great danes and judge them in the show ring. I also ran an animal boarding establishment that catered for police dogs. As a magistrate, I have served as a prison visitor. I therefore feel qualified to make a modest and brief contribution. Everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North says has led me to believe——
  Mr. Atkins: I do not wish my hon. Friend to mislead the House. I am grateful to him for the remarks that he has made but, much as I would wish it, I am not yet a right hon. Member.
  Mr. Dickens: It shone crystal clear through the speech of my hon. Friend that there was a love between Mr. Arthur Green and his dog. In the early part of his speech, we heard that there was a difficulty with Mr. Green's second wife, to such an extent that the dog could not stay at home. She had a fear of dogs. One appreciates that, because many people are afraid of large animals. There is no blame attached. However, having heard my hon. Friend's speech, it is inconceivable that there was the alleged cruelty towards the dog Major by Mr. Green. Everything that I have heard this afternoon leads me to believe that there was a tremendous bond of love between the dog and the dog handler.
  Notwithstanding that, we must be cautious. I shall be interested to hear the reply of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. I have not attended a debate since I have been a Member of Parliament where
  416
  an hon. Member has felt strongly enough to come into the Chamber and fight against what he believes to be an injustice to one of his constituents.
  We heard in yesterday's debate about the deplorable state of Britain's prisons, with overcrowding and insanitary, vile conditions. I do not need to repeat anything that was said in that debate. We should ask the prison service to reconsider not only the reinstatement of Mr. Green to the service for which he was trained, but whether he should be given a sensible acknowledgement so that his name may be cleared. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North well. If he was not convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was an element of injustice or some root cause behind the prison service's conduct—although he may have been misguided in some elements—he would not have made a plea on behalf of his constituent. I shall be interested to hear the reply of the Minister of State.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) for bringing to the Floor of the House the question of an individual, his employment and his right to redress if he has been dismissed abruptly. However, I do not wish to anticipate the Minister's reply. The situation is serious or my hon. Friend would not have brought it here. I have been stirred by the fact that he has. I feel that it is a great tribute to democracy in Britain.
  I have an interest in prisons and prison officers. For many years I have been interested in prison education and in trying to achieve access to education for all those in custody. I have been told many times that we are dependent upon prison officers and what they can be asked to do. We must have a sufficient number of prison officers if prisoners are to be escorted to classes for the purpose of being educated, so the loss of one officer could weaken the position even more.
  I have visited many prisons—training prisons, women's prisons, men's prisons——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the subject is the decision of the Home Secretary in respect of Mr. Green. We must stick to that and not get on to the general principles.
  Mr. Greenway: I was not going to stray from the subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the loss of one prison officer weakens the establishment of officers throughout the service and weakens the ability of the prison service to provide education for prisoners in all its establishments. One must concede that, and I draw the House's attention to the need to do something about the position.
  I could not stand by and see any possible loss, whether Mr. Green has been dismissed or not. We do not know what the position will be until after the Minister has spoken, but the chance is that we may lose a prison officer and therefore further weaken the prison education service, which is in an unsatisfactory state. The effect of not having prison education on the scale required is to throw prisoners together to discuss the one thing that they have in common—crime. Prisons become universities of crime. The possible loss of such an individual furthers the situation.

  417
  I wish to hang my protest upon that. It furthers a situation in which many courses for prisoners and young people in prisons are more restricted. The House must be concerned about that. In this brief intervention, I ask the Minister to be concerned about the establishment and number of prison officers, and the effect of what my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North has said upon the prison education service and therefore upon the morale of prisoners——
  Dr. Shirley Summerskill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has now reached the general subject of morale in prisons, the shortage of prison officers and overcrowding in prisons and asks the Minister to reply to that. I submit, on a point of order, that that is not relevant to this Adjournment debate. I also submit that the speech of the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) was not relevant, in that he said he knew no details of the case and nothing of Mr. Green. It seems quite wrong that a limited constituency case—a personal grievance that has been raised by an hon. Member in the House—should be exploited in order to abuse the procedure of the House. In my view, it is an attempt to prevent a debate coming on about the plight of the unemployed.
  I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ensure that any further contribution to the debate deals specifically with the very limited point originally raised by the hon. Gentleman—the reappointment of Mr. A. G. Green as a prison officer.
  Mr. Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it not the case that if the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) had been out of order, you would not have allowed him to make it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is concerned that every speech that is made shall be in order. All the speeches that have been made today have been in order, or I should have ruled them out of order. I have told the hon. Gentleman now making his speech that he cannot discuss the general principles of education in prisons. He must confine himself to the particular case.
  Mr. Greenway: Of course, I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was interested to hear that intervention. I am in no sense seeking to extend the debate unnecessarily. I had a broadly similar case in my constituency. All hon. Members have prisoners in their constituencies who are affected by this type of case. I simply sought to point out that if the establishment at one prison is weakened by the loss of a single prison officer, that will have a broad effect on the whole service. That is the reason for my concern.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. John Wheeler: I wish to intervene briefly because my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) has drawn to my attention the case of Mr. Green. My hon. Friend sought my advice because I am a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and have relevant experience of the prison service and what happens within it.
  I do not wish to detain the House too long, but some points should be raised in connection with Mr. Green. I understand that he first served as a prison dog handler in
  418
  July 1978 and continued in that service until December 1979. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that before Mr. Green could serve as a dog handler he had to be carefully selected to see whether he had the right aptitude to undertake that duty and whether he was a suitable and fit person to have charge of an expensive animal—a specially acquired dog—for use in the type of duties that have to be undertaken in the prison service.
  It may help the House to know that there are about 250 dogs in the prison service. They are expensive to acquire and train. Mr. Green would have undergone the training courses and the examination necessary to determine whether he could perform that duty and whether he would be able to serve in the different prison establishments. Therefore, I am concerned that if Mr. Green is removed from that duty in the prison service, the expense of training and preparing him for it will be a charge on the taxpayer and a denial of Mr. Green's career structure.
  In today's modern prison service, the establishment division of the prison department attempts to create a sensible and realistic career structure for prison officers. A man like Mr. Green would have been invited to perform that duty and he might have expected to stay as a prison dog handler for at least the duration of the dog's life. If a trained dog handler is separated from his trained dog, the two essential elements that are expensive to obtain are lost. The dog does not easily adapt to a new handler, although that can be done with additional resources and expense. However, Mr. Green possessed the aptitude to perform that duty. Therefore, an explanation should be given to the House, which is the sovereign body in such matters, as to why his service had to be terminated and why he cannot resume his duties as a dog handler.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: I realise that this is a complicated case and my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) has been extremely kind in taking an interest in it. As my hon. Friend said, I went to him because he is an expert in such matters and I am not. Perhaps I did not make myself absolutely clear. Although my constituent was a dog handler for 18 months or so, he had to come off dog handling because his wife disliked the dog. I understand from Mr. Green that he did not dislike being a dog handler—after all, he had been picked and trained to do that—but that there were special domestic pressures which provoked him to make his move. That is the cause of my concern. If Mr. Green were to be re-employed by the Home Office, he would be given normal disciplinary duties, in the training for which a great deal of money will have been invested.
  Mr. Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  The background to the case is interesting, because dogs are generally quartered separately from prison officers, their families and homes. However, in this case, the prison officer will have been selected for duty because of his dedication and length of service. It is most unfortunate that the training and skills that Mr. Green acquired are no longer available to the prison service, particularly when there are staff shortages in the prison services and when overtime is being worked because of the limited number of people who wish to undertake such difficult duties. Given the training that Mr. Green will have enjoyed he should be capable of being re-employed.
  Mr. Green would be a suitable candidate for employment in several prison service establishments. He

  419
  could probably be considered for an open prison or for a prison in his immediate home area. Indeed, there are several possible prisons, such as the remand prison at Preston. I am sure that the Minister will agree that there are some vacancies at prison officer grade, and Mr. Green may be eligible for such a position. Given the expenditure of taxpayers' money, Mr. Green's case should be carefully reviewed.
  The Minister is always fair in such matters, and I hope that he will find it possible to review the case with the care and courtesy for which he is known to see whether Mr. Green can be found a place within the prison service.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: There are probably not many sovereign legislatures in the world where individual cases receive as much attention as they do in this House. It is a great tribute to our system of legislation that we can raise important individual cases in this way. However, the debate raises slightly broader issues, with which I have had to cope over the past seven years when dealing with individual cases in my constituency.
  Existing employment regulations often do not deal properly and capably with individual cases because the individual concerned feels aggrieved if his job application is not granted, and if an employment opportunity is no longer available. In the private sector the individual can move and find another position and so perhaps the damage is not as great as it might otherwise be. However, in the public sector things are quite different. That is why this case should be treated carefully and why those responsible for employment in the public sector should give special consideration to the employment of those within that sector, particularly in areas such as that which I represent, which is strongly associated with the Ministry of Defence and where there are few opportunities for employment outside that sphere.
  Mr. Green's employer was the prison service. There are other employment opportunities within the prison service for individuals such as Mr. Green, and also employment opportunities in the area in which he previously worked.
  I have represented my constituency for seven years. The Ministry of Defence provides the overwhelming majority of employment opportunities. Should an individual not gain the job that he seeks within the MOD, it is difficult for him to challenge the lack of employment opportunity and obtain satisfaction. The facts revealed by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) are relevant to the cases that I have handled.
  One constituent told me that his application for employment by an MOD establishment had been refused, but the reasons for refusal had not been made available to him. The problems of security pose real problems for the individual——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister cannot reply on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. We are dealing with the case of an individual employed by the prison service, and the Minister responsible is here to reply to that. The hon. Gentleman should stick to the subject.
  Mr. Viggers: I am sorry if my remarks did not appear to be directly related to Mr. Green's case. Mr. Green could not obtain satisfaction other than through the House of Commons and the good offices of his Member of
  420
  Parliament, who has so willingly taken up his case. In the cases about which I have been consulted, it has not been possible for the individuals to gain satisfaction other than by taking up the matter through me. On occasions I have had to obtain a statement from the appropriate Minister showing why the individual had not been eligible for employment.
  Can the Minister give any guidance on the matter? The Home Office, as well as the MOD, is involved in matters of security. It must be difficult to state the reasons for non-employment or a refusal to grant a certain job. Should there be some other way open, perhaps a tribunal, to individuals who cannot obtain satisfaction? It is peculiar that individuals need to go to their Members of Parliament and the relevant Ministers to obtain satisfaction.
  I hope that our brief debate will enable the Minister to give some guidance on that point. That would be helpful to us when dealing with cases like that of Mr. Green.
  5.22 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) for raising this matter this afternoon, and for giving me the opportunity to explain the decision of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary not to reinstate Mr. Green, who is a former prison officer. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens), Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) and Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for their contributions to the debate.
  It is an important function of this legislature that there should always be time for the individual cases of our constituents, where an injustice is perceived—rightly or wrongly—to be aired and debated. It should be an occasion upon which the responsible Minister is required to come before the House and explain what has been done on behalf of the Executive. The time that we have spent on the debate today has vindicated that important principle.
  The facts are that Mr. Green joined the prison service in December 1975. After training he was posted to Maidstone prison. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North said that Mr. Green appeared to have settled there quite happily, and reports have shown that he settled into his duties reasonably well. In January 1978 he applied to become a dog-handler and, following an interview, was selected for training in those specialist duties. He completed the initial training course and was subsequently posted to Risley remand centre in August 1978 as a dog-handler. In September 1979 he applied to revert to discipline duties—that is, he wished to cease his work as a dog-handler and return to the important work carried out by discipline officers on the landings within the prison. At the same time he asked for a transfer to either Wymott or Preston prisons.
  The grounds for his application were that he had an elderly father living alone in Preston, that his fiancée lived with her mother in the same area and that it was too far to travel daily from Preston to Risley. I have no reason to doubt what my hon. Friend said in amplification of those grounds—the family reasons that he outlined, including the fact that Mr. Green's wife had to help in the family business. I do not contest what my hon. Friend said about Mr. Green offering to pay the cost of removals. The application was not supported either by local management or by the staff welfare section.

  421
  I do not doubt that my hon. Friend was right to say that, subsequently, Mr. Green learnt that other prison officers had been appointed to Wymott and Preston, at public expense. The issue has nothing to do with whether the officer pays for his removal expenses or whether they are paid for at public expense. It is a long-standing practice in the prison service that if a person who is trained in specialist duties, such as a dog-handler, wishes to revert to ordinary duties, he is required to return to his former establishment or another establishment of the Department's choice. That is the practice. It is referred to in a notice to staff, serial number 54/1978, which is promulgated to all prison department establishments and is known to prison staff generally.
  The relevant paragraph states:
  "It must first be emphasised that because of the cost of specialist training, all such training is provided on the strict understanding that an applicant accepts an obligation to serve in the specialist grade at whichever establishment he may he required. Because of the limited number of specialist posts availble it is not always possible to offer a successful candidate a choice of posting, but every endeavour will be made to take account of previously expressed wishes and circumstances. Reversion to discipline duties will not normally be allowed without good reason. An officer wishing to revert to discipline duties will be expected to await the appointment of a replacement and may have to accept a liability for transfer to another establishment of the Department's choice."
  Mr. Robert Atkins: I have a copy of the document from which the Minister quoted. It says "allowed without good reason". Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the substantial reasons that I enunciated—family, new marriage, children's education, sickness of both father and mother-in-law, a recent death and the difficulties with the dog phobia of the new wife—are good reasons? Does he accept that my constituent never expected preferential treatment at any time? He was reasonably content to stay at Risley on ordinary discipline duties until a transfer could be effected. In those circumstances, while I recognise my hon. and learned Friend's reasons for emphasising the paragraph, I should have thought that there were reasons as good as could be found anywhere for being reasonable towards my constituent.
  Mr. Mayhew: If a prison officer's wife does not like dogs and does not want her husband to have anything to do with dogs, I accept that that is a good reason for a prison officer not wishing to continue to handle dogs. However, that is not the point. As my hon. Friend has fairly said on many occasions, and has just repeated, Mr. Green did not want preferential treatment. I shall explain why it was not possible to allow him to transfer either to Wymott or Preston prisons.
  One can understand the reasons for the rule that is promulgated in the notice to staff. It is expensive to train people for specialist duties and therefore those people are expected to carry out those duties. If for good reason—I do not quarrel with Mr. Green's reason—they want to give up those duties, the notice says that they must expect to have an obligation to serve at another establishment of the Department's choice in some other capacity, whether as a discipline officer or not.
  At the time, there was a long list of officers already waiting for transfer to the Preston area. Some of the officers on the list were serving at Risley, where Mr. Green was. Accordingly, Mr. Green was told that, on reverting to discipline duties, he would have to return either to his former establishment, which was Maidstone,
  422
  or to a prison in the London area, because there were vacancies in the London area. He was given that option. Of course, he could have elected to remain at Risley as a dog-handler, has he wished to do so, and await his turn in the queue for a transfer to the Preston area.
  The policy was not to give Mr. Green preferential treatment in the form of an immediate transfer to Wymott or Preston by allowing him to go to the head of the queue that already existed of officers who had registered applications for such a transfer. He was told that he could either wait at Risley as a dog-handler or go to Maidstone or to London. It is important to emphasise that, contrary to what was said in error by my hon. Friends the members for Ealing, North and Paddington, Mr. Green's employment was not terminated. He was not dismissed. He resigned in circumstances which I shall now describe.
  Mr. Green gave notice on 17 December of his intention to resign, and he resigned from the service on 29 December 1979. As was pointed out to my hon. Friend in correspondence with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary, between Mr. Green's application for transfer and the date of his resignation his attitude towards his duties deteriorated remarkably and culminated in his dog being taken away. Mr. Green had said that since his marriage he could not take the dog home because it did not suit his new family. He requested that it should be placed in the prison kennels, and that was done. However, instead of visiting the dog and maintaining regular contact with it until another dog-handler was found, he failed to attend to the dog as he should have done. On occasion, the intervals between his visits were in excess of two days, and his senior officer noted that the dog's performance began to deteriorate.
  Mr. Green had been informed why the dog had been taken away from him, and he was given the reasons on or before 4 December 1979. Subsequently, arrangements were made for the dog to be transferred to a new handler on the Isle of Wight.
  Three months after Mr. Green resigned, he requested reinstatement. I shall describe in a moment the steps that were taken following that request. However, as my hon. Friend referred to correspondence with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary, I shall quote the relevant parts of the correspondence, particularly the letters from my noble Friend.
  My noble Friend said in a letter dated 21 November:
  "In accordance with general Civil Service policy, it is not the practice to give specific reasons for rejecting a candidate but I can assure you that Mr. Green's application for reinstatement was carefully considered. I think, however, it may help if I explain briefly the circumstances leading to his resignation.
  In 1978 Mr. Green successfully applied for appointment as a dog-handler and was transferred at public expense from Maidstone to Risley. A considerable amount of money is spent on the training of specialist officers and reversion to normal duties is not normally allowed without good reason. Officers also know that they will be expected to await the appointment of a replacement before reversion takes place. In view of the short time he had served at Risley and in fairness to a number of officers who were on the waiting list for transfer to that area many of whom had been waiting a long time, Mr. Green was told that if he wished to revert he would be required to transfer back to Maidstone at his own expense or, because of the shortage of officers in the London prisons, to the London area at public expense.
  He chose to resign. I have looked into his case again because of your interest but I am afraid that I can find no grounds for changing the decision."
  That letter referred to the fact that, following Mr. Green's application for reinstatement three months after he

  423
  had resigned, he was told that his application was unsuccessful. It is a Civil Service rule that is consistently applied in the prison service that a civil servant who resigns his appointment has no automatic right to be reemployed. Much turns on whether there are suitable vacancies and on how his previous service was viewed. However, the overriding requirement is that the applicant must always match up with current standards of recruitment. In Mr. Green's case the views of local management were sought. The governor and chief officer submitted reports, but as they were unfavourable, it was decided not to reinstate Mr. Green.
  My hon. Friend has been most diligent, as I would expect, on his constituent's behalf, and has written numerous letters to my noble Friend. Following representations made by my hon. Friend on behalf of Mr. Green, and a meeting which took place with my noble Friend on 16 March, it was decided that Mr. Green should be given the opportunity to state his case before one of the prison officers' selection boards, which are the permanent prison officer recruiting panels. In his speech my hon. Friend did not refer to that board or to his constituent's appearance before it.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: I may not have made it clear, but I referred to that. Both I and my constituent understood that he would be given the chance to explain some of the problems to which I referred in my speech. He said to me afterwards that it was a formal board and that he did not have a chance to go into the problems in detail.
  Mr. Mayhew: If I missed the reference, I am sorry. I correct at once what I have just said. The meeting took place. However, one of the board's tasks is to ensure that officers or the candidates fit to be prison officers fit the current recruiting standards. The board consists of a governor, a chief prison officer and a higher executive officer. The board was constituted in that way on that occasion. I understand that none of its members was personally acquainted with Mr. Green.
  Mr. Green was duly interviewed by such a board last April. I understand that he was given a full opportunity to present his case. I have seen the report submitted by the chairman of that board. My noble Friend referred to it in a letter that he wrote. Notwithstanding Mr. Green's previous training and service, the board concluded that Mr. Green was not up to the standard, judged against present criteria. It is a consistently applied rule not to give reasons why a candidate for appointment to a Civil Service post is not selected.
  Although I cannot take up in any detail the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport about whether there should not be a tribunal before which a complaint of non-success in an application for a job can be aired and presumably adjudicated upon, there must be formidable objections to any such suggestion.
  Mr. Viggers: Will my hon. and learned Friend expand briefly on the reasons why the applicant is not told the reasons for his non-selection for appointment?
  Mr. Mayhew: I can think of one immediate rule that would be as applicable to an application for a job outside the Civil Service as to a job inside the Civil Service. That
  424
  is that many—I should have thought all—applicants are invited to submit references. The confidentiality of references is absolutely crucial to their value.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North that I have seen that report and considered it carefully. It appears from that that Mr. Green had a full and fair hearing and that his interview was different from a mere formal appearance.
  At this stage I should refer to the remainder of the correspondence because my noble Friend the Under-Secretary wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North again on 21 January 1981. He said:
  "The points made by Mr. Green have been noted, but I must say that his version of events differs from the information on our files. In particular, he states that he was unaware of the rules governing reversions to discipline duties, but these were only promulgated in April 1978, just prior to his attendance at the dog-handlers' training course and it is usual for such notices to be drawn to the attention of staff. I enclose a copy…I should also add that when Mr. Green applied to rejoin the prison service in February of last year, the usual inquiries were made of his former governor as to his suitability for re-employment. As a result it became apparent that although his reports had been generally satisfactory, his performance during the latter period had deteriorated to such an extent that there was considerable cause for concern. Indeed the deterioration had been such that his local management had been compelled to take Mr. Green's dog away from him because of his neglect of the animal. It is for this reason that Mr. Green has not been accepted back into the service and I am satisfied that no other decision was possible."
  My noble Friend concluded:
  "I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful."
  Following that there was further correspondence. On 31 March my noble Friend wrote to my hon. Friend and said that he promised that he would write about Mr. Green's unsuccessful application to join the prison service. He said:
  "There is presently a moratorium on the recruitment of prison officers. However, I have given Mr. Green's case careful thought and I think it would be right to arrange for him to be interviewed by one of the prison officer selection boards, which will independently measure his suitability for re-employment against the high standards which are now required for entry into the service. This means that he will have the opportunity of a personal hearing. We will set in hand the necessary arrangements for this. If Mr. Green is declared successful, then as soon as recruitment starts again, a post will be found for him on the understanding that its location would be subject to the overall needs of the service, but this means that his posting would not necessarily be in the Preston area; his views in this respect would, however, be taken into account. I must make it clear that if Mr. Green is unsuccessful, then I will not interfere with the decision."
  I believe that that is a fair offer—although an exceptional one—of a submission of that case to the board. My noble Friend wrote again on 13 August and said:
  "I have read the report submitted by the chairman of the selection board following Mr. Green's interview on 22 April and I am satisfied that he was given every opportunity to express his point of view. It is clear from the report that the circumstances surrounding his reversion to discipline duties and his subsequent resignation were among the subjects discussed. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explain that the Civil Service Commission has overall authority for the recruitment of civil servants and Departments recruit staff on delegated authority. In cases of reemployment of former civil servants, the commission insists that the candidate must be acceptable by current standards of recruitment. The commission insists on that. Contrary to any view which Mr. Green has formed either from talks with the chief officer or impressions gained from the selection board, the Department's view, with which I am bound to say that I agree, is that he simply does not measure up to the high standards which are currently required for entry into the service."
  I thought it right, as my hon. Friend had referred to the correspondence, that the full correspondence from my

  425
  noble Friend the Under-Secretary who has the responsibility for administering the prison service should be placed before the House for the sake of completeness.
  The prison service has reached its manpower ceiling for 1981–82. Recruitment, therefore, has been mainly confined to cover wastage. It follows that competition for prison officer posts is fierce. Only the best candidates are being allowed into the service. That should benefit the service in the longer term. In short, while Mr. Green was acceptable when he was first recruited in 1975, standards are higher in 1981 and it was found that he did not measure up to present standards.
  It is an unhappy feature of that episode that some conflict about the facts is apparent. My hon. Friend has fairly and with the utmost diligence put Mr. Green's version of the facts before the House. I have put before the House the facts as they were reported to my noble Friend. I have also referred to the report of the independent board. I have also seen a document that refers to the fact that Mr. Green was told on or before 4 December the reason why his dog had been taken from him. The view was that the dog had been neglected.
  I am able to say no more than that, but although there was this unhappy conflict about some of the facts, that conflict did not play an overriding part in these affairs. That may be seen from the fact that Mr. Green's application for reinstatement was submitted to a recruitment board established in the normal way, comprising a governor, a chief prison officer and a higher executive officer who were not acquainted with Mr. Green. The crucial question was whether he measured up to the high standards that are required today.
  Mr. Dickens: There is a great inconsistency in my hon. and learned Friend's reply, particularly in the evidence of the unsuitability of Mr. Arthur Green. We have been told that he was suitable to go on a waiting list for another prison, and offered a transfer to Maidstone or London. The governor of the prison where he originally served was obviously of the opinion that he measured up to the requirements of the service, and I presume that the board that sat in judgment received reports from that governor.
  Mr. Mayhew: It is perhaps unfortunate that for family reasons Mr. Green did not feel able to accept the offer of a post at Maidstone or London. I can only point to the fact that after three months, when he applied for reinstatement, arrangements were subsequently made in April this year for him to appear before the board. I have notified the House on the outcome of that application.
  While I greatly admire the persistence with which my hon. Friend has put his constituent's case and argued it with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary, I am afraid that I can see no grounds upon which the Home Secretary could be advised to reverse the decision that has been taken.

  Unemployment and Social Security Benefits
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), it may be helpful to the House if I indicate that Mr. Speaker has accepted the hon. Gentleman's application to initiate a second Adjournment debate. The subject is the effect of the
  426
  Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals upon the recipients of unemployment and short-term social security benefits.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to raise the issue that you have just outlined. 1 apologise to the Minister for Social Security and the Under-Secretary of State for the fact that they have had to break other engagements to be here to answer the questions that I shall put. I am sorry that they were unable to persuade Treasury Ministers to be present to answer those questions.
  It would have been much better had the Secretary of State for Social Services come to the House to comment on the effects of the Chancellor's statement on the groups with which we are concerned. That would have given hon. Members on both sides of the House the opportunity to ask questions and to clear up many of the issues that have been left extremely clouded.
  From my reading of the morning newspapers, it appears that in several areas they have got the Chancellor's statement wrong. It is therefore important that this uncertainty should be cleared up at the earliest opportunity.
  I start with a general comment about what the Chancellor said yesterday. His message was that we were turning the corner, that the problems were being resolved—albeit slowly—and that things would improve. Against that background, he said that the Government would reduce benefits to the worst-off in society by 2 per cent. It is amazing that he should say that. In other words, the sick, the unemployed and most of those on supplementary benefit will lose a week's money at the very time when we are turning the corner.
  Let us recall what the Chancellor said when, according to him, things were most difficult. In his Budget Statement last year, he said:
  "Again, any civilised society should provide a safety net below which a poor person's standard of living should not fall. We can all debate what is the proper level. Should it be a relative level or, as Beveridge had contemplated, an absolute level, which seeks to meet the basic needs of a person and his family? These are difficult questions. The answers are not made any easier by the fact that the supplementary benefit scheme covers so many varied circumstances, with more than 3 million beneficiaries at any one time, ranging from the old and infirm to healthy young people capable of work. But clearly no action we take should be at the expense of the really weak and needy."—[Official Report, 26 March 1980; Vol. 981, c. 1458–9.]
  That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said when he claimed that the problems were greatest. Are we no longer a civilised society, as he now feels that the weakest must bear the cuts?
  What about the comments of the then Secretary of State for Social Services? When justifying cuts in other benefits, he made it absolutely clear:
  "The Government are determined to maintain the safety net for the poorest people and accordingly the scale rates of short-term supplementary benefit will be fully price protected".—[Official Report, 27 March 1980; Vol. 981, c. 1659.]
  What has changed? The Chancellor says that we are supposed to be turning the corner. Why have the Government chosen to hit the least well-off? That fundamental question must be answered.
  I understand that other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I therefore hope that the Minister will clearly state what has happened to these beneficiaries.

  427
  I think he will confirm that pensioners will lose 2 per cent. for a year—in other words, a week's benefit—but that it will be made good in 12 months' time from then on. I think he will also confirm that there will be no back pay for the missing 2 per cent.
  Perhaps he will also confirm that unemployment benefit will be cut by 2 per cent. this year and that that will continue. The unemployed who are also on social security will also experience a 2 per cent. cut this year, which will continue.
  What about unemployed people on short-time supplementary benefit, such as people with families? If a man has registered for work but his unemployment benefit has run out, he will never be able to get on the long-term rate. Benefit for that group will be cut for this and continuing years by 2 per cent. Yet again, they will lose a week's money for each year they continue to be on supplementary benefit.
  The next group consists of people on short-term supplementary benefit, particularly one-parent families, who must wait for a year before getting on the long-term rate. Will the Minister confirm that for this and future years they will lose a week's benefit?
  What about people other than pensioners on long-term supplementary benefit? I understand that that group will lose the 2 per cent. for this and future years. That group will also be penalised a week's income this year and in future years.
  If that is correct, the statement that appeared in The Guardian today about the 9 million people who, although subject to this year's cut will escape future cuts, is wrong. Will pensioners be the only group to be protected in the future, or will it also include people below pension age who are on the long-term supplementary benefit rate? That was the impression that people got from the Chancellor's statement but, as I understand it, that is not what is being done. The Government are now putting forward proposals for three rates of supplementary benefit—one for pensioners; another at a long-term rate for those people below pension rate, but a lower rate than the pension rate; and a short-term rate. In other words, for everyone but pensioners on supplementary benefit, there is a week's cut this year, which will be perpetuated.
  There was no indication in the Chancellor's statement of what would happen to the 5 per cent. cut in unemployment and sickness benefits. We were told once that when those benefits came into taxation the cuts would possibly be restored. I know that that was not much of a promise but it should be spelt out whether the cuts will be restored.
  We must then look at what has happened to those people who are unemployed. The first cut in their benefit came when the Government decided to reduce the earnings-related supplement from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent. The second cut, which will come into effect in January next year, is the abolition of the earnings-related benefit. The unemployed are at least £11 a week worse off for the first 30 weeks of their unemployment.
  The Government assumed that they would tax unemployment and sickness benefits and abate them by 5 per cent. They accepted that that was a crude measure and that it would be ideal to tax the benefits. They readily admitted that many of the people who had to depend for 12 months on unemployment, sickness or invalidity
  428
  benefits were close to the tax threshold anyway, so the 5 per cent. by which they were being penalised amounted to more than if they had been taxed. That was supposed to be a temporary measure but as yet we have had no indication whether the 5 per cent. will be restored.
  In addition, this year the Government got the figures wrong. The uprating in November was at least 2 per cent. less than was necessary. We cannot blame anyone for making that sort of mistake. It is a crazy system that expects the Secretary of State for Social Services to predict the inflation rate six or seven months ahead. I was always taught firmly that if a person made a mistake he should try to put it right at the first opportunity. Not this Government. They got the inflation rate wrong to the extent of one week's benefit in 12 months for each of the groups of claimants. Instead of trying to put the mistake right straightaway, they said that they would not put it right for 12 months and then only for some groups and not for those in the greatest need.
  We should be clear about what is at stake. Almost all beneficiaries are losing one week's benefit—in other words, the amount that is required in many cases to pay the new television licence fee, or to meet a fuel bill or the cost of a major household item. We are not talking about small amounts. For most of those people in need one week's benefit is a substantial amount.
  The unemployed will go on losing because, as a result of the way in which this legislation has been worked out, they will lose this year and next year. The Chancellor says that the number of unemployed people will increase. Not only will the number increase, but the length of time that individuals are unemployed is steadily increasing. I assure the Minister that it is not pleasent being made unemployed in any circumstances. If a person is unemployed for a week or a fortnight and gets back into work, it is a disaster that he can get over, but if the unemployment goes on and on, it begins to bite.
  Part of the cruelty of the present system is that it does not allow the unemployed to get from the short-term supplementary benefit rate to the long-term rate. Why do we have two rates? The idea is that the short-term rate is for a short period, and it accepts that when a person comes on to benefit he may have some reserves of clothing and household items and can defer replacing them for a certain length of time. It is eventually accepted that he will need extra income to start to replace some of those major items.
  People who have been receiving supplementary benefits for 12 months qualify for the long-term rate, but not the unemployed, who are left to go on and on on the short-term rate—a rate that is designed never to give enough to replace capital items. Those people not only lost a week's income this time round but they will be left a week's income short for each succeeding year.
  I wonder how often the Minister talks to people receiving benefits. I talk to many of my constituents and I receive many letters from them. I am conscious when I go into their houses that there are now many people living in abject poverty and finding it almost impossible to make ends meet. They have had a week's money taken away from them this year—by accident, but it has happened—and now they will lose that week's money this year and each succeeding year.
  A lady to whom I spoke the other day at my advice bureau said that by the time she had met her bills—her mortgage and other commitments—she had nothing left to live on and nothing with which to buy the food. She had

  429
  a choice of either breaking a commitment that she had entered into before her husband had died or going short of food.
  Another letter that I received yesterday stated:
  "It is impossible to make ends meet."
  My constituent set out a careful budget showing that she was at least £5 a week short. Another constituent wrote to me saying:
  "I can see no way out. All I wanted to do was to give my children a good chance in life. With no job and no prospects of one, what can I do? The only hope for my family would be if I were run over by a bus."
  That is from a person with young children who wanted to give them a good start in life, yet he can see no way out of the net of debts steadily closing in around him.
  Fairly frequently I do the shopping for my family and I go round one of the supermarkets because it is the quickest way. It always hits me very hard that by the time I have filled up my trolley, I know that I have spent as much as many people have to live on for a whole week. I also see people who have a few tins huddled together in a corner of their trolley, who are struggling week after week just to keep body and soul together on the present benefits.
  Another constituent wrote to me saying:
  "I am scared to go to the supermarket because I can afford so little."
  That is fairly typical. She continued:
  "I have to buy at the corner shop. I live on tick. I know it is a dear way to do it but I cannot get off tick."
  In other words, she has no reserves to get in front. The Chancellor should have realised that people such as those would be penalised as a result of his measures.
  I know and accept that benefits have to be paid for, and I do not expect anything for nothing. However, the Government are not only telling people in work that they must pay for the benefits, but they are now telling people out of work and on social security that they will have to pay for the benefits. That is appalling. Are not people who earn average and above average salaries prepared to contribute a little extra in taxes or in national insurance to pay for decent levels of benefits for the poorest in our society? If most of those who have above average earnings saw the poverty that exists, they would part with extra money without too many complaints.
  The Chancellor's statement left many questions unanswered. It seems odd to be making some predictions about what will happen to benefits in November 1982 without completing the picture. If we are talking about public expenditure, we should be discussing the whole of it or claiming that predictions cannot be made too far into the future.
  What will happen to child benefit next year? It is a major item and the decision that is taken on it might make all the difference to most of the other measures that we are discussing. If the Government were to announce that they intended to double child benefit, I should stop complaining about many of the shortfalls for families with children. Sadly, we know that the Government will not double child benefit. However, I hope that there will be a significant increase. Child benefit is part of the equation and it matters very much to families living in poverty.
  It is amazing that we can calculate the level of unemployment benefit from next November onwards for the second half of the year, but we cannot calculate child benefit over that period. Perhaps the Government want to
  430
  keep something nice for their spring Budget. I hope that they will offer a generous increase in child benefit in the spring. It is clear that it is needed.
  The Chancellor's announcements included no statement on the family income supplement, which is a crucial benefit for those who are in work.
  What is the level of uprating to be next November? The last six upratings have all been wrong. Sometimes they have been too low and sometimes they have been too high. They have not often been too high. The level of uprating that the Government predict for next November will be crucial. Having made a mistake and erred on the low side on this occasion, I hope that they will ensure that any errors in November will be on the plus side.
  In Committee we are busily discussing the new housing measures. What level of rebates will be set for them, especially for those on social security?
  The Chancellor failed to answer so many questions. I hope that the Minister for Social Security will make clear which groups will have the 2 per cent. put back on. Will it be pensioners on supplementary benefit or all those below pensionable age in receipt of supplementary benefit except those on short-term supplementary benefit?
  I welcome the opportunity to raise these issues now. I hope that the Minister will find time to answer some of my questions. I am sure that many more hon. Members will want to raise the same issues and I trust that they will have an opportunity to do so before the Minister replies. Will you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are entitled to discuss this subject until 7 o'clock, when it will be interrupted for Private Business? If that Private Business folds up before 10 o'clock, I understand that we can return to this debate. If the Private Business continues until 10 o'clock, I understand that it will be possible to continue from 10 o'clock to half past 10 on this subject if sufficient Members seek to catch your eye.
  Mr. Keith Best:On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you be kind enough to clarify what the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said at the end of his remarks? If the Private Business folds up before 10 o'clock, and this Adjournment debate continues until 10 o'clock, can the debate continue until half-past ten?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This debate can continue after the Private Business until 10 o'clock, when the Question, That this House do now adjourn will be disposed of. That having been done, the debate may then continue until half-past 10 on the same subject.
  6.15 pm
  The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi)Despite the havoc that this sudden Adjournment debate has played with my diary today, it is nevertheless a debate that I welcome. It gives me an early opportunity to put the record straight. Despite the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), the Government have already done much to implement what the Conservative Party promised to do in its election manifesto. The manifesto stated that a Conservative Government would do what they could to simplify the system and bring more effective help to those in greatest need. We shall continue on the course that we have set.

  431
  The main fabric of the social security system remains as it was in May 1979. We have made some changes, but, taken as a whole, it is probably more effective in bringing help to those who need it.
  I shall give some examples. We have reformed the supplementary benefit system by chanelling more help to those in greatest need and by establishing clear statutory rights to benefit. More help is going to lone parents who do some work, to families with young chidren and to families that have gained from the halving of the qualifying period for the higher rate of benefit from two years to one year. More recently, we have extended the higher rate to all unemployed persons over 60 years of age who are within the qualifying period.
  Secondly, we have legislated to make maternity grant non-contributory, thus helping young mothers and others without a contribution record. Thirdly, we have published proposals for improving the industrial injuries scheme by concentrating on the more severely disabled. Fourthly, we have removed the invalidity trap for young people on noncontributory invalidity benefit. Fifthly, we have put the Christmas bonus on a regular statutory basis. Sixthly, we have kept our pledge to maintain the value of the retirement pension and other similar benefits for widows and the disabled. About three-fifths of social security expenditure is on these benefits.
  Lastly, a number of other benefits have risen faster than price increases since the Government took office. For example, the family income supplement, the mobility allowance and one-parent benefit have increased substantially more than the increase in prices. In his announcement yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintained the forward movement of the social security programme without interruption. His statement did not introduce any changes in benefit provision and it preserves the process of uprating by price increases. Given that it is a predominant component in public expenditure, it might be that the Government should be congratulated on not impairing a vital social programme.
  The Opposition will not be able to find much to criticise when they look elsewhere in our programme. We are continuing the previous provision for expansion of hospital and community health services. We are allowing them resources to enable them to expand at the previously planned rates. The pressure of current economic constraints is being met by a consistent strategy, as in social security, of increasing charges and contributions for those who can afford them and fully maintaining the exemptions for those who cannot. The constraints are not being met by a reduction in services.
  The main burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument was shortfall. He seemed to base his main attack on that, for want of anything better. The Chancellor was explicit yesterday and the position is clear. There will be no abatement of benefits in the November 1982 uprating. The Chancellor will announce in the ordinary way the forecast of price inflation between November 1981 and November 1982 at the time of the spring Budget. He has said clearly that all benefits will then be uprated in line with that forecast.
  There was some abatement of short-term benefits at the November 1980 uprating, and a fine fuss the Opposition made about it. I should have thought that they would
  432
  welcome a clear commitment by the Government that that would not happen again next year. No such luck. Instead, we had an exaggerated and disproportionate concentration on this year's shortfall.
  As the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear, the movement of prices over the past year is likely to turn out as being about 2 per cent. higher than was forecast at the previous Budget. The final figure will not be known until later this month when we have the RPI figure for November. However, we can assume that there will be a gap of the order of 2 per cent., as the Government Actuary has been instructed to do, and as can be seen from his report that was published today. That means that the uprating that has just occurred will have fallen short of the movement in prices. The argument is whether the shortfall will be made good at the next uprating in November 1982.
  The Government are pledged to maintain the value of the main long-term benefits, notably pensions, over the life of this Parliament. We accept, as the Chancellor made clear, that it means that the shortfall should be made good by adding back the 2 per cent. in November 1982 on top of the other increase that is guaranteed at that time. That applies to the benefits on which many people rely permanently for their income. Presumably there is no quarrel with the Government's proper concern to give those benefits special protection. For example, retired widows and war pensioners will have the value of their benefits fully maintained. No less than 60 per cent. of all benefit expenditure will be embraced in that guarantee. If there have to be priorities in these matters——
  Mr. Chris Patten: Am I wrong in thinking that in the debates on the 1980 Budget we committed ourselves to protecting the value of short-term benefits? As I recall, we said that we were determined to continue protecting the value of short-term supplementary benefit at that time. Is that wrong?
  Mr. Rossi: The Government's pledge and commitment was to the long-term benefit, as I have just described to the House. Therefore, if there must be priorities—in the present economic constraint, priorities are the name of the game—there is surely no dispute that these are the people who should have their benefits fully protected. I should like to know whether the Opposition would have done that differently.
  Mr. Best: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, he said a moment ago that our pledge was to maintain the rate of long-term benefits. Does that assurance include long-term supplementary allowances as well as long-term supplementary pensions?
  Mr. Rossi: Not the long-term rate. I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Just tell us what it does not apply to and then it will be clear.
  Mr. Rossi: If the hon. Gentleman would like a list, I will give the House the benefits covered by the pledge: retirement pensions, both contributory and noncontributory; widows' pensions, including widowed mothers' allowance and widows' allowance; industrial death benefit, paid as a widow's or widower's pension; war disablement pension and war widows' pension; industrial disablement pensions; attendance allowance;

  433
  invalid care allowance; invalidity benefits; non-contributory invalidity benefit; unemployability supplement and supplementary pension. Those are the benefits that are covered by the Government's pledges.
  Mr. Bennett rose——
  Mr. Rossi: I must finish what I have to say and give other hon. Members an opportunity to raise matters. The hon. Gentleman has already had his chance.
  The Chancellor has also had to make it clear that there are benefits that are not covered by the Government's pledge and that will not have the shortfall made good. Those concerned receive a minority of the total social security expenditure—about 40 per cent. Many of them are in and out of benefit in a short period and the loss for them is not significant. In many cases it is merely a matter of one or two weeks. Restoring the value in November 1982 would not mean anything for the many who had gone on and off the books before then.
  A decision of that kind is not palatable and I shall not pretend that it is. However, against the whole of our record of maintaining benefits through a period of economic difficulty unparalleled since the war, it ill-behoves the Opposition to pretend that this is a major inroad. Social security expenditure is approaching £30,000 million a year. It will increase by £2,500 million in 1982–83 as a result of the decisions announced yesterday. The amount missing as a result of the shortfall in a minority of benefits will be £65 million in 1982–83, as against the £2,500 million that is being added on.
  It is pointless to speculate or to make detailed calculations about the effects of the shortfall in individual instances. We have not had the final RPI figures and we do not know what the forecast of price inflation will he at the time of the Budget. Final decisions about the rates of the benefits affected will not occur until then.
  Not all benefit increases are calculated to match the rate of inflation to the precise penny—there has to be rounding off. Mobility allowance and FIS, for example, have been increased by Government well ahead of the rate of inflation already. If hon. Members are interested in figures, I can give them. The retail price index has increased since the Conservative Administration took office in May 1979 by 42·2 per cent. Against that, we have increased the family income supplement and, taking as an example a married couple with two children, it has risen by 73·91 per cent. We have increased the one-parent family benefit by 65 per cent. and the mobility allowance by 65 per cent. Those benefits are well ahead of the rate of inflation, and if they have to meet the 2 per cent. shortfall they will still remain well ahead of inflation.
  For supplementary beneficiaries, the rate of benefit depends on family size and the ages of children. Even with shortfall, many families with young children will still be keeping ahead of the rate of inflation, because of the changes we have made in the children's supplementary benefit rates. Child benefit, which has been mentioned, is usually fixed at a rounded figure, but how it can be worked out cannot be determined until the final decisions and judgments are made by the Chancellor at Budget time. Until then, all argument about the precise effects on particular people can only be speculation.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: The Minister referred to increasing mobility allowance, and I must accept that. It has happened. But will he tell the House how many
  434
  people who were receiving mobility allowance in May 1979, when the present Government took office, have since been disqualified?
  Mr. Rossi: People are disqualified from receiving mobility allowance only if the medical conditions that originally entitled them to it no longer prevail—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Most certainly. Last November that allowance was increased to £16·50 a week. When the Government took office it was £10 per week. That is a substantial increase by any yardstick. When the mobility allowance was first introduced, an application rate of about 1,200 a month was expected. Applications are now running at about double that figure, and the take-up is enormous. That is a measure of the Government's success in helping people in that area of disability.
  The Opposition let their speculation and imaginations run not, but I ask them what they would have done—no doubt the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) will tell us in due course—faced with the difficult choices that the Government have had to take. We consider that our decisions have been balanced and responsible, and that the main fabric of the benefit system is untouched. The Opposition's record is not beyond reproach when they have found themselves in difficulties. What about the Christmas bonus that the Opposition withdrew in 1975 and 1976? We have maintained it every year we have been in office and, moreover, enshrined it in statute so that it is now permanent.
  Mr. Brynmor John: Talking of enshrining things in statute, if there are to be three classes of beneficiaries as a result of the Chancellor's measures—the long-term allowance recipients, the long-term supplementary benefit pensioners and the short-term benefit pensioners—will the Minister confirm that that will have to be dealt with by legislation?
  Mr. Rossi: There will be three rates, but I doubt whether it will be necessary to deal with them by legislation.
  I was asking the Opposition what they would do, faced with similar circumstances.
  Mr. John: We would not be facing them. We do not have the most incompetent Chancellor of the century.
  Mr. Rossi: What about the biggest social security swindle of all time—the missing £500 million in the 1976 uprating, when the Labour Government altered the rules to reduce the uprating by that amount? They deliberately created shortfall.
  Mr. Reg Race: One swindle deserves another.
  Mr. Rossi: If we were to emulate that shining example of fairness, that £500 million in 1976 would today require us to deny those people £925 million—nearly £1 billion. Today we are talking about £65 million in the context of a £2,500 million increase. How can Opposition Members come to this House and shed crocodile tears? Where choices have to be made, the choice must be clear. Maintaining long-term support for pensioners and others is our overriding priority. Bearing in mind the difficulties that many of those in work are having to face, and the contributions and taxes of those upon whom this entire edifice depends, the level of benefit that we are maintaining, even where shortfall is not made good, and backing with the promise of a full uprating without

  435
  abatement next year, what we are doing is not ungenerous in comparison with what has been happening previously under a Labour Government.
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I hope that Opposition Members will join me in thanking my hon. Friend for coming to the House at such short notice and answering this debate. We are very grateful to him. He has said that child benefit is not something on which he can commit himself fully now. However, has he taken on board the importance of ensuring—particularly where poor families are concerned—that the uprating in child benefit, when the time comes, is to the full amount and that no shortfall will be kept there?
  Mr. Rossi: I am aware of the anxiety of many of my hon. Friends on this matter. I shall make sure that the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is drawn to the remarks made on this matter during the debate, although it is not for me to prejudge the judgment that will have to be made by my right hon. and learned Friend at the time of his Budget, as my hon. Friends will understand.
  So far from dismantling the social security scheme, as we sometimes hear Opposition Members accusing us of doing, it is one of the present Government's achievements that we have managed to interfere very little with the basic structure of the benefit. On any reasonable view, we have kept the essential structure of benefit intact. This has been and remains a firm and consistent plank in the Government's strategy. That same consistency necessarily demands that, as contributory benefits rise or as claims on them increase, so national insurance contributions must also rise. It makes no sense whatever to proclaim a belief in the contributory principle and in the same breath to complain about higher contributions.
  A key feature of the national insurance scheme is that it is funded on a pay-as-you-go basis, so today's benefits are paid for overwhelmingly by the contributions of the people who have work and who are paying to get benefit rights themselves and by their employers. Of course, this means periodic rises in contributions. Anything else would be a dismantling of the national insurance scheme.
  The contribution increases that my right hon. and learned Friend announced yesterday are in themselves wholly consistent with our strategy. We have held the employers' contributions steady. We have shifted the main burden resulting from higher benefit claims away from the general taxpayer and on to the contributor, and we have even managed to give a modest stimulus to small businesses by holding down the increase in the class 2 contributions for self-employed people.
  Therefore, I make no apologies for what the Government have done or for what the Chancellor announced yesterday. Given the present economic situation, the Government have more than honoured their pledge and have struggled hard to maintain the benefits of those in greatest need. I have given to the House the list of the people who will not be affected by the shortfall that I have just mentioned, and in the other cases I have shown how already, in most cases, the benefits people receive have outstripped the rate of inflation since we came to office. We have done that despite Britain's present difficulties.
  436
  However, it must remain our determination to restore the economy of Britain, first and foremost. All levels of public expenditure, all demands upon business and the taxpayer, must ensure that we restore British industry's competitive position, because until we do that we shall not earn the money that we want to pay to people in our society who need help.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Reg Race: I am not surprised by the tone of the Minister's speech, but I find it particularly disturbing. He did not say that his are the first Government for half a century to cut and abolish social security benefits. Their record on these matters is outrageous and deplorable. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we shall pull our punches tonight and not criticise him because of his speech, he has another think coming. I shall remind him of all his Government"s actions.
  The Government are the only Government for 50 years to stretch the year to 54 weeks for pensioners—they have changed the timetable of the seasons. The Cabinet in its generosity has abolished, for example, the earnings-related supplement to many benefits, including unemployment and maternity benefit.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Race: No, I shall not.
  The only benefit that the Government have given to the people has been to make them unemployed and then to cut the benefits on which the unemployed depend.
  Last year the Government introduced social security legislation which abolished the right to go to social security offices and obtain exceptional needs payments. As a consequence, when people go to local social security offices to claim those payments they are given a leaflet that tells them that they may not be entitled to the money and that they had better reconsider their claim. Those are the rights to which the Minister referred.
  The other magnificent benefit that the Minister has given the poor is a 5 per cent. cut in unemployment and invalidity benefits and in a whole host of other benefits which have so magnanimously been given to the poor. At the same time as giving wonderful tax concessions to the rich the Government have been cutting the living standards of the poor. The Labour Party will throw that fact back in their faces every time that the Government come to the Chamber and say how marvellous they are in providing social benefits.
  We are faced not only with the cuts, the abolition of benefits and the extension of the year, but with yesterday's failure by the Government to come clean about what they are doing. They pretend that somehow those people will next year be uprated and recover the 2 per cent. The papers in the Vote Office show that that is not what the Government intend. There will be a 40 per cent. cut—I assume that is in the value of the social security benefits, and not in the number of people claiming social benefits. Millions of people may have their benefits cut by 2 per cent. in real terms because the Government will not restore the shortfall this year. Why on earth did not Ministers have the decency to be honest and say that at the Dispatch Box yesterday? They were not prepared to say that because they knew that it would bring contempt and odium from the public—and rightly.
  If the Government's record is deplorable, their reputation next October and November will be equally so.

  437
  The miserable Government pittances of millions of people who are dependent entirely on short-term social security benefits will be cut. One of the reasons why the Government say that they must cut social security benefits is that they cost so much. Let us examine why.
  The Government Actuary's report contains the only Forecast of unemployment that the Government are prepared to make. Treasury Ministers and the Prime Minister will not tell us what unemployment will be in the next 12 months. We think that we know, but the Government Actuary, who is instructed politically, knows the trend. Page 2 of the report shows that the average level of totally unemployed people, excluding school leavers, in 1982–83 will be 2,900,000. In additiion, 225,000 school leavers and adult students will be unemployed. That calculation is made on political assumptions that the Government are forcing the Government Actuary to make to calculate national insurance contributions.
  Bleating about the size of the social security budget is nonsense. The Government have increased unemployment. They have driven millions of people onto the dole. We shall not let them get away from that.
  Mr. Garet-Jones: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has introduced the bitter tone that we have come to expect of him in such debates. Can he answer two questions, since he is so concerned with morality? First, what was his reaction to the unprecedented cut in social services by the Labour Party in 1976? Secondly, what qualifications would he make to his attitude in 1979 during the Health Service strike when he stood outside hospitals refusing to allow doctors to enter?
  Mr. Race: My attitude to the actions of the last Labour Government is well known to the hon. Gentleman. That is why he asks the question. I thought that the cuts in public expenditure by the last Labour Goverment were disgraceful. I am consistent. That is why I am attacking the Government for doing the same and for actions that are far worse.
  The Government have not only cut social security benefits—they have made a £700 million cut in housing subsidies this year. In my constituency, thousands of people are living in extremely miserable conditions because three quarters of the public expenditure cuts fall on housing.
  National insurance and supplementary benefits are now too low for people to live on. One of the problems is that people receiving benefits have to do the rounds. They have to go to the local social security office to claim supplementary benefit if they are not entitled to any form of national insurance benefit. They have to obtain dribs and drabs from wherever they can, including charity, to make up their weekly income.
  The character of the Government's attack on pensioners and people receiving short-term supplementary benefits can be judged not only by their failure to increase the benefits by the 2 per cent. shortfall this November, but by the facts that they have ignored the rise in prices which pensioners have to pay.
  The Minister was wrong to use the retail price index to calculate those increases. The Government have their own special indexes—the one and two persons pensioner household price indexes. The increase in prices for pensioners has been much more substantial than the increase in the retail price index. The real standard of
  438
  living of pensioners, notwithstanding the restoration of the shortfall for pensioners next November, will be further eroded. The reality of their spending power and the price rises that they have to meet is not reflected in the retail price index.
  I ask the Minister one specific question. How much money will the Government save by not replacing the shortfall in the long-term benefits now rather than later? It is well known—I do not say this in any spirit of rancour—that there are people receiving benefits now who will not be claiming benefit in November 1982 either because they are not eligible or because they have died. I want to know from the Minister how much the Government will save by failing to uprate the benefits now.
  Another question that has to be raised with the Government is future legislation. It is known that there will be a Bill that seeks to represent the increased national insurance contributions. The question that arises is whether hon. Members will see any legislation that gives effect to the three rates of supplementary benefit. It is the opinion not only of Opposition Members but of the people we have consulted since yesterday that legislation would need to be laid before the House to give effect to those three rates of benefit. Hon. Members want to know whether there will now be a Social Security (No. 3) Bill. We wish to develop our arguments on those matters as quickly as possible and to alert people to the damage that the Government are wreaking on social security beneficiaries over the next few months.
  Mr. Best: I want to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to be completely fair, as I know he would wish. The hon. Gentleman deprecated what the previous Labour Administration had done. I share that deprecation. Will he accept that the shortfall in 1976, if translated into current prices, would be £925 million compared with the shortfall of £65 million over a total increase of £2,500 million that we are now talking about? Is he not aware that prior to the 1981 uprating, the only three previous occasions since 1948 when a pension uprating did not fully compensate for price increases were under Labour Administrations in 1951, in 1969 and April 1975? I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman deprecates the actions of the previous Labour Administration. Where does his loyalty to the Labour Party lie? Does he deprecate the actions of all previous Labour Administrations?
  Mr. Race: The hon. Gentleman has no doubt been given those figures. My reaction to any cuts in social security benefits in real terms, under whatever Government, is to deprecate those cuts. The hon. Gentleman cannot come to the House like the Minister and say that one wrong is as good as another. If he deprecates what Labour Governments have done in the past he must also deprecate what his Minister is now doing. I should like to know in which Lobby the hon. Gentleman will be voting when the Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill comes out of Committee, and also in which Lobby he will be voting when a Social Security (No. 2) Bill comes on to the Floor of the House for Second Reading. If the hon. Gentleman feels that people should be protected against the ravages of inflation, he will presumably agree that his Government have broken their pledges on the matter. I recall the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), at the

  439
  Government Dispatch Box and again in Committee, boasting time after time that the Government had price protected supplementary benefits. We are now seeing the breaking of that pledge. I want to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to say whether he agrees with the breaking of that pledge and with the abandonment of Government policy. The people we are discussing are the poorest in Society——
  Mr. David Ennals: There seems to be some strange agreement across the Floor of the House concerning the record of previous Labour Governments. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) went back as far as 1951 in dredging up history. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend whether they agree that there was an increase in real terms of 20 per cent. for the elderly under the previous Labour Government. At no stage were cuts in social security benefit introduced, as has happened under this Government. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree and will not join in accusations made against the Labour Government.
  Mr. Race: I shall not be diverted by anyone on this matter. I deprecate cuts in public spending no matter by whom they are introduced. I deplore all shortfalls in benefit that are not made up. That is why I criticise the Government tonight. Opposition Members have been right to ask the Minister to come to the House to justify himself in the face of what is a terrible attack on the living standards of ordinary people. Opposition Members will continue to attack the Government for what they have done and to explain that they can get out of the hole they have dug for themselves by making the only cut that we favour— to cut the dole queues. We favour getting people back to work so that they can pay their tax and national insurance contributions to the Exchequer and bring about a cut in the social security budget. If the Minister wanted to suggest to his Cabinet colleagues a positive step towards cutting the social security budget he could start by advocating reflationary policies to get people off the books of the social security offices and out of the dole queues.
  440
  That is a relevant policy. We wish to see further cuts in public expenditure in defence and other areas in order to make way for better social provision for our people. The cuts in social security benefits introduced by Conservative Governments alone in the last 50 years—the Conservatives have been the only party in Government that has abolished benefits—must be criticised. We are here in the House tonight to pin that label on the Government.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: If the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) had been only a selected candidate in his constituency, he would have been disowned by his party and his leader this afternoon during Prime Minister's questions but no doubt he is an endorsed candidate——
  Mr. Garel-Jones: No, he is not.
  Mr. Bottomley: In that case, he may face trouble.
  The issue we are discussing is important and merits more than the speech made by the hon. Member for Wood Green, which sounded like rabble-rousing outside a hospital gate. The contribution of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) was the sort of speech that could have been made by a Conservative Member or a member of any other party. He is concerned about the millions of people affected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement yesterday, some of whom are getting full protection and some of whom are not.
  It may be some time before I can develop my theme on that, but I wish to put one point to the hon. Member for Wood Green. What level of pay settlements does he wish to operate during the forthcoming year? If it is 4 per cent. rather than 10 per cent., that in effect raises the standard of living of people on short-term benefits by 3 per cent. for the year—which is nothing to laugh at, as the hon. Gentleman is doing—but a serious point. If inflation runs at 20 per cent. during the year it means a reduction of about 10 per cent.——
  It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS,under
  Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking private business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

  Humberside Bill [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

Clause 2

  INTERPRETATION
  7 pm
  Amendments made: In page 3, line 41, after "than" insert "British Telecommunications and".
  In line 42, after "to" insert
  "British Telecommunications has the same meaning as in paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 3 to the British Telecommunication Act 1981 and in relation to".
  In page 4, line 7, after "means" insert "British Telecommunications".—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]

Clause 7

  SUBSIDIARY WORKS IN RIVERS AND ELSEWHERE
  Amendments made: In page 6, lines 39 and 40, leave out "the Post Office" and insert "British Telecommunications".
  In line 44, leave out "the Post Office" and insert "British Telecommunications".
  In page 7, line 1, leave out "the Post Office" and insert "British Telecommunications".
  In line 5, leave out "the Post Office" and insert "British Telecommunications".—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]

Clause 8
  No MAINS OR PIPES TO BE LAID IN BRIDGES WITHOUT CONSENT
  Amendment made: In line 18, leave out "the Post Office" and insert "British Telecommunications".—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]
Clause 9

  BYELAWS AS TO OPENING BRIDGES
  Amendments made: In page 8, line 38, after "is" insert "for the time being".
  In line 44, after "is" insert "for the time being".—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]

Clause 10

  PROVISIONS RELATING TO BOOTHFERRY BRIDGE
  Dr. Edmund Marshall: I beg to move, on page 9, line 1, leave out clause 10.
  Clause 10 was added to the Bill only last June in Committee, before the Committee on Unopposed Bills, so tonight is the first opportunity for the House to discuss the provisions of that clause.
  The clause relates to Boothferry bridge which carries the A614 trunk road over the River Ouse about two miles north-west of Goole. It is a matter of some surprise that neither I nor the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan), whose constituency adjoins mine at the bridge, received notification of the new clause when it was introduced.
  The effect of clause 10 is to re-enact two provisions of the Boothferry Bridge Act 1925, which is otherwise listed
  442
  in schedule 8 as one of the Acts to be repealed in total by the Bill. In any case, the Act will lapse at the end of 1984 as an Act promoted by a county council that went out of existence in 1974.
  The repeal of the Boothferry Bridge Act 1925 was provided for in this Bill when it was first introduced in another place and when it was given a Second Reading in this House, so presumably it was not thought necessary then that any part of it should be preserved, as is now provided for in the "Johnny-come-lately" clause 10. Just as there was no need for the clause last May, nothing has happened since then to make it necessary now.
  The provision in the clause to which I most object on behalf of my constituents is subsection (2), which seeks to re-enact the absolute preference and priority enjoyed by vessels navigating the river Ouse over all road traffic wishing to use the bridge. In other words, if this provision remains in the Bill, the position in accordance with the Boothferry Bridge Act 1925 would be maintained after 1984. In that case, any river vessel approaching the bridge without sufficient head room to go underneath it at once causes the bridge to he swung in its favour while all road traffic must queue at the traffic lights on either side of the river. That situation, which has existed since the bridge was opened about 50 years ago, has caused great inconvenience and frustration to road users throughout the years. Many of my constituents, as well as residents across the river, have wasted much time queueing at the bridge.
  It is known at times for delays at the bridge to last for more than one hour, especially when several vessels pass under the bridge in quick succession. During the years when the bridge was the road crossing over the Ouse-Humber estuary nearest to the sea, the effect on traffic congestion of delays caused by the bridge being closed to road traffic could be chaotic. It is a matter of great concern that in this modern age, with the immense dependence upon the internal combustion engine, there are times when literally hundreds of vehicles can be held up at Boothferry bridge for the sake of a small boat.
  Of course, there is now an alternative crossing of the Ouse not far from Boothferry in the shape of the M62 Ouse bridge, which was opened to traffic in 1976. That bridge was constructed with sufficient height to give clearance to all river vessels, whatever the state of the tide. Consequently, whenever Boothferry bridge is closed to road traffic, there is normally an alternative means of crossing the river over the motorway bridge. That diversion, however, adds about three miles to most local journeys. It is clear that Boothferry bridge continues to provide the shortest route linking the towns of Howden and Goole, the affinity between which has been strengthened since they were both included in the same local government area of Boothferry borough in 1974.
  Many residents of my constituency who wish to cross the river use Boothferry bridge daily in order to work in the Howden area. I am sure that the hon. Member for Howden can confirm that there are many more Howden residents who work in Goole and who are associated with many aspects of community life centred on Goole.
  For all those local residents, the bridge is part of the local means of getting about. The possibility of half an hour's delay at Boothferry bridge when they have allowed only 10 minutes travelling time to get to Goole is a real annoyance. The is no way of knowing in advance when the bridge will be closed to traffic. Sometimes when the bridge is swung against road traffic and one is waiting in

  443
  the queue it is difficult to know how long the delay will last or to judge whether it would be quicker to use the longer, alternative, route via the motorway.
  In any case, there are times when the motorway bridge is not used because of high winds or road accidents. For instance, on 4 May 1979, the morning on which the counting of votes in the previous general election was taking place in most constituencies in the area, black ice on the motorway bridge caused accidents which led to the closure of the motorway. The resulting traffic queuing for Boothferry bridge produced intense congestion for most of the morning over a wide area. Even some counting of votes was delayed.
  All told, the Boothferry bridge remains an important road link in Humberside. When the bridge has been de-trunked, as is expected in the near future, it will become the responsibility of the local highway authority—Humberside county council—which is the promoter of this Bill. It is curious that it is in the interests of the promoter as the highway authority that no statutory impediment should be imposed on the operation of the bridge, shortly to become its bridge, as is now proposed in this clause.
  The clause has been introduced in the interests of river users—the owners and operators of boats proceeding to and from the Ouse above Boothferry. Those river users are not numerous. They are much less numerous than the number of motorists who wish to use the bridge. There should not be the power that clause 10 would bestow to impose delays on hundreds of road users.
  The river users on the upper Ouse could do much to put their house in order, especially by improving their standards of navigation. Shortly before Christmas 1973, a ship collided with the railway bridge at Goole and demolished one of the central spans of the bridge, which was as a consequence out of action for nine months. That caused great inconvenience to railway passengers because Goole was at the end of a branch line. It also proved expensive for British Rail. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) vividly recalls the great inconvenience which railway passengers experienced when the bridge was out of action.
  While no general difficulty arises from the navigation on the upper Ouse of vessels that are properly supervised by experienced pilots, there is still a real need for a statutory pilotage area for that stretch of river to avoid any repetition of the mishaps that have occurred in the past. The Department of Trade would do well to concentrate its attention on speeding up the making of a pilotage order for the upper Ouse, rather than seeking to perpetuate statutory hindrances—as it is doing in clause 10—for road users in my constituency.
  It may be legitimately asked what would be the position of river users if the clause 10 were not enacted. Clearly, after the end of 1984 there would no longer be absolute statutory preference for river users over road users at Boothferry bridge. That does not mean, however, that there could not be some scheme, perhaps included in byelaws drawn up by the county council—which would by then be responsible for the bridge—to regulate the times at which the bridge could be swung open for river traffic. Such a scheme would have to be drawn up by the local highway authority, in consultation with representatives of river users. I hope that such a scheme would provide that
  444
  Boothferry bridge should remain open to road users at the busiest times of the day—that is, between 8 am and 9.30 am and from 4 pm and 6 pm. During those periods the swinging of the bridge against road traffic causes the most inconvenience and congestion. In drawing up such a scheme, I suggest that Humberside county council, as the local highway authority, would be acting truly in the interests of the highway users whom it represents. It is the council's job to try to make things easier for everybody seeking to use the highways within Humberside.
  In 1925, when these provisions were first enacted in the Boothferry Bridge Act, the volume of road traffic throughout the country, and especially in and around Boothferry and the East Riding, was tiny compared with the present day. It made more sense then for river traffic to have absolute priority at the new swing bridge being constructed at Boothferry, but we all know that the position is different today. The House is being asked, in clause 10, to perpetuate what is really an archaic statutory provision that is completely out of tune with modern society.
  As clause 10 is drafted, there will be no penalty for its infringement. If the bridgemaster does not swing the bridge at the behest of an approaching vessel, no penalty will be imposed upon him through the provisions of the Bill. We are being asked to pass a provision that cannot be strictly enforced.
  For all those reasons, I, on behalf of my constituents, ask the House to support the amendment. I am weighing my words carefully. If the clause is deleted, I shall have no remaining objection to the Bill.
  7.15 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. lain Sproat): It might be for the convenience of the House if I respond immediately to the speech of the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall).
  Clause 10 of the Bill simply re-enacts part of section 34 of the Boothferry Bridge Act 1925. As the hon. Gentleman implied that Act is being repealed under part I of schedule 8 to the Humberside Bill. I consider it extremely important to retain clause 10. It will ensure two things—first, that a navigable width of 38·1 metres—125 feet—continues to be available to vessels passing under the bridge when it is being repaired or altered, and, secondly, that vessels will continue to have priority over road traffic wishing to cross over the bridge.
  The Government do not consider that clause 9 alone offers sufficient help in this matter because we do not feel that its provisions go far enough to ensure the continuation of the arrangements. They would allow the Humberside county council to make a byelaw in respect of Boothferry bridge, but only when it has taken over responsibility for it from the Department of Transport. I understand that that may take place next year. Most important, the byelaw-making powers contained in clause 9 would cover only the matter of priority for vessels over road traffic—which exercises the hon. Gentleman's mind. They would not extend to the equally important question of retaining a minimum navigable span when the bridge is under repair or being altered. Therefore, to lose clause 10 and to rely on clause 9 would mean losing altogether the navigable width provision. That would also result in the lapse of the priority provision until such time as the council was in a position to restore it by making a byelaw.

  445
  The hon. Gentleman has frequently drawn attention over the years to the difficulties experienced by vessels in navigating that stretch of the river Ouse. Navigation is difficult because of the many bends, the silting in the river and the distorted tidal sequence which limits the time available for vessels to make the passage. I believe that we should not add to their problems by deleting the clause. It is extremely important that vessels are not further impeded by having the opening span of the Boothferry bridge closed against them in favour of motor traffic. We must remember that vessels could not safely anchor in midstream because they would tend to swing into the shallows off the main channel, and there are no berths above or below the bridge where they could await its opening.
  Obviously, some motor traffic will continue to be inconvenienced by the priority given to river traffic. But the opening of the M62, which bridges the Ouse half a mile downstream, should have given some relief to all but local traffic. I note that junction 37 lies about one mile north of the river and junction 36 two miles to the south.
  In 1980 some 460 sea-going vessels passed under Boothferry bridge on their way to Selby, and, of course, made the return journey. That means that the bridge would have been opened, on average, only two or three times each day. I hope that hon. Members will agree that that does not suggest any serious inconvenience to the motorists using it. Equally, I hope that they share my view that it would be wrong to add to the difficulties of vessels on the Ouse by failing to continue the long-standing practice of giving them priority at Boothferry bridge.
  Dr. Edmund Marshall: If the difficulties of navigation on that stretch of the Ouse are so great, what is the Minister doing to obtain a pilotage order to cover that stretch of the river?
  Mr. Sproat: That is a very good question. I shall deal with it in pitiless detail if the hon. Gentleman will give me the opportunity. I sympathise with him. The pilotage question has been around for far too long and it is certainly in the interests of everybody—the Department entirely shares this view—to get this matter settled as speedily as possible.
  The hon. Gentleman has implied that he would remain opposed to the provisions of clause 10 until satisfactory pilotage arrangements were made to secure better navigation on the upper Ouse.
  At present, pilotage is not compulsory above a line 100 yards downstream of the Skelton railway bridge near Goole. As the hon. Gentleman will know, this line is the upper limit of the Humber pilotage district. However, there are voluntary arrangements for the taking of a licensed pilot for sea-going vessels as far as the berths at Howdendyke, which lie about one and a half miles downstream of the Boothferry bridge. Arrangements also exist for unlicensed pilots to take vessels upstream from Howdendyke to Selby.
  As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, in June 1980, the York city council, as trustee of the Ouse navigation and owner of Foss navigation, applied to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade for a pilotage order. The purpose of the order is to establish an Ouse and Foss pilotage district, within which pilotage would be compulsory on the river Ouse between Goole and York. It will provide for the council to be the pilotage authority
  446
  for the new district. The order was advertised in November 1980 and 18 objections to the proposals were received. These objections were put to the York city council for comment last January, and, although my Department has been pressing for a response I have had no positive reply from it so far. Last week, however, I was advised by the council that it has now entered into discussion with the British Waterways Board to explore the transfer of navigation responsibilities to that board. If agreement is reached on the transfer, it will then be necessary for the waterways board to consider whether it wishes to introduce compulsory pilotage by means of a new order.
  I can assure the hon. Member for Goole that officials in my Department have remained, and will remain in close contact with York city council and other interested parties about the draft pilotage order promoted in November 1980. When the council's attitude towards the objections received to the order have been clarified, I propose to refer the matter to the Pilotage Commission, which has a statutory duty—as the hon. Gentleman will know—to advise the Secretary of State for Trade on pilotage matters. In the light of its recommendations, it will fall to me to decide if the order should be made.
  Whilst I fully appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Goole about the safety of navigation on the upper Ouse, he will understand that there is absolutely no way of hastening these procedures. They are deliberately designed to give all interested parties the opportunity to have their views properly considered. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurances that I am doing all that I can to encourage those directly concerned to reach agreement on pilotage for this area. I hope that I have given him enough assurances for him to withdraw his objections.
  Mr. John Prescott: I wish to speak briefly, because I was one of the objectors to the Bill during an earlier stage in the last Session. I put on record my thanks to the Humberside county authority. After consultation—admittedly with the new Labour administration, not the old Tory administration—it readily agreed to meet my objections. There was not total satisfaction about fire cover on the river, but at least the Fire Brigades Union and the authority decided to talk to each other again and to find a solution for the problem that affects seafarers, particularly in the Humberside area. Other matters concerning bridges across the River Hull reached a satisfactory conclusion. Finally, discrimination in favour of the city of Hull as regards resources from the transport supplementary grant to Hull corporation buses was readily granted on the advent of a new Labour Administration at county hall.
  Therefore, since the parties involved with the Bill are aware that I was one of the objectors, I put on record my thanks for their co-operation. I shall support the Bill. Several points have been made about navigation on the river. It has been made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) that there is concern about vessels on the river and that there is an argument about priority vis-a-vis road users and river traffic. Obviously, as an ex-seafarer I am concerned about the safety of vessels. Traditionally, vessels under way have priority in such circumstances.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Goole has deployed his case properly on behalf of his constituents. However, I must tell those interested in the river that the size of the

  447
  vessels that now go down the river is remarkable. A few years ago we were talking about vessels of a few hundred tonnes. We are now beginning to talk about 1,000-tonne vessels. Indeed, the constituents of the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) have gone to hon. Members on both sides of the House to complain about the toll bridge at Selby. When they presented their case they pointed out that one problem was that a massive ship had run into the bridge, making it difficult to open or close it.
  One genuine grievance concerns limited liability. I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole. He said that the main London rail link across the river had been put out of action by a coaster hitting the bridge and putting it out of action for nine months. The most disturbing fact was that the vessel's limited liability meant that it did not pay more than 10 per cent. of the total cost. British Rail had to meet the major cost of repair and, as a result of the limited liability, was not able to get back the full costs. Whether the British Waterways Board or York city council is responsible, there is increasing sensitivity, particularly in my area, over the fact that millions of tonnes of traffic continue to be diverted from the Hull ports into an area in which a lot of public money has been invested, to the small wharves that are developing at a considerable rate. In the early 1970s there were considerable problems. If a pilotage order encourages that growth, particularly with the British Waterways Board, the early 1980s will see the reappearance of such sensitivities among dock workers.
  I have made those comments as a warning to the Minister, as he is apparently considering the pilotage matter. I hope that the Bill will receive the blessing of the House, as required by Humberside county council.
  Sir Patrick Wall: I have a letter from Humberside county council, and I shall quote one paragraph. it states:
  "I have written to Mr. K. McNamara, the Member for Hull Central, and Mr. A. V. Mitchell, the Member for Grimsby, to request them to open and close the debate, respectively on behalf of the County Council."
  I understand that we are discussing clause 10. I should like to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether we shall debate the whole of the Bill. There are many issues that I should like to raise.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that he had blocked the Bill until the county council changed political complexion. Does that mean that the Opposition are trying to block debate on the Bill again? Will you give a ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order?
  Sir Patrick Wall: Yes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are debating the amendment, which seeks to leave out clause 10. We cannot debate the whole Bill.
  Sir Patrick Wall: I take it that we can debate only bridges, pilotage and rivers.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can debate only what is in clause 10.
  Sir Patrick Wall: For many years I have travelled over the Boothferry bridge and I am glad that there is now an alternative route over the river Ouse. It is not in my
  448
  constituency and is the concern of the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan). Therefore I cannot contribute much to that debate. Another riverway is Beverley beck in my constituency——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. We are debating clause 10. Other amendments may be moved later. If they refer—I do not know whether they do—to matters in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he will have an opportunity to debate them then, but not now.
  Sir Patrick Wall: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that ruling. I shall defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Howden, whose constituency has a particular interest in clause 10.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The letter to which the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) referred has been outdated by events and was written in the light of the proposal
  "That the Bill be considerd upon this day six months".
  It arose from the desire of the promoters, the county council, to expedite the Bill. I share that desire, because we in Grimsby are very concerned with some of its provisions. I hate to see legislation for lusher, plumper parts of the country, such as the Bill for Kent, speeding ahead of the Humberside Bill. The Bill has been delayed for legitimate reasons. Now we want to expedite its progress. The letter does not apply in the situation that exists this evening, because we are merely discussing clause 10.
  The provisions of clause 10 were inserted, not at the desire of the promoters, but at the instance of the Department of Trade after consultation with the Department of Transport. It is right that the first part of the clause, which will be removed by the amendment, providing for a navigable width of 125 ft to be maintained during repair or alteration, should be in the Bill. The rest of the clause takes up section 34 of the 1925 Act, which is a protective provision. It would not cease to have effect at the end of 1984, because of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972. It is reasonable for it to continue in this form, because it is usual for river traffic to have precedence over road traffic. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's annoyance. I, too, have been annoyed, waiting in queues by that bridge. However, it is a normal provision which prevails everywhere else. After all, rivers were there before roads.
  I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's views regarding the pilotage order. In a sense, his argument is irrelevant to the clause because the procedures for a pilotage order are now under way. They await the observations of the city of York council. From that point of view, they are irrelevant to the Bill, because nothing that happens to the Humberside Bill in relation to the amendment will have any effect on those procedures. I hope that the procedures will be expedited, but from the practical point of view they are irrelevant to the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will not push the amendment to a Division.
  Sir Paul Bryan: I apologise for coming late to the debate. I am bound to say that it has taken quite a different form from the one I had expected. I had expected

  449
  a wide-ranging debate on items such as fire precautions, street trading, the Beverley beck, public order, appeals to the magistrates' courts, and so on, which would last some time. I intended to come in later and discuss what I know about, the Boothferry bridge, with my neighbour from the other side of the river, the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). I regret, therefore, not having heard his speech.
  However narrow the debate, when we discuss one bridge we have to discuss the others. Each of the four bridges that cross the Humber depends on and affects the others. If one is closed, the others have more traffic.
  During the past two years, we have seen great changes. The biggest change is, of course, the Humber bridge, that great engineering feat that represents all the best and the worst of British achievement. I suppose that, as an engineering achievement, it is unequalled in the world. During the summer, when I was going across the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco, it was admitted there that we had a longer one-span bridge than they had, although they made the usual crack that "That bridge goes from nowhere to nowhere". I tried to put that right. It has absolutely transformed the Boothferry bridge, and we should be proud of it and hope for the best.
  I do not know whether the Minister can tell us how the Humber bridge is doing in terms of the numbers using it, in relation to the budget that we hoped for. I am an optimist about the Humber bridge, and I hope that it will be a great success.
  From my own party point of view, it is as well that it should be a success, because in the reorganisation of local government, the real reason for Humberside, as opposed to East Yorkshire—which I hotly favoured—was the concept of both sides of the river being one community. If the Humber bridge is a failure and the two communities do not come together, the whole concept of Humberside will be a community failure. So I wish it good luck.
  Further down the river, there is another great engineering achievement, the M62 bridge, which is just next door to Boothferry bridge. Boothferry used to bear the great burden of traffic across the river at that point. That has now been transformed. One can get on to the M62 at the Howden junction and get across in no time at all. It is a very different picture from the queues that used to build up at each side of the Boothferry bridge. That, too, has been a great engineering achievement and, frightening though it is to cross it on a windy day, it has done its job and we are proud of it.
  Going further down the river, we have the most controversial bridge of all, the famous Selby toll bridge, based on an Act of 1792, which, uniquely, allows all the tolls to be tax-free. For that reason, ever since 1792, various governmental bodies have tried to buy the bridge. Whenever they have come to tot up how much the proper price would be for a tax-free toll bridge, it has always been too great.
  My predecessor, Colonel Ropner, in a jocular mood, once said to me "You never want to get that problem solved because it has given me speeches for 30 years". I am bound to say that it looks as though it will do the same for me, because the problem still is not solved. On one occasion, I made a speech in the House in which I said that the bridge must be worth £1 million. At that time, that was a lot of money. I immediately received a letter from the owner. At least, I had smoked out the owner. I had thought that it was two little old ladies at Littlehampton. In fact, the owner was quite a proprietor of river crossings and he
  450
  asked to meet me. He gave me a very expensive lunch in London, which he could well afford. He told me that the price of £1 million that I had put on the bridge was excessive. I replied that I did not doubt for a minute that it was wrong, because I had no figures. He said "Will you get up and admit that this is the wrong figure?" I said that I would certainly do so, if he would tell me what the right figure was, but he was unwilling to do so.
  We still have the Selby bridge. The tragedy has become even more extreme because, by a stroke of fate, it has become the gateway to the biggest and most modern coalfield in the world. This extraordinary, antediluvian, Heath Robinson arrangement is the way into the marvellous Selby coalfield on which £500 million or more is to be spent. Finance is a strange business under any Government. We can afford £500 million for this development. Anything that the National Coal Board does in my constituency is beautifully done. It spends £1 million on a fairly small road, but when the money comes out of another pocket, we cannot have our toll bridge. So on the story goes, and I shall give this speech until I die. We are still talking about it, and it is still too expensive. Once we get a bypass there, the Boothferry bridge, about which my neighbour the hon. Member for Goole speaks tonight, shall be well within itself, if I may put it that way.
  As, unfortunately, I was not here to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Goole, I do not know what changes he wants. As far as I am concerned, considering all one's worries in life and in one's constituency, the Boothferry bridge is now less of a worry than it has ever been in the past. It was never a great toil, nor overhung my life, except from time to time when I received a courteous letter from an authority giving me long warning that the bridge would be closed for a number of weeks and stating what arrangements were being made.
  I would examine the letter and think that that would be awkward for people close to the bridge, but I realised that as it was an old bridge from time to time it would need repair and something would have to be done about it. Everyone was warned and everything that could practically be done was done. It was explained to those who complained what was being done and it seemed all right. In the new circumstances with the other bridges—the Humber bridge, the M62 bridge and the same old toll bridge still going strong—the pressure on the Boothferry bridge must be less than it has been in the past.
  I have no strong views on whether the priority should go to ships going up the river or to the people going over the bridge. What has happened so far seems to have worked without undue hardship and without animosity. I should have thought that now that those going over the bridges are in a slightly stronger position than they used to be, it would be best to leave the matter as it is.
  Therefore, I am afraid that my speech has not been half as satisfactory as it would have been, had I been able to listen to, or been wise enough to have been here in time to listen to, the hon. Member for Goole. hope that at least I have added something to the debate.
  Mr. Robert Banks: I hesitate to intervene in the debate, but I am prompted to do so by the interesting and eloquent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan). He referred to the Humber bridge and then to the Selby bridge. I should like to make two comments, one about the Humber bridge and the second about the proposition of toll bridges in general.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That would not be in order. The hon. Gentleman should stick to clause 10, which would be in order. I allowed the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) to talk about the other bridges in relation to the Boothferry bridge, but not otherwise.
  Mr. Banks: You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a relationship between those bridges. I do not want to trespass against your ruling. My hon. Friend was right to say that the bridges are interconnected as they all serve traffic in the Humberside area. One bridge interrelates with the other.
  The Humber bridge is the largest single-span bridge in the world. It is strange that we have not given it the recognition that it deserves. Perhaps we have been affected by the cost and by the time it took to be built. However, as an engineering feat, it is remarkable. That bridge is there not only to serve traffic under it and over it, but as a focal point for tourists who come to Humberside and who will want to have the experience of crossing it—I am sure they will want to have the experience of crossing the Boothferry bridge at the same time.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I do not want to encourage the hon. Gentleman in his dissertation on the Humber bridge because he has been told that that is not relevant to the clause. Does he agree with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) that the Humber bridge is a white elephant?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will not pursue the question of the Humber bridge. Let us return to the subject of the Boothferry bridge.
  Mr. Banks: I shall endeavour to do so.
  The Boothferry bridge has many similarities to the Selby bridge. It is an old bridge and needs maintenance and repair, as is obvious from the clause that deals with its maintenance. It is surprising that many such toll bridges look as though they need much maintenance. We pay about 5p to cross those bridges and sometimes we wonder whether any money goes into painting and looking after them. Selby, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Howden referred, is rather like that. When one crosses it, one is aware of how old it is, as when one crosses the Boothferry bridge.
  My hon. Friend referred to the problem of Governments trying to acquire that bridge. That is a matter of great importance. Whether they would be right to do so is debatable. I maintain that it is better to let private enterprise build a bridge, put up a toll booth and take the money for the cost of the bridge and its maintenance. That is a point that I know that you are anxious for me not to follow, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can tell by your angle in your seat that it is causing difficulty.
  However, I hope that the Bill will go through. I am grateful for this small opportunity to say a few words about it.
  Mr. Michael Brown: The Boothferry bridge is a bridge that I and my constituents have had to use a great deal during the last few years until the opening of the Humber bridge. As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Humber bridge is not relevant to the debate, but with regard to the route by which people in my constituency travel to Hull it has an important bearing in its relation to the Boothferry bridge.
  452
  The Boothferry bridge is situated about 15 miles to the west of Scunthorpe. In the days before the Humber bridge was built, my constituents would travel 15 miles to the west across the Boothferry bridge to go to Hull. As we have heard in the arguments in favour of the Humber bridge, many people wish to travel to Scunthorpe from Hull. Although that journey has been lessened by the opening of the Humber bridge, many of my constituents who live on the west side of Scunthorpe still use the Boothferry bridge.
  Hon. Members should be aware that the toll for the Humber bridge, which is £1 for cars and £7.50 for lorries, dissuades a number of people living in the western part of my constituency from using that bridge. Therefore, the conventional means of transporting goods and passengers from Scunthorpe to Hull has always been over the Boothferry bridge.
  Nowadays we are told that the great Humber bridge is the way by which people should travel. I hope and believe that people in Scunthorpe, Brigg and Barton will persuade themselves that that is a more attractive route to Hull. However, now that the motorway system links Scunthorpe to the Boothferry bridge, which leads to Hull, people are able to join the system west of Scunthorpe. They can travel over the Boothferry bridge and therefore arrive at Hull in the same time as if they had gone over the Humber bridge.
  A number of my constituents will be concerned at clause 10(2) which states:
  "Subject to any byelaws made under section 9 (Byelaws as to opening bridges) of this Act in respect of the Boothferry Bridge the opening span of that bridge shall be used maintained and worked in such a manner as to give absolute preference and priority to all vessels navigating or employed on the river Ouse".
  In the old days before the Humber bridge was opened, when my constituents wished to travel by car or public transport, there was no doubt that traffic queues over the Boothferry bridge could be caused. Considerable traffic jams used to occur. My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) has visited my constituency many times and is well aware of that traffic hazard. We accept that the flow of traffic will now be reduced because the people in my constituency may prefer the quicker but more expensive route via the Humber bridge. We accept that traffic chaos and delay will be reduced when the bridge is open to navigable vessels.
  That will not be so for the people who live in East Butterwick, a village about 20 miles, as the crow flies, from the Humber bridge. If the people of that village, which is situated on the river Trent, want to go to Hull via the Humber bridge they will not be enticed by the prospect of a £1 toll. They will seriosly consider using this other bridge, and if they are delayed by navigation operations and vessels using that bridge, they may feel greatly inconvenienced.
  I hope that the majority of my constituents will use the Humber bridge. I hope that they will feel that it is a community asset that should be used to the maximum. I believe that the majority of people living in Scunthorpe, and in Brigg and Broughton to the east, will use the Humber bridge instead of the Boothferry bridge, as they used to do.
  The fact still remains that people living in a narrow corridor of my constituency between Scunthorpe and the river Trent will continue to use the preferred route of the Boothferry bridge. Many hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and myself, can

  453
  testify to the inconvenience that was caused to county councillors attending meetings in Beverley. They will testify to the traffic delays that will continue to occur when this bridge is opened.
  If we believe in free consumer choice, we must accept that where a second route is available at much lower cost, our constituents should have the right to use that route and not feel that they will be second class citizens to the river traffic underneath the bridge which, according to the clause, will have priority. As I interpret the clause, people operating navigable vessels along the river Ouse will have priority over my constituents who live between Scunthorpe and the River Trent—that narrow corridor of villages that includes Gunness.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants to expedite the passage of the Bill. To enable him to do so, it may be useful if I point out that the clause was inserted at the insistence of the Department of Trade after consultation with the Department of Transport. This is standard procedure. It is usual to give river traffic precedence over road traffic. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's constituents are suffering no more than people in other parts of the country from the fact that rivers came before the roads.
  Mr. Brown: I have a great personal regard for the hon. Gentleman. He continually puts the interests of his constituents in Grimsby before anything else. The hon. Gentleman does his constituency a great service by not always having regard to natural geographical factors and by treating them as secondary to the interests of his constituents.
  He has pointed out that the clause has been inserted in the Bill with the approval—possibly even at the suggestion—of the Departments of Trade and Transport. I take his point that those two Departments are controlled and run very well. While I have a tremendous regard for my right hon. and hon. Friends who run those Departments, I wish to follow the fine lead of the hon. Member for Grimsby and put the interests of my constituents above the geographical factors that happen to bedevil the county of Humberside.
  We are saddled with the great accident of geography called the river Humber and the river Ouse. At the end of the day, we want to make a go of the county of Humberside. It was because of that that, with one or two recent exceptions, we supported the importance of the Humber bridge. At the end of the day we must accept that, even if inconvenience is caused by a geographical factor, it is still an inconvenience. We must recognise that constituents may write to us about this important issue. I must therefore bear in mind that there is nothing more important for the people of East Butterwick than their ability to get to Hull without inconvenience.
  I do not believe that those people should be inconvenienced. Is the hon. Member for Grimsby seriously suggesting that in reply to their letters I should write "Thank you very much for your representations in connection with the Humberside Bill. I am terribly sorry that I could do nothing in the House of Commons to defend your interests, but the fact is that the River Humber and the River Ouse are an accident of geography, and, I regret, you will have to put up with the inconvenience". I doubt whether any hon. Member could honestly send such a reply. I am sure that the hon. Member for Grimsby is not suggesting that I should do so.
  454
  Our constituents expect us to give serious consideration to the fact that throughout the years they have been able to use this bridge and that now their interests will be secondary to river traffic. The hon. Member for Grimsby says that is the way of the world, and that river traffic has always taken precedence over local people who use the roads. Let us consider what that river traffic will be.
  It will be not local traffic but traffic that has come from abroad, including Europe. Obviously, we want the river utilised to the greatest extent. We want to see river traffic along the river Humber and the river Trent, because that will bring economic benefits to the Yorkshire and Humberside region. However, at all times river traffic should take second place to the interests of local people who must put up with the inconvenience time and again.
  8 pm
  Mr. Richard Body: My hon. Friend is arguing the case with great cogency on behalf of his constituents. Will he say how many constituents are involved? At one stage I thought that there might be just a few and that we should subjugate their interests to the greater interests. How many are involved? Is it a limited number? Will my hon. Friend tell us a little more about the sort of inconveniences that they are suffering? We appreciate that they may wish to go to Beverley, which is an attractive town, but there may be other places to which they will wish to go.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has asked a valid question. The number of people who live on the western corridor of my constituency between Scunthorpe and the river Trent is fairly small. Basically, they live in the villages of Flixborough, Gunness, East Butterwick and Messingham. They are not populous villages, but the people who live there will be unlikely, if they are travelling to Hull, to use the Humber bridge because it involves a long motorway journey and a substantial toll on the bridge, when they are already half-way to Hull were they able to use the Boothferry bridge. The only disincentive to them using the Boothferry bridge is the inconvenience caused by the fact that the bridge gives priority to vessels using the river.
  Sir Paul Bryan: To add conviction to his argument, will my hon. Friend explain why the people of East Butterwick would want to go to Hull?
  Mr. Brown: I am in the business of persuading all my constituents to use Scunthorpe, and the constituency of the hon. Member for Grimsby, for shopping purposes. I am a loyal South Humberside supporter, as is the hon. Gentleman. In an argument, I always give preference to the concept that any of my constituents who wants to go to Hull for shopping purposes should first consider the excellent shopping facilities in Scunthorpe and, secondly, those in Grimsby. I am sure that the hon. Member for Grimsby will forgive me for putting Grimsby second. He will understand the spirit in which I say that.
  If a constituent tells me that Hull is a larger city, a city where he can get a wider choice, I have a responsibility to ensure that all the routes to and from Hull and Scunthorpe are kept as open as possible. Perhaps there is a two-way traffic. It is possible that certain people in Hull want to go to Scunthorpe and East Butterwick to see the delights that the towns and villages in my constituency can offer. Perhaps they want to take a more scenic route, via

  455
  the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Howden and want to use the Boothferry bridge, but if they are subjected to the provisions of clause 10(2) they will feel that they are unwanted citizens in the local area. If they have to travel between Hull and Scunthorpe, they will have to put up with traffic jams as they contemplate, rather sadly, the priority that is given to vessels.
  The hon. Member for Grimsby said earlier that it has always been the rule of the road or the river that vessels on the river have priority over vehicles on the roads. We should consider that more seriously. What cargo are those vessels carrying? Many of my constituents and those of the hon. Gentleman will be deeply concerned and possibly offended by the fact that some of those ships travelling up and down the river, causing inconvenience on the Boothferry bridge because it has to give priority to vessels, are bringing in goods from other countries. What sort of goods are they bringing in? Perhaps some of the commodities coming in along that river are commodities that the hon. Member for Grimsby and I would not wish to enter the country. So, we have a double problem. We have the problem of inconveniencing my constituents, and possibly the hon. Gentleman's constituents if they want to take the scenic route to Hull via Scunthorpe, and the problem of giving way to river traffic that may be bringing in goods and services from the Continent that are detrimental to the economy, not only of the Yorkshire and Humberside region, but of the country as a whole.
  When we consider the clause, we must remember that we are opening the gates of the United Kingdom, via the Boothferry bridge, to cargo from abroad. The Boothferry bridge is the first bridge that opens when a ship comes in from the Continent, and when ships go under that bridge their captain and crew are confident that they have brought their raw materials from abroad into this country.
  Sir Paul Bryan: Does my hon. Friend, like me, receive notice from the authorities when the Boothferry bridge is to be closed for repair?
  Mr. Brown: I say with regret that in my two and a half years of membership of the House I have not received such notice. It may have been the intention of the authorities which operate the bridge to write to me, but perhaps they felt that since the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe is now concerned only with the Humber bridge they could forget about those of his constituents who might otherwise have used the Boothferry bridge, and therefore have not advised me. I cannot recollect, certainly this year, ever having received notice of repairs that have been undertaken on the Boothferry bridge. As the Member of Parliament for that constituency, I should have been advised because I might have wished to advise my constituents, through the local newspapers, of the fact that they would not be able to use the Boothferry bridge.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I am sick of that bridge.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman says that he is sick of the bridge, but he should know better, because he is a man who, rightly, defends his constituents to the end. He will allow no planning application, no accident of geography and no coal mine to stand in his way when he seeks——
  Mr. Haynes: I said that I was sick of hearing about the Boothferry bridge. That is all.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has missed the whole point of the debate—the Boothferry bridge I suggest that he goes to the Vote Office and collects a copy of the Bill. On the advice that has been given today, we are here principally—between now and 10 o'clock—to debate the importance of the Humber bridge.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. It is not the Humber bridge. It is the other bridge.
  Mr. Brown: I apologise. That was a Freudian slip of the tongue. It would need an all-night sitting to debate the merits of the Humber bridge. The House is unfortunate in that it has only a short time to discuss the merits of the Boothferry bridge for my constituency.
  Mr. Gary Waller: It has been rightly said that some of those who may wish to cross the Boothferry bridge may object that their progress is hindered because ships are coming up the river carrying goods from the Continent. Selby has one of the fastest growing populations in the United Kingdom. In future we shall see a great increase in output from that area. It is much more likely that in future ships travelling along the river and passing below the Boothferry bridge will be carrying goods to the Continent in furtherance of our export effort.
  Mr. Brown: I accept my hon. Friend's argument. The Selby coalfield is likely to expand in the near future. We hope that that the export of coal will be given top priority by both Conservative and Labour Governments. The coal will be transported along the rivers Ouse and Humber and will pass under the Boothferry bridge. The inconvenience to which I have been addressing my remarks will increase when the bridge has to be closed to road traffic and opened for river traffic. There will be the problem of the incoming river traffic and the more difficult problem that will arise from the export effort from the Selby coalfield.
  I cannot stand idly by and watch my constituents inconvenienced. I accept that it may be the same small group of constituents in East Butterwick that is inconvenienced. That group represents a small proportion of my constituents, but am Ito say "You are only a small group of my constituents and you are nearer to Hull if you use the Boothferry bridge"? Am I then to say "By using the bridge you can absolve yourself from the expense of using the Humber bridge, although I know that you will have to put up with even more inconvenience when the coal from Selby is transported along the river"? What will they say when I explain "As your constituency Member I can consider only the interests of the majority"?
  Labour Members, and members of the Labour Party in my constituency, draw to my attention at all times the fact that although I was elected by a small majority I must have regard to the wider interests of all my constituents, including those who did not vote for me. I interpret that as meaning that I have to take account at all times of minority interests. In this instance it is a small minority. None the less, it will be inconvenienced. We should not accept the clause on the nod. It is right and proper that I draw attention to the inconvenience that will be caused to a small group. Its use of the Humber bridge will be

  457
  marginal because its members live 15 or 20 miles away from it. They might well be inconvenienced by the use of the boothferry bridge.
  8.15 pm
  The clause is worthy of serious debate between now and 10 o'clock because of the implications for a narrow band of my constituency. I regret the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) is unable to be present. He has commitments elsewhere. However, I am sure that if he were here he would agree that the arguments that I have deployed on behalf of the residents of East Butterwick are likely to apply to the residents of West Butterwick, who reside on the other side of the river Trent just half a mile away. I have in mind the small group of villages in that part of his constituency. My hon. Friend is an aggressive defender of the rights of minorities in his constituency, including the rights of residents along the Trent on the west bank of his constituency.
  If my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough were present, I am sure that he would support my arguments. I am sure that he would agree that those on the west bank of the Trent are not likely to want to cross the Trent, travel through my constituency and subsequently cross the Humber bridge.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is raising an important point relating to the comfort of his constituents and their travelling arrangements. It seems to me from what he is saying that there is likely to be more traffic than less traffic in future. This will mean that the bridge will be opening and shutting more often and, therefore, will need more maintenance and repair. Has he had any inkling of the number of repairs that are likely in the near future, which could perhaps help in giving a picture to his constituents as to whether it is reliable to use that bridge?
  Mr. Brown: That is something that I had not considered. I had assumed that the Boothferry bridge would be able to operate in a technically correct manner that would not require very much maintenance and repair. My hon. Friend draws to my attention the fact that, in the event of the Selby coalfield generating more traffic under the bridge, the bridge will be used more and more. The more that any type of swinging bridge, hinged bridge or moving bridge is used, the greater the amount of maintenance required. There will be the inconvenience of shutting the bridge while traffic passes underneath it. We have to consider the inconvenience of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough when normal bridge use is taking place. Alternatively, we have to consider the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) that repairs will create an additional inconvenience which I had not considered.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: Perhaps tunnels are the answer.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is fortunate in having a tunnel in his constituency and not a bridge. In fact, he has two tunnels. That means that my arguments are somewhat new for him. Clearly he has listened to the problems that might have befallen his constituency if he had had a Boothferry bridge or a Dartford bridge that swung to allow traffic to pass underneath. However, he is not bothered with those problems, although he is concerned.
  Mr. Haynes: What has Dartford to do with it?
  Mr. Brown: My constituents and all those in constituencies that have boundaries on the Rivers Humber and Ouse have to consider crossing territory overland or over the river. It is so much easier if a tunnel is available. In this debate it is not for me to consider whether in place of the Boothferry bridge there should be a Boothferry tunnel. One might well speculate on the advantages of a Humber tunnel or a Boothferry tunnel. A tunnel would be the answer to all the problems. I am sure that everyone in Humberside would be prepared to consider a tunnel as an alternative if public moneys were available. However, when the nation is having to tighten its belt we cannot realistically expect a Boothferry tunnel in the near future.
  It seems that we are saddled with a Boothferry bridge, much as I and all Humberside Members would like a tunnel. That option is closed to us. Therefore, we have to consider the implications of the Boothferry bridge. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who represents a constituency in which there are two tunnels, that a tunnel would solve the problem. However, that is an unrealistic option.
  Mr. Banks: Is it not a fact that the advantage of a tunnel rather than a bridge is that it is not as susceptible to the weight of vehicles that pass through it? Is it not also a fact that the weight of vehicles on a bridge such as the Boothferry bridge has an important impact on the repairs and maintenance that must be undertaken to keep the bridge serviceable?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate made a valid point in his support of tunnels. Conservative Members are deeply concerned about the importance of public expenditure. No one wants to see the bridge replaced by a tunnel more than myself, but that option is closed for the time being. I note the advantages of a tunnel over a bridge, but in solving the problems to which I have drawn attention in the debate, that is not an alternative that we can consider for the time being. If the nation were so overwhelmed with public money that the Government did not know what to do with it, or if the people of East Butterwick became so frustrated that they wished to form a private company to construct a tunnel, I should like to think that a Government Department might seriously consider allowing them to do so. I do not think that that option will be available in the near future.
  I hope that I shall have the pleasure of representing my constituents for a long time, but, even if I am fortunate enough to be in the House when I am aged 65 or 70, I do not think that there will be any opportunity for considering a Boothferry tunnel private Bill. For better or worse, and for the lifetime of most hon. Members—there is now only one hon. Member younger than myself in the House—we are likely to be saddled with the present Boothferry bridge, with its inadequacies and inconveniences.
  Mr. Body: My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way again. I appreciate that he does not wish to speak at any length, but he is making a cogent speech on his constituents' behalf, and all hon. Members appreciate the way in which he is doing it. However, does he not consider that the clause might be a little premature? The House has yet to decide whether it will permit the heavier lorries on the roads. There is some relevance in that. Hon. Members may treat it jocularly, but it is important to the Butterwick people, as we have already established to our satisfaction

  459
  If the Boothferry bridge is to be repaired it is important to remember the necessarily expensive repairs that will be required in the future, with much heavier lorries on the roads. However, we do not know whether the House will agree to the much heavier lorries. Has my hon. Friend made any calculations about the cost that might arise in that case? If we have the heavier lorries we shall have to have considerably larger and strengthened bridges throughout the country, which might well cost about £250 million. We all recognise that my hon. Friend is valiant in the cause of trying to restrain unnecessary public expenditure. Perhaps he will have some regard to that point before he concludes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I shall guide the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) in answering that question. It would be wrong for him to refer to forthcoming legislation. We do not know whether we shall have the heavier lorries.
  Mr. Brown: I accept your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not for hon. Members to anticipate legislation, but when the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement earlier this week he suggested that we could expect some legislation, and he hoped that the House would approve it within the current parliamentary Session. Therefore, within this Session, assuming that my right hon. Friend gets his way in the House—I accept that there is some doubt whether that will happen—the legislation will be on the statute book.
  Since we are legislating for the future and the Bill contains powers which will go up to 1984, I presume that the assumption behind the Government's thinking—certainly the Secretary of State's thinking—is that by 1984 there will be heavier lorries crossing the Boothferry bridge.
  The Bill contains powers which will go beyond this Session—indeed, possibly beyond the lifetime of this Parliament. We have to bear in mind the likelihood that there will be heavier lorries going over the Boothferry bridge. I accept that it would not be right in this debate to consider the arguments for and against heavier lorries, but we are legislating for the use of a bridge to open and close for river traffic for a period which will extend beyond this Session of Parliament.
  According to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, there will be implications concerning the repair and maintenance of the Boothferry bridge. Therefore, with deep respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that it is right for me in passing to refer to the comments made by my hon. Friends in that respect.
  I shall not go into the debate about heavier lorries but will confine myself to the effect of heavy lorries—the same lorries that my right hon. Friend will be seeking to load with more goods, more capacity, and more weight. Those lorries will be going over the Boothferry bridge. Heavy lorries, even of the size permitted today, impose a strain on the Boothferry bridge and therefore create a great problem for its future maintenance. The damage that is caused, even by today's lorries, will lead to yet more repairs, and inconvenience to the people of East Butterwick.
  Mr. Prescott: The whole basis of the Secretary of State's argument about heavier lorries is that they will not
  460
  cause any extra damage to bridges. I hope that we shall see the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) in the Lobby with us on Wednesday—or is this just empty rhetoric?
  Mr. Brown: Earlier this year I had the pleasure of serving with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on the Transport Bill. I detect possible support from an unlikely quarter in favour of the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I look forward to being in Committee again with the hon. Gentleman, who will no doubt be leading in his usual eloquent way for the official Opposition.
  If I were tempted by the hon. Gentleman to move away from the Boothferry bridge, I should then be out of order. Much as I should like to debate with him my views on the Secretary of State's proposals, if I were to go down that road who knows where I might end up? I do not wish to succumb to that temptation. I wish to stay within the rules of order.
  8.30 pm
  I accept the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that an extra axle without any extra length of vehicle crossing the Boothferry bridge will cause no further damage to the bridge. But what my right hon. Friend said on Tuesday was that as a result of his statement, there would be fewer lorries. If there are to be fewer lorries, we face the prospect of less strain on the bridge. So we have here a great debate. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are probably suggesting that I am contradicting earlier arguments. That is arguable. There are two clear arguments.
  Initially, I was tempted down the road that heavier lorries, because of the statement made earlier this week by the Secretary of State, would cause extra strain on the bridge.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clause 10 deals with a measure which provides that the navigable width shall be 38·1 metres and that there shall be absolute preference for all vessels employed on the river Ouse. I fail to see that a discussion on lorry weights is of any relevance to the clause.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I warned the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) about this matter. It would be in order to refer to the weight of lorries crossing the bridge, but I do not want any discussions of whether there should be heavier lorries, which is the subject of other legislation.
  Mr. Brown: You put me in great difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in that I am having to anticipate the end of this Session when we shall have on the statute book a Humberside Act and perhaps a provision for heavier lorries. I accept that I may not pursue the heavier lorries aspect, as I have been so sorely tempted to do by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. However, the latter has suggested to me that there is another side of the coin. That is that if one accepts the principles behind the statement by the Secretary of State for Transport there will be fewer lorries, which means that not so much strain may be imposed on the bridge.
  However, I want to return to the central theme of the debate. [Interruption.] It appears that I have been speaking for a short time and have failed to convey to the House the

  461
  central theme of the debate. For those hon. Members who have been listening to the point that I have been trying to make on behalf of my constituents in East Butterwick, I should have thought that the central theme is that people from my constituency, in private cars or public transport, are being asked to put themselves in a secondary, subservient position to that of river traffic carrying either imports from the Continent or exports from the Selby coalfield.
  That is the central theme of the debate. It is the inconvenience that will be caused to the people of East Butterwick when they are stopped and they learn that they are being held up because the bridge is open for river traffic. It will not be shut to river traffic in order to give priority to my constituents. The central theme is the inconvenience to those people from East Butterwick who wish to travel to Hull for shopping or business purposes.
  Unless that argument can be conveyed while we debate this clause, we shall find that the arguments have all been in vain.
  I suggest that we return to the question of inconvenience to constituents. If we pass the clause, should we simply accept, as the hon. Member for Grimsby suggested, that the rivers Humber and Ouse are a geographical accident, and forget about my constituents, about the people of East Butterwick, Gunness and Flixborough? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should simply concede the case when we pass the clause on the nod? I do not know whether any of my colleagues will wish to divide the House on this important clause. It may be that, at the end of the day, there will be some compelling arguments from the Opposition side of the House during further debate, that will persuade me.
  I have tried to put the arguments on behalf of a small group of my constituents who will be inconvenienced by the passage of the clause in its present form. We should put their rights before accidents of geography and history.
  Sir Patrick Wall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that for the last hour and a half we have been debating the Boothferry bridge and we have had a brilliant speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown). You will also be aware that the Boothferry bridge spans the river Ouse, which meets the river Trent and they both flow into the Humber. From the Humber flows the river Hull, into the Beverley beck.
  Would I, therefore, be in order in discussing the important factors of the Beverley beck in my constituency, bearing in mind that we have discussed the port of Goole? Beverley had a charter for its market under King John in 1199, well before Goole was even thought of.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The hon. Gentleman is very courteous in saying that I am aware of these things, when I am only aware of what has happened in the last 30 seconds or so. Any argument that the hon. Gentleman used that related to the bridge would be in order.
  Sir Patrick Wall: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  If one were to take a coastal vessel under the Boothferry bridge down the Ouse or in the opposite direction, from Hull docks up the Ouse, one would find that most vessels are now going to the smaller ports on the river, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) pointed out. Why are they bypassing the important Hull
  462
  docks? It is because they get better service and a turnround that is cheaper and quicker. That is the object of the exercise if one happens to be a shipowner.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has already addressed the House once on this subject.
  Sir Patrick Wall: I addressed the House on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me. Is he still on a point of order?
  Sir Patrick Wall: My first intervention, before you took the Chair, was on a point of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: At the moment, I have not called the hon. Gentleman. I was under the impression that he was putting a point of order that I called him and I gave him my ruling.
  Sir Patrick Wall: I am sorry, I became confused as I had a point of order with your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have now ruled that it would be in order to discuss the matter I raised on the point of order I made to you, and I hope that I shall catch your eye later.
  Mr. Prescott: Move the closure of the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to accept a motion for the closure.
  Sir Patrick Wall: May I now make my speech, as I have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I recall it, the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) addressed the Chair earlier. He was not called on a point of order. Surely he cannot be called twice in the same debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I tried to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) to that and he assured me that he rose only on a point of order. There is no reason why I should not now call him to make a speech.
  Dr. Edmund Marshall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) first intervened he asked about what he might be allowed to say in the debate, but he did not do that on a point of order. Later what he could and could not say was pointed out to him. That was the end of the matter.
  Sir Patrick Wall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you refer to Hansard you will see that your predecessor in the Chair sked me whether I was on a point of order, and that I said that I was.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman because I was not in the Chamber at the time. I heard only his point of order. If the hon. Member for Haltemprice has already addressed the House, he would be out of order if he addressed the House on a second occasion. If that is so I am sure that he will not want to press the matter.
  Mr. Wall: I do not wish to pursue the matter further, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are getting into a muddle. I understood that the first time that I addressed the House I was on a point of order because your colleague in the

  463
  Chair said so. I raised another point of order with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you gave a ruling. I thought that you wanted me to continue. However, I have probably delayed the House long enough on this confusing issue and I shall leave it at that.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put,put and agreed to.
  Question, That the amendment be made,put accordingly and negatived.

Clause 29

  SAVINGS FOR PART IV
  Amendments made: In page 29, line 26, after "periodicals" insert
  "either alone or with newspapers".
  In line 28, after "periodicals" insert
  "either alone or with newspapers".
  In line 34, after "in" insert "the" and after "area" insert "covered by it".—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]

Clause 30
  APPLICATION OF PART V
  Amendment made: In page 30, line 27, leave out "(12)" and insert "(14)"—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]
Clause 88

  APPEALS TO SECRETARY OF STATE
  Amendment made: In page 77, lines 20 and 21, leave out
  "27 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925"
  464
  and insert
  "16 of the Supreme Court Act 1981"—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]

Clause 101

  TIDAL WORKS
  Amendments made: In page 85, line 37, leave out "(4)" and insert "(3)";
  In line 40, after "water" insert
  "being works (other than Works Nos. 1, 4 and 5 authorised by the Kingston upon Hull Corporation Act 1967)";
  In page 86, leave out from "1967" in line 9 to the end of line 10;
  In page 86, leave out from "Act" in line 11 to "in" in line 15;
  In line 17, after "works" insert
  "each of which is in this section referred to as 'tidal work'";
  In line 18, leave out "(3)" and insert "(2)";
  In line 30, leave out "(4)" and insert "(3)" ;
  In page 87, line 1, leave out "(5)" and insert "(4)";
  In line 21, leave out "(6)" and insert "(5)";
  In line 26, leave out "(7)" and insert "(6)";
  In line 31, leave out "(8)" and insert "(7)";
  In line 33, leave out "(3)" and insert "(2)";
  In line 39, leave out "(4)" and insert "(3)";
  In page 88, line 4, leave out "(5)" and insert "(4)";
  In line 12, leave out "(7)" and insert "(6)"—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]
  Bill to be read the Third time.

  Unemployment and Social Security Benefits
  Resumed debate on Question, That this House do now adjourn.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Bottomley: I remind myself that the subject of this Adjournment debate is the Chancellor's statement yesterday and the effect on unemployment and short-term benefits. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) put forward what I have already called a very fair case for protecting those who have no other protection than unemployment and other short-term benefits. The hon. Gentleman has raised the question whether the announcement to be made by the Chancellor in the Budget early next year will give price protection to those who, on any estimate, need it. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security gave a robust defence of what the Government had done over a number of years but was obviously constrained by the decisions made by the Chancellor, as announced in his statement.
  I had addressed some remarks before the debate was interrupted to the hon. Member for Wood Green. I should like to re-emphasise the importance of a falling rate of inflation. Those depending on benefits are affected not only by an uprating as compensation for inflation but also by the falling level of benefit during the 12 months between upratings. In a year that is followed by an uprating of 16 per cent. in line with inflation the average loss of benefit during the year is 8 per cent. In a year when the uprating is 10 per cent. there has been a loss of benefit on average through the year of 5 per cent.
  When inflation is at a level of 10 to 16 per cent. the impact of loss of benefit during the year is more significant than the 2 per cent. that the hon. Member for Stockport, North is rightly concerned about. This debate would miss the point if hon. Members were not also concerned about the impact of inflation during the year. I go a stage further. We should be able to reduce the underlying level of inflation by 6 per cent. during the coming year if those at work are willing to settle for pay increases of about 4 per cent. that the Government intend should apply in the public sector. Even pay increases of on average 4 per cent. are inflationary if the level of output in the economy is expected to grow at about 1 per cent. There will be about a 3 per cent. contribution towards inflation.
  The matter is nonsense, but it is determined by our system of pay settlements and negotiations. There are many good arguments for incomes policy. The best is to give help to those without the power of a job behind them. However, with the TUC, the Labour Party conference and the Conservative Government opposed to incomes policy, we shall not get one. The need is to get the effect of an incomes policy without actually having one.
  One means of getting all groups in the community to recognise the importance of moderate pay settlements is to publicise the effect of settlements on the groups mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockport, North. It is possible to make sure, by a reduction in the level of pay settlements during the forthcoming year and the indirect effect on inflation that I believe exists, to make up the 2 per cent. I shall continue to argue for that. The 2 per cent. shortfall is also important in itself.
  I welcome the Government's commitment to the old-age pensioners and those who will have the shortfall made
  466
  up in November 1982. I do not give up hope that the Government will review their decisions announced yesterday and will make up the shortfall of 2 per cent. for other groups. The cost in a full year of the 2 per cent. shortfall is about £130 million. In the fiscal year 1982–83 the figure is about £65 million, which is a small amount compared with the sums involved in the other decisions that the Government are making all the time, such as whether the British Steel Corporation needs £400 million or £500 million. In that business we are concerned with a group of perhaps 100,000 workers, which must be compared with the number of families who would be affected by the 2 per cent. shortfall in unemployment benefit. Between now and any decisions made before the Budget, it is feasible that the Government would say that because of pressure from both sides of the House they will restore the 2 per cent. shortfall in other benefits. It is worth recognising that the effective pressure must come from the Government benches. That is one reason why I believe that the speech of the hon. Member for Wood Green, although it might have been his normal style, was counterproductive.
  I greatly regret that a debate of such importance as this takes place in a Chamber that is not packed full and that the press chooses not to be present to report it. Many of those about whom we are concerned need the press on their side. If we were talking about increased taxation on company cars or journalists' lunches, many more press representatives would have been present and many more people would have known tomorrow how the interests of the poor had been expressed in the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that he cannot comment on whether the press is present or not.
  Mr. Bottomley: You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for saying that members of the press are not present in force. Perhaps I should not have said that the press do not appear to be here at all, but that also is true.
  We are not talking only about those whose incomes are at the supplementary benefit level. We are talking about 300,000 children from families whose income is below the supplementary benefit level. I refer to a letter in The Times today from Mr. Malcolm Wicks, director of the Study Commission on the Family. Although he uses 1977 figures, he said that there were 420,000 children in families below the poverty line and 980,000 children in families at the supplementary benefit level. If one takes supplementary benefit plus 40 per cent., which is by no means a high standard of living, there are about 3·5 million children and their families at that level. Those people are affected by the shortfall.
  Those who believe that the supplementary benefit level is too high—very few have said that, but perhaps some feel that that is one reason why supplementary benefit should not be brought up fully in line with inflation—should experience living as a family of two adults and two children on £50 a week, which is not much money for a four-person household. We must remember that many families do not get all the benefits to which they are entitled and may be surviving on less. I welcome the suggestion, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed on Tuesday, of trying to ensure that any family that applies for benefit is checked to see whether it is entitled to other benefits.

  467
  Another important subject is child benefit, which was not properly dealt with in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement. I expect that he intends to make an anouncement on that in the spring of 1982 for the uprating in November 1982.
  It is clear that the income support available to families whose breadwinner is either sick or unemployed is being reduced by the abolition of the earnings-related element of unemployment pay. When the employer-paid sick pay scheme comes in there will be no child addition. When the Government issued their Green Paper on the earnings-joined sickness benefit they said that, because child benefit was expected to rise in real terms, it might be thought reasonable to eliminate the child addition. It is quite clear that in recent years the child benefit has not risen substantially in real terms. I remind the House that the level of child income support, now child benefit, is about 25 per cent. lower in real terms than the combined value of family allowance and the child tax allowances in 1955.
  Families with dependent children have not shared in the increase in the general standard of living through social security benefits or the transfer of resources through child benefits. I ask the Government to consider seriously during the next few months the pressure from both sides of the House. I ask them to recognise how much of that pressure comes from the Conservative Benches and to reconsider the £65 million involved in the fiscal year 1982–83. I hope that they will realise the importance of raising the real level of chid benefits.
  I turn now to the significance of pay increases. A high pay increase does not help a low income family with dependent children. The only way that that family income can be increased is through child benefits. That is why a low pay rise requirement in the economy—or strategy, as the Government call it—requires an increase in child benefit.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the easiest way to encourage workers to settle for a low wage increase would be for the Government to declare their plans for child benefit well in advance of the pay negotiations? If they intended to be generous, there would be some chance of the appeal for low wage rises being accepted. At the moment, with all the uncertainty surrounding the issue, we cannot blame anyone for thinking that it is better to carry on with the negotiations because there is little possibility of the Government's being generous.
  Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and for the way in which he said it. The Government—indeed, successive Governments—are seriously at fault. Of course, raising child benefit does not reduce pay claims. However, it can influence pay settlements. Employers can tell those with whom they are negotiating that they cannot allow a significant wage increase, in part because they cannot afford it and in part because it does not help in the battle against inflation, which is an important prerequisite to reducing unemployment. It strengthens the power of employers to do what is sensible.
  The Government need to do three things. First, they must restore the shortfall. I shall not vote against them next week if that issue arises as I want to work on them during the next three or four months. Secondly, they must
  468
  increase child benefit in 1982 by more than the rate of inflation. Thirdly, the Government should publish a Green Paper on tax and benefits over the family life cycle.
  There are many ways to pay for those measures. Perhaps, on another occasion, I could put forward the options that I would support, especially in the area of child benefit. For example, next year I would not raise the married man's tax allowance. I would raise only the personal tax allowance. I would use the money saved to pay for an increase in child benefit.
  We are reaching the end of the period during which the Government have had responses about the taxation of man and wife. It is ridiculous to consider only the tax element and not the benefit element. It is also ridiculous to consider only one point in time rather than the fluctuating levels of need and resources, which do not match, during the ordinary family life cycle. We must be able to say how, at different levels of income, people's resources should be affected—for example, as they leave school, find a job or are unemployed, when they marry or have children, when they are in or out of work, when in sickness or in health. What happens to resources when parents, sadly, separate or divorce? What level of benefit should parents have when their children cease to be dependent? What should be the relationship between their earnings at work and their income in retirement?
  Only when the Government are willing to put forward a Green Paper on those topics will it be possible to develop general agreement on a pattern to aim at. It will then be possible for the Government to find the general support necessary to make the changes, over a period, that are most needed.
  My final point—I recognise that this is a short debate—concerns the incentive-to-work argument put forward by Ministers during the last two years, which has arisen in a number of quotations produced by the research staff in the Library, when they have given various commitments about protecting certain benefits from inflation. The only people who might work, who are better off not working or who do not have much incentive to take a job are those with dependent children. The only sensible way to deal with that is to ensure that they receive the same income for their children, whether or not they are in work. The reasonable way to do that is to raise the level of child benefit. The unreasonable way to do it is to reduce the level of income when they are not at work.
  Society has a basic responsibility to care for people who cannot care for themselves—the old, the sick, the unemployed and those below working age. We have not done badly for the old, the sick and the unemployed, but we have done abysmally for those caring for dependent children and we have done even worse for those on low incomes who are caring for dependent children. The test which I shall apply to the Government's proposals in the Budget is whether they will put right what they did not fully put right in the Chancellor's announcement yesterday.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Frank Haynes: It is obvious that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) agreed with what the Chancellor said yesterday and with what the Minister said earlier when the Adjournment debate began. I was shocked by some of the things said at the Dispatch Box by the Minister.

  469
  Following the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, I looked at The Standard and was shocked and appalled at the biased feeling expressed on the front page. Yet, when I looked at the daily papers today, I saw that the Government were getting a clobbering about the statement, and particularly about social security benefits. The Minister gave the impression that everything in the garden was lovely. That might be all right for a lot of people with plenty of money in their pockets and fair-sized bank balances. However, they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. It is workers and the poor who will be affected by the action that the Government will take next week on social security benefits. Since May 1979 those people have been hit time and again, and now they are being hit once again.
  A group of firms in my constituency is doing all that the Government have asked of it. The firms have reduced unit costs and increased productivity and, what is more important, there was a nil increase in earnings last year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer clobbered that group yesterday, yet it is doing what the Government asked it to do, supposedly to put the economy right.
  A great many problems arise out of what was said yesterday. When I go round my constituency and enter the social security offices, what bothers me more than anything else is that there are more people applying for certain benefits, because the earnings that they receive are nowhere near high enough and therefore they must apply for supplementary benefit. When I get into the office, what do I find? The Government are hell-bent on reducing the number of civil servants. That is having an effect on the social security office in my constituency. There are empty chairs, and there is no training going on. Those responsible for training are having to do necessary work, because of the long queues outside the social security office. That is another side of the Government's social security argument.
  We do not have to go far back to remember what happened at Strathclyde. The Minister said earlier that the Government had tried to let everyone know his entitlement. When Strathclyde carried out that exercise to point out clearly what people were entitled to, the Minister offered severe criticism. Strathclyde was only trying to help. The Government are not helping. They are bashing such people and, by introducing such measures, they will continue to do so. The Minister may brag about improvements—and there may be some—but he slipped easily by promises that were made by the Conservative Party before it came to power and promises that the previous Secretary of State for Social Services made about the death grant. Until now, that subject has not been mentioned.
  Let us consider the arguments that we have had about the death grant. The elderly and the destitute come to my surgery and talk about having to have paupers' graves. It is disgraceful in this day and age that we have not properly considered and dealt with that matter. Some while ago the previous Secretary of State went to the annual general meeting of the British Legion and gave a time scale for increasing the death grant. What have we got? There has been no increase. That is how the Government act. The Government may talk about increasing the mobility allowance and so on, and some of the things that slip by are forgotten, although they hurt the public. The elderly live in all our constituencies and we are supposed to represent them and to do what we can on their behalf.
  470
  I accept that the Government have done something and that they have increased the mobility allowance. I shall reiterate the point that the Minister ducked earlier. I pointed out that, because of the pressure on civil servants, some of those in my constituency who used to receive mobility allowance have now been disqualified. That is appalling. The Minister should be ashamed. It would be a good idea if there were a Minister or two on the dole queue for a change and if they had to receive sickness or supplementary benefit. They would then find out how people have to manage. Let them get some experience. There is someone standing here who has experienced such things. My parents had to go through the same thing. There is an early-day motion for a statue of a certain gentleman to be placed in the Members' Lobby, although he did the same as the Government are doing to the people in terms of benefits. People had to queue up at soup kitchens and so on.
  I can remember what happened when I was a lad. I can only just remember, but I remember how people were crucified by a former Conservative Administration under Mr. Baldwin. The same thing is happening under this Prime Minister. We do not make much progress. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) suggested going into the Aye Lobby or the No Lobby next week. Yet I have heard and read statements by Tory Members to the effect that if the Government do not change their minds on social security benefits they will lose the next election. I agree. It is not just a matter of social security benefits, but all the things that have been going on for the past two and a half years.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned hospital services, in passing. What he said was shocking. It is not what is happening in my constituency. I had to raise here the question of nurses going on the dole queue to enjoy unemployment benefit. That is shameful. They have received two years' training, yet they have been laid off. Is that the success that the Government are having in social security and unemployment? It is not just a question of laying off nurses after two years' training, because they have now prevented 16 people from entering the scheme for two years. The situation gets worse as time passes. That is how serious the situation is, not only in the Health Service but in social security generally in my constituency.
  I felt that I had to contribute to this debate. Now I have got it off my chest. Other hon. Members will wish to speak. I have tried to make it clear that the Government must reconsider. They have time to change direction, and they must do so in the interests of those people who cannot help themselves. It is our duty to help those people and to see that they get a fair and square deal. That is what they are not getting.
  Let there be no mistake: those people will make their voices heard if what is proposed goes through. I hope that some of those right hon. and hon. Members who expressed their views yesterday to the press—not in the Chamber—will be men enough to go into the right Lobby and vote against these proposals in the interests of those who cannot help themselves.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. William Hamilton: We on the Labour Benches are properly concerned with questions of social welfare, particularly those which involve the groups of people about whom the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) spoke—children and people who

  471
  cannot easily defend themselves. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that—to put it mildly—they have been unfairly treated by the Government. The Government were elected on the promises, among others, that they would reduce taxation, give incentives and encouragement to everyone, care for the family, get rid of or radically reduce unemployment, and reduce the cost of living. Those were among the many and various promises that were made. Today, they are so much ash in the mouth. The Government have honoured none of those promises, which they gave to the people who brought them to power.
  Let us take taxation first. Some tax figures were given by the House of Commons Library research department. Those figures are astonishing. I should not have believed them unless I had seen them and had them verified by what is recognised in all parts of the House as an incomparably efficient organisation. The research department of the Library produces figures which are accurate in every respect. When those figures were produced in the House a fortnight or so ago and the Prime Minister herself was asked to refute them, she studiously refused to do so and still refuses to do so. If the Minister can refute them, I ask her to do so tonight.
  The average family on average earnings pays in tax—that is, direct tax, such as income tax, national insurance contributions and the rest, and indirect taxes, such as value added tax and the rest—£25·83 a week more than it was paying in tax in 1979–80, the year the Government won the election. The result is that the average British family pays £75·96 in Government taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced yesterday that some of those figures would be increased, notably the national insurance contribution.
  The former Secretary of State for Social Services, now the Secretary of State for Industry, was the first Minister in the past 50 years to be responsible for cutting social security benefits by reducing the value of old-age pensions, as he suddenly discovered that there were 54 weeks in one year. The Government will be consistently reminded of that fact. Pensioners have therefore been deprived of two weeks' of an increase of pension to which they were entitled.
  The Government have also reduced the value of unemployment benefit, sick pay and maternity allowances. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) knows that the real value of child benefit, even after last months' increase, will have fallen by one tenth since the Prime Minister took office, yet during the election she and others promised that they would care for and look after the family.
  Unemployment pay had suffered particularly harsh blows, even before the announcement yesterday. The earnings-related supplement has been phased out. The supplements for dependent children have been reduced, the result being that, as compared with 1979, when the Government took office, the dole money for a man with two children has fallen by one third in real value, and that of a single man has fallen by 40 per cent.
  Even after the November uprating, an unemployed single person will receive £3·32 a day to provide everything—clothing, lighting, heating and the rest—except for his housing. One of the biggest social scandals of the day is our unemployed youngsters. The unemployed school leaver will have £2 a day to keep body
  472
  and soul together. There is no sign that that amount will be increased. Those who are fortunate enough to have a job and average earnings have £20 a day, so the fellow who is lucky enough to be in work is 10 times better off than the youngster who is on the dole and six times better off than the adult who is on the dole.
  I could quote many other ways in which the Government have clobbered those whom they allege that they want to protect. Before I go through the list, let me give one example. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and myself are serving on a Committee dealing with the transfer of sickness benefit. The plan is to transfer the responsibility from the State to the employer. That is a fundamental change in the Welfare State. It is part of the Government's philosophy of privatisation—a horrible word. That is happening in education, health, housing and, now, social security.
  There was an article in The Guardian just the other day about the Government dismantling the philosophy on which the Health Service is based. Instead of the burden being shouldered by the generality of taxpayers, it is to be paid for by insurance. In other words, we shall have two health services. Those who can afford the premiums will have a glossy, high-flying, highly efficient health service. Those who for one reason or another cannot afford the high premiums will get a third-rate health service. That two nations principle is in direct conflict with the beliefs of that great fellow, Disraeli, whom the Tory wets often quote. It is well known that that philosophy underlies the Conservative Party's approach to the Health Service.
  Mr. Best: All the Labour Party was able to achieve during its last term of office was to deny the NHS about £40 million from the private sector, which it could well have used to enhance the benefits obtainable by those subscribing to the NHS.
  Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman had better be quiet about the Health Service. He is much too young to remember the fight that took place both inside the House and outside when the Health Service was launched. The Tory Party violently opposed the whole principle of a health service more than 30 years ago. It still dislikes it intensely because it is an oasis of Socialism in a desert of capitalism. It is perhaps the only service in the world where one gets what one needs irrespective of one's purse. That is the very principle that the Government are now undermining.
  That is why, up and down the country, particularly in London but now in Glasgow, more and more private hospitals are being built with the direct encouragement of the Government. They are taking away doctors and nurses who have been trained at great public expense. Those hospitals are often owned by large American companies. They are attracting the cream of our medical and nursing professions, and leaving the Health Service to cater for the less romantic cases such as the geriatrics, the mentally retarded, and so on.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science said precisely that in a speech three or four years ago—that the Health Service financed by the taxpayer would cater for the old and the mentally handicapped, whereas the heart transplants and all the other emotional treatments would go to the private sector, and if people could not pay for them they could damned well do without.

  473
  That is exactly what happens in America. One only needs to visit America to see the result of the kind of scheme that the Government are now adumbrating. If an American falls in the street and breaks his leg, the medical service will not touch him unless he can prove that he can pay for his hospital requirements. That is now happening with social security. The Government are adopting a similar approach for education, at the very time when they are cutting education facilities across the board, from nursery schools to technical colleges and universities. They have given more money to the private fee-paying sector of education.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: For the sake of the record, the assisted places scheme in education costs no more to the State than putting a child into a maintained school. The waiting lists for operations in the National Health Service have declined dramatically. Spending in real terms on the Health Service has increased and the number of staff—whether doctors, nurses or other workers—has increased in the last two years. Those are all facts.
  Mr. Hamilton: They are not all facts. I need only mention the waiting lists. No Conservative Member can pretend that the reductions in the waiting lists in the last two years are the direct responsibility of the Government.
  Mr. Best: Why?
  Mr. Hamilton: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. There was a build-up of people on the waiting lists in the winter of discontent—which I deplored—and then the lists became normalised. That is the prime reason. There has been no major change in policy whatever to explain the reduction in those waiting lists. Any hon. Member who pretends otherwise is being either dishonest or naive, or both.
  Anyone who has seen the conditions in our hospitals and the dissatisfaction and low morale of our nursing profession will know what is happening in our Health Service. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the Dispatch Box yesterday that wages in the public sector will be held back to 4 per cent. next year. That includes nurses' salaries. He said that the inflation rate next year will be at least 10 per cent. In effect, he and Conservative Members are saying "Well done nurses. You are marvellous girls, but we are going to show our gratitude by slashing your standard of living next year, the year after and the year after that".
  Mr. Peter Bottomley indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He, too, must face the fact that his Government are to impose a wage limit of 4 per cent. on the very nursing profession that he pretends to applaud. His Chancellor of the Exchequer is saying that the rate of inflation next year will be 10 per cent. I suspect that it will be more. He is asking nurses and ancillary workers in hospitals—indeed, everyone in the public sector—to take a substantial reduction in their standard of living for the foreseeable future as a deliberate part of his policy.
  I shall enumerate some of the policies that the Government have formulated and are in the process of formulating. According to the latest White Paper on public expenditure, the social security budget will continue to expand in real terms up to 1982–83, but most of the growth is accounted for by the increasing number of elderly people and the massive rise in unemployment. Many of the
  474
  Government's problems in regard to the public sector borrowing requirement and public expenditure are accounted for by the enormous acceleration of the unemployment figures, which will get worse. The Chancellor refused to give us a figure yesterday, but by this time next year we shall be lucky if it is much short of 4 million registered unemployed, and the hidden unemployment will add another 1 million or 2 million to the figure.
  In addition to creating that unemployment the Government are cutting the benefits that I have described. I have a list of the benefits that have been cut in the past two years, but I shall give only one or two examples. There is the plan to pay child benefit monthly in arrears from 1982. I have received several letters on that issue. Child benefit for many families is a lifeline, especially for one-parent families. They budget week by week. Every penny and every minute of the day counts. However, the Government are prepared arbitrarily to say "Every new recipient from next April will have to wait one month in arrears for the benefit". When child benefit was increased by 75p in November 1980, which was 40p less than was needed to retain its value and protection against increased prices, that reflected the rise in earnings. Since then, child benefit has fallen further and further behind.
  The former Secretary of State for Social Services boasted that in total the cuts would save £1·5 billion from the social security budget. Compare that with those who practice in the black economy and who, by various means, are evading or avoiding tax, are getting away with an estimated £4,000 million a year. By attacking the old folk, the sick, one-parent families—those whom any civilised society would want to protect—the Government are boasting that they will save £1·5 billion from the social security budget. At the same time they are prepared to allow the rich to get away with £4,000 million every year.
  In their first two Budgets, the Government redistributed about £2,000 million to the very rich—for example, those in receipt of over £20,000 a year. They were prepared to make extremely generous tax cuts for those who already had too much. In virtually every statement that they make in the House they take away ruthlessly from those who have too little and who are generally deprived. That will be the very stuff of politics in this place from now until the next election.
  We are seeing from the Government a remorseless redistribution of national wealth either in the form of income or in the form of social services. It is a ruthless, indiscriminate and cruel redistribution of that wealth in favour of those at the top and against those at the bottom. I shall quote from an editorial that appeared in The Times, which by no stretch of the imagination can be called a Labour newspaper. On 29 October, after referring to the under-privileged groups to which I have drawn attention, the article stated:
  "It is not sensible or humane to argue that there should be equal sharing of burden between these unequal groups. The absolute level of benefits for many on social security, and especially for Britain's huge dole-force, are at rock bottom and should not be depressed further."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be condemned for his statement yesterday. The unemployed were earmarked for a fall of 2 per cent. in the real value of their benefit. That is a disgrace to any Government who call themselves civilised or humane.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Keith Best: If the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) had wished to deliver a violent attack against the Government, the National Health Service was manifestly the wrong ground to choose on which to do so. The Conservative Government can speak with great pride of their National Health Service record. They are spending more on the National Health Service than any other previous Government. I accept that the factors involved, as the hon. Member said, are not entirely due to Government action. Nevertheless, the fact remains that waiting lists have decreased substantially by about 100,000. That has occurred while the Conservative Government have been in office.
  In no way do I want to make the problem being advanced tonight a party political issue. Labour Members may disagree with that, but I believe that there are hon. Members on each sides of the House who view the problems of those least able to look after themselves—the poor—with grave concern. I hope that that assertion will not find any disagreement on the Labour Benches.
  Mr. Haynes: That is political dogma.
  Mr. Best: Therefore, we wish to discuss the matter, as far as possible, dispassionately and apolitically. However, there is a great difference between the two major political parties now in the House. Not one Labour Member, to my knowledge, has placed the cost of social security payments within the context of the total economy.
  Earlier this evening, the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) deprecated all previous Labour Governments, back to 1948. I do not wish to reiterate the points I made in an intervention because they would not aid my speech. To the hon. Gentleman, any cuts in social security benefits were to be utterly rejected, irrespective of the health of the total economy at any time.
  Labour Members may indulge in their fantasies if they wish. However, Conservative Members, who care about these matters, must look at the total problem within the context of the nation's economy.
  The hon. Member for Ashfield moans bitterly, but he knows that social security payments now account for about one quarter of total expenditure. Nevertheless, under the present Government, expenditure has still risen in real terms. All hon. Members should congratulate the Government, bearing in mind the economic difficulties through which the country is passing.
  Mr. Haynes rose———
  Mr. Best: I will give way in a moment. In 1978 and 1979 the total social security expenditure was £19,106 million and it is expected to have risen this year to £21,161 million. If Labour Members disagree with that, let them consider the matter in historical terms. In the 1970 to 1980 period the growth of the gross domestic product was 20·6 per cent., while the growth of social security benefit expenditure—revalued to constant prices, using the retail price index from 1970 to 1980—was not 20·6 per cent. but 57 per cent.
  Let us look at the payments made between those years. In 1970, the gross domestic product was £51,107 million. Social security benefits were £3,921 million—representing a percentage of GDP of 7·7 per cent. What do we find in 1980? It is not the same
  476
  percentage by any means. We find a GDP of £225,560 million, and social security benefits at £22,211 million—representing 9·8 per cent. of GDP.
  The hon. Member for Ashfield does not wish to intervene now. I am grateful, because obviously I have answered the question that he was about to raise.
  The Government can speak with great pride of the record that they have been able to maintain so far, taking the total economic climate into account.
  Mr. Haynes: Three million unemployed.
  Mr. Best: There are of those of us on both sides of the House who would like to see greater expenditure on social security because we believe it right that those who are least able to look after themselves should be succoured in times of national distress. The difference, as I perceived a moment ago, between the two sides of the House is that one side seems to think of that in isolation, and the other side sees it in terms of economic reality, regarding it as a percentage of GDP.
  I do not wish to reiterate the valid points made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security about what the present Government have done, particularly in the realm of retirement pensions. Between November 1978 and November 1981, the single pension rose from £19·50 per week to £29·60 per week. The married pension rose from £31·20 to £47·35 a week. That represents an increase of almost 52 per cent., against an expected rise in prices over the same period of a similar amount.
  The basic heating addition has not been mentioned very much tonight. Sadly, I understand why it has not been mentioned by Opposition Members. It is a matter on which the Government can talk with great relish. Those on supplementary benefit have had the basic heating addition raised from 95p per week in November 1979 to £1·65 today, and it is now given automatically to pensioners aged over 70 and to householders who are in receipt of supplementary benefit.
  I do not need to embarrass the Opposition by talking about the Christmas bonus. The point has already been made about the way in which the Labour Government unjustly denied that to pensioners in 1975 and 1976.
  Widows' pensions have also been fully protected by the Government against prices, and the 2 per cent. shortfall will be made good for them next year. Single parents are now eligible for the long-term rate of supplementary benefit after one year. Under the Labour Government, the period was two years. All families on supplementary benefit are now entitled automatically to receive the basic heating addition.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose——
  Mr. Best: I shall give way to the hon. Member, but I hope that he will not try to pre-empt my speech.
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has suggested that all widows' benefits have been protected. Will he look carefully at the widows' allowance, which is one of the short-term benefits? From the Chancellor's statement, it appeared not to have had the 2 per cent. restored to it.
  Mr. Best: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was paying close attention to my speech. I mentioned widows' pensions, rather than the widows' allowance. I shall come shortly to the points about which the hon. Gentleman is eager to hear me speak. However, in addition to what was said by my hon. Friend the Minister, I believe it to be right

  477
  that the way in which the present Government have been able to protect people who are least able to look after themselves should be articulated by both sides of the Chamber. It is a great record for a country that is going through an economic crisis.
  Two matters cause me considerable concern. I am sure that the concern is shared by hon. Members on all sides of the House. The first relates to the position of a married man with two children, who will be unemployed in January 1982. I recently asked for the comparison between social security benefits in May 1979 and January 1982. In May 1979 unemployment benefit paid at an average level was £27·20. In January 1982 that sum will be £38. That is a 40 per cent. increase. I have no complaint about that.
  If one examines unemployment benefit plus earnings-related supplement, a person who attracts the maximum earnings-related supplement in May 1979 received £43·45. In January 1982, because of the abolition of earnings-related supplement, the same person will receive only £38. That is about 87 per cent. of the sum payable in May 1979.
  That is not what concerns me. I am worried about the answer to the supplementary question that I asked. I asked what would be the position of the same person in January 1982 if earnings-related supplement had not been abolished and if there had been no abatement and no alteration in child dependency additions. I was told that if child dependency additions were at the same rate as they were in May 1979 the amount of unemployment benefit, plus child benefit, would be not £38, but £69·25. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will discount those figures. On my reckoning there is a shortfall of £31·25. The sum payable would be about half that which the same person would have received if the earnings-related supplement had not been abolished. That is a matter of grave concern to the whole House and I hope that my hon. Friend will say something about it.
  Another matter was articulated by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). It concerns the long-term supplementary allowance. From a reply to an earlier intervention it appears that the 2 per cent. shortfall in the long-term supplementary allowance will not be made good, whereas for the long-term supplementary pension it will. That means that there will be three different levels of benefit. That cannot he entirely satisfactory. I hope that the whole House will address itself to that and point out the anomaly which, I believe, was not generally perceived before tonight. Perhaps it was not perceived by the Government. There might still be time for the Government to do something about it.
  I began by expressing my satisfaction with what the Government have been able to do so far in times of economic difficulty. I tried to structure my speech in an apolitical way without making grave political points and without castigating one side or the other. All hon. Members will accept that in these financially difficult times the Government have done a great deal to succour those who are least able to look after themselves. I have pointed to two areas of grave concern that should be examined far more carefully by the Government. [am sure, following tonight's debate, that this will happen.
  I believe that the Conservative Party has always enjoyed wide support from all sections in society. In the interest of fairness, it has sought to look after those least able to look ater themselves. We have a fine record, going back to the days of Robert Peel and the restriction on
  478
  working hours of children in the mines, half a century before the Labour Party was even thought of, to more recent times. It was the Conservative Party, not the Liberals, the Cobdens and Brights and those financially interested in keeping women and children working down the mines, that ensured that those people were given a better deal. In more recent times, one finds that it was the Conservative Party that gave pensions to the over-80s. If it was ever felt that the Conservative Party had turned from that fine tradition, it would not command, nor would it deserve, the support that it has merited in the past.
  I believe that the Government will not allow such an event to happen. I believe that the Government are concerned and that within the current economic constraints they will address their minds to ensuring that the needy will not suffer. If the Government follow that course, as I firmly believe they will, and as they will need to do to command my continuing support, they will be true to the Conservative Party's tradition and its political philosophy of uniting the nation for a future of greatness.
  9.53 pm
  Mr. Alfred Dubs: I listened to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) with surprise and amazement. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he would appoach the subject in a dispassionate and apolitical manner and finished by delivering a Conservative Party political broadcast. I do not wish to go through all the details of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He argued that it was a point of merit for the Conservative Party and the Government that social security benefits had increased. The hon. Gentleman quoted a number of figures but failed to say that the reason why total expenditure on these benefits had increased was that the policies of the Government had increased by 1½ million or more the number of unemployed to whom the benefits had to be paid.
  Mr. Best: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that the increases in social security expenditure experienced under the previous Labour Government had nothing to do with the fact that they presided over a doubling of unemployment during their period in office?
  Mr. Dubs: I was referring to the precise figures and time periods that the hon. Gentleman had quoted. The only explanation for the increase in the total proportion of GDP spent on social security benefits is the unemployment created by the actions and policies of the Government.
  The hon. Gentleman bemoaned the economic climate as if that climate, like the weather, was something over which we had no control. He knows that the economic climate in this country over the last two-and-a-half years has to a large measure been the creation of his own Government. The increase in unemployment and the other difficulties through which we are passing are the direct consequence of policies that started on the day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his first Budget in the summer of 1979. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should not be allowed to forget that.
  Mr. Rossi: I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to get the whole matter out of perspective. One takes the point that he has made about the unacceptable level of unemployment in Britain, but social security payments represent only 6 per cent. of the total amount that the Government are paying out. He must not exaggerate the impact upon unemployment of the total social security outlay.
  Mr. Dubs: I take the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. Nevertheless, the increase in the number of unemployed has raised significantly the burden on the Exchequer because of the requirement to provide support for the unemployed, whether through unemployment benefit or supplementary benefit. School leavers do not receive unemployment benefit. All that they can get now is supplementary benefit. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman included that in the percentage figure that he just quoted to me.
  The fact is inescapable that what the Government have done, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer failed to make clear—or, rather, he obscured it totally—in his statement yesterday, is to increase the burdens on the weakest members of our society. That is the only way in which one can interpret what the Government announced yesterday.
  I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to obscure the matter in his statement because of the way in which it was couched. He said:
  "The House will know that the increase in the RPI to November 1981 will probably be some 2 per cent. higher than the 10 per cent. increase allowed for when calculating this year's uprating. For retirement pensions and other long-term benefits, the shortfall will be made good in the November 1982 uprating. We shall thus continue to fulfil our pledge to retirement pensioners that they will be fully protected against inflation. In the case of the short-term benefits, however, next year's increase will be equal to the expected increase in the retail price index during the next 12 months."—[Official Report, 2 December 1981; Vol. 14, c. 239.]
  In other words, there will be no protection or reimbursement for the shortfall that he announced.
  We are dealing with a 10 per cent. uprating that is 2 per cent. below the rate of inflation. The Government have not suggested that their failure to match the rate of inflation this year is due to their inability to make necessary adjustments to the mechanism by which benefits are paid. Therefore, it is inescapable that that is an attempt to reduce public spending at the expense of the unemployed and the pensioners.
  Of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in a year's time pensioners would catch up. That is quite true. Nevertheless, for the next 12 months the average pensioner will have lost the equivalent of one week's pension. I do not understand why the Government are imposing such a burden upon pensioners, who have borne many burdens during the past two and a half years. They have seen cuts in the support provided by local authority social services departments, fewer home helps, less transport for the elderly and a whole range of extra burdens thrown upon them, not the least of which is the increase in the television licence fee announced earlier this week.
  For other people there is no Government commitment to make good the difference. I remind the House that a year ago the Government said that they would reduce unemployment benefit by 5 per cent. in lieu of the tax that would then be imposed on the unemployed. The 2 per cent. shortfall about which we are talking today is on top of that 5 per cent. abatement. It was made clear at the time that some unemployed people would not be subject to income tax if the Government introduced the proposals. Therefore, the least well off unemployed have suffered the 5 per cent. reduction because of their income tax consideration, on top of which there is now a 2 per cent. shortfall.
  Since the Government were elected, the average family man on unemployment benefit is £13 a week worse off
  480
  than he would have been if the Government had not introduced their succession of measures, the most recent of which came from the Chancellor of the Exchequer today.
  I hope that the Minister who will reply to the debate will say something about child benefits, because I take fully to heart the points made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). It is disgraceful that the Government are using reductions in child benefit as a way of penalising families in poverty.
  There is the question of the death grant. It may not be a matter of great concern to those with years more to live, but to the elderly, in their declining years, it provides an increasing anxiety. They feel that they cannot die with dignity. It is a scandal that the death grant has not been increased to a level commensurate with the cost of a decent burial. The elderly are terrified that they will not have a decent burial because the death grant is inadequate.
  I submit that the Government have got matters wholly wrong. Statements by some Conservative Back Benchers imply that the Conservative Party is compassionate. That has been belied by the experience of the past two years and the speech of the Chancellor yesterday——
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Budgen.]
  Mr. Dubs: If the Government wish to be believed, they must give an undertaking that they will not attack the weak and the elderly in our society but will ensure that they are protected from the consequences of the economic difficulties that cannot be the responsibility of the very people that are made to suffer for them.
  10.2 pm
  Mr. Brynmor John: Yesterday was a sad day in the House for the hon. Members interested in social security matters. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) probably shares that sorrow. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement yesterday singled out for special sacrifice, in the continuous round of sacrifices, those least able to bear it and the last who should be called upon to do so.
  Let us examine the reasons why the measure was introduced. It was not because of some great social theory of redistribution. It was not because the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished to transfer money from one sector to another. It was introduced because of the consequences of the financial mismanagement of the economy of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been guilty, the need to get out of the disastrous slump into which he has brought Britain's industrial heritage, and was an attempt to prove that monetarism is not the disaster that everyone in Britain now knows it to be. The reason for the statement being made yesterday was based on and born out of failure.
  To whom do we refer when we talk about the 2 per cent. shortfall? It is right to remind ourselves, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, West did, that there are people who are not wholly obsessed with the minutiae of social security legislation but actually have to try to live on the fruits of social security benefits provided by the House.
  We are discussing an economic forecast in which the Government Actuary suggests that unemployment in 1982–83 will amount to more than 3,100,000, and will

  481
  probably be nearer 3,250,000. The outlook is not bright. The Actuary's forecast, excluding school leavers—which he believes to be a constant figure—budgets for a rise in the unemployed of 300,000. That can mean only that the numbers of long-term unemployed, as well as the short-term unemployed, must increase. The number unemployed for a long period will rise from the current 700,000 to 800,000, or possibly more, if the number of vacancies does not increase more quickly than it is increasing at present. That is the first category of about 800,000 people, plus their dependants. They all have to live on unemployment benefit. Over half of those unemployed are unemployed as a direct result of the Government's policies and therefore the situation is in many ways a consequence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measures.
  We have had the curious thought that beneficiaries, like Gaul, are divided into three. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said, we now have three classes of benefit. Short-term supplementary benefit pensioners will not recoup their 2 per cent. The long-term pensioners will recoup their 2 per cent., but long-term beneficiaries other than pensioners will not recoup their percentage. They are in receipt of supplementary allowances. According to the figures on 28 November 1979, they number 330,000. Therefore, we are now talking about more than I million people. That is not an inconsiderable number.
  I hope that the Minister will forgive me for saying as a friend and as an adviser that his speech was well below his usual standard and combined the minimum information with the maximum aggression. That is probably a byproduct of his Department's long struggles with the Treasury in which it did not completely win the protection it sought. The sum of £65 million involves 1 million people and their dependents. Therefore, we are talking about a considerable number of people.
  Only those who suffer from the Sproat-like fantasies of a few Conservative Back Benchers can possibly believe that those people are unemployed or in receipt of other benefits by choice. That is not a category of people that is growing week by week. People are not saying "That is enough for me. I can get a much better deal on the dole". I repeat that they are on the dole as a result of the Government's actions and the failure of the British economy. The Government bear a heavy responsibility. As has been said, it is not as if this is the only measure to single out the more disadvantaged in our society. We talk about the 5 per cent. and the phasing out of earnings-related benefits and all the other measures involved. This is not the only measure that I found objectionable in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement.
  As mention has been made of health, I am entitled to make a passing reference to it. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) spoke about hospitals and did well to confine his remarks to them. Yesterday we learnt that prescription charges will increase to £1·30 compared with the charge of 20p that was levied before the Conservative Party came to power. That is no great success story. Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very adept at hiding the increased ophthalmic charges. Many hon. Members do not realise that the charge for a lens has been raised from £8·30 to £15. That is the mark of the Government's tremendous success story in the Health Service.
  482
  I return to the question of the unemployed and the short-term and long-term supplementary benefit allowances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer underestimated the rate of inflation. We all know that he does that. He does it every year, and he gets it wrong every year—except for one year. I want to talk about that, because it illustrates a nice piece of logic which the Government apply. One year he got it wrong in the opposite direction. He estimated for 10 per cent. and it turned out to be 9 per cent., so he immediately clawed the 1 per cent. back. He did not say "I have got it wrong, so you can keep the difference". Instead he clawed it back. Yet when he gets it wrong in the opposite direction he does not say "I have got it wrong, so you can have the difference". He keeps the difference. If ever there was an example of "Heads I win, tails you lose" it is that doctrine.
  The Chancellor is extremely dishonest in the way he forecasts and in the way he stands by the results of those forecasts. Of course, some factors may blow the Government off course. They would blow any Government off course when it comes to inflation. However, these factors which have widened the gap between actual inflation and forecast inflation were pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the last Budget. There is nothing magical in that. We told him that he would get it wrong and, for once, he obliged.
  He assumes an inflation rate of 10 per cent. next year. Does anyone believe him? Certainly I do not. Will pensioners believe him, or the people who have suffered the shortfall this year? Or will they again be brought to the reality that any gap will be fudged so that they are the losers, and the weakest in our society are called on once again to bear the brunt.
  I want to say one thing on behalf of this side—well, the Labour Party. We are the party on this side of the House. I was technically correct. I wish that I had not corrected myself. After all, the other parties are singularly absent. Even if measures had to be taken to correct an economic imbalance, under no circumstances would I make the unemployed, or people in receipt of long-term supplementary allowances, or people in receipt of short-term social security payments the victims of the country's need to tighten its belt.
  I am asked where the money comes from. For the life of me, I cannot see what great benefit the economy has derived by lowering the upper rate of tax, which was almost the first thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in his first Budget. He said that it would be the magic stimulus to release all the hidden talents which had been kept down by years of Labour shackles. What has happened? Precisely nothing. I see nothing as a consequence of that measure. One should weigh up that non-stimulus with the necessity to tell the unemployed that the 2 per cent. greater inflation which they have suffered is on their own heads. It is a gross misuse of funds to continue that concession while failing to reimburse the unemployed.
  There is a danger that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I choose my words carefully, because I do not believe that it was deliberate—concealed some of the truth yesterday when he said:
  "For retirement pensions and other long-term benefits, the shortfall will be made good".—[Official Report, 2 December 1981; Vol. 14, c. 239.]

  483
  I hope that the hon. Lady will confirm that what we have said is correct—that long-term supplementary allowances are not to be made good. There will be a shortfall, so to that extent the Chancellor of the Exchequer misled the House yesterday.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Again.
  Mr. John: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a habit of doing that by accident, as if he trips over the front step every time he tries to go through his front door.
  Great play was made on the alignment of benefits. Can one now say, with three rates of benefit, that they are any longer aligned? If so, may I ask the Minister a question once again? She seemed confident and relaxed before, but I do not believe that it is as simple as that. Will the changes in rates and the disalignment need legislation to put them right? I believe that there might have to be a Bill. If so, the Government had better tell us quickly. The Minister had better stop pretending that there has been a great simplification of social security under his Government, when he has just created three rates that were not there before.
  I come to my final point because I must give the Minister a chance to reply to the many points that have been made. Although the two Government spokesmen will have spoken in the debate, it is important to the many hon. Members who have raised points that they should have an opportunity to reply. I reiterate to the Minister that we do not believe that in singling out the categories of person that the Chancellor singled out yesterday he was according with the wishes either of the majority of the House of Commons or of the majority of the nation.
  The hon. Member for Woolwich, West said that he would prefer to try beating the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the head with a soft pillow for the next four months, to persuade him of the correctness of his view. Even the hon. Gentleman will admit that there are many Members sitting on the Conservative Back Benches who are deeply apprehensive. Otherwise, why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer have such a rapturous reception from his Back Benchers at the meeting in the House of Commons last night? There is no majority in the House of Commons, and certainly no majority in the country, for his measures. The country does not take to a Government who single out the weakest in our society or the unfortunate for the harshest treatment.
  Unless the Government remind themselves that their duty, as the many statements seem to suggest, is to protect the weakest in our society, that will devalue not only their words before the election—God knows those words were devalued quickly anyway—but all the assurances given by Ministers in the House. Despite everything that is said about the parliamentary process, I still believe that Ministers' words given in the House of Commons should mean something. If they do, it is time that this Administration lived up to them.
  10.17 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I shall do my best in the short time available, if I am permitted by the House to do so, to wind up the debate and answer as many as possible of the questions that have been posed.
  484
  I congratulate the hon. member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) on initiating a Supply day debate. I say that because that is much more like what we have had today. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) had better look to his laurels, because he has trotted off on a Thursday evening.
  The debate has been wide. The speech of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security was a clear exposition of the detail that could not be included, for obvious reasons, in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. There is an additional £2·5 billion in 1982–83 on top of the large sums that we now spend. It behoves us all in the House, whatever party we represent and whatever the make-up of our constituencies, to realise the vast rate of increase in our benefit expenditure, which is largely spent on the retired and the handicapped. It is necessary expenditure with which we all agree.
  One thing that worries me considerably is the total lack of appreciation—sometimes within the House, but certainly outside—of the level of spending on pensioners, which we do not regret for a moment but which must be financed for years ahead. At a time like this, it behoves us to realise that 43 per cent. of the spend is for retirement pensioners. A further 8 per cent. or more goes to the handicapped, who are covered by special national insurance benefits. Further amounts can be added for supplementary benefits paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
  The vast majority of social security spending goes to elderly people and people who are very much in need. I therefore appreciate what has been said by a number of hon. Members.
  The thing that does not seem to have got home to hon. Members is that 60 per cent. of all benefit expenditure is covered by the Government's guarantee to make good the shortfall, be it 1·8 per cent., 1·9 per cent., or 2 per cent. We have had to look at where we could make a contribution to what was being demanded of all Government Departments by the Treasury.
  The shortfall announced by the Chancellor will total £65 million in 1982–83. We should remind ourselves of exactly what that is compared with the cuts made by the Labour Government in 1976. The £500 million then saved by switching the method of uprating from the historical method used on the two previous occasions to the forecasting method that has been subsequently used would, at today's prices, be making a cut of £925 million in social security expenditure.
  The shortfall that is not being made good, which is the only saving that the Treasury is taking from the DHSS on this occasion, is £65 million in 1982–83. It is high time that everybody got those figures clearly in their heads once and for all. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) for pointing those figures out. He told me that he had to leave to return to a previous engagement.
  There have been a number of other comments about what has gone on previously. Pensions have gone up by more than the increase in prices under both the previous and present Administrations. Even if we allow for a November 1980 to November 1981 inflation rate of 12 per cent., the pension increase now is ahead of the price increase for the same period. We seem to forget those basic facts. That is why I have taken a few moments to repeat them so that no one is in any doubt.

  485
  I was asked to repeat the list given by my hon. Friend in his earlier remarks of the benefits that are covered by the Chancellor's pledge——
  Mr. John: Are not covered.
  Mrs. Chalker: I was also asked to list those that are covered. Perhaps I can deal with them all. I was asked to list those benefits that are covered by the Chancellor's pledge to make good the 2 per cent. shortfall, if it be as much as that. I do so particularly in view of the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey and the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) on widows' allowance.
  Those benefits where the shortfall will be made good are retirement pension—both national insurance and noncontributory; widows' pension, including widowed mothers' allowance and widows' allowance; industrial death benefit paid as widows' or widowers' pension; war disablement pension; war widows' pension; industrial disablement pension; attendance allowance; invalid care allowance; invalidity benefit; non-contributory invalidity benefit; unemployability supplement; and supplementary pension.
  For the sake of the record, I shall go further and list the other benefits that are not pledged by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, injury benefit, maternity allowance, child benefit —including one-parent benefit—family income supplement, mobility allowance and supplementary allowance. That is the complete list. I hope that now that we have those benefits on the record there will be no confusion.
  The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) made many comments, one of which concerned the take-up of benefit. He spoke in elaborate terms about Strathclyde, as though its wide-targeted campaign of last year had continued. Most hon. Members who follow these matters with care will know that the only reason for being critical of the so-called take-up campaign that Strathclyde initially ran was that it raised false expectations. The way in which it was carried out created chaos. It produced 340 people with some entitlement to regular weekly benefit, and it occurred just before the change from the old system to the new. It also did something that was cruel to many people. It raised expectations unfairly.
  I am delighted to say that with that bad experience behind us we have moved on a long way. In my meetings with the social work chairmen of Strathclyde and others in Scotland, we have reached a modus vivendi whereby we consult and make sure that it is a closely targeted campaign in which the local office of the DHSS can respond to inquiries. That is the way to improve take-up, not to go on a wild goose chase that cruelly gives expectations to
  486
  those who should not have them. Other authorities in the country that are working with local offices are doing a better job than ever.
  I was asked about the three rates of supplementary benefit—the two rates of supplementary allowance, and the supplementary pension. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) on alignment. I am further advised that we do not require primary legislation because the details of rates and entitlements are worked out through the regulations. My hon Friend the Minister and I have taken careful note of the remarks that have been made about the three rates, and we shall look further into the shortfall on the long-term supplementary allowance.
  I come now to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ashfield on the mobility allowance. Twice during the debate he made some scurrilous accusations. I should like to put him right. If there has been a withdrawal of mobility allowance, it can only be on medical grounds, and anyone from whom that allowance was withdrawn has the right of appeal. If the hon. Gentlman did not advise his constituents to appeal in that circumstance, I am sorry. It is clearly laid down——
  Mr. Haynes: More now than ever.
  Mrs. Chalker: If the hon. Gentleman's local offices are not following up matters with care—I shall read the record of what he said with diligence—I shall have something to say about it. I hope that it is clear that a person from whom an allowance is removed has the right to appeal.
  Many hon. Members mentioned child benefit. No one underestimates the importance of that benefit. I shall bring those remarks to the notice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Even for those who will be new recipients of child benefit in 1982, there are special provisions to allow them to receive the benefit weekly if necessary.
  Many questions were raised on health. I remind the House that there are now 9,000 more nurses and midwives, more than 1,000 extra doctors and more than 1,000 extra paramedical staff than in May 1979. That is one of the main reasons why we have been able to reduce the waiting lists. I remind the House that we are continuing the previous provision for expansion of the hospital and community health services. We intend to allow the resources to expand at the previously planned rates. The pressures of economic restraints are not——
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

TRADE
  Credit Cards
  Credit Cards
  Water Fittings (Imports)
  Water Fittings (Imports)
  Vehicle Light Bulbs (Imports)
  Vehicle Light Bulbs (Imports)
  Antique Dealers (Buyer's Premium)
  Antique Dealers (Buyer's Premium)
  Feature Film Production (Financial Support)
  Feature Film Production (Financial Support)
  Oil Purse Device
  Oil Purse Device
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Airports (Capital Projects)
  Airports (Capital Projects)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976
  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Carfax Radio Information Service
  Carfax Radio Information Service
  London Taxis
  London Taxis
  "Civil Defence—Why We Need It"
  "Civil Defence—Why We Need It"
  Sentencing Policy
  Sentencing Policy
  Cable Television
  Cable Television
  Murderers (Release from Prison)
  Murderers (Release from Prison)
PRIME MINISTER
  Mr. Edward Scott
  Mr. Edward Scott
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Enfield
  Enfield
  Tobacco Industry (Sales Promotion)
  Tobacco Industry (Sales Promotion)
  President of the United States (Speech)
  President of the United States (Speech)
  Maesteg
  Maesteg
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  El Salvador (Loan)
  El Salvador (Loan)
EMPLOYMENT
  European Community
  European Community
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Small Firms Employment Subsidy
  Small Firms Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Industrial Training Boards
  Industrial Training Boards
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
  Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
INDUSTRY
  European Community Joint Research Centre
  European Community Joint Research Centre
  Steel Industry (Rationalisation)
  Steel Industry (Rationalisation)
  Nationalised Companies
  Nationalised Companies
CIVIL SERVICE
  Occupational Sick Pay Scheme
  Occupational Sick Pay Scheme
ENVIRONMENT
  Sex Shops
  Sex Shops
  Windmills
  Windmills
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Casino Directors (Prosecutions)
  Casino Directors (Prosecutions)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax and Price Index
  Tax and Price Index
  Unitary Tax
  Unitary Tax
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Unemployed Persons (Cost)
  Unemployed Persons (Cost)
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Victoria and Albert Museum (Purchase Fund)
  Victoria and Albert Museum (Purchase Fund)
  European Community (United Kingdom Contribution)
  European Community (United Kingdom Contribution)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mrs. Jathiben Patel
  Mrs. Jathiben Patel
  Diego Garcia
  Diego Garcia
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Western Sahara
  Western Sahara
TRANSPORT
  Epileptics (Driving Licences)
  Epileptics (Driving Licences)
  British Rail (Public Service Obligation)
  British Rail (Public Service Obligation)
  Heavy Lorries (Greater London)
  Heavy Lorries (Greater London)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Londonderry
  Londonderry
  London-Belfast Ferry Route
  London-Belfast Ferry Route
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Security
  Security
  Secondary Education (Belfast)
  Secondary Education (Belfast)
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
  Educational Expenditure (Belfast)
  Educational Expenditure (Belfast)
  Primary Schools (Belfast)
  Primary Schools (Belfast)
  Republic of Ireland
  Republic of Ireland
  De Lorean Car Co. Ltd.
  De Lorean Car Co. Ltd.
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
WALES
  Children (Recreation and Needs)
  Children (Recreation and Needs)
  Microelectronics (Training)
  Microelectronics (Training)
  Live Births
  Live Births
SCOTLAND
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980
  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980
ENERGY
  Pensoners (Fuel Costs)
  Pensoners (Fuel Costs)
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  Industrial Output
  Industrial Output
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Fort Dunlop (Heat and Power Station)
  Fort Dunlop (Heat and Power Station)
  Electricity Demand
  Electricity Demand
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Live Animals (Exports)
  Live Animals (Exports)
  Foodstuffs
  Foodstuffs
  New Zealand Butter
  New Zealand Butter
  New Zealand Dairy Products
  New Zealand Dairy Products
  Bees (Oil Seed Rape)
  Bees (Oil Seed Rape)
  Fishing and Marine Dredging
  Fishing and Marine Dredging
DEFENCE
  Arms-related and Nuclear Research (Staff)
  Arms-related and Nuclear Research (Staff)
  Holy Loch (Nuclear Safety)
  Holy Loch (Nuclear Safety)
  Maputo
  Maputo
  Children (Recreational Needs)
  Children (Recreational Needs)
  Trident
  Trident
  Anti-tank Devices
  Anti-tank Devices
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Emergency Obstetric Teams
  Emergency Obstetric Teams
  Children (Recreational Needs)
  Children (Recreational Needs)
  Appeals (Costs)
  Appeals (Costs)
  Therapeutic Earnings Limit
  Therapeutic Earnings Limit
  Defence Planning Appointments
  Defence Planning Appointments
  Allowances and Benefits (Recipients)
  Allowances and Benefits (Recipients)
  Unclaimed Benefits
  Unclaimed Benefits
  Milk Substitutes
  Milk Substitutes
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Sickness and Invalidity Benefits
  Sickness and Invalidity Benefits
  Resettlement Units
  Resettlement Units
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Leeds Castle Seminar (Disablement)
  Leeds Castle Seminar (Disablement)
  Supplementary Benefit (Fraudulent Claims)
  Supplementary Benefit (Fraudulent Claims)
  Benefits (Value)
  Benefits (Value)
  Private Pharmaceutical Retailing
  Private Pharmaceutical Retailing
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Westminster Bone Marrow Team (Funding)
  Westminster Bone Marrow Team (Funding)
  Employers' Sick Pay Schemes
  Employers' Sick Pay Schemes
  Benefits (Earnings-related Supplements)
  Benefits (Earnings-related Supplements)
  Retirement Pensions (Credits)
  Retirement Pensions (Credits)
  Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980
  Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980
  Residential Care Homes (Waking Hours)
  Residential Care Homes (Waking Hours)
  National Health Service (Budget)
  National Health Service (Budget)
  Departmental Headquarters (Staff)
  Departmental Headquarters (Staff)
  Unemployed Persons (Benefits Entitlement)
  Unemployed Persons (Benefits Entitlement)
  Tobacco Advertisements (Health Warnings)
  Tobacco Advertisements (Health Warnings)
  Unemployed Persons (Costs)
  Unemployed Persons (Costs)
  Black Report
  Black Report
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Costs
  Student Costs
  School Governors
  School Governors
  Higher Education (Costs)
  Higher Education (Costs)
  Student Awards
  Student Awards
  Inner London Education Authority
  Inner London Education Authority
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Single Parents (Benefits)
  Single Parents (Benefits)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Norwich): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Viscount Buckmaster—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Prisoners of War: Pay Deductions
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of fresh evidence disclosing mistakes of fact and erroneous assumptions in the Working Group's Report (31st October 1980) over the allegations made by prisoners of war that monies deducted from their pay were wrongly handed over to the Treasury, they are now prepared to open an independent inquiry to reconsider the representations of the ex-prisoners.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords. I do not believe that any further inquiry would be useful. The noble Earl and his unofficial committee saw my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, Mr. Geoffrey Pattie, on 12th May 1981 and were informed that the Government did not believe that there was any fresh evidence which justified changing any of the conclusions of the inquiry carried out by my honourable friend and tabled in this House on 31st October 1980.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for a reply which some of the unofficial committee will regard as being very unsatisfactory? In view of the fact that an inquiry will not take place, may I ask him whether he would mind my putting down an Unstarred Question after the Christmas Recess?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, it is not for me to mind or not mind what my noble friend does and arranges with the business managers. I should only like to add that there is no lack of sympathy for ex-prisoners of war, particularly those who may be suffering from ill-health or conditions that may have developed from that; and that my predecessors at the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere have examined all these questions with the greatest sympathy. If my noble friend still wishes to pursue it, that is his decision not mine.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that there is still a substantial amount of misgiving in the country at large about the treatment of these ex-prisoners of war? Does he not think it wise in all the circumstances to open up the inquiry to a far greater degree than was possible in the past?
1122
If there is a substantial suggestion of injustice, does the noble Viscount agree that it would be wise to allay that as quickly as possible?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I do not think a completely definitive answer in the case of every ex-prisoner of war as to the exact justice of the situation 36 years ago is possible. I think all the evidence that exists—contemporary evidence—and all the memories that have been put together have been heard and examined. It was for that reason that I said I could not see how a further inquiry could indeed do what the noble Lord wishes it to do—allay anxiety as to whether there may or may not have been individual cases of injustice 36 years ago.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, would not the noble Viscount agree that, now that the noble Earl has announced that he proposes to put down on the Order Paper an Unstarred Question, and presumably will produce new evidence not yet available to this or the other House, it would be far better not to press the matter further until we have the new evidence?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the fresh evidence to which my noble friend is referring is evidence which he and his unofficial committee submitted to us at the end of 1980 which led finally to the meeting in May 1981. So that has been examined, but I am in the hands of the House, the noble Earl and the business managers. I understand the feeling on the subject; I merely say, as the Minister who has come to this matter most recently, and having read the detail of the background, that I do not think there is any further way forward.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware what actually took place for the people concerned? If I may declare an interest, I was a prisoner for a year. After I escaped, I had 15 months behind the lines before I was able to get back home. When I went to Cox and Kings, who were the agents, as the noble Earl will know, I had to accept what they said I was due to, and there was no evidence given us as to what we should receive. They just said: "Right, you were away for so long. You are paid as a major". So much was deducted—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: How were we to know whether this was correct or not? Can the noble Viscount do something to put our minds at rest and assure us that we were fairly treated?
Noble Lords: Question!
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I can only suggest that the noble Lord reads the report of my honourable friend which was tabled on 31st October which goes into all of those questions, and, so far as is possible, gives the answers.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Kimberley will forgive a question contrary to the tenor of his Question, may I ask my noble friend

1123
the Minister this: Assuming that there have been maladministrations in the past, is he aware that among those of us erstwhile uninvited guests of the Third German Reich there is a very substantial body of opinion which holds the view that it is wholly inappropriate today, in view of the delay of some 35 years, the difficulties attendant upon that delay of due administration and inquiry, and the stringency of the economic situation today, that any consideration should be given to repayment of these claims other than in cases of proven hardship and current need?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that statement of opinion. The economic circumstances have not entered into the Government's decision on this question. I do not think that I can add to my further replies in any other way.
Lord Braye: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell us whether all the Japanese ex-prisoners of war have been paid yet?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am not aware of the detailed answer to that question. I will let the noble Lord know.

Namibia: Independence Discussions
3.10 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions have been reached in the discussions on the future independence of Namibia (South West Africa).
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Carrington): My Lords, the five are still discussing their suggestions for constitutional principles as guidelines for the Constituent Assembly with all those concerned. As soon as there is agreement on these, the five will move on to the second phase of confidence-building measures.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while welcoming the hope of independence for Namibia after this long delay, may I ask whether the Minister would not agree that it is unprecedented for the principles of a constitution to be imposed before a self-governing legislature has been elected? Would he not also agree that the purpose is, first, to obtain the security of South Africa, and secondly, through the compensation clauses to safeguard the interests of mineral companies which have been drawing vast profits to the detriment of the Namibian Government economy under an illegal régime?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstands the situation. Nobody is seeking to impose anything on anybody. What the contact group are seeking to do is to get agreement among all the parties concerned on constitutional principles, which will reassure those concerned.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, could the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether he has any evidence and, if so, what evidence, that the South African Government are following any different policy from that which resulted in the breakdown of the Geneva talks at the beginning of this year, particularly in view of the fact that they are constantly invading both Mozambique and Angola?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, the contact group, and in particular the United States Government, have been in touch with the Government of South Africa over a period of time and all five of us are hopeful that there will be a settlement.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it is a little ironical that the South African Government should be supporting principles for the constitution which are aimed at maintaining human rights?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, if all Governments support good principles, that is all to the good.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, since this is rather a complex matter, may I ask a purely factual question of the Foreign Secretary? Can we broadly assume that the five nations, the front-line states and even SWAPO are broadly in accord with those proposals?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, the front-line states and SWAPO have commented upon the contact group's proposals and have made one or two comments and suggestions upon them; but, broadly speaking, I do not know whether there would be very much difficulty. The South African Government and the Namibian internal parties have not yet replied.

Consumers and the Nationalised Industries
3.13 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 it is their intention to make a statement on the report dealing with the position of consumers and the nationalised industries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we intend to publish a consultative document before Christmas on the options for NICC reform.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am so taken aback by a positive reply that I hardly know what to say? May I, rather unusually perhaps, ask him whether he is aware that I am grateful for the affirmative Answer he has managed to get from the obscurity of the department concerned, but this has taken up to date 14 months? Can he give us the exact date when we shall have the document?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness the precise date for which she asks, but I am happy that she is content with the Answer that I have given, in general terms. I did contemplate teasing the noble Baroness by dragging out my Answer a bit before including the nugget at the end, but I think perhaps I was wise not to do that.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether the proposed management audit of the nationalised industries to be undertaken by the Monopolies and Mergers Committee will include some reference to the rights and protection of consumers within the management of these industries?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the report which the noble Baroness has inquired about in her Question relates to the role of consumer councils in respect of the nationalised industries, and therefore does not cover all the wide-ranging matters to which the noble Lord refers.

NORWICH COUNCIL HOUSE SALES
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Bellwin, with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the right to buy: Norwich.

The Christmas Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that, subject to the progress of Business, the House will adjourn for the Christmas Recess on Tuesday, 22nd December, and return on Monday, 18th January.
I should perhaps also tell the House that the sitting on Tuesday, 22nd December, will be for the purpose of Royal Assent and the House will sit at 11 a.m. in the morning.
It has been agreed that the House should also sit at 11 a.m. on the morning of Thursday, 17th December, and there will he no sitting on Friday the 18th or Monday the 21st December.

Antiquities Bill [H.L.]
Lord Abinger: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the better protection of small antiquities found in the ground and elsewhere; to amend treasure trove; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Abinger.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

Wages Councils (Abolition) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Spens: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to abolish Wages Councils. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Spens.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill [H.L.]
3.17 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I rather feel that it should be accompanied by a Government health warning. There is nothing whatever that I can do to make my speech short, and those who expect to find it of throbbing human interest will, I fear, be wholly disappointed. The road lies uphill all the way. It is a technical Bill. Its principal object is to give effect to the Brussels Convention of 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil disputes (together with the 1971 protocol on its interpretation by the European Court), as amended by the convention of the 9th October 1978 on the accession to the Community of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom. This is a treaty obligation which we undertook as a condition of our membership of the Community.
Why then do we simply not treat it like other ratification Bills, and pass it, as it were, on the nod, without amendment and almost without discussion?—principally because it involves a detailed alteration of our internal law and parallel alterations in the law affecting relations between ourselves and other countries with whom we are in contractual relationship, and because our own law is in need of improvement, and this Bill is an appropriate, indeed a necessary, vehicle for the changes proposed. I hope to persuade the House that this is not merely a necessary but a desirable measure, and an important step forward in the reform of our civil code.
I begin with some purely negative propositions. The Bill does not deal, in any way, with criminal law, nor does it deal with divorce or custody, bankruptcy or the winding up of insolvent companies, except that it contains provisions relating to maintenance orders and their enforcement. Its ambit is confined to civil litigation. I hope to make it as plain as it possibly can be made, and I believe that it has no party political flavour whatever.
The Bill will determine who may be sued in our civil courts and, particularly, in what circumstances a person who does not reside in the area of the court may, nevertheless, be sued in it. With the exceptions I have mentioned, it will apply to almost all proceedings brought in the High Court or the county courts in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, and the Court of Session or the sheriff courts in Scotland. At present, these courts, particularly those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—the position in Scotland is somewhat different—will normally assume jurisdiction over anyone on whom their writ or summons may lawfully be served. The difference, if the Bill passes, will be that the jurisdiction of our courts will depend on whether the defendant or the issue involved falls within a class of persons or subject matters laid down in it. In others words, jursidiction will no longer follow automatically from lawful service of process, but will be determined by a series of statutory rules.

1127
The general principles are reasonably straightforward, but I shall have to explain some very technical provisions of practice and procedure. In preparing the contents of the Bill, the Government have benefited from the advice of a working party under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Kerr on many of the questions which are dealt with, and I should like to thank him and his colleagues for their help. In addition, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has also received a comprehensive report on the position in Scotland by a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Maxwell. This was published last year under the title Report of the Scottish Committee on Jurisdiction and Enforcement. I should like to add my own thanks to those of my noble and learned friend to Lord Maxwell and his colleagues.
Our main object is to enable the United Kingdom to give effect to the convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments concluded in 1968 between the original six members of the Community. In addition to a previous protocol, in 1978 this was amended by a further convention providing for the accession of the new members I have mentioned. The accession convention, as I shall call it, was signed on behalf of this country by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, then, of course, the Lord Chancellor. Part I of the Bill, which adopts the amended convention, contains the main provision under this head.
The object of the conventions, taken as a whole, is to make judgments given anywhere within the Community fully effective for their enforcement. This will represent a very valuable step forward. Respect for law in a society depends to no small extent on the existence of effective means of enforcement. While this is particularly so in the sphere of criminal law, it does also apply to civil law. If parties can evade their obligations as contained in the judgments of the courts, the usefulness of the whole process is greatly diminished. So the purpose of the 1968 convention, and of this Bill, is to eliminate one major area of evasion; namely, the removal of a judgment debtor's assets to a country where the judgment does not run with effect.
The problem is not a new one. As long ago as 1801, the Crown Debts Act set up the first scheme for reciprocal enforcement inside the United Kingdom, which is composed of three totally separate jurisdictions, and the system inaugurated by that Act was enlarged and improved throughout the course of the 19th century. In this century, provisions for the same purpose were introduced in Part II of the Administration of Justice Act 1920, concerning the enforcement of judgments in the different parts of His then Majesty's dominions, and in 1933 the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 introduced provisions of the same kind for enforcement arrangements with foreign countries. Under the 1933 Act, arrangements have been made with all the six original Community members, except Luxembourg.
What is new about the 1968 convention is that the enforcement of a judgment delivered in another country is made, as nearly as possible, automatic. Hitherto, a condition has always been placed on the party desiring to enforce a judgment to demonstrate
1128
that the court which gave the judgment had assumed jurisdiction on a proper basis. The courts of the country where enforcement is requested have had a duty to refuse enforcement, unless the original court assumed jurisdiction on one of a number of recognised grounds. In the 1933 Act, which is, perhaps, the most important, the main grounds were either submission by the defendant to the jurisdiction in question in the original proceedings, or the residence of the defendant in the country where they were brought.
These grounds represent a lowest common denominator. With minor variations, they are applied virtually to all countries. But in most, including the United Kingdom, the courts also assume jurisdiction on additional grounds. In England, these additional grounds are set out in Order 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. They include, for example, cases where a defendant is sued for breach of a contract allegedly broken in England and Wales, or for a tort allegedly committed in England and Wales. In such cases, a judgment obtained here would probably not be enforceable elsewhere. In these cases, such judgments are known in the jargon of the trade as "limping" judgments. To some extent, the problem could be met by enlarging the grounds of jurisdiction which qualify for recognition. But whichever way these are defined, they still entail proof of the basis on which the original court assumed jurisdiction and provide plenty of room for endless dispute.
The novelty of the 1968 convention is that it regulates directly the grounds on which the courts of adherent countries may assume jurisdiction and then goes on to provide that all such judgments are enforceable. The grounds are spelt out in Title II of the convention—I think at page 36 and following of the the Bill—and in cases to which that title applies the court before which proceedings are brought may assume jurisdiction on those grounds, and on those grounds alone. Since the courts are required to entertain only proper cases, generally speaking, there is thus no need for re-examination at the stage of enforcement and, subject only to a few exceptions, this is accordingly dispensed with.
This approach has a second and most important additional advantage. It reduces the scope for what is called "forum shopping". In other words, a would-be plaintiff is less likely to be able to shop around for the court whose law and procedure is most favourable to his own particular case. Consequently, defendants will be less open to proceedings in other Community countries with which neither they nor the dispute have any real connection.
The grounds of jurisdiction listed in Title II are very much wider than the grounds which are recognised in our previous reciprocal arrangements, and they go far beyond the lowest common denominator which I have described. They reformulate the most important basis of jurisdiction to be applied in member states. The main ground is that the defendant should be domiciled—and I use the word—in the member state where the proceedings are brought. But the word "domicile" has in this Bill and in the convention a meaning which differs from its ordinary significance to English lawyers. Broadly speaking, it means continuously residing. I will return to this point later. But there are also a number of other grounds given,

1129
including one upon which I have just touched; namely submission by the parties to the jurisdiction of a particular national court.
Settling the list has, of course, involved some give and take on all sides, but it has been found possible to retain most of the jurisdictions exercised in each country. Although we have largely had to accept what the six had settled before we joined the Community, our existing jurisdictions are mostly preserved without major change. To avoid differences of interpretation, in 1971 a protocol was signed—it is at page 61 of the Bill—under which national courts of appeal may seek preliminary rulings from Luxembourg on any point of interpretation.
I hope that this brief introduction has been sufficient to explain why the original six member states regarded the 1968 convention as being of such importance that in Article 63, to be found on page 58 of the Bill, they agreed that any state joining the Community will be required to accept the convention as a basis for negotiations on this subject, and why in the treaty providing for the accession of the new members, each state undertook, including ourselves, subject to necessary adjustment, to accede to the 1968 convention and to the protocol on interpretion. It will also explain why the adjustments which have been necessary to take account of the interests of the three new members have taken a good deal of time to negotiate. Negotiations had started as early as 1972 and continued until 1978. In 1977, a draft convention containing the adjustments—called in the Bill the accession convention—was laid before Parliament. The Select Committee of this House on European Legislation made a valuable report upon it, including certain recommendations for further changes. These were subsequently given effect. The revised convention was signed on 9th October 1978 by representatives of all nine contracting states, including the United Kingdom.
Before the accession convention can come into force for any new member it must be ratified by all the original six and by the new member concerned. Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have already deposited their instruments of ratification and I understand that progress in other states is well advanced. This Bill will give the provisions of the conventions the force of law in this country, so that we too shall be in a position to ratify.
The convention itself does not deal with every question of jurisdiction and enforcement. For the most part it is concerned with allocating jurisdiction between courts of different contracting states and with the enforcement of judgments between them. It does not, for instance, apply to proceedings as between the different parts of the United Kingdom. Where a defendant is domiciled in the United Kingdom, it will be for the law of the United Kingdom, as amended, to determine whether he should be sued in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. It would of course be possible in such proceedings to leave in force the existing rules of each part of the United Kingdom which govern these matters at present. But this would complicate matters unnecessarily. It would mean for example that proceedings could be brought in England against a Scottish defendant by service of process under Order 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, whereas against a French defendant they would have to be
1130
brought under the convention. To maintain different sets of rules in these circumstances would thus unnecessarily complicate procedures. Part II of the Bill therefore unifies the rules allocating jurisdiction between the courts of the three jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. The new rules are based on those in the convention, but there are some modifications which take account of the difference in the conditions of litigation within the various parts of our country. After all, it would be easier to ask the English plaintiff in the example I have just given to bring his action in the Scottish rather than in the French courts. So the new rules introduced by Part II are in some ways more flexible than those of the convention. They are set out in Schedule 4.
Part II does not affect the functions attributed to particular courts in each part of the United Kingdom. Laws which determine which proceedings are to be brought in the High Court and which in the county court, or in which particular county court, are not affected by the Bill. Furthermore, neither Part I which concerns the Community nor Part II which, as I have said, covers proceedings within the United Kingdom, affect proceedings against a defendant domiciled outside the Community. In accordance with the advice we have received from our English consultations, to which I have referred earlier, we do not propose to make any major changes in England for such proceedings. The Scots, however, view this aspect differently. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will probably wish to give a little more detail about the Scottish approach to these matters later, but in a nutshell the present rules governing jurisdiction in Scotland are already sufficiently close to the convention to make it possible with some modifications to give the convention rules general effect. Part III is confined to Scotland and therefore introduces a new code of jurisdiction for the Scottish courts governing most civil proceedings. This is set out in Section 19 and Schedule 7 on page 80. In England and Northern Ireland the same approach has not been adopted. Although in substance the effect of the convention rules will not be very different from the present ones, they are presented in a different form and the balance of advantage lies in retaining the system to which practitioners are used and which has been worked out by our courts in some detail. So in England and Northern Ireland the present rules will in general be retained, both for cases arising wholly within the jurisdiction and also for cases where a non-Community defendant is concerned. In these cases, Order 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court will still apply.
So far I have been talking mainly about jurisdiction. Now I come to enforcement. Broadly speaking, any civil judgment given by a court in proceedings to which the convention applies is to be recognised and enforced in all the other contracting states. It does not matter who is the defendant. A judgment obtained here against a defendant who happens to be domiciled outside the Community to which the jurisdictional rules do not apply is none the less to be enforced within the Community. But the convention only provides for reciprocal enforcement in another contracting state. It does not govern enforcement of judgments obtained within the same contracting state

1131
and does not regulate the enforcement of judgments obtained in countries outside the Community. In respect of judgments internal to the United Kingdom we have again a choice between having different systems for Community judgments and for others or assimilating the totality.
The Bill proceeds on the assumption that the machinery for enforcing judgments as between different parts of the United Kingdom should certainly not be less effective and, where possible, should be more effective than the machinery for the enforcement of judgments given in another contracting state. As I mentioned earlier, there are a number of statutory provisions developed during the course of the last century which already contain procedures for this, and in some respects these are still superior even to the convention rules. Within a single state, of course, this is not really very surprising. But other aspects of the present procedures have become rather outdated and Part II replaces them with the new machinery. One of the changes made is that while formerly the provisions only applied to judgments for the payment of a sum of money, it will not be possible to obtain the enforcement of judgments providing other forms of relief. The new procedures for money judgments are set out in Schedule 5—page 74 of the Bill—and those for non-money judgments are set out in Schedule 6, page 77 of the Bill, both stemming from Section 17. The Bill is not concerned, however, with methods of enforcement within the same part of the United Kingdom. As I said a moment ago, the convention does not affect judgments given in countries outside the Community. We do not propose to make any comprehensive changes in the law governing this but a few badly needed improvements are being introduced, including some amendments to the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933.
May I now summarise some of the most important provisions which I have been describing. Part I makes provision to bring the conventions into effect. The main provision is Clause 2, by which the conventions are given the force of law throughout the United Kingdom. Following this there are a number of ancillary provisions. Clause 3 concerns the interpretation of the conventions. Noble Lords will see a rather remarkable reference to reports by Monsieur Jenard and Professor Schlosser. This is a most unusual provision in English law. But reports of this nature are now a common feature of international treaties. The only analogy which I can think of offhand in English law is the Highway Code and codes of that nature. The negotiating committee for international treaties often appoints one of its number or an outside expert, who is called a rapporteur, to write an explanatory commentary. The report is not formally agreed by the participating states but can be taken to be authoritative for most purposes. So here, M. Jenard wrote the reports on the 1968 convention and the interpretation protocol, while Professor Schlosser wrote the one on the accession convention. Clause 3(3) makes these admissible in legal proceedings in this country, though not binding. Clauses 4 to 8 contain provisions detailing the effect to he given in this country to judgments from other contracting states. In large measure they follow the 1933 Act and, so far as
1132
maintenance is concerned, the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972.
Clauses 9 to 15 contain various other ancillary provisions. Clause 9 concerns the relationship between the 1968 convention and other conventions containing provisions for jurisdiction or the recognition and enforcement of judgments—and there are a growing number of these. The main ones are listed at the very end of Professor Schlosser's report. Some are exclusively concerned with jurisdiction or the enforcement of judgments. For example, the 1952 Brussels Convention on the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships lays down detailed rules governing the cases in which jurisdiction may be assumed by an action in rem against a ship. Others create a more comprehensive régime governing substantive liability as well. For example, the 1960 Paris convention on third party liability in the field of nuclear energy creates a special régime in that field. By Article 57 of the 1968 convention which can be found on page 56 of the Bill, the provisions of these conventions on jurisdiction and enforcement override its own provisions. The United Kingdom is a party to a number of them, including the two which I have mentioned. The legislation by which they are implemented in this country usually contains a number of ancillary provisions. Clause 9(1) preserves their effect.
Part II deals with jurisdiction and enforcement within the United Kingdom. Clause 16 introduces Schedule 4, which provides the uniform rules allocating civil jurisdiction inside the United Kingdom. That schedule is a modified version of Title II of the convention, and the modifications are clearly indicated in print. The most significant modification is the omission of Section 3, dealing with jurisdiction in insurance matters. Section 3 contains a number of special rules for the protection of insurance policyholders. In the convention context, no doubt these are of value but, within the United Kingdom, the degree of protection achieved is not sufficient to warrant their retention. Section 8, which deals with conflicts of jurisdiction, is also omitted. This is based on the principle that, where proceedings concerning the same matter are brought in the courts of two or more contracting states under the convention those brought first have precedence and other proceedings should automatically be stayed. As a rule of thumb, this mechanism appears satisfactory, but within the United Kingdom our courts have adopted a more sophisticated approach, which consists of assuming or yielding jurisdiction according to the court which is considered the most suitable for disposing of the particular case. This rule, sometimes referred to as forum non conveniens, will be preserved by the Bill in Clause 45.
Clause 17 introduces the provisions governing the enforcement of judgments within the United Kingdom. It introduces Schedule 5, which concerns money judgments, and Schedule 6 concerning non-money judgments. Apart from covering non-money judgments, the only change from the existing law worth mentioning is that, whereas previously judgments of the inferior courts of one part of the United Kingdom were generally enforceable in another only through registration in another inferior court, from now on all judgments will be registered in the superior courts.

1133
This accords with the new convention, and follows the practice already adopted for Commonwealth and foreign judgments. It will ensure a greater concentration of expertise.
As I have said, Part III introduces the new code for Scotland. This is contained in Schedule 7 and is generally modelled on Title II of the 1968 convention, but it preserves a number of existing grounds of jurisdiction in Scotland where these depart significantly from the convention rules.
Part IV is entitled Miscellaneous Provisions. They concern mainly those areas of jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments which extend beyond the scope of the convention and Parts II and III. I will not mention all of them, but I will mention one or two. For example, Clauses 23 to 25 create new powers for the superior courts in the United Kingdom to grant interim relief in any case where the proceedings are being conducted in another country. This reverses the decision in the case called The Siskina, to which I was a party in exercising the appellate jurisdiction of this House. In The Siskina, this House held that at that time the English courts had no jurisdiction to do what I have described, owing to the inapplicability to that situation of Order 11. However, in Article 24, the 1968 convention expressly contemplates that the courts may do so, and these provisions contain the necessary powers. They will for example enable the High Court or the Court of Session in Scotland to restrain the disposal of assets in this country belonging to a defendant to proceedings in a court of another part of the Community where those assets might be made the subject matter of the proceedings or might be available to satisfy the judgment of that court. This corresponds to a well-known continental doctrine with the auspicious name of saisie conservatoire. The same power is given in relation to proceedings in another part of the United Kingdom and it may also be extended by Order in Council to proceedings in a country outside the European Community or to arbitration proceedings.
Further down, Clause 32 reverses the law of England and Wales and Northern Ireland as stated by the Court of Appeal in a case called Henry v. Geoprosco, decided in 1976, on which my predecessor received representations from the two branches of the legal profession. As I mentioned earlier, one of the grounds on which the jurisdiction of a foreign court will be recognised for the purposes of enforcement here is that the parties submitted to the jurisdiction. But of course the question then arises as to what is submission to the jurisdiction and, as stated in Henry v. Geoprosco, the law stretches the idea of implied submission too far. In that case it was held that a defendant who appeared in a foreign court to argue that that court should not entertain the case should, if the contention were rejected, be treated as having submitted to the jurisdiction. Clause 32 will now prevent this.
I should also mention Clause 33 and Schedule 9. This makes amendments to the 1933 Act, which, as the House will recall, enables arrangements on enforcement of judgments to be made with individual foreign countries. The main effect will be to allow those arrangements to cover judgments of any courts or tribunals in the foreign country, whereas at present the Act only applies to superior courts. The increase
1134
in the monetary limits of our own county courts and the increasing need for the enforcement abroad of these make it important that we should be able to make arrangements covering those judgments.
Finally, Part V contains supplementary and general provisions. The most important are contained in Clauses 38 and 39 concerning the domicile of individuals and corporations. Domicile is really the key concept of the 1968 convention, because it determines first whether or not the convention applies to any proceedings at all on the ground that the defendant is domiciled in the Community, and secondly whether the defendant can be sued in a particular contracting state because he is domiciled there. It also determines whether Part II applies and therefore in which part of the United Kingdom a defendant may he sued. Under Part III, it determines whether the defendant can be sued in a particular court in Scotland.
So I conclude with some brief exposition of the specialised meaning to be attached to this expression "domicile" for the purposes of the Bill. It is a direct borrowing from the French expression "domicile". In French it has a weaker meaning than it has hitherto been thought to have here. In English law, domicile has hitherto meant residence in a country combined with an intention to continue to reside there permanently, or at least indefinitely. In continental countries it means something more like what we should regard as ordinary residence; that is, residence which is not purely temporary or fleeting. The convention does not itself define the concept, but leaves it to national law, subject to some rules as to which national law is to be applied. But this was done on the basis that in all the original six the expression meant more or less the same thing.
Therefore, for us the continental meaning is adopted expressly for the purpose of the Bill. It would in fact be contrary to our interests as well as our obligations to adopt any other course, because it would mean that many defendants ordinarily resident here could not be sued here. For many people ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom do not have a British domicile of origin or the requisite intention to make the United Kingdom their permanent home so as to give them a United Kingdom domicile of choice. This also applies to companies. Our meaning of the domicile of corporations is restricted to the country where the company is incorporated. This is too narrow. All this is achieved by the new definition for the purposes of the convention contained in Clauses 38 and 39. Under these clauses an individual will be domiciled in the United Kingdom if he is resident in the United Kingdom and his residence is of such a kind as to show that he has a substantial connection with this country, and a corporation will be domiciled in the United Kingdom if it is incorporated in this country or if its central management and control are exercised here.
I am happy to say it is time to stop. although there are some other clauses on which I have not commented. But I hope that they will now fit readily into place. I will simply conclude by offering some remarks on the European dimension of this Bill. As a practical matter it is obviously inspired by the increased commercial and social mobility which has followed the creation of the Common Market and the special

1135
problems of law enforcement following that. This phenomenon is not likely to recede, whether as between the member states or in any other context. Already in 1968 the Scottish Law Commission issued a consultative memorandum in which they examined the operation of the present machinery for the enforcement of judgments within the United Kingdom. More recently, the Commonwealth Law Ministers have considered possible revisions of the Administration of Justice Act 1920 to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks. In the mid-1960s The Hague Conference on Private International Law considered the question on a wider basis. So it is not a problem unique to the European Community but its practical importance in that context is undoubtedly greater. Secondly, the Convention represents a measure of law reform in this particular field which will undoubtedly influence others. In particular there are two further conventions pending between member states, one concerning the proper law of contracts and another concerning bankruptcy. Conventions of this kind present obvious problems in reconciling different approaches, legal concepts and differing technical expressions. The 1968 convention created some special difficulties for us because we were not in on the ground floor when the Community came first into being. But I do not think that we have suffered as a result.
In the negotiations for accession, our Community partners were very understanding and we have obtained very significant changes. In other respects our position on the 1968 convention has been considerably easier than it might be in other fields. This is because, as I have explained, the question of enforcing judgments across frontiers has already a considerable history. In particular there was the 1933 Act drafted against a background not unlike that underlying this Bill. There was then no multilateral convention but there were bilateral conventions with Belgium, France and Germany which the Act enabled us to ratify. For this reason most of the concepts in the 1968 convention will be recognisable to any one in this country familiar with this branch of law, despite, or even perhaps because of, the technical nature of some of its provisions.
So I believe that the 1968 convention has come at a very opportune moment for us. It is a far-sighted measure. I hope that this Bill maximises its potential, both by giving it effect in this country, and by using it as a vehicle for rationalisation of other aspects of this branch of the law.
My Lords, after my due warning, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Norwich Council House Sales
3.57 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make
1136
a Statement about the right to buy under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1980, which came into force as long ago as 3rd October 1980.
"I have today sent a notice to Norwich City Council that I intend to use my powers under Section 23 of the Act to intervene to assist secure tenants of the council to exercise their right to buy their homes. I have taken this very serious step with the greatest reluctance and only after prolonged correspondence and discussions with the council over many months.
"Complaints about delays and difficulties from individual Norwich tenants began to reach my department in February of this year. Accordingly, in April the council was formally asked for information on their past and expected future progress in dealing with right to buy cases.
"Since May, as well as extensive correspondence, there have been three separate meetings with the council—one at official level, one with my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and one with myself. During this period complaints have continued to come in from tenants about delays and difficulties in exercising their right to buy. It appears that tenants currently have to wait a very long time, of the order of a year, before they receive a Section 10 offer notice and delays can occur thereafter before completion is achieved. On 28th July a formal warning was sent to the city council that I was contemplating using my powers of intervention under Section 23 of the Act. Following the meeting with me on 5th November the city council forecast that outstanding valuations (which are required before Section 10 notices can be issued) should be completed by June 1982 but with the possible exception of some cases which they identified as difficult. 101 cases were referred to at the November meeting as difficult.
"At the end of October the city council had admitted the right to buy in only 884 cases, a smaller number of cases than in many authorities, but still had 652 offer notices to send out. Notwithstanding adjustments which have been made to the monthly rate of issuing Section 10 "offer" notices and the revision of some of their procedures, the city council's performance to date in issuing Section 10 notices is among the worst of all authorities whose progress has been taken up by my department. Moreover, their projected future performance on which they have declined to give any assurance of further improvement appears to me worse than that of any other authority who have been given formal warning that I am contemplating using my powers under Section 23.
"Having considered matters very carefully it appears to me, whether I have regard to Nowrich alone or Norwich in comparison with other authorities, that secure tenants of Norwich City Council have or may have difficulty in exercising their right to buy effectively and expeditiously and I have accordingly sent them a notice of intervention."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that is being made in

1137
another place. It does fill me with a sort of amazement. First of all, I wonder, and may I ask the noble Lord, why pick on Norwich, when the figures which were last produced in another place in answer to a Parliamentary Question showed that many authorities had not sold any houses whatsoever; there were 57 Tory authorities, and 21 authorities had not provided any returns at all, and yet in the Secretary of State's Statement he says that the city council's performance to date is among the worst of all authorities. I think that that was probably carefully phrased because it certainly is not the worst of all authorities.
It seems to me extremely strange—and I do not know whether the Minister can shed further light on this—that Norwich should be picked out, unless it is because they have perhaps been more robust in their verbal protests about what has been going on and about the sale of houses. After many months of negotiation, which is pointed out in the Statement, and many meetings between Ministers and the council, it would seem that the gap between what the Minister has asked for, which is mid-February, and the date that the council has firmly offered, which is June, is really only four months. Would it not seem strange to bring this enormous sledgehammer to bear for such a short gap of time?
Incidentally, I understand that the offer notes are now higher, seven times higher, than they were earlier, and that in fact 90 offer notes under Section 10 were made in November, last month. I should like to ask the Minister why on earth there is all this fuss when the council has a national reputation as an outstanding housing authority. I understand that the council intend—if the Statement this afternoon turned out in the way in which they rather guessed it would turn out—taking out an injunction. The Minister will no doubt say, "So be it". But I thought that he should know that the whole matter is not yet finished.
During these times and at this particular time of local authority cuts with the enormous pressure on local authorities to cut down staff in view of the policy which the Government are pursuing, it seems to me that the staff have responded very substantially in speeding up the process. This affects authorities all over the country as is indicated in the figures and many others with which I shall not take up the time of the House but which one could quote.
At present we are in a period when rents will go up, which will in itself put more pressure on staff in local authorities; mortgage rates are higher than ever before; and one-eighth of the unemployed are in the building industries. It seems to me very wrong, whether or not councils agree with the right to sell, to expect them to be able expeditiously to carry out legislation in a period which is absolutely against them financially and as far as personnel is concerned. When there are tremendous problems at hand with waiting lists longer than ever before, 1·2 million, and with house-building almost at a standstill, it seems to me that the time of the House and the time of the Government is wasted on something like that which we have heard this afternoon.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the use of the words by the Secretary of State, "This very serious step", is entirely justified?
1138
—because it is setting a precedent under a particular provision of the Act, for direct interference in local government, a precedent which can be followed in the future by other Governments. Is this step justified? When the Secretary of State refers in his Statement to this authority being "among the worst", can the Minister say among how many he is talking about? Also, would he not agree that, from the figures that he has given in his Statement, the Section 10 notices will all have been sent out under the present provisions by June next year—that is, within seven months from today? Therefore, is this drastic measure really justified by the circumstances?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I shall not make any observations on the political point which the noble Baroness made about housing generally. We are here today dealing with this particular Statement. The noble Baroness has said that there is only four months in it and she quoted some figures to illustrate that the issuing of notices had gone up to 60 a month. The fact is that since September when Norwich agreed to increase their rate of issue of Section 10 notices from 30 a month to 60 a month, they have made no more than marginal adjustments to their projected timetable. To put that figure of 60 per month into context, let me point out that one Labour controlled authority, a metropolitan district, issued over 1,100 Section 10 notices in October alone—more than Norwich's total case load. It is not a question of "Why pick on Norwich?".
In reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, about "among the worst", let me repeat that part of the Statement which is very relevant to the point that he made where it says:
"Their"—
that is Norwich's—
"projected future performance on which they have declined to give any assurance of further improvement appears to me worse than that of any other authority who have been given formal warning that I am contemplating using my powers under Section 23".
It is a serious step. It is not something upon which the Government have embarked quickly, lightly or without careful consideration and the maximum amount of reasonable discussion and consultation with the authority. I think that I must leave it at that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us will feel that the only criticism which could be directed against his right honourable friend on this matter is an excess of patience with an obviously recalcitrant and obstructive authority? Can he give an assurance that in the other cases to which the noble Baroness opposite invited his attention his right honourable friend will take similar resolute action if it is necessary to ensure that council tenants secure the rights which Parliament intends them to have?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. I certainly do assure him and the House that there are many other cases that the Government are watching and discussing carefully and have been and will continue to do so. If any of your Lordships has any specific other cases which you

1139
would wish to draw to our attention or any authorities that you would wish to raise with us, we would be only too glad to hear of them.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that from this Bench we shall always uphold the law, whether we agree with the law or not? But in this case is he absolutely sure that the delay was unavoidable, that the local authority had not the ability or the staff to act more quickly?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, all I can say is that so many other authorities have not found it impossible to act within the time limits. I think that that is really the relevant answer.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could answer one of the other points that I raised. He will have the figures, or I imagine he does. What has happened to the 91 authorities—57 of them Tory and 34 Labour—where there have been no sales and there were no returns, and the 23 authorities which have not provided any returns at all, including authorities like Hillingdon, Brighton, Luton, Sevenoaks, Cheltenham, Blackpool and Thanet, all but two of which are Tory authorities? What action has been taken against any of those authorities? As the noble Lord did not query the figures I assume that he accepts them.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Baroness, perhaps more than most of your Lordships, would have known that many such authorities have been selling council houses for a long time now. They did not wait for right to buy procedures to compel them so to do and they are continuing to do so. They, of course, do not come within this because I understand that in one case, which the noble Baroness has mentioned, they have sold 89 per cent. against all requests that they have received. So today my concern is not to go into the detail of other authorities. I repeat: if the noble Baroness has any particular one she wishes me to take up I shall be glad to do so and to come back to her when she does so.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, could the Minister ask his right honourable friend to update the figures so that the other place and we have the opportunity to see them? When we are having to work from figures which, as I pointed out, were given up to the end of June, although the Parliamentary Question was last month, it is extremely difficult for us to get the facts right.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I shall certainly be glad to do anything I can to ensure that the noble Baroness has any statistics and information that we have. They will be fully available to her.

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, your Lordships' House is greatly indebted to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, not only for the summary that he has just given of the history of the events leading to the presentation of this important and, even to the initiated, complex piece of legislation, but also for the masterly patience and clarity with which he has explained its provisions. If I may say so, he has climbed his verbal mountain with his customary elegance and courage.
This is not just a lawyers' Bill, although it would be true to say that it probably introduces the most important new chapter of community law into the United Kingdom since the European Communities Act 1972. It is of immense importance and relevance to all those concerned with international trade and, among others, to the consumer public, to the insurance world and to those burdened with, or entitled to the benefit of, maintenance payment orders in matrimonial proceedings. It affects our law in every part of the United Kingdom.
As has been pointed out, our obligation is clear under Article 3(2) of the Accession Treaty when we joined the EEC. We undertook—as did Denmark and Ireland who, with us, were the new members—that we would accede to the 1968 Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters entered into by the original Six members, and the protocol of June 1971 on its interpretation by the Court of Justice, to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred.
However, we were entitled to negotiate with the original member states with a view to procuring agreement to amendments to the original convention. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, this convention goes much further than merely providing for reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments. It provides for a substantial unification of the grounds on which courts of member states may exercise civil or commercial jurisdiction and for mandatory rules governing such jurisdiction. Indeed, when the court of one member state is asked to enforce the judgment of a court of another member state it may not—save in very limited circumstances—re-examine the jurisdiction of the original court. This opens up a very new chapter in EEC law and, indeed, is a very new chapter in our own law.
It is not surprising, therefore, that some misgivings were expressed in another place when the provisions of the original convention were debated on 27th February 1978, with Parliament having the benefit of the Thirty-second Report of the Select Committee on European Legislation and the Forty-fifth Report of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Community. Suffice it to say now that by far the most important amendments—and they were very important amendments—which were recommended at that time were successfully and skilfully negotiated on behalf of the previous Government who were given full support by the then Opposition before my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones—who would have wished to be present in the House at this moment but is sitting on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and hopes to be here later—signed the Accession Convention on which the Bill now before

1141
the House is based. He was then able to say, if I may quote him in his absence, at the close of his address, which was made not only on behalf of the United Kingdom but also on behalf of the other two new member states:
"I believe that the Accession Convention is not only the gateway for bringing the new member States into the system. It also brings about a genuine and substantial improvement of the original Convention of 1968 and we welcome it".
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, it is right that we should pay a tribute to those responsible for these negotiations in the last Administration; to the Kilbrandon Committee, to the interdepartmental working party under Lord Justice Kerr, and to Lord Maxwell who advised the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate respectively on these matters. I ought to add, if I may, that the advisory working party included representatives of the Joint Bar-Law Society Working Party, and I know what a useful part those representatives played.
Turning to the Bill now before us based on that Accession Convention and incorporating, as has been said, the important amendments to the original 1968 convention, on behalf of my noble friends I should like to give it a general welcome. I would also wish to raise with the Government some general matters with which it may be convenient to deal at this stage, in the hope that it may facilitate some of the remaining stages of the Bill. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said so clearly, in general terms, jurisdiction in this Bill is based on what is termed "domicile". It is a term which has many meanings in many parts of the world. In the United States of America there are varying rates of duty from state to state and the question of what state is entitled to estate duty, for example, depends on domicile. Therefore, I understand that this question of domicile provides a very welcome contribution to the livelihood of my American legal colleagues.
Indeed, I note that the present Solicitor-General, when speaking in another place in the debate of February 1978—to which I have already referred—recalled a lecture at Columbia University entitled, "Death and taxes are certain, but what of domicile? "In our law, the domicile is based on a fixed and settled intention to remain. Domicile in French law, for its part—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to this—depends on the principal residence at the time in question.
Domicile in the context of this convention and this Bill is to be determined in accordance with the law of the member state. The Solicitor-General at that time, Mr. Peter Archer, said in another place in this debate on 27th February 1978, at column 198 of the Official Report:
"the Convention leaves the definition of "domicile" to domestic jurisdiction. It would obviously make sense that there should be no serious inconsistencies between the various definitions of domicile, and it may be—I say no more than this, and I am not attempting to drop any broad hint—that, if we were so minded to legislate on the concept of domicile in English domestic law for this purpose, it might be a sensible time to look at it for other purposes as well so that we do not have one basis of domicile for one purpose and a totally different basis for another. But that is something that we shall all have ample opportunity to consider when the question arises".
The question now arises. If one looks at Clause 38 of Part V of the Bill, one finds the definition of
1142
"domicile" for the purposes of this Bill, and this will be the "internal law" or "the law of the contracting state" applied under Article 52 of the convention. "Domicile" for purposes of deciding whether or not an individual is domiciled in the United Kingdom, or a particular part of the United Kingdom, in this Bill is governed, as the noble and learned Lord said, by residence in the United Kingdom, or in that part of the United Kingdom, and there is an additional factor. It is that the nature and circumstances of his residence indicate that he has a substantial connection with the United Kingdom or that part of the United Kingdom. So we have yet another enactment dealing with domicile, residence, and kindred matters apart from tax legislation and other legislation, and apart indeed from the recent British Nationality Act. Your Lordships will recall the interesting discussions at all stages of that Bill in your Lordships' House on these aspects of residence and connections with the United Kingdom.
This Bill provides that, unless the contrary be proved, the individual will be deemed to have a substantial connection with the United Kingdom, if there has been residence for the last three months or more. That is a very special definition of "substantial" connection with this country". Again one bears in mind the discussions which took place so recently in your Lordships' House on the British Nationality Bill as to what constitutes a substantial connection with this country under that enactment.
While appreciating to the full that the grant of nationality, and taxation liability, and the grant of civil jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments by no means embrace the same principles or factors, what I, as a lawyer, do lament is the manner in which we are proliferating in different legislation vastly different interpretations of what we mean in law by "residence", or "ordinary residence", or "domicile", or "substantial connection with this country". We are in danger of reaching, and indeed may already have reached, the stage where our law in regard to these matters is a morass. I would ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, when he speaks later, to say whether he has some sympathy with my lament, and whether he has any sympathy with the views expressed by the then Solicitor-General in the last Parliament on this subject, which I have just quoted. If he has that sympathy, is there anything which the Government intend to do by way of legislation to try to bring some sort of cohesion into these concepts in our law?
Reference has been made to Clause 3 of the Bill, and I should like to underline the importance of it. It is certainly, I believe, innovatory. Apart from requiring the convention to be interpreted in accordance with the principles and jurisprudence of a European court, it allows in subsection (3) the reports on the convention by Mr. Jenard and Professor Schlosser to be considered by the European Court in ascertaining their meaning. Those reports go in some detail into the reasons for various provisions in the convention. On this occasion, because of the merit and reliability of the reports, this is no doubt quite acceptable. We must, I would suggest, be watchful, however, if this becomes a precedent, to see that further reports, future reports, which are allowed to have such a direct effect on interpretations which the European Court may give and by which our

1143
courts will be bound, are of similar merit and reliability before they are given this important role.
Clause 31 is causing a little concern at the moment in the legal profession. It abrogates the rule of English law which enables the party who has obtained a foreign judgment in his favour which is entitled to recognition, to bring fresh proceedings here on the original cause of action instead of applying to enforce the foreign judgment. That anxiety will be relieved if we can be told that it is intended to amend the rules of our courts to authorise service out of the jurisdiction in order to enforce a foreign judgment if there are assets of the judgment debtor in this country. May I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate if such a change in the rules is intended?
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to Clause 33, which introduces Schedule 9. That schedule contains amendments to the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. The main purpose of those amendments is to enable by order Part I of that Act to be applied to judgments of other courts and tribunals as well as judgments of superior courts. Now that the county court jurisdiction, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor so clearly pointed out, covers quite substantial cases, it is becoming increasingly unsatisfactory that our 1933 Act, by contrast with the EEC convention, is so limited. May I take it that the Bar Council and the Law Society will be consulted about any proposals to make orders under Schedule 9 to this Bill?
Finally, I would wish to make a point about the commencement provisions of our legislation in general, but particularly in regard to legislation such as this, which is changing our law in a complex and fundamental way, and indeed is introducing entirely new laws. It is vital that practitioners and others should have a proper opportunity of seeing what the new law is and what are its implications before it becomes effective. The commencement provisions in Schedule 12 to this Bill would bring a number of provisions into force on Royal Assent. In my view it is quite wrong in principle—and certainly this is the opinion of my own professional body, the Law Society—that provisions should be brought into force even before copies of the relevant statute are, for practical purposes, available to the public. I accordingly suggest as a personal view that the standard commencement date of all Acts of Parliament, unless there are very special considerations, should be not less than six weeks after the Royal Assent. I certainly suggest it for this Bill. We on this side join in a general welcome to this Bill, although there may be matters of importance—and I have tried to indicate some of them—to which careful attention should be given in the course of its passage through your Lordships' House.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Foot: My Lords, may I first of all join with the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, in expressing the thanks of the House to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the remarkable piece of exposition which we had at the beginning of this debate. I was particularly grateful for it because I have been trying to read the Bill over the last day or two. Great stretches of it remain a complete mystery
1144
to me. But as the noble and learned Lord was expounding the matter all became clear to all of us here. The only thing I am worried about is how long I am going to be able to remember it.
I do not remember an occasion when I have been faced with a more daunting task in addressing this House than this afternoon, because of the nature of the Bill. Of course it should have been my noble and learned colleague, Lord Wigoder, speaking from these Benches on an important legal occasion of this kind. I do not know the nature of the engagement which has kept him away—I do not think he has fled the country—but when I undertook to substitute for him as best I could, and when I got down to reading the Bill, I nurtured the unworthy suspicion for a moment that he might perhaps have found some diplomatic excuse for not being here. That of course was a suspicion that I immediately rejected, but I have not been greatly comforted by the discovery a few minutes before I came into the House this evening that my noble and learned colleague, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, actually understands two clauses of this Bill and has in fact, as I understand, been in correspondence with the Lord Chancellor about them. Therefore, I stand at every disadvantage.
To comment on the form of the Bill, one can see its real purpose and what it seeks to achieve by reading two short clauses, Clauses 2 and 3. Clause 2 incorporates the conventions and protocol into our domestic law and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, explained, Clause 3 gives guidance to the courts as to how the conventions and protocol are to be interpreted. Although that is what the Bill is about, so complicated is the matter apparently that to incorporate the conventions and protocol into our domestic law requires a measure of 57 clauses, 13 schedules, all running to 103 pages, priced at £6 net. I cannot believe it will be a best-seller.
When I was looking at those figures I was reminded of something once written by Lord Macaulay and which probably most noble Lords will remember. It was when he was reviewing the three volume history of the life of Lord Burghley by the Reverend Edward Nares, D.D. Speaking of the works he had been asked to read, he wrote:
"Compared with the labour of reading through these volumes, all other labour, the labour of thieves on the treadmill, of children in factories, of negroes in sugar plantations, is an agreeable recreation. There was, it is said, a criminal in Italy who was suffered to make his choice between Guicciardini and the galleys. He chose the history. But the war of Pisa was too much for him. He changed his mind, and went to the oar".
I do not know that that is particularly relevant to what I was saying, but there is a striking contrast between the effective clauses of the Bill and the enormous piece of legislation that is required to carry them into effect.
I, too, wish to express my appreciation to the working party which translated the intention into the reality of the Bill. That must have been a considerable achievement, and I should have thought that the epithet "working for the party" was never more justified than it was on this occasion. As the Lord Chancellor said, this is on any showing a Bill of enormous complication. I would go further and say that the measure gives to the word "complexity" a new dimension.

1145
I wish to speak only about Clause 3, to which the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred, because a point in it goes rather further than the comments they made on the reports of Mr. Jenard and Professor Schlosser. As Lord Mishcon said, the clause provides that should there be any question as to the meaning or effect of the conventions, it shall,
"be determined in accordance with the principles laid down by and any relevant decision of the European Court".
It goes on in subsection (2) with a provision which I need not read, and then says in subsection (3):
"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the following reports"—
which are the reports of Mr. Jenard and Professor Schlosser, and there follow the words to which I particularly wish to draw attention:
"may be considered in ascertaining the meaning or effect of any provision of the Conventions and shall be given such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances".
The mischievious notion went through my mind when I read those words, "What is the Master of the Rolls going to make of that?" I cannot but think that those words are a little unflattering to Mr. Jenard and Professor Schlosser, that their opinions,
"shall be given such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances".
I was reminded of the way in which John Bright finished a letter to one of his critics:
"I am, sir, with whatever respect may be due to you, yours faithfully".
There is an interesting comparision between this Bill and the Bill of Rights which my noble friend Lord Wade successfully steered through this House, as both sought to do the same thing. The Bill of Rights sought to incorporate into our domestic law the European Convention on Human Rights. This Bill seeks to incorporate into our domestic law—and of course I am using a form of shorthand in saying that—these two conventions and the protocol. While, therefore, the object of the two Bills was the same, the methods observed are wholly different. My noble friend Lord Wade produced a two or three clause Bill on one side of a sheet of paper simply stating that from the time of the passage of the Bill into law, the European Convention on Human Rights would be incorporated as part of our domestic law and would supersede anything in our law to the contrary, and he simply attached in the schedule the full text of the convention.
That course would not have been open in this case because we are dealing with something different. But the effect of my noble friend's Bill in that form would have been that all questions of interpretation as to the meaning of the convention and of our existing domestic law would be determined entirely by the judiciary. In this case, to a large extent, I think quite properly, the way in which the Bill is being made to incorporate the conventions in our domestic law is all spelt out in the measure. It is an interesting comprison and I am not at all sure that I should regard it as being safe to pass the Bill of Rights in the form it has passed through this House, leaving so much in a state of uncertainty and leaving so much to the discretion of the judiciary. This is a much more democratic parliamentary procedure on which we are embarked today. We on these
1146
Benches, so far as I know, wish the Bill well, and we shall be particularly enthusiastic about those clauses which we are able to understand.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, as a layman—the first and I think only layman to speak—I would not presume to discuss any of the legal points in a Bill which consists of very little else. But from this Bench I feel it is important to say that we share one determination with the Conservative Government—I would not say the only one but one of the few we share—and that is a determination to remain in the Common Market and to do all we can to smooth out the wrinkles which still remain, and the Bill seems to he an effort in that direction, so we welcome it wholeheartedly and in every way.
That allows me to say nothing further about the legal complexities. However, I had a list of questions that I wanted to ask the noble and learned Lord. I am glad to say that, as I hoped would happen, his excellent oration, which, despite the difficulty of what he had to say, kept us all listening with bated breath, has answered a very large number of them, and I am left with only one or two, which I can deal with in a matter of a couple of minutes.
My particular interest in the Bill is as it applies to maintenance orders. This is a matter which concerns the ordinary man and the magistrate. It concerns the ordinary man more than do the civil arguments which on the whole concern larger business and larger entities. What I want to know is this. Am I right in thinking that the passing of the Bill will leave much the same as it is now the position of the wife who is trying to get payment of a maintenance order and is failing, in a case where her husband is in England? If he has gone to Scotland, there will be some improvement in her position. If he has gone to Boulogne, or rather perhaps to Italy—because Boulogne was already covered under a particular agreement with France—she will be considerably better placed, and if he has gone to Timbuktu, her position will be the same. That is point one. If that is wrong, I should like to be told so; I think that it might well be wrong.
Secondly, under the clauses dealing with maintenance there is provision for a £50 fine for non-payment. Will this in other countries lead to what it quite often leads to in this country—namely, imprisonment for failing to pay a fine? I simply do not know enough about the procedure in Paris, Rome, or anywhere else, or about what the Bill means but, if it does that, I should like to know how the position would be dealt with. Would the man be imprisoned for non-payment of a fine in the country where it is imposed? Would he be extradited? What would be the position?
I said that I could make my speech quickly. Those are my only questions, apart from one other, which I think is a very easy one. Am I right in thinking that in a magistrates' court the prescribed officer would always be appointed by the court and would normally he the clerk of the court? I assume that to he the case. I shall study Hansard with care over the weekend—and it will take the weekend—but I think that my other queries have already been answered. Having said that, I sit down.
4.42 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, notwithstanding the superb exposition of the Bill by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, it is I think plain that this is not a very apt Bill on which to make a Second Reading speech. On the question of jurisdiction, with which I am concerned, the only general principle in the Bill is that there should be uniform rules allocating jurisdiction between the member states. We are committed to that principle by membership of the Community, and I do not seek to challenge it, or even to discuss it.
Once we are past that principle, all the rest really is details of the allocation of that jurisdiction. But notwithstanding the fact that many experts have spent a great deal of time and trouble on this matter, I humbly venture to aver that at least on two points the rules in the Bill do not appear to be wholly satisfactory, in that they seem to deprive the courts of this country of jurisdiction which they presently have and which seemingly they ought to continue to have. I venture to draw attention to these matters now in the hope that they can be put right, and I hope that it will not be said, though I fear it might, that these are really Committee points which should have been left to the Committee stage.
The first point with which I am concerned is the quia timet injunction. In case, which seems probably somewhat unlikely, there are any laymen left in your Lordships' House at this moment listening to the matter, I should perhaps explain that that is an injunction which prevents a wrong before it happens, rather than leaving the party to gain compensation after he has been wronged. That surely is a very useful and desirable remedy—what in medical terms might be called prophylactic medicine, rather than surgery after the event.
At present, as I understand it, anyone who is about to be wronged, whether by a tort or a breach of contract in this country—where the wrong is going to be committed in this country—can seek an injunction preventing that from occurring, as necessarily the defendant will he in the country if the wrong is to be done here. As I understand the Bill, that will not be the case once the Bill is law, and if it remains law in its present form. Under Article 5(3) of the schedule there is jurisdiction in a matter of tort only when the harmful event has occurred; jurisdiction over somebody who is not himself domiciled here. Therefore there is no jurisdiction over a tort before it has occurred if the proposed wrongdoer is himself not domiciled here. Clause 23 of the Bill gives power to give interim relief only when proceedings have already been commenced in the state of the domicile of the proposed wrongdoer.
To try to translate that into concrete terms, I shall seek to give two examples. I hope that they are not open to the objection that there is some other technical solution; even if there was, it would not invalidate my general point. May we start with a lady who has been cohabiting in Italy with an Italian. He has treated her badly, knocked her about, and she therefore has left him and come to this country. He has pursued her here and is threatening to beat her up as soon as he can get hold of her. Under present circumstances she could rush off to a court and get an injunction restraining him from doing that. After the
1148
Bill is passed, as I understand it, if she came to this country, she would be told "He is a person domiciled abroad. No tort has yet been committed here. Either you wait until he has knocked you about the first time, and then come along and we will be able to do something, or you can start proceedings in Italy and then, and only then can you apply to the English courts". I venture to doubt that the lady-would regard either of those alternatives—the alternative of being thoroughly beaten up once before she can have any remedy, or the alternative of trooping off to Italy and starting proceedings there—as satisfactory.
I should like to give another example. Let us suppose that a foreign company is about to build a branch over here and that company plans to invade my property, knocking it down so that it can build its premises here. Again, it would seem that the English court is powerless until either the wrong is done, or unless I go and start proceedings in that foreign country, which would be expensive and complicated for the ordinary person to do. The situation could I think be somewhat improved if Clause 23 were amended to include the position where the plaintiff intended to start proceedings in the foreigh state, so that the English courts did not have to hang about and wait until one had started proceedings abroad but could act promptly. But, even so, that would not seem entirely satisfactory as it would still leave the individual with the testing problem of having to start proceedings abroad, presumably without legal aid, and having to go there, and so on. That is one serious problem, as I see it, arising from the Bill.
The second problem concerns a company domiciled in another Community country but with a branch here. At present any foreign company with a place of business here can be served here and sued here. Further, under Order 11 there is power to serve out of the jurisdiction in respect of any contract made in England. That is all to go, and, instead, there will be jurisdiction only—and I quote from Article 5(5):
"as regards a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch",
in this country. It seems highly doubtful what that means, but what is plain is that it is a great deal narrower than the present situation.
If once again I can resort to example, suppose a businessman in a small way of business orders goods from a large multinational which carries on business all over the United Kingdom. Let us call it Bloggs and Company. Although that man does not know it, the whole European business of Bloggs and Company is in fact carried on by Bloggs (Europe) Société Anonyme, which is domiciled in France. The goods are for delivery somewhere abroad, so the contract will not be performed here; and in fact the order is sent to and dispatched by Bloggs's headquarters in France. Those goods are defective, and he wants to sue. As I see it, he is unable to do so. The dispatch of the defective goods did not in any way arise out of the operations of this branch. Those operations were either in France or where the goods were delivered.
The words of Article 5(5) are a great deal narrower than the Reciprocal Judgments Act, which speaks of an action in respect of a transaction effected through the branch. I have the gravest doubts that Article 5

1149
allows one to sue in this country merely because the contract is made through the branch in this country. If that is so, surely it is very hard on the businessman in my example that he should have to go abroad to sue when he thought that he was dealing with a substantial English branch over here and that his remedy would be here.
Those, I venture to suggest, if I am right in my understanding—and I am very ready to be told that I am not—are two serious problems where the rights of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom are limited and reduced from what they presently are, and from what I would venture to suggest they should continue to be. It may well be that that is somewhat difficult to remedy, if I am right. The alteration of Clause 23 which I have suggested may help a bit; and, of course, one accepts that this country cannot legislate that the convention shall here have a meaning contrary to that declared by the European Court. But it could presumably enact that until the European Court determines otherwise these words should have a somewhat enlarged meaning, and therefore perhaps one could say that a tort should in relation to quia timet proceedings be deemed to have occurred in a place where it was likely to have occurred but for the injunction, or something of that kind.
Alternatively, perhaps the Government could in due course seek to negotiate amendments to the convention to deal with these problems. I recognise, of course, that there have been lengthy negotiations and a great deal of work put in, but I hope that does not mean that when, with a sigh of relief, somebody finally gets this Bill on to the statute hook, everybody is going to sit back, because whether or not I am right in these particular problems there are going to be problems, and one hopes there will he a continuing process of seeking to improve the convention when those problems arise.
My Lords, of course I do not seek today an instant solution of the problems I have raised, but I ask the Government to recognise that there are these problems and to say that they will give attention to them and seek to solve them if I am right that they exist and are not dealt with by the Bill.
4.54 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I would first of all propose to say just a little more about the considerations which have led us in Scotland to decide that this opportunity should be taken to reformulate and codify, on the basis of the rules of jurisdiction contained in the 1968 convention, our own domestic rules of jurisdiction, and then to attempt to answer the questions that have been raised by the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Before I turn to do that, I should like to say how grateful we are for the welcome that your Lordships have given to the Bill; and perhaps I should particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foot, on succeeding in introducing some merriment into the proceedings.
The Scottish proposals in this Bill are following the recommendations of the Scottish Committee on Jurisdiction and Enforcement, to which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already referred, and I should like to take this opportunity of joining with him in thanking Lord Maxwell and his colleagues
1150
on that committee for providing such expert and comprehensive guidance in matters of very considerable complexity. I should also like to take this opportunity to join with my noble and learned friend and with Lord Mishcon in thanking all others who have had a part in bringing us so far.
As the report of Lord Maxwell's committee points out, the convention rules of jurisdiction, and the rules derived from the convention which it is intended should in future govern jurisdiction as between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, in general proceed on the same principles as, and have similar effect to, the existing rules of jurisdiction under Scots law. This may be compared with the position in the other parts of the United Kingdom, where, although the practical results, in terms of situations in which the courts will take jurisdiction, are very similar, the principles on which jurisdiction is based are very different from those of the convention.
In Scotland, therefore, it is possible to adopt for all purposes rules based on the convention rules without changing in any major way the circumstances in which our courts will take jurisdiction. We agree with Lord Maxwell's committee that this should be done rather than maintain in being, in a way which would be bound to be confusing to practitioners, two separate and slightly different sets of rules of jurisdiction applying to the same subject-matter. For example, in order to ascertain which court had jurisdiction over a defender because he lived within its area, it would, if the convention rules were not adopted generally, be necessary first to determine whether the defender was domiciled in Scotland in the sense of the present Bill and then to apply the existing law, with its slightly different test of "residence", to determine whether any particular sheriff court has jurisdiction. It is clearly better, so far as possible, to-apply a single test for both purposes, and this is what we are trying to do with the new rules of jurisdiction in the Scottish courts which are contained in Schedule 7 to the Bill.
The operation of these new Scottish rules, and of the existing rules of jurisdiction in the rest of the United Kingdom which are to remain essentially unchanged, will of course be subject to the provisions of the convention and of the provisions in Part II of the Bill allocating jurisdiction within the United Kingdom. In a case to which the convention applies, therefore, the Scottish courts will have jurisdiction against a person domiciled in another convention country only if the convention gives them that jurisdiction; and, similarly, in cases to which Part II and Schedule 4 apply, the Scottish courts will have jurisdiction against a party domiciled in another part of the United Kingdom only in so far as the operation of Schedule 4 gives them that jurisdiction. Essentially, the new rules in Schedule 7 will apply to govern the circumstances in which a Scottish court has jurisdiction over persons domiciled (in the sense of this Bill) in Scotland, or in another part of the world outwith both the rest of the United Kingdom and the other states of the European Community, and to allocate jurisdiction within Scotland.
With certain exceptions, this body of new rules will apply to all civil proceedings before the Scottish courts, and not merely to those which would fall within the scope of the convention. Perhaps the most important of the exceptions is that, as my noble and learned friend

1151
said about the convention, the new rules will not apply in proceedings concerning or related to status or legal capacity. The new rules are essentially designed for actions which relate in the widest sense to property of some kind, and quite different considerations apply in relation, for example, to actions of divorce, adoption proceedings or proceedings relating to the custody of children. The distinction being made is not a new one, since the rules of jursidiction in relation to such proceedings have always differed from the general rules of jurisdiction, in particular so as to ensure that the parties to such actions have a sufficiently close connection with Scotland.
The other main areas which are excluded from the scope of the new rules are bankruptcy and winding-up, and commissary proceedings; the latter includes in particular matters relating to the appointment of executors and to applications for confirmation to the estates of deceased persons. Again, all these are matters for which there are at present special rules of jurisdiction, and the new rules would not necessarily be at all appropriate for them.
The new rules therefore deal with the circumstances in which the Scottish courts are to have jurisdiction in the central core of civil litigation. We hope that it will be useful to practitioners to he able to deal on the same basis not only with domestic cases—that is to say, cases arising within Scotland—and those having an international element, but also to have available the rules of jurisdiction in the Scottish courts in a convenient and codified form. So far as the Court of Session, at least, goes, this is a novelty which we think will be generally welcomed, since the bases of its jurisdiction have in the past in general been derived from common law with a variety of statutory additions.
Finally on this aspect, I should like to emphasise that, although the form of our jurisdictional rules is being changed considerably, as I said, their substance w ill be affected remarkably little. In general, it will remain possible to raise actions in Scotland in the same courts as previously. One change of some substance, however, is provided by Rule 2(14) of Schedule 7, which introduces additional grounds of jurisdiction against co-defenders and third parties. This will provided a useful extension of the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts to meet modern commercial conditions.
My Lords, having said that about the particular aspect of the Bill which affects Scotland especially, I should like to turn to some matters which have been raised in the course of this debate. The first matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, directed attention was the definition here proposed for "domicile". The definition here proposed is for the purpose of founding jurisdiction. It must be. I suggest, reasonably clear that the considerations which provide a proper basis for jurisdiction are different from the considerations which would provide a proper basis for levying tax, for instance. Accordingly, it is, I think, right that domicile for this purpose should be different from domicile for that purpose. That is merely an example. The noble Lord referred to others, although I think the special connection clauses in the British Nationality Act to which he referred were
1152
somewhat affected in the course of the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House, but there are other areas where domicile is relevant. We considered whether it would be right to give the expression "domicile" in this Bill a special prefix such as "forensic domicile" which was a proposal put forward by the committee under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, to which reference has been made. But on considering the matter we see no sufficient advantage and, in due course, obviously we should be glad to know what the House feels about this matter.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me when I say that I made it clear that there was a basic difference between the concept of domicile in taxation, in British nationality law, any other law and this law. But I invited the noble and learned Lord to consider whether the suggestion made by the Solicitor-General in the last Administration when this was being discussed, that there should be some legislation to bring together the definitions or to set out the various definitions of domicile, residence and ordinary residence, would not simplify and clarify our law. Has the noble and learned Lord considered that and, if not, will he do so?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, one can see attractions in embarking on an exercise of that kind. One can also see difficulties in it. The particular considerations or factors which are relevant for the different subject matters are best dealt with probably in the context of the subject matters. Therefore, in the taxation statutes you would expect to find one treatment and, in nationality, another and so on. Perhaps it should go without saying that we shall consider carefully all that has fallen from noble Lords; and that what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said in this connection will be no exception.
I was going on to deal with a special point made in relation to Clause 31 and to answer his question. Proposals for an amendment to Order 11 in the sense to which he referred are under consideration. As far as consultation is concerned—and he referred particularly to Clause 33—recent practice has been, and I am sure noble Lords would approve of it, that consultation is undertaken with the legal profession about arrangements under the 1933 Act, and any matters requiring to be dealt with under this Bill would receive the same kind of attention.
I now turn to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. I think I can accept as generally correct the description that he gave at the beginning of his question about the general effect of the provisions of this Bill. As far as the second question is concerned, the £50 fine, the payer will be liable under Clause 5(6) if he fails to notify a change in his address. This provision is in the same terms as the corresponding provision in the present legislation. The situation, therefore, is that as far as our law is concerned, the situation is not altered in this respect by these provisions. It is not within the function of any law that we would lay down what are the appropriate provisions for enforcement of such matters under the law of other states. This Bill could not affect that.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, surely the £50 fine could come into operation if he moved from Paris to Boulogne; or could it not? Reading the Bill as a layman, I thought that it did.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, so far as our criminal law is concerned, if he failed to notify a change of address the £50 would operate; but that does not mean necessarily that it would be enforceable against him because it is a matter of criminal law, and certainly would not be enforceable against him under the provisions of this Bill in France. The last question I was asked was about the prescribed officer. He would be the clerk of the court.
I now turn to matters raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. With respect, he has raised questions of considerable difficulty in relation to the proper construction of the convention itself. Obviously these matters require consideration. I think he recognised that at least the primary questions he raised were about the construction of the convention. He went on to suggest that it might be wise to make provisions in this Bill to regulate the situation here until the matter was considered by the court in Luxembourg. It may be open to question whether the ultimate result would best be served in relation to a decision of the court at Luxembourg by beginning on the assumption that we think that the convention does not necessarily achieve what the noble Viscount would like it to achieve. In that situation there is at least a question whether the course which he was mentioning towards the end of his speech would necessarily be the best one for achieving the result which he had in mind. However, these are questions of very considerable importance and we will certainly consider very carefully what he has said.
The Bill, I hope, is one which will be of very considerable use not only to the legal practitioners but also to the commercial community in our country, and I therefore am very glad to join with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in commending it to your Lordships.
Lord Mischon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I remind him of the last point which I made which I thought had some relevance and importance, especially to this Bill; namely, the commencing date on which the provisions of the Bill come into effect? I reminded your Lordships that under Schedule 12 to this Bill a number of provisions are brought into force on Royal Assent. Bearing in mind that it cannot be very urgent that the Bill be brought into effect within a matter of days of the Royal Assent, would he give consideration to the general point I mentioned as well as the specific point in relation to this Bill?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, certainly. I intended to cover that particular matter (because I had nothing to say about it) by my general observation that all that the noble Lord said would be very carefully considered.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Local Government (Supplementary Grants for Transport Purposes Specified Descriptions) (Wales) Order 1981
5.12 p.m.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 5th November be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an order which simplifies and rationalises complex grant arrangements for transport expenditure in Wales. Under the existing arrangements transport supplementary grant (TSG) is paid to county councils in respect of both current and capital expenditure. Transport current expenditure is also supported through the block grant. The purpose of this order is to restrict from 1982–83 onwards the payment of TSG in Wales to capital expenditure only.
With the introduction of a new rate support grant, the block grant, in 1981–82, the Government announced that they would review the future of TSG. In Wales this review has now been completed as regards current expenditure and we have been able to reach agreement with the Welsh local authority associations on appropriate arrangements for subsuming the current expenditure element of TSG into the Welsh block grant system. These arrangements avoid the complications which can arise when transport current expenditure is included in two different grant systems. However, so far as transport capital expenditure is concerned, different considerations apply as compared with current expenditure.
Major highway schemes are by far the most expensive projects which local authorities undertake in any service for which they are responsible. Financing these schemes can create difficulties as a result of the highly irregular distribution of expenditure on these large projects. By retaining TSG for capital expenditure we shall be able to concentrate assistance on those authorities which need to undertake large and expensive projects.
For these reasons my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has decided that, for the time being at least, TSG should be retained for capital expenditure, and Article 3 of the order provides for this. The types of capital expenditure which will be considered for grant are described in the schedule to the order. They comprise five categories which are compatible with and based upon the descriptions of prescribed expenditure for local authority capital allocations which are contained in Schedule 12 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. As now, the main areas of expenditure which will be treated as eligible for TSG will comprise public transport, highways, the regulation of traffic, parking and the provision of freight handling facilities.
The assessment of a local authority's needs for TSG will be based on its bid and accompanying transport programme information. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will decide on the amount of capital expenditure which he considers appropriate to meet those needs in the light of his policies and his assessment of the authority's transport programme. This amount of expenditure is known as accepted expenditure. It is intended that TSG will be paid in respect of all such accepted expenditure at a rate derived by dividing the aggregate

1155
amount of TSG available by the total level of accepted expenditure for all counties in Wales.
As a consequence of making TSG a grant in respect of capital expenditure, it is necessary to change the existing method of apportioning grant between individual counties in Wales. This is the purpose of the second amendment contained in Article 4 of the order. Because the amount of grant payable to each county will directly reflect their individual needs, this change has proved necessary in particular because the application of a threshold calculated in accordance with Section 6(4) of the Local Government Act 1974 is no longer appropriate or necessary.
Under the existing TSG system the first step in establishing the amount of TSG payable to counties is to determine the total level of both current and capital expenditure which should be taken into account for TSG. It is assumed that, as with other predictable local authority expenditure, an authority should be able to finance that part of its transport programme which remains relatively stable and even from year to year from other sources; for example, from rates and general central Government grant. This stable and even expenditure consists mainly of current and minor capital works. Allowance is made for this type of expenditure by the application of a population based threshold to each county's expenditure which has been accepted for grant purposes. The expenditure lying above the threshold, which consists of the remainder of current expenditure and expenditure on major capital works, is regarded as being of an uneven and unpredictable nature and therefore is eligible for support through the existing TSG system.
Under the new arrangements, all current expenditure will be absorbed into the block grant system, leaving only accepted capital expenditure to be financed from TSG. Since the bulk of such capital expenditure, being made up typically of a relatively small number of major projects, falls clearly within the uneven expenditure category, the need for any distinguishing threshold no longer exists. Given the uneven nature of expenditure, it would not in any case be possible to devise a thresh-hold formula which could be applied equitably to all Welsh counties. For the application of a threshold, we consider it necessary and proper to make the amendments to Section 6(4) of the 1974 Act, which are detailed in Article 4 of the order. It is our intention, once the county councils have had an opportunity to consider the working of these new arrangements for the payment of TSG on capital expenditure, to review the situation in the spring of 1982.
Finally, I should like to point out that none of the provisions contained in this order will affect the assessment of the totality of grant paid in support of total local government expenditure in Wales. All that will happen is that the part of TSG which was formerly paid in support of transport current expenditure will be added to the total of block grant. However, by making a clear distinction between current and capital expenditure, the order will ensure that the distribution of block grant will no longer be complicated by the current element of TSG, while TSG itself will remain as a capital grant which can cope with the lumpiness of capital expenditure.
I fear this has been a somewhat complex explanation
1156
but I hope that your Lordships will find it satisfactory. If the order is approved by your Lordships' House it will come into operation later this month. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 5th November be approved.—(Lord Sandys.)
5.20 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for explaining the purpose of this order so clearly. Nevertheless, although he has explained it clearly, there are a number of points on the proposals I should like to put to him. First, may I make it quite clear on behalf of the Labour Party that we have been in full support of placing the responsibility for transport policies and programmes on the county councils, and of the procedure for the transport supplementary grant to be paid through counties for all transport purposes
If this order is approved it means that we shall have three different procedures in Great Britain. Scotland has the procedure where its transport grants are paid within its rate support grant system. In England, as in Wales at present, subject to this order, we have the major part of transport grants paid through the TSG. With the passing of this order, we shall have a third procedure where the capital expenditure in Wales will be paid through the TSG and current expenditure through the rate support grant. When in 1980 your Lordships had before you the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill, at Committee stage I proposed an amendment to the clause on which this order before us is based. I pointed out to your Lordships that it must be appreciated that the incorporation of TSG in a block grant system could have an adverse effect on our transportation policies and it could have an adverse effect on the co-ordination or integration of county transport policies with finance and other measures.
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales has stated in another place that the bulk of the capital expenditure to be covered for TSG under this order will be for a relatively small number of major projects. I am given to understand that the county engineers in Wales have already been complaining bitterly that even at the present there is insufficient money to carry out repairs which are essential to keep the roads in a safe condition. When the order was before the Standing Committee in another place, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales give an assurance—and I quote—that:
"these proposals will not result in less money being available for roads in Wales".
I would ask the noble Lord the Minister whether that is certain, in view of the fact that TSG is to be for capital expenditure, as the Under-Secretary of State for Wales has said, for a few major projects? Also, the emphasis has been given to expenditure on roads; and there are two questions on capital expenditure set out in the schedule to the order which I should like to raise. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandys: do the descriptions listed in the schedule include capital expenditure on lighting of highways? Secondly, does the capital expenditure listed in the

1157
schedule include the capital expenditure on the provision of parking places, which at present is covered by the 1974 Act?
I should also like to ask: what is the purpose and reasoning behind the proposal to absorb all current expenditure on transport within the rate support grant system as it applies to Wales? At present, as the noble Lord has pointed out, TSG includes the most part of current expenditure for transport purposes and in particular grants made to operators for the provision, improvement and development of facilities for public transport. Will the funds to be made available within the rate support grant system be earmarked for transport purposes? Can the Minister give an assurance that with the new procedure there will be no decrease in the money to be made available to a county for transport services as a whole?
I must stress the effect that the recesson is having on the revenues of most public transport undertakings, and any lessening of the ability of county councils to make grants to operators could increase the problems, especially in the rural parts of Wales—and we are dealing with an order applicable to Wales. If the local government expenditure for 1982–83 is to be cut, as proposed by the Secretary of State, by a further 3 or 4 per cent., will the county councils in Wales be in a position to meet this situation?
I should also like to ask: do the proposals set out in the order reflect any shift away from the procedure whereby the county councils submit their TPP to the Secretary of State for approval? We have regarded that as a really important development. Finally, the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, says that the matter is to be reconsidered in the spring of 1982. I should like to ask what actual matters will be reviewed in 1982, because I gather these will be grants for 1982–83? Will it be possible to assess fully the effects of this order so early in spring 1982?
5.28 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I was very grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, supported in general terms on behalf of his party the Government's proposals in this order. The noble Lord asked a number of quite specific questions on the order, beginning with several points on the schedule. His first question related to the question of capital expenditure on lighting, and whether it was included. I can assure him that it is included, because in the schedule under 2(c) he will see the phrase:
"substantially improving the standard of the highway".
That is to be construed as including lighting in that category.
His second question referred to parking facilities. I can give him the assurance that parking facilities are also included, as he will see under paragraph 2, where it says—and I quote:
"Expenditure on the reclamation, improvement or laying out of land and on the construction, preparation, conversion, improvement, renewal or replacement of buildings and structures",
are included.
That will of course include both multi-storey car parks and the laying out of car parks on a conventional basis.
1158
The third question referred to the purpose and reasoning behind the alteration to RSG. As I explained earlier, transport current expenditure qualifies for TSG and for the block grant, but the two grant systems operate quite differently. TSG relates to a particular level of expenditure in a particular county, whereas block grant is intended to support a common standard of service. It is, of course, one of the options available and it was carefully considered during the review of the TSG. I hope that what I have said already will satisfy the noble Lord on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also asked for an assurance on the question of the financial implications and the block grant entitlements. I think that I can give him a satisfactory assurance here, because for Welsh counties as a whole the block grant total will increase by exactly the same amount as the reduction in the TSG total. For individual counties it is impossible to be precise at this stage. Although the loss of TSG will be broadly mirrored by the gain in the block grant, there will be a small net gain for some counties and a small net loss for others. The important point is that, whatever the net result, it will flow from a revised distribution system which is generally accepted by the Welsh County Councils Association as being fair and sensible.
The extent to which current expenditure will no longer be eligible for TSG in individual county shares of TSG will be affected. But, that said, it is not really relevant to compare year on year changes in individual allocations in respect of capital expenditure. TSG is, as its name implies, a supplementary grant and is designed to accommodate peaks and troughs in individual counties' spendings. I hope the noble Lord will feel that we have sufficiently explained that aspect of the finances.
The noble Lord made further comment upon the specific earmarking of funds from the block grant for transport purposes. I can assure him that there is no earmarking within the block grant. That is a standard practice. Nor is there any earmarking within the TSG, because that is a grant for a programme. There will be no decrease in the money to be made available in grants to operators. I hope that on that point the noble Lord will feel that that is about as far as we can go at this stage.
The noble Lord referred to the new procedures weakening the transport policy programme, the TPP, but I can assure him that there will be no weakening at all. The county councils have agreed the programme and this order does not weaken the TPP system as a whole. The noble Lord asked a number of questions relating to the financial implications, which I have tried to deal with in detail. If there are any matters which have omitted, I will certainly write to him.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he deal with the question of the review in spring 1982?
Lord Sandys: My Lords, that is a point on which I shall have to write to the noble Lord in detail. There are no precise details which I can give him in answer to that today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Security Officers Control Bill [H.L.]
5.33 p.m.
Lord Willis: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time. May I say, by way of preface, that in introducing this Bill it is no part of my purpose to attack or denigrate the security industry. It has its ragged edges and its unsavoury underbelly—and I shall come to this later—but, by and large, it occupies an honourable position in our society and plays an important role in the struggle against crime. Many security guards are in the front line in this struggle, and one can only commend them for their courage and dedication—courage and dedication which, I may add, is often poorly rewarded. I heard only the other day of a security organisation which had been successful in detecting an IRA man and reporting him to the police, and much of that kind of good work goes on with the security companies.
Whether we like it or not, we have to face the fact that the private security industry is here to stay. It has come a very long way from the old night watchman, sitting around his coke fire and cooking his kipper on the blade of a shovel. Since the war, in particular, it has moved on seven-league boots. Figures thrown up by the 1971 census suggested that there were about 80,000 people employed as security guards, patrolmen, watchmen, gatekeepers and store detectives. Since then, the crime rate has soared dramatically and the security industry has expanded to keep pace.
One estimate, in a book issued in 1976, gave the figures of 7,000 security firms, a quarter of a million uniformed men and 10,000 armoured vehicles. That compares with a police force of 110,000 in England and Scotland. There are no accurate figures, but we may safely assume that the security industry has many more men on the ground than all our police forces combined. Other estimates have put it at twice the number, and I would think that that is just about right. And between 75 and 85 per cent. of these people are employed by 10 or so large companies. These people are employed in transport, as guards or patrolmen or on the installation and maintenance of safes, locks and alarm systems. Some are what are known as "in-house" staff, employed by firms which make their own security arrangements. Much of the leadership and management on all sides of the industry comes from former policemen.
There are two associations to which companies in the industry may belong. By far the largest and most important is the British Security Industry Association—the BISA. At a 1978 estimate, this association had 63 member companies, including most of the giants in the industry, representing over 30,000 employees. The figures are almost certainly larger today. Membership is open only to those firms which can satisfy the association that they meet certain strict criteria. There is no doubt that the BISA have done a great deal to establish, maintain and improve standards in the industry. For example, no man can be employed by a BISA company unless a 20-year check has been made on his past, and this, I can assure your Lordships, is done very thoroughly.
The other organisation is the International Professional Security Association, which was founded in 1958. This is much more of an organisation for
1160
individuals rather than companies in the industry. By far the largest proportion of its members are" in-house" security people; that is, they are employed directly by the firm for which they do security work. The IPSA is also doing good work in the area of standards. It has 5,000 members and they have written in to support the Bill that is now before your Lordships.
That, then, is the background. We have a growth industry employing, directly or indirectly, somewhere in the region of a quarter of a million people—an industry which performs a useful function in guarding property and people, and which is of considerable help to our over-stretched police forces; above all, an industry which operates in the most sensitive and vulnerable areas of our society.
It has been emphasised by the Home Office and others that none of these firms and individuals has any legal right which sets it apart from, or above, the ordinary company or the ordinary citizen. They have, we are told, no special status in law and this is, of course, true. But I suggest that it begs the question, for the plain fact is that over the years the uniformed security guard has acquired a special psychological status in the mind of the public.
We have all grown conditioned to being searched by uniformed guards at airports, hotels and other places. We have grown accustomed to seeing massive armoured cars, and equally massive guards, ferrying goods and large sums of cash to and from banks and stores, and many of us are glad that they do so. We may know that the security guard has no extra standing in law, but the uniform and the equipment suggests that he has. The housewife, who can be taken in and "conned" by a slick double-glazing salesman, is not likely to question a uniformed guard. She is doubly vulnerable. People think that security men have authority and that is almost as good as having it.
Over the years, people have come to think of security guards, especially those working for such large and excellent firms as Securicor, as police auxiliaries, which indeed—we have to face the fact—they have become. And they are recognised as such unofficially by many police forces. Indeed, it would he foolish and lunatic when you are dealing with such things as the transit of huge sums not to have some liaison with the police. It is precisely because of this relationship and the new, if unofficial, status of private security that I have brought forward this measure.
The main purpose of the Bill is to make it an offence for any person who has been convicted of a major offence within the past 15 years to practise as a security officer. It is a very small measure, designed in the main to test the temperature of public and parliamentary opinion on this issue. Personally, I would like to see far wider legislation brought forward along the lines introduced by my right honourable friend Bruce George in another place. He proposed the setting up of a private security registration council which would have the power to license security organsations and individuals, much in the same way as the Gambling Board licenses clubs. That has much to commend it. But, as I say, that is not what we are about today.
I have been asked whether there is any evidence that this or any other Bill on this subject is needed. Should we not leave well alone? Should we not leave the

1161
industry to regulate its own affairs through its professional associations? As I have said, I have not the slightest doubt that the two professional associations I have already mentioned—BSIA and the other one in particular—can, and do, influence and regulate the standards of their members very adequately. And they do have a system of bonding their members so that there is an additional discouragement to anyone tempted into dishonesty. But I am not concerned with the firms and individuals which are covered by the BSIA and the IPSA. I am concerned with the cowboys. We have more cowboys in our society today than they have in Hollywood.
Returns made by police forces in England and Wales some two or three years ago indicated that there were something like 700 security organisations which were not members of these associations—700 companies. That is an awful lot, and it leaves a lot of people outside the net. In many ways the situation is quite extraordinary. There is absolutely nothing to stop anyone setting up in business and offering security and protection to the public. No training, no qualifications are needed, and there is no compulsion to join any professional organisation and abide by that organisation's standards. You cannot open a stall in the street to sell fruit or clothes without a licence but you can open a firm and sell security devices and services without any restriction whatsoever. I was told only the other day of a man who came straight out of prison and immediately formed a security organization—and even got contracts.
Would anyone use a security business set up by someone with no experience, one might ask? Of course, most large firms would not. They would set up their own in-house operation or seek the advice of the BSIA. But many medium-sized and small firms would not have the resources to handle their own security. Certainly the housewife does not. They might seek quotes from various security companies and accept the cheapest, not the best. Many companies are under the economic whip at the moment and are seeking to reduce the cost of their security—looking around for firms who will do the job for less. There are many of these. The competition in this industry is cut-throat.
Let me again use the example of double-glazing. The big firms in the double-glazing industry lay down strict standards for the members of their association. But that has not stopped the cowboys coming in after the rich pickings. Scarcely a week goes by without news of housewives being robbed by these door-to-door buccaneers. The parallel with security, especially domestic security, is obvious. So while we have this unbridled situation the potential for the criminal is obvious. He can seek to be recruited as an operative by one of the established firms, without disclosing his criminal past, or he can set up in business of his own accord. Getting round a criminal record is very simple. I could quote noble Lords an almost foolproof system, but I do not think that it would be in the public interest for me to do so.
The likelihood of a criminal slipping through the net of one of the big companies is small. But it has happened. And there are dozens of other struggling companies where tests and training are either minimal or non-existent. So the opportunity is there.
1162
Is there any evidence of abuse? Let me quote a few. January 1979: security guards working for Chrysler steal £20,000 in goods; September 1978: security guards steal £2 million from Heathrow; July 1978: two security officers, one with previous convictions, jailed for theft at Norwich; July 1978, Oxford: security guard steals £99,000; January 1978, Surrey: security guard involved in theft; December 1977, Birmingham: security guard jailed for arson; May 1977: security officer jailed for burglary; February 1977: security engineer jailed for burglary—and so on. I have here half a dozen other examples that I could quote.
Practically every case means that the crime was related to the job—that is, theft or arson, of or on the premises in which the guards were meant to be guarding from potential criminals. One of the most extraordinary cases concerned a convicted man, who admitted to 85 burglaries and break-ins, who set up in business to provide security locks for householders and. as an added inducement, offered a key-holding service. Your Lordships might feel that that is rather like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank.
There is sufficient recent evidence to indicate that the problem is a real one, and it will grow worse as the need for protection grows bigger. I am not projecting a theme for a television series when I say that criminals must and will enter the security industry. The potential and the possibilities are too obvious, to their minds, to be ignored. This Bill will not stop the most determined but it will act as a small deterrent until the Government introduce proper legislation. It will reduce the odds. And to argue against that is tantamount to saving that it would be useless to have a 30-mile per hour speed limit in built-up areas because some drivers would ignore it.
Before I turn to the clauses of the Bill, there is one other vital point that I ought to make. So far I have spoken of the protection of property, but there could be even more serious implications when one considers another growth industry, the protection of people. Terrorist activities, political assassination, kidnapping, extortion, are everywhere on the increase. Businessmen, millionaires, film stars, now often hire guards to protect them and their families. Increasingly, when a major celebrity is due to attend a function, the organisers will hire in security guards for the occasion as an additional measure of protection. Organisers of exhibitions, jewellery displays, art exhibitions and so forth often hire protection on an a la carte basis. There was one firm that specialised in this occasional service and which did rather well. It was called "Dial-a-Guard" and it was run by a man with something like 26 previous convictions. None of his employers was bonded.
I have no wish to be sensational but your Lordships may recall that some two years ago a man convicted of murder and released on parole succeeded in getting a job as a security guard and actually acted as a guard during one of Her Majesty's engagements. I do not need to expand on that, except to say that while there is no control, there is nothing to stop terrorists or political extremists from either setting up their own security organisation and putting their men in uniform or joining someone else's.
As I have said, the Bill is a small interim measure, designed to provide some protection for the security

1163
industry against criminal elements. It confers no official recognition or status on the industry. Clause 1 sets out the conditions which would make it illegal for a person convicted of certain serious offences to practise as a security officer. It makes reference to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and proposes that in certain circumstances the terms of that Act should not apply to those who seek employment as security officers. I am not against the rehabilitation of offenders. I simply believe that they should be rehabilitated in a less sensitive area than security.
Clause 2 refers again to the Act of 1974 and sets out the circumstances in which those who give information about a person's criminal record may be exempt from the conditions of that Act. I will confess that this was a most difficult clause to draft. It enters a sensitive and controversial area and I would welcome suggestions and comments from your Lordships. It is possible that one might decide that information ought only to be given through an established organisation like the BSIA. It has been argued that if we have a Bill of this sort there is no knowing where we shall stop. What about bank cashiers? My answer to that is that it is much easier to start a security organisation than to set up a bank. Clause 3 defines penalties for offenders under this proposed Act. These may be rather stiff, but I think they need to be. Clauses 4 and 5 deal with definition, interpretation and the short title.
I shall not pretend to your Lordships that I am confident that I have got it exactly right this time, but of one thing I am dead certain: the problems I have raised are serious ones and they will not go away. I hope that Parliament will not linger over this until there is some kind of serious crime or serious terrorist act before it gets to grips with the problem. We always tend to act too late. We always put up the traffic lights after there has been a multiple crash at the crossing. I hope this time we shall put up the traffic lights before that crash takes place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Willis.)
5.52 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Willis on introducing this Bill and on all the work that he has done on it. It is a subject which he has been studying for several years, so it is not just a passing interest of his or, to use modern jargon, an instant interest. In fact he was considering this matter as long ago as the time when my honourable friend Mr. Bruce George, the Member for Walsall, South, was involved in his Bill, the Private Security (Registration) Bill, to which my noble friend has referred this evening and which was introduced in another place. Whatever view one takes of the Bill before us today, there is no doubt that there are public concern and interest in the matter, so my noble friend has performed a service already in enabling us to debate it. I should like also to pay tribute to my honourable friend Mr. George for the enormous amount of research he has done on the subject and in producing his useful report.
At the outset I would emphasise something that my noble friend Lord Willis also referred to. I believe that the private security industry does very valuable
1164
work—indeed essential and important work. Many people would readily acknowledge, too, as I do and as I believe the police themselves do, that it would be quite beyond the resources of the police to take on the work that these security staffs do, even if it were desirable that they should do so; and many people would feel, as indeed I do, that it would be inappropriate for the police to have to undertake much of the work carried out by these security companies. So in my submission they fulfil a worthwhile and indeed essential role.
The security staffs also often perform difficult and sometimes dangerous tasks, as my noble friend has indicated. I would not go so far as one commentator went recently in suggesting that their duties are more dangerous than those of the police. Indeed, after seeing what the police have to cope with in helping to combat terrorism and in dealing with situations like the ones at Brixton in April and at Toxteth later, and elsewhere, quite apart from what we in our comfortable and comparative security are pleased to call "their more normal duties", I certainly would not agree with that. Yet in one respect the security staffs are in a sense possibly somewhat more exposed in some situations because, while some armed criminals would shy away from attacking a police officer, they might have a go at a security guard. Anyway, it can certainly be said that these security staffs carry out invaluable work.
At the same time, there is some concern about the growth of these security organisations and my noble friend Lord Willis has given an indication of their size today. I believe that there are powerful arguments for a measure of control over them, as he has said. It is also clearly the case that their work involves trust and calls for trustworthiness and integrity so it can also be argued powerfully that there ought to be some means to try to ensure that those who are employed in this industry are trustworthy. That, of course, is where my noble friend's Bill comes in.
What the Bill amounts to is that it provides the means for a system of vetting for those employed in the private security industry, and that is just one aspect of a system for regulating or controlling the industry. The whole question of whether we should have a regulatory system was put forward and arguments for and against were posed in the Home Offices document, The Private Security Industry—A Discussion Paper, including the vetting aspect of the problem. That document came out in 1979, while the last Government were in office. As that paper said:
"Access to confidential information held by the police, including records of criminal convictions, would be essential to any system of vetting";
it continued:
"that is so whether that access was given direct to the potential employer or to some licensing authority".
It also went on to summarise the bases of the policy followed by successive Home Secretaries which were encompassed in words used by the then Home Secretary on 14th June 1973. His words were:
"The supply of police information will continue to be governed by the general principle that no information is given to anyone, however responsible, unless there are weighty considerations of public interest which justify departure from the general rule".—[Official Report, Commons, col. 1681.]

1165
Since then we have had the Act to which my noble friend Lord Willis has referred tonight—the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, with its provisions creating what it calls "spent convictions" and its provisions prohibiting the disclosure of those spent convictions save in specified exceptional circumstances. The purpose of that Act is, of course, to enable those convictions to be forgotten about if the offender kept out of further trouble, so that he could be rehabilitated. So immediately we are confronted by a dilemma and by a choice—mercifully there is a choice—and on both sides of the balance, it happens to be the case, lies the public interest, and we have to choose whether the public interest is greater on the one side or on the other. Is it more in the public interest to provide information about the criminal convictions of a person about to carry out security duties and so, as some would argue, allow that intrusion into privacy and therefore that measure of erosion of civil liberties, or is it more in the public interest to withhold that information and so run the risk, as some would argue, of undesirable and untrustworthy people occupying positions of trust? That, my Lords, is the choice.
It is the case that since the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, to which my noble friend referred, was passed we have had the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. What that order did—and your Lordships passed it in June 1975—was to exclude certain categories of persons and jobs from the protection (if that is the right word) of the Act itself. In other words, the order provided for the supply o information about the criminal records of persons in or entering certain professions; and the reason for allowing that information to be provided in strictly confidential circumstances was to protect the public interest by preventing undesirable people from occupying specified positions of what might be called trust.
Included in those categories, if I may remind your Lordships, are, so far as the professions listed in the order are concerned, medical practitioners, the legal profession (barristers, advocates in Scotland, solicitors), accountants, dentists—with, incidentally, dental hygienists and dental auxiliaries; nurses, midwives and others. So far as officers and employments listed are concerned, there are the judiciary, justices' clerks, the police, teachers, people employed in youth clubs and others. And among those in the regulated occupation lists are people running insurance companies, people running unit trusts, and others as well. So there have already been exemptions or exclusions or exceptions in the public interest long before my noble friend's Bill came along.
Arguments have been advanced against further exemptions from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and indeed the organisation Justice, whose work on such a vast number of matters so many of us admire, has argued against exempting the private security industry in its reply in July 1979 to the Home Office discussion paper. In fact, the discussion paper itself had something to say when it referred to the order that I have mentioned which provided exceptions from the provisions of the Act. What the document said was this:
"A number of occupations were exempted from these provisions. The security industry, however, was not, although its representative organisation had urged that it should be".
1166
Your Lordships might consider it significant that its representative organisation did consider that it should be exempted from the provisions of that Act. The document went on:
"The Government had received representations from other organisations on the similar ground that people entrusted with large amounts of cash or high value goods should not be given the benefit of the Act. The Government concluded that exemptions on that ground would not be justified as they would be on such a scale as to defeat the purpose of the Act. Very similar considerations apply in relation to the granting of access to the criminal records of people in positions of trust: it would be extremely difficult to decide where to stop and the whole principle of confidentiality would he jeopardised".
Those are arguments which are not without some weight, I think, it has to be admitted. But the plain fact is that we have already had, and we have justified having, some exceptions, as we have seen from the order that I have mentioned. Those exceptions have already covered some people and some bodies in the private sector of industry and commerce. There are the unit trusts and insurance companies, for example. Yet so far as the private security industry is concerned we have the argument put to us that to extend the exemptions in this way would be to open the door to all kinds of additional exclusions in a wholly uncontrollable way. That is the way the argument is put. I am not over-impressed by that argument. In the first place, that would be an argument which could be applied to almost anything and is almost an argument for doing nothing about anything. In the second place, of course, it would not be uncontrollable. Parliament would have to consider any proposed extension, as indeed it is doing now at this very moment. If a particular proposal is unacceptable, or if the situation showed any sign of getting out of hand, Parliament could say, No.
Then there is the argument, which has been put forward in some quarters, that some members of the public already wrongly regard security staffs employed by security companies as having special powers, like those of the police, or at least powers greater than those of the normal individual citizen, and my noble friend Lord Willis has indicated, by referring to the wearing of uniforms and the armoured vans we are used to seeing about, the strength of feeling in that connection.
But the argument put forward by others also runs on in this way and suggests that if we were to have some sort of statutory provision regulating security companies and security staffs that would confuse people even more into believing, again wrongly, that those staffs, by virtue of those statutory provisions, were clothed in some cloak of official recognition and so had some special powers like those of the police. That seems to me to be one of those rather clever arguments which are conjured up as an excuse for not doing something. It is a rather distorted or unclear process, I think, which produces such a convoluted argument. I do not know where it came from originally. I cannot believe it originated in my former department, and I am always reluctant to say anything against it because I have such affection and admiration for Lord Belstead's department. Indeed, I have to be very careful indeed about this, because I may be told that it was I who put forward the argument originally. I hope and believe it was not, but there it is—one has to be careful. Wherever it came from, it does strike me as being the

1167
sort of argument which gives that uncannily revealing touch of verisimilitude to that splendid programme "Yes, Minister".
If people do not understand about the powers or lack of powers of these security staffs or companies it is up to the rest of us to do what we can to put them right and to try to see that they do understand what the position actually is, always assuming, incidentally, that that is something which is causing concern in the first place and is worth trying to deal with anyway. I must confess that personally I do not really understand what is the monumental harm that any such misunderstanding that does exist, if it does, is doing to society anyway. More importantly than that, I really do not see why the fact, if it be a fact, that sonic people are under some misapprehension should stop Parliament doing something if it is right and beneficial to do it anyway. It is there, in my submission, that the distortion of thought comes in, in thinking that because there is misapprehension we should refrain from doing what is right.
Your Lordships will clearly decide what is the right thing to do, and it will be for my noble friends to decide whether or not to support my noble friend's Bill. I feel at the very least my noble friend has made out a prima facie case. Indeed, if I can express a personal view, and I do so without committing my noble friends on these Benches, I would say that the balance of the public interest comes down firmly in favour of this Bill, perhaps with some amendments. So I hope it makes further progress. So incidentally, does my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, who had such a lot to do with encouraging the Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill when he was on the Woolsack. I would just leave one thought with my noble friend Lord Willis. If there is some misapprehension among some people about the supposed powers of security personnel, and if, therefore, we should do what we can to try to put this right, he may feel that perhaps one way of doing that might he to call his Bill the Security Staffs Control Bill instead of the Security Officers Control Bill, for it could just be that in the minds of some the word "officers" might mean more than it actually does. At any rate, I wish my noble friend and his Bill well.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, pretty accurately and quite shortly, because I agree with his approach almost entirely. I think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, made an unanswerable case for something being done and for a Second Reading for this Bill. I think there will be one or two things we shall want to discuss very carefully in committee, which I shall just refer to in passing. My noble friend Lord Hunt was to have spoken here, but he is not well, and he and I found that we agreed, so I am doing it for him. We were both very strong supporters of Lord Gardiner's Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill and we are anxious not to spoil it. I think this can be done quite easily.
The first point I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boston, about is that the right thing to do in regard to Clause 2, which is exempting the people to
1168
whom the Bill refers from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, is to add to the exemptions under the exceptions order which the noble Lord quoted. The exceptions order includes all the people he mentioned and also police, prison officers and probation officers. It is pretty wide, but it is quite illogical, it seems to me, not to include security officers. I do not think that there can be serious argument about it. It seems to me to be a better way of doing it than the way in the Bill. This is the way that is open to us.
I think that Clause 2(2)(a) is too widely drawn. I cannot find where it came from in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, if, indeed, it did come from that Act. Clause 2(2)(a) says:
"within the last fifteen years committed or been charged with or prosecuted for"—
that is very wide. Then,
"or convicted of or sentenced for any offence".
Certainly. But if you are arrested, prosecuted and found innocent it seems quite wrong that it should be included. It is a Committee point, but one worth mentioning.
There is a further point about which I do not feel too sure but which I think should be aired. Clause 2 of the Bill merely puts somebody applying for a job as a security officer in the same position as somebody applying for a job in one of the other exempted professions. It would mean that the person had to declare his convictions but he would not automatically be excluded from appointment as a security officer. Clause 1 goes much further and actually makes it illegal. That is what we want to look at. It seems to me that if you are an employer of a security organisation and you know somebody very well, you may also know very well that he is now secure although he was not in the past. So long as nobody conceals the fact, I am not sure that it is right to make it illegal to appoint him. However, that again is a Committee point.
Finally—or very nearly finally—I would prefer licensing security companies to anything else in relation to the ordinary fringe people, and I cannot see why that should not be included. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will look at that point. As the exclusions are quite serious I think that one wants to be very careful about minor offences. I wonder whether, if you are talking about offences of drunkenness or possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use, they are really worth a 15-year bar. In Lord Gardiner's Bill the bar was graded in relation to the severity of the sentence. That is another matter that I think we could look at.
My final point is rather a sad one. I hate the idea of never seeing another night watchman. The noble Lord referred to the night watchman who we used to see with his fire and his shovel. When we discuss definitions I think that we might try and make some provision available because I think this is the kind of job which is in places where security is not very serious and there is not very much to steal, very adequate for ex-offenders of a certain age. I think that we should certainly give the Bill a Second Reading.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I had not intended to speak but if this Bill is to proceed I think that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Willis, might like to look at a small

1169
point. The Bill refers to someone "who has been convicted". The person convicted may, in fact, be perfectly innocent and his case may be quashed on appeal. I do not think that there is anything in the Bill which excludes someone in that category.
6.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I should like to say how much I welcome the opportunity which is afforded by the debate on this Second Reading to discuss the role and function of the private security industry in this country which does important work in preventing crime and protecting property. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, made clear that they recognise that good work. But, of course, the effect of the Bill reflects in part the concern which is felt—and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, expressed this in his speech—about the rapid growth of the industry and the opportunities it could offer for criminal activity. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, reminded your Lordships that the previous Government issued a discussion paper on the possibilities for controlling the industry and a large number of replies were received from a wide cross-section of interests and they were all carefully considered by the present Government.
Bearing in mind that private security personnel have no special legal powers or privileges beyond those enjoyed by any other citizen, the Government decided that there was no need for any stricter form of limitation or control than that already provided by the law. But although, we saw no case for statutory control, we are anxious to support and encourage self-regulation. Discussions are now taking place to see how this might best be achieved. Indeed, the British Security industry Association, which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, referred to, have told us of their proposals to set up an inspectorate to monitor the pre-employment screening rules of member companies and to ensure that suitable induction training is being carried out.
Already member companies must ensure that their organisation is soundly managed, that their directors and senior executives are of good repute and that their employees conduct themselves in a proper manner. Also, companies must have adequate financial backing and proper liability insurance, as well as satisfying the association of their business integrity and ethics, especially in relation to advertising and selling practices. Thus, the setting up of an inspectorate, while being a very significant step forward, is only part of the association's praiseworthy efforts to establish responsible standards.
I would not have gone into that detail if the British Security Industry Association only represented a small part of this industry, but the association does, in fact, represent about 90 per cent. by volume of turnover of the contracts security business. It seems likely that a number of the smaller firms will join in due course. I think that it is fair to claim, therefore, that progress, good progress, is being made towards effective self-regulation, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Willis, went a long way towards recognising that.
1170
However, in addition, as regards "in house" security, which the noble Lord mentioned, which covers all sorts of duties undertaken by people directly employed by a wide range of organisations, there is an equally active professional body in the International Professional Security Association. It also aims to promote good practice and a valuable training scheme is run through the Institute of Industrial Security. Following the Government's decision not to seek statutory powers of control, that association is now compiling a code of good practice to which its members will be expected to adhere.
In so far as the activities of private investigators come within the scope of the Bill, the two main representative organisations, the Institute of Professional Investigators and the Association of British Investigators, are united in their aims of trying to establish uniform standards of conduct and competence. The Institute already has an excellent educational system and examination procedure for its members, and the Home Office is currently discussing with the two organisations how best to ensure that professional standards are adhered to.
The noble Lord's Bill seeks to prevent the employment in the private security industry of persons with certain criminal convictions and to disapply certain provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. But when all is said and done, the absence of a criminal record does not tell the potential employer about the other important aspects of character that should be taken into account in assessing whether the applicant will make a good employee. I think that one can discuss almost till the cows come home whether there is a worrying amount of crimes committed by people in this industry who have, in addition to that, already got a criminal record. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that one crime is too many, but I mean "worrying" in the sense that one feels that one must put something on the statute book specially to deal with it instead of going down the other road of self-regulation.
I would simply say on this point that the impression we have in the Home Office is that the majority of cases of dishonesty within the industry have related to people who have, in fact, no previous convictions but who have succumbed to the temptations which they have encountered. The only exceptions to the 1974 Act granted by Parliament have been confined to those justified on certain limited grounds. These relate to national security, the public interest—mainly the administration of justice—the protection of particularly vulnerable groups, and the maintenance of confidence in licensing systems. I am afraid that if there were too many exceptions, it would nullify the effect of the Act. This would be most regrettable in view of the steps towards self-regulation which the security industry is undoubtedly taking.
It is true that some people are employed in jobs which afford a greater opportunity for committing crime than others, but, if we were to accept this criterion, it would open up the way for many requests for exception from all sorts of organisations and individual firms concerned to protect valuables and large sums of money. As the noble Lord, Lord Boston, made clear, as I understood his speech, the previous

1171
Government took a decision not to extend the exceptions to the 1974 Act in that particular way.
Apart from the general points of principle about the need for any statutory control, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, pointed out, the enactment of this Bill as at present drafted would bear very heavily on some offenders who had lived down their conviction for many years. Parliament specified that the longest rehabilitation period set out in the 1974 Act should be 10 years, and that applies only to offences for which the offender was sentenced to between six months and two and a half years in prison. The Bill, on the other hand, establishes a 15-year period, and relates it to some offences for which it is unlikely that a period of rehabilitation of even 10 years would have been appropriate under the Act, given the likely sentences involved. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, made this point very clearly.
Clause 1 also goes a good deal further than the 1974 Act, in that it seeks directly to penalise past offenders, as defined in the clause, by preventing them from being employed as security officers at all. The Act simply describes circumstances in which offenders are rehabilitated and in which they need not disclose past convictions. I really think that to create such substantial exceptions to the 1974 Act for security officers alone would set them apart from all other occupations, and I am bound to say that I think this would not be the right road to go down.
Finally, the question of the pressure that the Bill would put on the police to disclose details of criminal records to private employers, thereby breaking a longstanding principle on non-disclosure to them, is also worrying, as is the alternative, which would be that the police would find themselves in the position of needing to pursue checks on the backgrounds of employees in order to enforce prohibition. As there may be upwards of 240,000 people covered by the Bill's wide definition of "security officer"—and I understood from the noble Lord's speech that his assessment is that there are a good many more than that—this would impose a considerable burden on the police.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I do not quite understand this point. I think that what is suggested is that it should not be an offence to disclose, not that there is an obligation for the police to do anything. I do not know where the noble Lord gets this.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, there would indeed be an obligation on the police because employers would approach the police. There is absolutely no doubt at all about that if this Bill were to go on the statute book in either this form or indeed a modified form. Employers would be bound to make use of the provisions of the clauses and would approach the police, and would wish to know. If the sort of assessment of the number of people who are concerned with the private security industry which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, gave us in his speech is anything like accurate—and, as I say, the assessment of the Home Office is somewhat lower—this would be a very considerable additional burden upon the police.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, we must not have a long argument over this, but surely at present the noble Lord is suggesting that the police are under
1172
obligation to answer questions about anyone who is not covered by the 1974 Act; in other words, for every sentence over two and a half years. I had no understanding of that.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must look again at what the noble Lord is saying, but I do not entirely take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has just said. My point is that if this Bill goes on the statute book, employers will avail themselves of the need for the police to provide information. I must say that I believe that to be what will happen in practice. Perhaps I may look at what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said, and I will certainly write to him if there is anything further that I should add.
For all these reasons the Government have—as I hope I have revealed—some pretty serious reservations about the provisions of this Bill. Therefore, although, as I said quite genuinely at the beginning, I very much welcome the opportunity to debate this Second Reading, if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, will think that it is not necessary to proceed further with it through the Committee, Report and Third Reading stages. I say that not because I believe that inactivity in this very important area of employment is the right course, but because in view of the positive encouragement towards self-regulation within the private security industry which the Government have given, I am confident that the initiatives which are now under discussion, if put fully into operation, will go a long way towards raising standards of conduct and control.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Willis: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for their warm support and for their very positive, sometimes critical, approach to this Bill. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, trotted out some of the same arguments, slightly retreaded, that we have had on this queston over the last few years; for example, the old one that to pass a Bill of this sort would be to confer, or would seem to imply that we were conferring, some official recognition on the security organisations. I do not think that it would confer any more recognition on the security organisations than we confer now.
As I tried to say in my speech, the fact is—and this is the new factor that I hope the Home Office will take on board—that there is now a psychological recognition of these uniformed guards. What would the noble Lord do if he went to his bank tomorrow, and was met at the door by a uniformed guard who said: "You can't come in"? Would he say: "You have no legal right to stop me; you have no legal powers in law"? No, he would obey that security guard. One sees that sort of thing more often in America than in Britain, for in America practically every store and jewellery shop has a uniformed guard who orders you about as if he is a policeman. I do not resent it. I believe that, on the whole, these security guards are doing a very good job in protecting property. But we must recognise this psychological approach in the public's mind. Therefore, to talk about recognition or non-recognition is not the point of the argument. They already have that. In my view that point

1173
has not been taken sufficiently into consideration in all the Home Office documents that I have read on the subject.
The other main point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was the question of self-regulation. Like him, I very much welcome the fact that BSIA and the IPSA are going in, in this very strong way, for self-regulation. I recognise, too, that they represent 90 per cent. of the industry. This is precisely the point that I was making; there is a hole in the bucket, and a rather big hole. Ten per cent. of security firms are not recognised. The point I was trying to make is that there is nothing to prevent anyone setting up a security organisation, and if he has criminal intent, he certainly would not join BSIA or the other organisation. He would just simply keep outside it. Why should he go in for that kind of self-regulation? Seven hundred firms, on the police's own reckoning, are not members of the BSIA or the other organisation. That is a rather large hole, and I am surprised that the Home Office should be satisfied with this powerful and good self-regulation and not see the danger that is looming up on the horizon from these other organisations.
I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, made about security staff. That may be a rather important point. There is one other point to which I should like to refer, and that is that the exemptions would create an open door. I do not see why they should. It has not created a particularly open door since we made the exemptions in 1975, and if we exempt the private security industry from those regulations we can always put the bar up if somebody else comes along and says: why not postmen, bank cashiers, why not everybody else? They cannot make out a case, but surely nobody in their right mind could say that the security industry, which deals in the safety of people and property, should not be controlled in some way, and that they should not be exempted because it only opens the door. That is an old argument, and it is rather weatherworn now.
The crucial point was made partly by my noble friend Lord Donaldson and partly by my noble friend Lord Boston. That is the dilemma that I have in Clause 2 where, on the one hand, we want to protect the privacy of the individual, we do not want to come down too hard on offenders—and I take the point about some of the paragraphs and the sentences—and on the other hand we want some kind of control over the security industry, and there is this constant dilemma between the freedom of the individual and the needs of the public.
I was persuaded by the arguments that were put forward—and I hope my noble friends Lord Boston and Lord Donaldson will not be too disappointed by this—that in fact my Bill goes too far on the one hand and does not go far enough on the other. I rather feel, therefore, that I personally should like to have another think about it and come back to your Lordships' House on another occasion, with perhaps something a bit more widely drawn but more precisely drawn, if that is not a contradiction in terms. Therefore, while thanking noble Lords for their help and assistance, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for a Second Reading.
Motion for Second Reading, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

Shipbuilding Bill
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
Nuclear Industry (Finance) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with a certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill; read 1a, and to be printed.

Satellite Broadcasting: Policy
6.33 p.m.
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what comments have been received on the report of the Home Office study entitled Direct Broadcasting by Satellite and when they intend to decide upon a policy towards satellite broadcasting.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper to the Government this evening I should declare a personal interest. I have worked in independent television for many years, and I am, until the end of this year, chairman of one of the ITV programme companies. But I am not here to speak for any outside interest. I speak on the subject of direct broadcasting by satellite entirely for myself.
The Question before us refers to the report of the Home Office study, Direct Broadcasting by Satellite, abbreviated to DBS, which was published in May of this year. I think all those of your Lordships who have read it will agree it is a most thorough and comprehensive document. It provides a detailed and a welcome introduction to a particularly complex subject, and one furthermore that it is easy to generalise about. To my mind, the report is a model of its kind, and shows what the Civil Service can do at its best.
On the first page it starts with an introduction by the Home Secretary phrased in characteristic language and identifying five "strategic options":
"Option A: a full and early start (for example, five new DBS services starting in, say, 1987);
Option B: a full but later start (in, say, 1990);
Option C: a modest but early start (one possibility would be two new DBS services starting perhaps in 1986);
Option D: a modest later start (in, say, 1990); and
Option E: no DBS at all, at any rate in the foreseeable future".
Anyone with experience of decision-taking in Whitehall or elsewhere will have no difficulty in identifying out of this list of five possibilities the middle one, Option C, as the front runner.
One question, however, that must be asked before the Government reach any final decision is whether the framework for the public policy which is beginning to emerge—it is now in the preliminary stages—is too narrow. The report affirms that so far as the programme operations go—that is, the use that is made of satellites—DBS should be contained within the existing broadcasting arrangements and institutions (those are the words used in the report). What this means in practice is the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority.
The reason given is that the existing rules and conventions which have grown up so laboriously over many years covering impartiality in the reporting of news and standards of taste and public decency would be perpetuated. On the face of it, it may seem a

1175
reasonable assertion. But I am not sure this assumption should be accepted without being tested by argument.
Last week there was a satellite broadcasting conference in Vienna. It was organised by the Economist in association with the International Institute of Communications. The institutional structure of satellite broadcasting was debated—and it was particularly interesting to hear a bold and far from self-serving view expressed by a senior spokesman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. While affirming the desire of the IBA to be in the advance guard of technological progress, the speaker went on to refer to programme regulation. I quote his actual words:
"It may be that the national interest is to be better served by the creation of a fresh institution to serve fresh goals. The original institutions can then be left to serve the former goals for as long as the nation, through its Parliament, decrees. In short, we may need to ask ourselves whether satellite broadcasting is simply a variation of forms familiar to us over many years or whether it brings in new elements which should radically alter our thinking and which perhaps call for fresh minds uninhibited by traditional ways of thought or unhampered by obligations incurred over the years to conflicting interests".
The Home Office was represented at the conference, and I hope that the Minister's officials will give careful thought to this opinion, coming, as it did, not from those who sometimes suffer from regulation, but from a representative of one of the regulatory bodies itself.
Even as we speak, in Geneva the European Broadcasting Union has today responded positively to an offer from the European Space Agency. The offer was for the free experimental use of one of the transponders on L-Sat for the provision of a broadcasting service. What is envisaged is a pan-European broadcasting experiment broadcast from the ESA's L-Sat and co-ordinated by the European Broadcasting Union. Already 15 European broadcasting organisations, including the United Kingdom, have stated an interest in taking part. It is difficult, however, to see how a European initiative of this sort effectively could be regulated by any national broadcasting institution.
It seems to me, my Lords, that concentration on the institutional forms, on the most appropriate type of broadcasting institution, is more relevant and important than debating the possibility of a departmental shift of responsibility for broadcasting away from the Home Office to the Department of Industry. Despite the advocacy to the contrary of the Economist, I believe that a change of this sort would be regretted by most broadcasters. The Department of Industry is of course an interested party, bearing in mind the industrial aspects of space and the provision of the hardware. But I should prefer to see the broader social policy aspects left as the concern of a separate department not exclusively concerned with the industrial dimension.
There is a dilemma now facing Government and we should be frank about it. On the one hand, there is an export potential for satellite equipment and for the technology which exists in this country, largely in British Aerospace, but elsewhere as well. If we do not go ahead, Britain may find itself excluded from the new markets which are so important both for reasons of trade and maintaining employment. On the other hand, there is no real demand for new broad
1176
casting services beyond those extensions which have already, after prolonged debate, been authorised; namely, the introduction of the fourth channel next year and breakfast television in 1984. Moreover, DBS—direct broadcasting from satellites—could be disruptive of the existing systems of independent television and the BBC and the standards which have grown up over many years.
We can all agree, my Lords, that there are large issues of policy here, not just of industrial policy, possibly clashing with cultural standards, but questions of finance and regulation, as well as protection and freedom. It is important not to lose sight of these fundamental principles in reaching a decision. I hope the Government will move ahead boldly and imaginatively in adopting a policy. I trust they will not delay much longer, and that in reaching a decision they will be helped by the opinions expressed in the House this evening.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in rising at this point I am very conscious of two matters. The first is that owing to another public engagement it is possible that I might have to leave before the end of the debate, but if I do so I hope it will be understood that no discourtesy is intended to those who follow me, and shall read every word with the greatest possible interest, though I shall stay as long as I can. Secondly, I am conscious of the fact that this is an Unstarred Question rather than a debate. For those two reasons I shall make a very short speech.
I put down my name to speak tonight merely to underline the extreme importance which my noble friends on these Benches attach to this Question, which was put so clearly and fairly by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I put down my name to speak because I wish also to underline what we on these Benches believe to be the extreme urgency of the Government providing appropriate answers to the kinds of questions which have been posed today.
If I wanted to go more deeply into the subject I would perhaps do no more than quote from speeches already made in your Lordships' House, and no useful purpose would be served by simply repeating them. For example, we see that on 24th July 1980 at col. 588 of Hansard the noble Lord, Lord Willis, made an admirable speech in which he covered all the new technological developments, going far beyond satellites, which will have and indeed are already having a profound effect on broadcasting. It would be immensely helpful if Ministers and others interested in the subject took the trouble to go back to that debate and read the clear exposition of what is happening in this field, admirably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, on that earlier occasion, and no useful purpose would be served by me repeating it.
At col. 609 of Hansard for that debate was another admirable speech, made by the noble Earl, Lord de La Warr, in which he summarised many of the technical matters which are crucial, and it would be inappropriate for me to quote from that speech because, as the noble Earl is to speak later, he may wish to make that speech again, and if he does I will say, "A jolly good thing too" because it was an excellent speech.
In that speech the noble Earl dealt very much with a

1177
subject in which I have always had a great interest, pay television. I have tended to believe that if we give more opportunities for people to choose the kind of things they would like to view or listen to and actually pay for it, then, provided we can create the machinery whereby that can be done, minority interests can perhaps be much better catered for than they have been in the past, though I am bound to say that it is sometimes rather difficult to know what a minority interest is. Something which starts as a minority interest can soon become a majority interest.
I remember about 15 years ago, when I had the honour and pleasure of serving for some years as a member of the BBC General Advisory Committee—I served until such time as the BBC came to the conclusion that they preferred advice of a somewhat different character than that which they regularly received from me—I strongly urged the BBC to think about televising snooker. I was told that was rubbish because it was a minority interest and nobody would want to watch it. It just goes to show that some minority interests become majority ones.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in putting this Question forward, has alerted us once again to the fact that major changes are already taking place, changes which can have a profound impact on television, for those who provide it, for those who initiate and prepare programmes and for all those who receive programmes, enjoy them or otherwise. I believe that the new developments can all prove to be thoroughly beneficial provided we take the necessary steps in time, and that means now. The new developments can be beneficial purely financially, and in commercial terms new technology brings new opportunities which do not now exist. They can be beneficial to broadcasters themselves, and the creative people in that industry, by providing more opportunities and outlets. I also believe that at the end of the day the new opportunities, arising in part from satellites as well as other new forms of technology, can provide viewers with a much greater degree of choice. All those are matters to be welcomed.
But here are also problems. There are already problems with regard to copyright and daily infringements of copyright which are occurring, with people making video tape recordings of programmes and reissuing them and so on. There are many problems on the horizon with regard to the general balance of television and broadcasting. In Parliament, with the BBC Charter and the independent television Act, we have always taken great care to distance Parliament from the control of broadcasting. We have required other authorities to see that the balance is preserved overall, rather than specifically within individual programmes. But I have always tended to believe that the only real answer to the question of fairness and balance is for the maximum number of individual creative people to have the maximum number of opportunities and the maximum amount of personal freedom and autonomy. Then one has variety and genuinely has choice.
With these latest developments we are on the brink of a new, wide-ranging choice for viewers, but we are also on the brink of the total demolition of the elaborate arrangements that we have erected in order to control what people watch and what is presented by
1178
various organisations. These are all matters that will have to be thought about.
I said that I would make a short speech, and I see that it is already longer than I meant it to be. All I want to add is that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has raised a matter of immense importance. There are many crucial problems. I could outline them and list them, but I am sure that other noble Lords will do so, and I appreciate that the noble Lord himself listed many. They were also referred to in the earlier debate in your Lordships' House. But I say that if we are to derive full benefit from these developments without any corresponding or counter-balancing drawbacks, decisions really must be taken now on a whole range of matters. Therefore, it is with great interest that I look forward to hearing the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. When I have heard him reply to previous debates I have tended to feel that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has a gift for finding a difficulty in regard to every solution. If he will forgive me, I must say that on this occasion it really is important to all concerned that we hear some actual answers and positive statements of what the Government are now doing and intend to do on a matter of extreme urgency.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for tabling this Question. This is a fascinating subject, which has been made easier for us to understand by the very thorough study that the Home Office has undertaken and has published for us to read. Even those of us who are not technically-minded are able to understand at least part of it. But it leaves a number of questions unanswered, and if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can answer some of them tonight he might help both us and the country.
I think I am right in saying that there are still areas of this country without any television at all. There are areas which have been left with only black and white television—without colour—following the change in line definition from 625 to 405. Therefore, my first question is: If, and when, we have direct broadcasting by satellite into the home, will it cover more easily all those areas where we have not been able to get a signal on what is known as the terrestrial system? That is my first question. I am in favour of DBS; I think we have to go ahead. My second question is: Do the Government foresee replacing the existing three channels, plus the fourth channel and breakfast time television, with five channels from a satellite, or do they think in terms of five channels in addition to those that we already have? If the latter is the case, are all the channels really necessary?
These are the kind of questions that people are hound to ask when they consider the cost involved in the whole exercise. It would probably take about five years before we could get the satellite in the air, and it would probably cost £300 to £400 to each household that hoped to receive a direct signal from the satellite. The second figure is made up by a module to receive the signal from the satellite, plus an additional aerial of a different type—a dish aerial, as it is generally known as. But of course the main cost will not be to the householder. The main cost will be to either the Government, who might wish to fund the project, or

1179
private industry that was interested in funding it. They would have to find many millions of pounds to construct the satellite and then to launch it.
We know that these things can be done. The world authority has given us the opportunity to go ahead with the L-Sat, the large satellite, with five channels, if we so wish, and it is for the Government to decide. But before that is done, we ought to consider the cost and how it is proposed to pay for the project. One suggestion is that the five channels, if they are all used—and there is no real need to use them all at once—could be paid for by some form of subscription television; that is, paying for the programmes that one receives. That, too, is a possibility. It would need on the receiver an additional device in the form of a descrambler to descramble the transmission from the particular channel of the satellite; otherwise everyone with a dish aerial could receive a programme that other people were paying for. That is another little problem that will have to be considered. But in this country we have not yet proved that what is known as subscription, pay, or cable television is financially viable. It probably will be in the fullness of time. Whether it would be in regard to the satellite, one does not know.
As I have already said, at the moment we have three channels. We shall have a fourth channel next year, and then there will be breakfast time television in a few years' time. If DBS (direct broadcast by satellite) is to be successful, it must somehow be covered—I mean financially covered—and I am not quite clear how this is to be done.
There is another point I should like to ask the Government about. Is it their view that the BBC and the IBA, both with considerable technical knowledge, should undertake the ground work; that is, the transmission from the ground to the satellite? Is it the view that the existing engineering sections of the two authorities should do that? These are a few questions arising from the report that I feel need answering, if the Government can answer them at the present moment. I should hate the Government at some point in the near future to say that in view of a number of queries and problems we had better set up a commission to look at the whole thing once again. That would mean putting it to bed for five years by which time both France and Germany would be undertaking direct broadcasting by satellite. I think that we have all the information we need. What we need more than anything else at the moment is a decision from the Government. I am in favour of going ahead, even if only slowly.
I remember, as do most of us, the discussions that we have had about Concorde. It has been a very costly development of a quite wonderful aircraft, but we can never measure accurately the spin-off in technology and knowledge that has come to us through building Concorde. I think that the same will apply to direct broadcasting by satellite. I hope that the Government will go ahead, perhaps slowly, and that in the fullness of time those areas that have not been easy to cover by the present system of terrestrial broadcasts can be covered by direct broadcasting by satellite.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, I appreciate the opportunity given to us by the noble Lord,
1180
Lord Windlesham, to air this matter. I have an approach that I think is rather different from that of some other speakers. I do not share the sense of urgency that I hear expressed around the Chamber in regard to this issue. Before I explain why I do not share that sense of urgency, I should like to touch on one subject which the noble Lord raised in introducing the debate; namely, the question of governmental control of broadcasting. We have indeed moved a very long way since the days of Lord Reith, but even from those days until now I have never taken the view that the Home Office was really the right department to look after broadcasting. Broadcasting never has been a home affair. We have always controlled it with quite a light hand, happily, through the Home Office, but it has always seemed to me that this is really the wrong department.
I have always felt that, with the present division of the whole of this area—for example, broadcasting under the Home Office, films partly under Trade and partly under Arts, sports under the Environment and museums partly under Environment and partly under Arts—there is a tremendous confusion; and I believe that this confusion would be solved if we were once and for all to make up our minds to create a Ministry of the Arts, Communications, Entertainment and Sport. That, together, would make up a viable Ministry and would be a department which was wholly concerned with the whole area. I think we shall probably not get a coherent policy in any of these fields until such time as ministerial and departmental responsibility is centralised under the control of one Minister.
The BBC, when it first set up as a broadcasting organisation, had over its portals—and it still has—the words, "Nation shall speak unto nation". What it does not say, of course, is, "Nation shall listen to nation". There has been an awful lot of international broadcasting but relatively little international listening, and, indeed, surprisingly little international communication of any sort.
I take leave to doubt whether in fact television is really an international medium. I rather suspect that it is in fact a national development, and that to some extent the nature of television reflects the nature of the society within which it exists. This, I think, is particularly true of our own system. Rather unusually on our side of the House, I was always in favour of breaking the BBC's monopoly. On the whole, we on this side of the House, I think, saw the BBC, a public corporation, as being all good, and rather thought that Lord Reith had something to do with that—and of course he had. His idea of television and of broadcasting generally was a very different one from the modern idea. He saw it as an instrument of education rather than one of entertainment and enjoyment.
As far as I was personally concerned, I was delighted when ITA came along. I was rather worried by the fact that it was financed by advertising; but I thought we got the best of both worlds when we set up the IBA so that we had the advantage of the finance coming from advertising and yet kept it under a reasonable degree of control. In that way we did not slide into the disastrous situation into which they have got themselves in the United States, where television is

1181
simply not worth looking at because the interruption by advertising is so constant that it totally prevents one getting any kind of cohesive or continuous enjoyment of the programme, which is mainly, I think, why people do not look at the television so much in the United States as they do here.
As far as the development of satellite broadcasting is concerned, I have not heard so far what the urgency is about. Who is going to benefit? What are the advantages to be? Why is it that we need this new development? It seems to me that where they have rather more channels than we have in this country, they have worse television. What is the use of choice if you have 12 stations, all of them broadcasting a B Western? You have a choice of station certainly, but in fact it is a bogus choice. If you go to Japan or if you go to the United States, you will find a wide range of channels but it is all the same thing.
The difficulty I see with regard to this development is the question that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, touched upon, and that is: who is going to finance it? Where is the money coming from? Is it coming from the Government? The Government are going to tell us, "No". I am quite sure about that: that when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, replies to the debate he will not stand up and say, "Yes, this is a matter in regard to which the Government are ready to put their hands deeply into their pocket, and they will finance the whole thing so as to make sure that we get the sort of television that we want".
It is as well to bear in mind, I think, so far as our own system is concerned, that the networks have always been within Government control. The programming, certainly, has been in separate hands, but the networking, the technology, has always been in the hands of Government. What are the Government going to do about this? Is the technology to be with IBA or the BBC, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, asked, or is the technology to be created from private sources; and, if it is to be created from private sources, where is the return on capital coming from? It can only come by the same kind of excessive concentration on advertising which I think has disfigured American television and which has disfigured so much television in some other countries.
So therefore I ask myself: What is the urgency that we see? Curiously enough, I take the same view about this as IBA have taken. They sent me a little piece of information about the attitude that the Independent Broadcasting Authority take on this subject, and they conclude with these words, with which I think, if I may, I, too, will conclude except for just one other short point. What they say is this:
"… in particular the industrial arguments for developing new technology must, in our view, go forward in parallel with the arguments for ensuring that programmes seen by the United Kingdom audience continue to be of the highest possible standard, and that the infrastructure for this (financial, creative, technical, organisational, and legal) is such as to preserve quality".
This, my Lords, is the key question—"is such as to preserve quality". I think there is a very grave danger that we may get a technical advance arising from this development and, in doing so, destroy the key factor of the British television system, which is the concentration upon quality. If this means a development in which we get a greater technological advance, tele
1182
vision which is more easily received, that would be bought at too high a cost if the consequence of it was a deterioration not only in the form of television that we would be getting from outer space but a consequent deterioration, which I think can hardly be avoided, in the quality of our own terrestrial television broadcasts.
Finally, I would add just one other word. The Trades Union Congress has also considered this. Perhaps I ought to say before I sit down that my interest in this originally was at the time when broadcasting was at an earlier stage and I was working with British Actors' Equity Association. Therefore I came to this with the interests of the performers very much in mind. I am no longer connected with Equity except that I am an honorary member of that organisation. I am extremely proud to have that position of honorary membership—and it is a very rare distinction which I share with Lord Olivier, and I am delighted to enjoy it—but I would like to quote one word, if I may, from the TUC point of view.
What they say is that they would like to see satellite transmissions
"subject to firm regulatory control to protect broadcasting and United Kingdom autonomy over our national broadcasting transmissions".
They would not like to see this country lose the degree of control which we already have over what happens in our own broadcasting transmissions. We have therefore come together. We have the Trades Union Congress and the Independent Broadcasting Authority speaking with a single voice in this matter, and asking that, whatever happens, quality should be upheld.
7.9 p.m.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, too, should like to welcome the Question which has been asked by my noble friend Lord Windlesham. As he reminded us, this study came out in May; answers were required, and no doubt were in, by July; and so December seems to be a very timely moment for the Government to be asked this Question. I should like to say, on a lighter note, that although I can assure your Lordships there has been no collusion between us in any way except for a telephone call this morning, my noble friend Lord Windlesham and I can in a sense be called industrial cousins. Many years ago my noble friend Lord Windlesham was in Associated Rediffusion making programmes and I was in its first cousin, Rediffusion, making television sets. So that there has been a connection between us in broadcasting throughout many years.
I should like to go along with my noble friend in congratulating the Home Office on an excellent Paper. I am sure that it is not proper to mention the names of civil servants but those of us who are in touch know who wrote it; and I should like to offer him my very sincere congratulations. I think the reason for this is that it successfully covers the whole spectrum of this extremely complicated subject; it does not confine itself to programming. It deals with finance, with engineering and with what I call the industrial dimension, and it does so in a very fair way.
It seems to me that it provides a very solid base for planning—perhaps so solid that it has made it incumbent upon the Government to take some early decisions; because everything is in the Paper and the Government hardly can (and I am sure that they do not want to)

1183
escape. I hope tonight for a really positive response from my noble friend Lord Belstead which does its best to leave us in some considerably greater degree of certainty and knowledge than we are in at the moment. Like other speakers—and there seems to be very considerable agreement around the House here—I regard the decisions as urgent for reasons which I will adduce a little later; and, for reasons which also will adduce a little later, I am one of those who favour the earliest possible launch. In order that we may get to this as quickly as possible, I would suggest the simplest which, as I understand it, is the two-broadcasting-channel option.
We know that the French and the Germans have already decided, and probably decided a couple of years ago, to launch their satellite. We may expect them at the latest in 1984 and, probably, in 1983. So far as we are concerned, and on the sort of timing that elapses between a decision and the actuality in this business, if we take a decision now we are already talking about a launch in the middle of the decade and not before.
My Lords, I must confess that my concern, despite everything in this document, is about the priorities that will obtain in the decision taking. This is a point on which I hope very much—and I have some confidence in it despite my concern—that the Minister can put our minds to rest. Over the years—and this has not been a political matter at all but has covered decades—the traditional attitude of Governments has been, as my noble friend Lord Windlesham has said, to seek orderly development programmes; and, so far, I must say that I think they have been absolutely right. It is because of that that I think it can rightly be said that we have probably the best broadcasting system with the best broadcasting content in the world.
The question is whether a direct broadcast satellite will fit into the same parameters that have been used in the past. I hope that your Lordships will not think it too fanciful if I go back a number of generations—and over a decade I have used this analogy—and remind your Lordships that up to late Elizabethan times it was illegal to own and operate a printing press without the consent of the Crown, so great was the fear that the people would gain too much knowledge. Well, public opinion and what was even then a considerable technological advance put an end to this; and one just wonders whether there is not some parallel to be drawn today.
My Lords, I have already said that the DBS (Direct Broadcasting Satellite) introduces some wholly new dimensions. One cannot deal with the whole spectrum but what I want to deal with tonight is the industrial dimension. I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the very big world market which exists for broadcasting and other forms of communication satellite. The European Space Agency has, I think, calculated (or guessed) that in the next 10 years or so there will he a market of £2,000 million.
It is surely absolutely essential in this country when our old industries are declining that we should go for the biggest slice we can get of this sort of business, business that covers the aerospace industry and a big slice of the electronics industry. It is exactly that that
1184
we need for the future of our industry. The French and the Germans are in the business already; the United States are in it. Somebody better qualified than I can say whether the Japanese are in it. If they are not, they jolly soon will be; you can bet your bottom dollar on that! This is the case for our getting into the business and it is going to need some extremely hard marketing in order to get our share of this world market.
British Aerospace, and, I have no doubt, other companies, believe passionately that it is going to be of enormous help to them to sell satellites round the world if one of the early satellites that go up is a British satellite, for this country, made by a manufacturer in this country. As somebody who has been in marketing for a large part of his life, I agree totally with this. It goes beyond the question of building satellites because the whole of the trade concerned with this business is involved. What is called at length the British Electronic Equipment Manufacturers' Association—which I have known as BEEMA for as long as I can remember—has drawn to the attention of the Home Office, and rightly, the possibilities that are open to them.
Let us remember that we shall have to make dishes and down leads. I do not want to get too technical; but I would remind your Lordships that the frequency of broadcasting up aloft will be at 12 GH and there is no way you can put 12 Giga Herz from a dish in a down lead to a television set without the picture becoming virtually unviewable and hopelessly noisy. People will need to have that piece of equipment inside the house and another piece of equipment which will have to change the polarity and the form of modulation and, finally, if it is to be pay TV you will have a descrambler. All of these are bits of equipment which our industry is well equipped to make for this country and for export.
Sets themselves will need to be re-designed because in due course it will be possible to put the right type of chip inside a set for a couple of pounds which will make the more expensive pieces of equipment irrelevant and unnecessary. Manufacturers are right to want an early decision on that. One can simply say that the opportunities here for export are matched pretty equally by the risks of import penetration from our competitors.
In 1977 the world conference set the scene so far as Europe is concerned and all parties are now ready. The BBC is ready with plans for renting channels. They have suggested that they will have one channel of pay TV and one channel of what they call the best of BBC. There will be some extra films here but by and large it does not mean very much new programming. The aerospace industries are ready, British Aerospace or Marconi, and they are most anxious to get into the detailed engineering. Probably the key to the whole thing lies in financing it; it usually does when the chips are down. I can give your Lordships an absolute assurance that private capital is available and anxious to go into this in order to pay for the launching of these satellites. Satellites, after all, are in the risk business and it therefore seems right that it should be private capital which should go into these new ventures.
Again, I say with the best will in the world that programming will be the sticky part if we allow it to

1185
be so. I believe strongly that we cannot afford—and nor is it necessary—to wait for the usual debates that take place on this subject that frequently take so long. I repeat that the French and Germans are putting up a satellite. They have not waited, they are just going to put it up; and none of their plans of programming, so far as I know, are well advanced.
My wish is to seek an act of faith on the part of the Government, the proof of which will only be an early decision to approve an early launch. I am quite sure that the Home Office is in very careful conference with the department of information and technology which exists now within the orbit of the Department of Industry because so near does all this bring us to the domain of that department that I believe that the new department cannot possibly be left out. So let us admit that the arrival of this new technology imposes on Government and industry an imperative which in the name of the future prosperity of this country we can neither delay nor duck. At our peril will we forget that in the field of video information the inexorable advance of technology—which we cannot stop even if we would—is forcing the old order to give place to the new; and, more particularly, in the field of governmental control. That this is so is likely to be well demonstrated in the matter of broadcasting satellites. That is one of the reasons why I believe that this Question tonight is so aptly timed.
7.25 p.m.
Lard Reay: My Lords, I should like to start with a quotation from a European Commission document to which a reference is made on page 80 of the fascinating Home Office study which, thanks to the initiative of my noble friend Lord Windlesham, we are discussing this evening. The Commission document entitled European Society Faced with the Challenge of New Information Technologies: A Community Response describes how the heads of state and Government of the Community at their conference in Bonn in July 1978:
"… recognised the need to identify new sources of growth and employment to offset the difficult adjustments that traditional industries such as coal, steel, shipbuilding and textiles are being forced to undergo. At Strasbourg they agreed that the dynamic complex of information industries based on the new electronic technologies offered a major source of such economic growth and social development and invited the Commission to report".
In other words, the first Commission studies were founded on the perception that Europe had to re-locate its manufacturing strength in the industries of the future.
I believe that the British Government should adopt exactly the same priority. Whatever the difficult choices that have to be made, two-channel or five-channel satellites, cable or individual reception, methods of finance, methods of control, whatever the apparent obstacles in the way of an early start because the IBA have enough on their plate for the next few years or because of the reluctance to take a risk which may lead down to a dead end or a reluctance to find the finance required, I think that the Government should attack the question of a British DBS with the overriding aim of giving British industry from the earliest possible moment the chance to secure the maximum possible share of the world market in all its various sectors, such as were listed by my noble friend Lord De La Warr, in this extraordinary revolution in communications that is taking place. To achieve this I am sure that the Government need to take up as soon as possible
1186
the full options open to them under the 1977 agreement. If chances like these are not seized with enthusiasm, then none of us will ever live to see the recovery of Britain's manufacturing and social vitality.
The second point that I want to make—I make it as a delegate to the Assembly of the Council of Europe where this matter has received a considerable amount of attention—is that I find the international dimension of the study somewhat disappointing. The study concentrates on options involved in the organisation of British direct satellite broadcasting. There is a chapter entitled "European aspects of DBS" but I feel that too little attention is paid to events to which I think this country is only too likely to be subjected from outside.
The impression is given that this country will hardly be accessible to overspill from abroad; but I think that the authors may be exaggerating the effective distance of Luxembourg and other centres—or, to be more exact, the distance of their so-called "footprints". The tendency of overspill to grow as improvements are made in the means of powering satellite transmissions is not mentioned. The possibility of a deliberate commercial assault on the viewers of this country from outside is hardly alluded to. I agree with my noble friend Lord Windlesham in what lie said in his article today in The Times that the growth of cable television in this country has been unnecessarily and artificially restricted. I paraphrase his words, but I think those were his sentiments. With cable television, of course, the opportunities for penetration of one country by the programmes from another are vastly increased. Your Lordships may or may not be aware that in Amsterdam it is already possible to receive every night television programmes from Moscow.
I do not believe it is either possible or desirable to prevent reception of these external broadcasts as a general rule and the question arises: Can any international agreements relating to standards (perhaps to minimum standards) be reached or not? In the Steering Committee on the Mass Media in the Council of Europe, which meets at ministerial level, questions such as the possibility of agreeing on minimum advertising standards, problems of copyright, considerations of different national requirements in the field of morals, taste and advertising prohibitions, have been studied and, so far as I am aware, are still being studied. I should he grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—this is a question of which I have given prior notice—in his reply could tell us whether he believes that any useful agreement could come out of the Steering Committee on the Mass Media in the Council of Europe of an international kind, together with a procedure for complaints and redress. If this answer is in the affirmative, I should like to know where the committee has now got to in its deliberations.
My final point concerns the nature of the revolution itself—"the unstoppable tide", as my noble friend Lord Windlesham called it in his article today. It seems to me that what this revolution offers is the extension of choice. I therefore think that the Government, perhaps in a area they did not expect, will find themselves with more than an opportunity—with an obligation—to roll back the frontiers of the state. In theory it will be possible for Governments to control broadcasts that are relayed by cable, but in practice will it be desirable to prevent the mass audience re

1187
ceiving broadcasts on cable which a richer minority will be able to continue to receive on their own higher-powered individual antennae.
I can see foreign programmes being very much cherished by national or cultural minorities. These may come from the other side of the world. Will the Government wish to ban them? But how can they control them? Would it not be a temptation of a totalitarian kind to try to exclude foreign programmes because of the political matter they contain? Certainly that would be a very serious step to take. Are we in fact not reaching a situation where we have to apply the principle of a free press to the air waves? More and more, I am coming to the conclusion that that has to be our approach.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House would like to express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for having raised this subject this evening. It is one of tremendous importance and indeed does merit a good deal more debate in this House, I think, than is in fact accorded by the very welcome Unstarred Question on which the discussion takes place.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, dealt particularly with the institutional aspects of the proposition and were very concerned as to how the whole matter should be organised, the various responsibilities and so on. In fact the speeches that have been made this evening have covered the ground so very well that it would be quite repetitive of me to endeavour to cover the same ground.
Somewhat strangely, I find myself in very considerable sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, who emphasised the urgency of the whole matter; and I must express my regret to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, who did not seem to think that the thing was quite so urgent. I think it is very urgent indeed, although I well appreciate the environmental considerations and the quality-of-life considerations which I am quite sure lay behind what my noble friend had to say.
We are living at a time when progress, we now know, is not made on a straight arithmetical line: it goes in geometric progression. Few of us know today what developments are going to happen in the next 10 years, or even in the next five years as a result of the developments of this further step forward into the transmission of pictures, of ideas and of sound, by whatever means it may be done. Here we have a position where a single satellite, I believe orbiting in a geostationary position some 36,000 kilometres above the earth, can be used in effect as a reflector to places which, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, pointed out, in some cases are inaccessible from the point of view of ordinary terrestrial broadcasts.
The mind boggles as to where future developments emerging from that one will lead us over the next 10 years. It does not need a very considerable leap of the imagination to be able to visualise circumstances in which, as a result of the whole system of direct satellite broadcasting, instead of firms' executives having to fly by jet from one city to another all over the world, they may in fact within a comparatively short time be able, as a result of technical developments of this develop
1188
ment, to have their own screens and sets in their own offices and to have simultaneous conferences where they can all see and listen to each other in almost exactly the same way as if they were in one room. There are further technical and ordinary practical developments beyond that, but consider the implications for mankind if even that development took place.
I am pleased to refer to the emphasis which the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, gave to the spin-off. What would happen under those circumstances? What would happen to the airlines, for example, and what would be the repercussions on international transport, and so on? The spin-off effects of this development are likely to be considerable, and one hopes that they will be for the benefit of mankind. So I do believe that there is this question of urgency.
The only point, I think, on which I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, was his optimism. He seemed to think that the capital would be readily available. I have perhaps only to refer him to the report itself for him to be persuaded that this is not the case. The report showed that there was a marked hesitancy on the part of private capital to invest in a project of this kind until very detailed market research had been done. As I say, the report referred with some hesitancy—
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? He is being extremely helpful about this. I had not thought it proper to mention specific names of City institutions, but I assure the noble Lord that willingness has gone a great deal further since this report was written.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl. But I should like to place on record what the report actually said. Talking of the proposals to provide private capital for the direct broadcasting system, it said:
"However, this proposal is made subject to a satisfactory market survey of the likely public demand for DBS services. Other companies seem to be interested, too, but there is no certainty at the present time that private sector funds would be available and, if they were, on what terms and conditions"
The report continued:
"It is in this context that the question of long-term assurances from the broadcasters or the Government, or both, could become relevant and would raise a number of difficulties".
What I cannot understand is that from the outset, and in the Home Secretary's introduction to the report, the Government have laid it down quite firmly that there is to be no Government financial assistance whatsoever to this project. Mr. Whitelaw said:
"We should also have to look for solutions to the problems of financing any new broadcasting services otherwise than by means of Government expenditure and without undermining our existing services",
and so on. The report went out of its way to emphasise this. On page 3 of the report, in paragraph 1.4 of the introduction, we are informed that,
"Those consulted were advised not to assume that there would be any Government expenditure on a direct broadcasting satellite service or that programme services would be provided other than by or under the supervision of the existing broadcasting authorities".
I ask the question: why? I think that the House ought to consider whether there is a connection between the fact that, in France and Germany, the plans for DBS are very well advanced indeed—as has already

1189
been indicated in the course of the debate—and that the German and French Governments have already given substantial financial assistance to the project, and the fact that they are in the field before we are. This ought, surely, to be a matter for some consideration in the United Kingdom. At one time, we had a reputation for being first in a whole number of fields—technical, mechanical, electrical, electronic or whatever it may be. Why, then, are we still envisaging the leisurely approach?
Any Government that really sees the possibilities of direct broadcasting by satellite—and I am now talking in terms of its immediate industrial effects, which were referred to so very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr—should he giving it all possible support, which it has been given in France and Germany, as well as in the United States, where the spin-off from the whole of the space programme has been very considerable in ensuring that the American system got into operation first, which, indeed, it has.
I cannot understand the obsession which the Government appear to have, that all development must, of necessity, be in private hands and be provided by private capital. I cannot understand this obsession that the whole thing must be left to the free enterprise system, operating without restraint, when all the signs around the Government are that the whole system is creaking and crumbling before our very eyes, as, indeed, is evidenced by the present disastrous circumstances in which the country finds itself.
The Government seem to assume that capital has no social responsibilities whatsoever. Capital, and the power that capital commands over the availability of the means of production, is free to go exactly where it likes, according to the free market, regardless of the consequences on the population of the country from which the capital originated and where the wealth which lies behind it was earned. I cannot understand, particularly in relation to a project of this kind, why there is an insistence, which is made implicit all the way through the document, that if there is to be any development public funds are not going into it anyway. I think that this is a fatal mistake.
Whatever the assurances which the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is prepared to give to the House—and T accept that he gave them in perfectly good faith and I would not wish to cast any aspersions whatsoever on them—I am convinced on the basis of past performance that, if this very high risk area is left to capital which has shown itself so risk-shy over the last 20 years, there will be no perceptible development at all and we shall go on postponing the options for year after year. Meanwhile, the electronics manufacturers in Germany and France and, sooner or later, in Japan will rapidly be capturing the world market for this equipment, whether it be 90 centimetre antenna or 2 metre antenna; whether it be the converter boxes, the scramblers or whatever it may be.
The market is already in the process of creation and countries other than our own are preparing now to exploit it under our very noses, and they already have a two-year lead. Are the Government so preoccupied with the shires, and with those whose good fortune it is to till the land, that they fail to see how vitally necessary it is at this time to put forward an additional stimulus into that one branch of industry which is already begin
1190
ning to show signs of growth—and vigorous growth at that? Are they not prepared to do that, or are we to have the same degree of dithering that we had on the INMOS project, where it took an agonised Secretary of State for Industry one year while he wrestled with his conscience as to whether or not public funds were to be put up in support of the investment?
I have nothing, or practically nothing, to say in dissent from what any noble Lord has said about this paper, which I entirely agree is an admirable one. But what we want now is not to be passed off with statements such as, "The Government have this matter under careful review. They are leaving no stone unturned in order to ensure that at some future time a further inquiry will be held on an interdepartmental basis, subject to the approval of a senior Minister, which will report possibly in 12 months' or two years' time."
What industry in this country requires is this-and when I say "industry" I include, of course, the workers in industry who are a very important part of it. Indeed, without them there would not be any industry at all. At this time they are interested in seeing that industry, in some form or other, makes some progress in this country. The only way, in my view, in which this can be pressed forward is by the Government quitting its agonising as to where the money is coming from and making a sensible investment in it, as distinct from continually wasting money by increasing unemployment and having to pay out benefit; making some sensible investment, not on an ill-considered basis, because the mere provision of money by itself does nothing, but on the basis of the very excellent technical outline which is available to them and which is summarised in this report—and, indeed, on the basis of some of the very sensible suggestions which have been made this evening in your Lordships' House.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Windlesham for this opportunity to debate this question. Indeed, this is the first opportunity, think, that either House of Parliament has had to debate direct broadcasting by satellite for some time, and certainly since the publication of the Home Office report. As he declared at the beginning of his speech, my noble friend has considerable experience of television and I am convinced that he is right to advise the House this evening that we need to lift our eyes to the opportunities as well as the problems of direct broadcasting by satellite. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Home Secretary's foreword to the Home Office report gave an indication of our positive approach to satellite broadcasting.
I was grateful also to my noble friend and to my noble friend Lord De La Warr, and other noble Lords, for their words of appreciation for the Home Office survey of the questions which direct broadcasting by satellite—DBS as we have come to call it—raise for the United Kingdom. The report examines the implications of a modest start, or a full start, or no start at all. It examines the question of timing—whether an early start or a late start—and it considers the strategic questions from a number of different points of view: broadcasting policy, industrial and commercial opportunities, the environment, copyright, international aspects—all these against the factual background of

1191
what satellite broadcasting can do and how much it would cost. I was interested in Lord Windlesham's brief reference to the merits of preserving the existing departmental responsibilities. At this point I should like to assure all noble Lords that the study was produced by close co-operation between several Government departments, including in particular, of course, the Department of Industry and the Department of Trade. One significant conclusion to be drawn from the study is that the question of direct broadcasting by satellite is not fundamentally a technical one. The technology exists, as many of your Lordships know much better than I do—at a price—and the questions which we face are primarily ones of industrial and broadcasting policy.
The industrial considerations are perhaps the clearer cut. As the study found, DBS can create important opportunities both at home and abroad for the aerospace and electronics industries. When the study was written it appeared to us that there was a willingness on the part of the private sector to make the investment which would be necessary to bring about direct broadcasting by satellite. Indeed, the comments which we have received in response to the study and the positive approach outlined in my right honourable friend's foreword to it have tended to confirm that impression; an impression which has been borne out again this evening by the speech of my noble friend Lord De La Warr. We have received proposals to provide a satellite system on a common carrier basis. I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that with reference to that part of his speech which dealt with why the Government are at present saying that they do not want to become involved financially in this with large sums of Government money, there is no lack of interest on behalf of the Government. Only very recently my honourable friend the Minister for Information Technology announced the allocation of some £77 million towards the development of the ELSAT satellite within the European Space Agency. Of course, the prime contractor for ELSAT is British Aerospace. In essence, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, asked: Why the hurry? Why is there a need to push on? My noble friend Lord De La Warr replied very clearly to this point. My noble friend very succinctly and very cogently showed the industrial opportunities both for aerospace and for our electronics industry. My noble friend also emphasised very clearly and graphically what sort of equipment the reception of DBS would require. My noble friend Lord De La Warr is quite right that early decisions on DBS are most important from the industrial point of view.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps the Minister would take this into consideration: that because one gets into the transmission business it does not necessarily mean that one also gets into the receiving business. So far as radio and television receivers are concerned, the failure of this country to benefit, by the relative failure of our private enterprise to match the standards put out by our broadcasting organisations, is lamentable. Our industry, on the production and receiving side, has let a situation develop in which many of the instruments we listen and view on are not made in this country at all, as the noble Lord is well aware.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there must be many noble Lords in the House this evening who would wish to jump to their feet on hearing the noble Lord and say that it is precisely for the reason which the noble Lord has given that they want an early decision from the Government so that British technology shall be in a position to be able to perfect the receiving equipment which would be necessary for direct broadcasting by satellite. "As early a start as possible"—those, more or less, are the words used by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the foreword to the study—would mean that the United Kingdom would be up with the leaders in the field and would be able to take advantage of the commercial opportunities in terms of the sale of satellite and the associated electronic equipment in what could prove to be an extremely important world market.
An early United Kingdom start with DBS, probably in 1986, could be, I concede to your Lordships who would like to see an earlier start, a year or so behind the French and the Germans. But in certain respects we are not behind our European neighbours. In particular, we are not behind them in thinking about the broadcasting policy aspects of satellite broadcasting and the new uses to which the broadcasting channels might be put. There was general agreement in the comments which we received on the Home Office study that satellite channels which this country might have could not sensibly be used simply to rebroadcast the terrestrial services of the BBC and the IBA.
The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, asked me whether direct broadcasting by satellite would be able to transmit to areas not covered by the terrestrial services. My information is that, by 1984, some 99·4 per cent. of the population should be covered by the existing UHF television services, not least, of course, because of the massive transmitter building which has been going on in preparation for the fourth channel. I think it would be hard to justify using satellite channels to increase that coverage further, although in practice I think that is what DBS would do. Clearly therefore—and this was the thrust both of the study and of the comments which were received on it—satellite broadcasting would need to offer new services and only in that way could an audience for satellite broadcasting be established.
However, new broadcasting services raise important questions concerning the kind of services we want to see, who should provide them, how they should be supervised, how they should be financed and what implications they could have for the existing services. Those are all questions which the study went into in some depth. I admit that not everyone who commented felt that these questions were important but the Government believe that they are. When your Lordships consider the amount of time which this House and another place gave to the consideration of precisely these issues in relation to establishing the fourth channel, in the light of the report of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting under the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I believe it can be said that Parliament takes these questions seriously. But certainly, to put it mildly, I accept that in this context we shall not be able to take the same period of time to reach decisions as we took about the proposals for the fourth channel.

1193
If I may say so on behalf of the Government, I believe that the broadcasting dimension is important for two reasons—and I was most interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, on this subject and a great deal of what he said I took to heart. First, so far as the Government are concerned we think it is important because our broadcasting services are good, not by mere chance but because with the assistance of committees like the Annan Committee Parliament has built up an organisational and financial structure for broadcasting based on the public service ideal within which programme making and scheduling can flourish.
The second consideration of broadcasting policy which arises in the case of DBS is that, unlike the BBC and the IBA, and indeed unlike the fourth channel when it opens in a year's time, DBS services would be available only to those who could afford the additional receiving equipment. Even if the forecasts of audience build-up which are quoted in the report were seriously pessimistic, it is clear that for many years to come the majority of the viewing population will continue to rely on the terrestrial services of the BBC and the IBA.
I was most interested to hear my noble friend Lord Windlesham say at the beginnina, of his speech that he wondered whether direct broadcasting by satellite should be accommodated outside the existing institutions and arrangements, really a remark which built upon the most interesting article which my noble friend had in The Times today. If the BBC and IBA services were to be in any way harmed by direct broadcast by satellite, the majority of people would not benefit, but would lose from satellite broadcasting.
Having said that, I certainly recognise that new television channels can increase choice for the viewer and provide new opportunities for programme-makers, although experience in other parts of the world has not held that that is always an invariable rule, and certainly there is a persuasive argument that satellite channels could contribute to the broadcasting scene without necessarily being required, as are the BBC and the IBA, to provide a wide range in their subject-matter. But I think it would be a very serious departure if satellite broadcasting did not assume other obligations for good quality and programme standards which are the hallmark of broadcasting in the United Kingdom, and that involves supervision of some kind. Also, satellite channels have to be paid for, and that would involve fishing in the same waters as the existing channels both for programme material and for finance.
It is for such reasons that the DBS report devoted a good deal of space to a discussion of the broadcasting policy issues. Before I leave that, may I just say that, although the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, asked me some questions about the practicalities of bringing DBS to ground, those are questions which still have to be decided once the decision of principle has been taken. Having said that, if we are to maintain the positive approach, which my right honourable friend took in his foreword to the study to be able to exploit the industrial and broadcasting opportunities which satellite broadcasting offers, we need to look beyond the question of "whether" to the question of "how", and that is the attitude we want to take. In the comments we have received there was substantial, though
1194
not unanimous, agreement that in broadcasting terms it would be right to go for a modest early start on the lines suggested, that any new broadcasting services should be subject certainly to the BBC and IBA minimum programme standards and that such services should be under the supervision of a public and a publicly accountable authority. I am giving your Lordships what the comments were after the study came out. Opinion also seemed to be substantial, though not unanimous, that any new DBS services neither could nor should necessarily provide the wide range of programming now found in our television services. Moreover, the specific proposals which we have received from the BBC and from other organisations for new services implied some relaxation of our traditional programme objectives though not standards—for any new satellite service.
The question of finance, which has engaged us this evening and of course engaged the House in the debates on the fourth channel, is crucial to the consideration of any new broadcasting outlet. It was generally thought, though again not unanimously accepted, that the cost of DBS should not be allowed to fall on the taxpayer. It is interesting that that came up in comment and l make no secret that the Government attach importance to that. On certain other issues the weight of opinion was also clearer. There was widespread, though again not total, support for the view that any United Kingdom satellite services should be provided on a fully operational rather than on a preoperational or experimental basis, and that they should be provided at powers sufficient to permit individual reception by small 90 centimetre receiving dishes rather than at power suitable only for community reception. To exclude the possibility of individual reception and thus to rely wholly on cable distribution would prevent many people, it was argued, from ever receiving DBS at all.
Nonetheless, there is clearly a potentially close relationship between cable and satellite broadcasting, and we have received a number of representations about that. There were some people who felt that the possible interrelationship had been under-played in the study. I do not myself think that is the case, but several points have been brought clearly into relief in the light of these comments. One is that the cost of individual receiving equipment is in the event liable to be a good deal higher for several years—much more than the volume of production costs which were estimated in the study as being between £150 and £200 for individual reception. Secondly, individual reception may be more difficult for perhaps more people than the study suggested, and in many cases of course it could simply be unsightly. Thirdly, cable could deliver a significant audience for satellite broadcasting more quickly than individual reception. I think these are very important points to which the Government are most certainly giving thought.
So I come to the 64,000 dollar question which my noble friend is asking: What are the Government going to do? The message which I take away from this debate is that the broadcasting policy considerations are very important; but, equally, there are significant industrial and broadcasting opportunities which should not be missed, and time is not on our side.

1195
The debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Windlesham gives me the opportunity to say that the Home Office and the Department of Industry are already considering what the next steps might be on the question of direct broadcasting by satellite, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary hopes to be in a position to make an announcement in the New Year.

  RAF: PROPOSED CLOSURE OF UNIT AT KEMBLE: CONSULTATION
  RAF: PROPOSED CLOSURE OF UNIT AT KEMBLE: CONSULTATION
  BUS OPERATORS: NORFOLK TRIAL AREA
  BUS OPERATORS: NORFOLK TRIAL AREA
  INCOME TAX: EFFECT OF CHANGES
  INCOME TAX: EFFECT OF CHANGES
  COUNCIL RENT RISES: HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNTS
  COUNCIL RENT RISES: HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNTS